Jump to content


Photo

Decimation Of This Evolution Fairy Tale


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
85 replies to this topic

#81 dannyboy

dannyboy

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wales

Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:59 AM

"Actually" implies that your statement is factual. Do you have empirical evidence that proves apes to man evolution?

Hey Jayshel,
thanks for getting back to me. i would contend that there is a lot of empirical evidence for this but i wont digress. you would call them elements of shared design. Its derived from observations. Biologically, humans are classified as a kind of ape, regardless of where you think that pattern comes from. Science shouldnt (and doesnt) set out to prove things and make "facts". You dont have anything to tell you "this is true". Even the outcome of statistical tests are based on experimental design and the hypothesis you are testing. So its about collating alot of information from many sources.





The naturalistic hypothesis is that organelles originally came from organisms. Do you have empirical evidence to prove this hypothesis







Personally, i would posit that there is a great deal of evidence for this, so much so that you could only reasonably conclude that either the organisms were put inside cells naturally or by god. Endosymbiosis isnt a hypothesis, hypothesis is something you test. You cant test endosymbiosis, only rationally deduce whether it has occurred or not.

That is the current scientific model of biodiversification when one presupposes naturalism, which is a philosophy


Its a philosophy (the only philosophy) not based on a prior belief in anything. Darwin didnt set out to discover evolution, that was his conclusion. Science is just a description of nature.


You are free to actually consider anything you want and defend your claims against what you consider to be misrepresentation, but in order to claim something actually happened according to your philosophical presuppositions, you must verify your claims with empirical evidence, and rule out all other possibilities, otherwise you are misrepresenting the facts with your own own premature conclusions

.


Well to me its clear as day, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.


You assume that mitochondria and chloroplasts were once separate bacteria... Firstly this has never been empirically demonstrated nor proven hence it is merely an assumption.... Are assumptions science??

1- You'd need to show how a cell can swallow an an entire bacteria
2- You'd need to demonstrate the above plus how the host bacteria doesn't digest it


Cells swallowing other cells is very easy to demonstrate, its called phagocytosis. Its also the mechanism of how white blood cells engulf pathogens during an infection, and how cells can actually become infected. The endosymbiont theory suggests mitochondria were pathogens, similar to rickettsia bacteria - obligate intracellular parasites- so presumably would have had defence mechanisms to avoid the host cell and integrate into the host as obligate intracellular parasites do. Chloroplasts, capable of using light to make energy, would have been very useful symbiotic partners providing fixed sugars in exchange for a safe environment.


Now consider that the DNA required for synthesis of new mitochondria and chloroplasts are a part of the main cell this brings about a few problems for your assumption.

1- The DNA of replication of mitochondria etc is (somehow) transported to the host cell genome
2- This DNA is inserted at the exact spot encoding for replication proteins etc.
3- That somehow some of the mitochondrial DNA is left behind, despite the "transport mechanism"

Just claiming "millions of years" is not an answer, I'd like to see concrete empirical evidence answering all 5 points, (and the many others I'd have missed), if you cannot do that then you must (grudgingly) admit that what you speak of is not a fact, nor is it science it is merely an assumption.

There a vast number of mechanisms by which the genome of pathogens can (and are) integrated into the host genome. Too long to go into really but, it does happen. Thats how every single virus works, and viruses exist precisely because they can exploit the genome. I cant admittedly tell you the ins and outs of how the genome of the proteobacteria that was to become mitochondria was integrated. Partly because im not a geneticist (im an ecologist), but partly because we might not know. Fact is, analysis of the mitochondrial genome reveals it to be the closest to rickettsia bacteria and a rickettsia bacteria is not a human being. Further, mitochondria and chloroplasts are, structurally, self-contained cells.

#82 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:25 PM

Hey Jayshel,
thanks for getting back to me. i would contend that there is a lot of empirical evidence for this but i wont digress. you would call them elements of shared design. Its derived from observations. Biologically, humans are classified as a kind of ape, regardless of where you think that pattern comes from. Science shouldnt (and doesnt) set out to prove things and make "facts". You dont have anything to tell you "this is true". Even the outcome of statistical tests are based on experimental design and the hypothesis you are testing. So its about collating alot of information from many sources.


I agree that there is a lot of empirical evidence, but there are different views on where this evidence leads. Humans are classified as apes due to some skeletal similarities, and some degree of genetic similarity. There are some things that cannot be deciphered from fossils, such as a "hominid's" brain capabilities (despite skull size). There are people in our society with normal sized brains but reduced thinking capacity, and there are people with very small skulls (Microcephaly) with relatives with normal genetic capacity.


Personally, i would posit that there is a great deal of evidence for this, so much so that you could only reasonably conclude that either the organisms were put inside cells naturally or by god. Endosymbiosis isnt a hypothesis, hypothesis is something you test. You cant test endosymbiosis, only rationally deduce whether it has occurred or not.

(emphasis added)


*Mod Hat On*

Once again you are equivocating on the definition of organism, attempting to redefine it to fit your own agenda. This goes beyond innocently asserting a belief and defending it rationally and scientifically. This is against the forum rules that you agreed to when you signed up for your account. Please reread the forum rules, and cease breaking them. Big Hint: We do not keep rule breakers around very long.

*Mod Hat Off*


Rationally, it has been determined by you to be necessary if there is only naturalistic causes of life, but is this assumption scientific, and is endosymbiosis possible? I will let you and Gilbo hash out the details of the evidence as you have already started a discussion in that vein.


It makes more sense that an all powerful God designed organelles the way they are currently, without the need of endosymbiosis. Rationally an all powerful God would not need trial and error to produce a slow stepwise increase in the complexity of life on earth. He would just be able to create them already fully formed, and complex enough to adapt to their ever changing surroundings through designed mechanisms. This is what we observe in the fossil record as well; fully formed dead organisms, not a slow, stepwise, building up of features and complexity of organisms.



Its a philosophy (the only philosophy) not based on a prior belief in anything. Darwin didnt set out to discover evolution, that was his conclusion. Science is just a description of nature.


Naturalism is the belief that there are no supernatural causes acting upon nature, but is this philosophy the only rational conclusion that a scientist can come to? Based on scientific observation, we can see that abiogenesis would be quite impossible due to the issue of homochirality, necessity of water in formation of amino acids vs necessity of no water in formation of proteins, the list goes on. Please check out this link for more info on the specifics. We also observe that the universe is increasing in entropy over time, and given the second law of thermodynamics, it cannot be eternal. The universe began expanding at one point which means it needed an Eternal Causer to have began this expansion, or else we face an infinite regress which begs the question, what cause that infinite regress in the first place? So my logical and rational conclusion based on empirical scientific evidence is that God exists.


I agree that science is a description of nature but naturalism, a philosophy that rules out supernatural causes acting upon nature, is not scientific.


Also, Darwin went to seminary and studied other world religions. Look up Edward Blythe with regards to evolution, or the religion of the egyptians. Many people throughout history thought that life somehow "evolved" out of a source. Do you really think that Darwin was a philosophical blank slate before he "came up with" the theory of evolution, or assumed natrualism?



Well to me its clear as day, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.


I agree, you are entitled to your opinion on that. I am sure you know that we are here to discuss such opinions to see if they are plausible or not.

#83 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,990 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:28 PM

Gilbo,
Thanks for explaining the difficulties of this theory and helping to reinforce what I was subtly hinting at. Sometimes, I am too subtle I think.

Not a problem, this is a topic I have discussed with my lecturers and class mates as well. Some have admitted that it is unsupported

#84 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:39 PM

I agree that science is a description of nature but naturalism, a philosophy that rules out supernatural causes acting upon nature, is not scientific.


In my opinion and understanding of the methodology of science the only thing the scientific method actually rules out is things that are non-falsifiable, but that is only because the method cannot function on such things, not because they absolutely don't exist.

To me natural means something that is known to exists. Anything that is defined as "supernatural" is something for which we are unsure of it's existence. In that understanding it is entirely possible for something that is currently defined as "supernatural" to become natural, all we need is solid evidence of it's existence.

On that note I will also admit that I believe things could exist that we simply cannot gain knowledge or even evidence of. So supernatural things may exist, we are just unable to gain the evidence that we need to reclassify them as "natural".

Science is a process and that process can only function on natural entities. That does not mean that science (or scientists) "rule out" the supernatural, it simply means that the methods they use do not work on things that are currently defined as supernatural.

I fancy myself a scientists, or at the very least I have a scientific mindset, and I do not rule out the possibility of things like ghosts and aliens and whatever else... it's just not possible to practice the scientific method on these things.

#85 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 07:51 PM

As an addendum to the above (and again, please excuse the double post) I just wanted to add that the most important thing to practicing good science is to never shut the door on an idea completely.

Science is all about being proven wrong, good scientists don't seek to prove their ideas, they seek to disprove the alternatives. The reason for this is due to basic epistemology, that you cannot prove anything in the absolute case. You can only prove things relative to other assumptions, such that if assumption x, y, and z are true then conclusion a must also be true... but that isn't proof that it is true, only that it is true if all of the assumptions that you made to reach the conclusion are also true. For example, if I set out to prove that I am currently typing this, I could allow people to witness me doing so. However, the truth of that is relative to the assumption that I am not hallucinating the whole thing, or that my perception of reality is not completely illusory. At the end of the day there is no way to know this, so we cannot prove anything in an absolute sense.

Because of this basic tenet of epistemology any scientist would be a fool to completely rule out anything, but that is different from setting it aside because it is not currently operable via the scientific method, as is the case with most (all?) things defined as "supernatural"

#86 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,990 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:18 PM

If the scientific method itself rules out the natural method then the only method available is the supernatural method, (consider it as the null hypothesis)


An example is the question of "where life come from"). In this example the above has already occurred, the complexity and specificity of life itself has ruled out the naturalistic random method meaning that the only one left is the supernatural one.

Hence if it can be concluded that the naturalistic method defies laws of nature / the natural progression of things / natural processes that are observed, etc
then the only other choice is the supernatural one.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users