close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Evolution? Impossible!

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by JBnTX, Dec 30, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. juggy4711

    juggy4711 Nimrod Son

    3,060
    0
    Sep 20, 2006
    Galveston County, TX
    No there isn't as much evidence that it was made, in fact there is no evidence of such. Even as a believer in God I have to call BS. Again with your grey area sense of superiority. Have some balls for Christ's sake.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  2. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    As far as I can tell, there is no evidence one way or the other. we have evidence of what occurred after life was here, but virtually none about how it started. There are quite a few contradictory theories.

    It's easy to pick a side and declare you are convinced. For many, it's hard to simply state they don't know for sure. Testicles aren't really relevant. Many women scientists would agree.

    We know life is what it is today, and there are some ideas of how it began, many different beliefs, but if one is honest, no knowledge of how it really began. The unknown is scary to many.
     


  3. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Adaptation has been observed very well, evolution is almost certainly occurring, and has been for a long time.

    MRSA is still Staph though (not staff). Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus.
     
  4. juggy4711

    juggy4711 Nimrod Son

    3,060
    0
    Sep 20, 2006
    Galveston County, TX
    I don't know but I believe. Thing is I believe in the things there is evidence for. See it's not that hard. As far as what you can tell...you couldn't tell sh** if it was fresh out of you ass.

    And again with your insinuations that I am scared of something. Well it sure as heck isn't you or any of the assclown beliefs you have. Damn there I was not being sensitive again. I apologize for owning you over and over. It was not my intention to make you so insecure as to feel the need to do so.

    It's clear that you have issues regarding science and religion that make you feel inferior to others else you would not take the stupid stances that you do.

    I'll pray that you can one day get over it. (insert sarcastic smilee here)
     
  5. Foxtrotx1

    Foxtrotx1

    4,036
    0
    Jan 29, 2010
    Scottsdale AZ
    I have to disagree, adaption is an evolutionary process. I am however wrong, MRSA is the same species. This is what happens when we ecologists dable where we shouldn't. :embarassed:

    Evolution is a shift in allele frequencies over time...

    Since adaption is a mechanism of evolution, if we see cases of adaption we are watching evolution.

    I think many people get caught up in this falsehood that one day a prokaryote magically turned into a eukaryote in one cell division.

    We have to stop thinking in black and white and get with the grey.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  6. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Are you on something you should not be, or off something you should be on?

    This is only a question.
     
  7. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    As I've previously stated, I do believe in evolution. The evidence is out there. But evolution is something that occurred after life as we know it existed. How it first came about is still a mystery, and it's OK if it is. It's even OK if people believe that it just happened, or if it was made, or neither.
     
  8. Foxtrotx1

    Foxtrotx1

    4,036
    0
    Jan 29, 2010
    Scottsdale AZ
    Doc,

    you may find this fascinating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory

    Endosymbiotic theory is one of my favorites to cover.

    Ill be honest with you, I think something got the ball rolling, something beyond the scope of our universe.

    However, I have seen too much evidence to believe that life did not start from the formation of amino acids in the prebiotic soup that earth was 4 billion years ago.

    In fact, we now have identified amino acids in gas clouds in deep space.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  9. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    The symbiotic relationship between relatively distant parts of a cell necessary to maintain homeostasis, and ultimately replication is a wonder. Then that cells in distant parts of other complex organisms must differentiate and cooperate in distant parts of the organism is a wonder, then the relationships between different organisms, some only interacting once, but still necessary for the survival of another.... It's all pretty cool. It at least opens up the possibility of a design. It's not certain either way for me.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  10. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,341
    698
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    Really? I have never seen any such evidence. Care to point me in the right direction? How would you conduct experiments, and what would those experiments be, to support creationism?

    Nope. It is to say that there's not much on the side of abiogenesis and absolutely none on the side of creationism. None that I've seen, anyway, feel free to educate me.

    I haven't made up my mind, though. I'm perfectly comfortable saying we don't know. I'm also perfectly comfortable saying abiogenesis is more likely, since we have physical, repeatable evidence of how it *might* have happened. Creationism has nothing more than mythology that wasn't even a new idea when the Christians wrote it down nearly two thousand years ago.

    I have no idea what you're attempting to say here.

    No choosing sides from me, just a realistic acknowledgement of which side of the argument has any actual evidence.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  11. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas

    So, I'm just closer to the middle than you, I see it as roughly 50/50. Are you at around 70/30? 90/10?
     
  12. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,341
    698
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    So, no evidence of Creationism, CavDoc? I thought you said they had "roughly the same amount" of evidence?

    Hard to calculate odds on a scenario that has zero evidence to back it up, no?

    I have 0% confidence that unicorns or bigfoot exist, either, but I don't *know* that they don't.

    I allow for their possibility, just like I do creationism, but I give no real thought to how likely any of them might be without one single piece of credible evidence.
     
  13. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Roughly the same amount, which is about none. At some point in time, the first living cell came into being that was capable of maintaining homeostasis and replicating itself into another cell that could maintain homeostasis. There is a lot of speculation I've seen on both sides, but nothing I would call actual evidence for how that moment came to be.

    That first cell on earth either arrived here from somewhere else, was made, or occurred as a natural process. All of those are remotely possible with the current evidence. But even if it came here from somewhere else, at some point life was either made or just happened. Whichever explanation is correct is 100% correct, or at least close to that.

    So two basic possibilities, both hard to imagine with current evidence, and roughly equally possible with what I think is known.

    The mythical creatures some keep bringing up are a diversionary tactic. I've often wondered how some people consider that a valid argument. It doesn't have anything to do with what we do know, life exists. We don't know how it started.

    80/20? I know it's hard to assign a number to, but all I'm asking for is a gross estimate.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  14. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,341
    698
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    OK, so you don't consider self-replicating RNA to be evidence that supports the possibility of abiogenesis?

    Agreed, I think. What I read here is "Whichever one of the two options ends up being proven, is correct." Is that it? If so, that's not much of a leap.

    Do you know of any evidence of creationism?

    It's not diversionary, it's an analogy. At least there are pictures some claim to be of a bigfoot. There isn't even that much evidence to support creationism, to my knowledge.

    As close to 100/0 as you can be without disallowing for the possibility of creationism. Without *any* evidence to support it, I don't see any other logical position.
     
  15. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    I think in reality he knows that it does... but his stance is that if we didn't actually see it happen and record it that it's just wild speculation.

    And that limitation makes a creator (which hasn't a shred of evidence supporting it) just as likely.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
  16. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    That's one small step toward a very complex structure. It opens the possibility, but no, it's not evidence.

    . Proof and truth are often confused. Whichever way it actually happened is likely 100% correct. It depends on the level of evidence you consider proof. Some have argued that merely convincing themselves with their beliefs, that is proof.


    Reasonable speculation is all I've seen on both sides, enough to make either possible to consider, nothing convincing either way.

    It's not a very good analogy. If we were talking about the origin of a being we didn't know existed, that's only a mildly amusing argumentum ad absurdum, when talking about the origins of a known (life on earth) it doesn't fit at all.

    There are no pictures of the moment of the first life on the planet.

    That us a pretty firm belief, no? But can you prove your belief to be true?
     
  17. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,341
    698
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    I said "evidence to support the possibility", not "evidence of". What evidence is there to support the possibility of creationism?

    OK, that makes it even more redundant - "Whichever way it happened is the way it happened." Is that what you're saying? Please tell me I'm still misunderstanding you.


    Reasonable speculation? Speculation based on a supernatural being, that there is not one shred of evidence to support the existence of, is reasonable to you?



    OK, it's not a good analogy for the beginning of life on this planet. However, creationism dictates that the beginning of life on this planet was initiated by a sentient creative being. It is an excellent analogy of belief in that sentient creative being.

    Nope. I've never claimed I could. Can you show me how belief in a sentient creative being is *more* logical? At least we've got solid scientific framework for the possibility of abiogenesis.
     
  18. The unknown is not scary to scientists -- they face it head on in an attempt to change the unknown into known (or at least better understood).

    While the origin of life cannot currently be reproduced in a lab by a chemist, there is a lot that is known.

    From something that I've previously posted...
    Urey-Miller demonstrated that within a few days in the lab, an inert mix could give rise to molecules of relevance and complexity. This experiment produced 4 of 20 amino acids needed to make proteins. Later experiments produced 12 of 20, and an experiment with dilute cyanide produced 7. Clearly it does not require more than a few days in the lab to create some basic building blocks of life.

    Since Urey-Miller, 74 amino acids have been found in meteorites including all 20 found in living organisms. This further tells us that there are a variety of atmospheric conditions in the universe capable of producing this building block of life.

    Then to get from amino acids to polymers (proteins)... Also in the 1950s Sidney Fox demonstrated that splashing amino acids onto hot, dry volcanic rock instantly produced most of the proteins found in life. Lipids are easier to polymerize into protolife structures that, while not living, are able to mimic processes similar to bacteria -- feeding, excreting and metabolizing starch.

    Several mechanisms have been demonstrated for assembling short polymers into longer chains. Zeolites, clay and pyrite are all capable of lining up amino acids which could lead to longer proteins. Pyrite is found in black smokers which are home to some of the most primitive life on earth -- sulfide-reducing Archaebacteria. This suggests to many scientists that life arose not on the surface of the primordial pond, but in a deep-sea hot spring.

    Endosymbiosis can take us from here to eukaryotic cells -- I'm getting tired of typing so I'll try to wrap up. This process is supported by some of today's living transitional forms such as Pelomyxa and Giardia.

    So, far from proving that abiogenesis is impossible, steps have been demonstrated that would take inorganic material into amino acids to proteins and other polymers to prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. All the steps are gradual, none require extraordinary circumstances, and none are beyond plausible. Most of the steps can be reproduced in the lab, or are still observed in nature today.​

    For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that this is how life arose from the inert. I'm merely pointing out that while this cannot be replicated today, there is nothing to suggest that it will not be replicated one day.


    I understand that you hold on to your middle ground with ardor and faith, but perhaps we can get some clarification on why you seem to give Creation claims as much credence as scientific explanations.

    Are there any supernatural claims made by religion that you currently accept as true? Existence of miracles, angels, demons, heaven, hell, God, Devil? Do you currently accept that man, animals, plants, earth and universe were created by a god (or gods)? These are pretty simple "yes" or "not yes" questions. Any answer other than yes must be interpreted as a no. That is not to say that you have concluded that they do not exist, merely that you do not yet accept the claims.

    Now, do you accept science has explained anything? Behavior of gravity (even if not the specific mechanism)? The number of probes that have conducted flybys of comets, launched an impactor into a comet traveling 23,000 miles an hour, and possibly landing a probe on a comet by the end of next year, suggests, to me, that we have some level of understanding.

    What about Neil Shubin, discoverer of tiktaalik roseae. He and his team analyzed gaps in the fossil record, and understanding that lobe-finned fish could be found 380 million years ago, and the first tetrapods appeared 363 million years ago, they predicted that the transition between them would have had to occur between 380 and 363 million years ago. Then studying maps based on where the earliest tetrapods were found around freshwater sites they identified the Canadian Arctic as the location for their expedition. On their 5th year they found tiktaalik, (transitional species between fish and land animals) just where evolution predicted they would find it.

    It seems to me that while not perfect, science has a bit of a track record behind it.

    This is your chance to play Devil's Advocate (actually God's Advocate), and present what evidence Creationists have that would warrant placing them on an equal footing in a science class.

    -ArtificialGrape

    I don't fear or have an issue with Creationism being taught, but it should be taught in a theology, bible study, or even comparative mythology class. But please make the case for why it has earned a place to be taught in a science class.
     
  19. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    I'm sure you believe a lot of things to increase your own personnal comfort level.
     
  20. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas

    Not everyone is afraid of every unknown. I suspect many of the more invested in a certain belief are. Those that have a passive lack of belief, probably not. I also sincerely doubt than man was created as man in a day or two. I have no reason not to believe in evolution.

    It strikes me as funny that carefully constructed and controlled experiments able to create the building blocks of life are used to support that life occurred naturally. Wouldn't making life in a lab support that life could have been made?
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.