evolution deals with how one living organism changes over time into another living organism
the initial origins are another question entirely that, even though the answer is highly relevant to evolution, have no bearing on the accuracy of evolution. One can believe in a supernatural origin of life and in the most materialistic interpretations of evolution. Two entirely different theories.
However, if it was found that DNA replication or many of the things we assume are important to early life were not present in early life forms, parts of evolutionary theory would need to be revised (no model or theory of the origins of life goes against evolution, at this point).
Also, on a cool note, more understanding about the arrangement of DNA molecules is obtained every day:
I did not set out to defend ID. And you can call it minor holes, but only due to the size.
Fact of the matter is that all organic life is made out of living cells. These consist of a large number of molecules (enzyms, proteins, DNA, RDNA etc etc) endlessly producing food, repairing, removing garbage etc. etc.
If you can't figure out how these molecules came to be, other than saying they must have been, then we don;t understand how life can exits or even evolve. With the STM age, we cannot just look at the flora and fauna records obtained by archaeology, because if evolution from single cell organisms to man and everything in between is true, it must also have taken place at this level.
It's a bit like saying that buildings just evolved from the stone age to the 21st century sky scrapers and suggesting mud just evolved into metal and concrete. Well, you can... but at the materials level it's a tad harder to make sense.
The Theory of Evolution is a powerful, demonstrably reliable map of long-term biomechanics. So far, Intelligent Design is not. However, Evolution is not a perfect map. How can it be? People are imperfect, therefore their maps are imperfect, including Intelligent Design. Still, you want a map to be as accurate, as dependable as possible for navigating through life.
Personally, I like Wiggle-Room Philosophies*: they maximize the magic in and of reality, and they are not necessarily wrong/false. But they work best, IMO, when they are presented intelligently, which means they recognize their limits.
*Wiggle-Room Philosophy: a philosophy which embraces what science doesn't know. Ultimately, no one, not even scientists, know whether or not a transcendent level of reality/consciousness exists. Therefore, one is free to speculate beyond what empirical science knows, speculate and even reinterpret empirical evidence in a way which supports this philosophy. This is not necessarily bad. Problems arise when the Wiggle-Room Philosophy forgets it is a Wiggle-Room Philosophy.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Jan 27th, 2008 at 07:33 PM
but people need a definite. thats why science exists and why it progresses. thats why the geocentric theory was disproved. thats why the flat earth theory was disproved. people have a NEED to know
and of course we will be able to see other dimensions soon. dont kid yourself by saying technology will never get that far. 400 years ago, we werent using shit but swords. now we have nukes. our technology jumps forwards exponentially. im not saying that we'll find god(if he exists) but we'll find something(insert joke of how rediculusly stupid that paragraph was here)
Gender: Male Location: The sewers of the Big City!
So, it's just evolution, but guided by a higher intelligence? Then if that's the case, why even debate the two? They aren't even at odds with each other.
__________________
Last edited by Classic NES on Jan 27th, 2008 at 11:11 PM
If life evolves, it stands to reason living cells evolve. If living cells evolve it stands to reason al it's compounds evolve i.e. all the molecules that make a living cell what it is. But the evolvement possibilities of molecules is limited because they adhere to very strict laws.
In other words: there's a logical sequence to be made from single cell organisms, to more complex, to reptiles, to birds.
It's a little harder to do that on a molecular level because something like half a molecule without a function would not survive the natural selection process. So how can single atoms begin to form molecules, other than that by chance it works... but if it works, what does it work on. There has to be a complete cell to be functionate in.
And then, how do cells evolve... it would mean that molecules develop as well. Now there is one example of molecule adaptation (i.e. they change from one function to another), but this is in a prelimnary stage where a lot of work has to be done. The evolution model doesn't have explanations yet how life can develop on that level. THey only have the 'proof' from organism development. But the laws of quantum mechanics are different from biological laws.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I think it doesn't necessarily follow from organisms being subject to natural selection and evolution, that there molecules and atoms are. And again, the formation of molecules is not part of the theory of evolution. I believe physical cosmology. I am not sure whether we have answers about that yet, but it does not compromise evolution in any way. We know that once molecules have formed, and living organisms start existing (which way ever), that natural selection does exist and that the theory of evolution is correct.
I am not sure what your position in this thread is altogether. You don't seem to support ID. But you seem to dislike Evolution for some reason. Could you maybe explain your whole point a little better?
This seems to be a REALLY bad analogy that got out of hand. Why would half of a molecule evolve into a molecule? The properties of atoms cause it to happen, it has nothing to do with evolution. Natural selection has nothing to do with quantum physics, no matter how cool those physical laws are.
Of course Darwinian theory doesn't extend to molecular levels. Evolution --survival of the fittest --concerns life after it becomes life. But the principle behind evolution --survival of the stable --does apply to all levels of the universe...astronomical, biological, or molecular.
I've found something interesting when I talk to regular people about ID. The majority of people don't even realize what ID'ers are trying to say. They think that ID just means evolution is true, but it was put in place by God (presumably at the creation point of the universe).
Of course, that's far from the truth, but it struck me as odd. Because once most people realize what it really is, they kind of laugh in derision and say something to the effect of "Oh. I thought it was more believable than that." Heck, my sister thought she was an ID'er simply because she thought that's all it was (she's a Catholic, and they endorse evolution but maintain that God created the universe) so she didn't see any conflict with the two until I explained it further.
You're essentially describing "theistic evolution" as their false perception of ID. The problem with theistic evolution being it isn't parsimonious, everything would appear the same as it does with or without a deity.
I'm not going over all that again. Did it several times.
If we're saying that life on a molecular level (and therefore on cellular level) isn't important for evolution, then basically you're saying we can ignore the very building blocks of life when we talk about its development. I think that's pretty daft.
I think you are attempting to defend evolution from people who aren't trying to disprove it.
Abiogenesis and evolutionary biology are two separate fields of science, but they run off of the same basic principles. Just as physics and chemistry are two separate fields of science that both deal with electromagnetism, friction, etc...
Like I said earlier, every level from galaxy to atom follows the survival of the stable (or in biology, the word is fittest), which is how the entire universe combats entropy.
Oh I agree that the two fields are related, and that all sciences are intrinsically and fundamentally linked. But I was simply responding to the idea that's being gotten at that evolution is somehow flawed in not addressing abiogenesis or redox reactions or gluons or whatever level of microscopic detail one wants to go to.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 27th, 2008 02:19 PM
