Evidence For And Against Evolution

[shunyadragon]

Regardless of how scientists differ on the definition of what is life, the idea that life came about (and "is") without believing in the prime intelligent inventor causing life as we generally know it, is unfathomable as far as I am concerned. Scientists may explore the mechanics of combinations of chemicals in living matter (as many look at it) but that's where it stops.

The difference in how we define life in science is not an issue in the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution..

In context I agree, but attacking science concerning the objective evidence of the nature of Natural Law, our physical existence, abiogenesis and evolution only creates disunity and contradictions concerning Creation by God and the evidence, and useless accusations of atheism and materialism in science..

 

[YoursTrue]

Biologists do indeed agree as to what biological life is. Science considers life to be carbon based organic forms that have the ability to produce or acquire their own energy from other sources, have RNA and/or DNA, and replicate or reproduce. Of course, other life forms may exist on other planets, but it is most likely that they are also carbon based self replicating life forms.

"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids."
(Wikipedia on life)
And more discoveries are coming up.
While we're on the subject, do you believe there is life in heaven? It is related to this subject.

 

[YoursTrue]

The difference in how we define life in science is not an issue in the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution..

In context I agree, but attacking science concerning the objective evidence of the nature of Natural Law, our physical existence, abiogenesis and evolution only creates disunity and contradictions concerning Creation by God and the evidence, and useless accusations of atheism and materialism in science..

I think you are misunderstanding my questioning of science re: evolution. I drive a car. I am not a scientist, but respect the fact that immunizations work and have been discovered by hard-working scientists. But let's go back to the concept of life again. I don't know what your idea is yet, but -- just touching on the subject of life (and death), what do you believe about life after death? By that I mean if a person dies, what do you think happens? Again, this impinges upon one's recognition of what life is.

 

[shunyadragon]

"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids."
(Wikipedia on life)
And more discoveries are coming up.

I disagree there is no consensus on the fundamentals as this reference cited. and described the main issues concerning the nature of primitive evolutionary transitional life forms such as bacteria, . . .

. . . and yes more discoveries are forthcoming.

While we're on the subject, do you believe there is life in heaven? It is related to this subject.

The journey beyond this world is an evolving spiritual journey through many worlds.

 

[YoursTrue]

The difference in how we define life in science is not an issue in the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution..

In context I agree, but attacking science concerning the objective evidence of the nature of Natural Law, our physical existence, abiogenesis and evolution only creates disunity and contradictions concerning Creation by God and the evidence, and useless accusations of atheism and materialism in science..

As far as difference in definition of life regarding abiogenesis and evolution is certainly a serious issue because -- if "life" came about without divine process, then it is true that God is unnecessary.
Instead Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die" John 11:25.

 

[YoursTrue]

I disagree there is no consensus on the fundamentals as this reference cited. and described the main issues concerning the nature of primitive evolutionary transitional life forms such as bacteria, . . .

. . . and yes more discoveries are forthcoming.



The journey beyond this world is an evolving spiritual journey through many worlds.

I wasn't speaking of anything now beyond this world in that post. Because now scientists are talking about elements of phosphorous as a prime possible cause to produce life. That's what I meant. But, since we're on that subject again, here is what Wikipedia says about the definitions of life:
"There is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life. One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids." (borderline cases.) (currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.) Not a big deal. I know I'm alive now. And I figure, although I can't see you, that you're alive.

 

[YoursTrue]

This I believe God is the Creator of all of our physical existence and the origin and evolution of life, but this based on my belief, and not questioning the natural mechanisms and Natural Laws as the physical cause. There is no mileage arguing the cause and effect from a scientific perspective to justify the existence of God nor the cause of our physical existence as Creation.

If scientists cannot agree on the terms of evolution and/or abiogenesis, then it's not a done deal. In any case. Darwinian or not. In the case of religion, since there are so many different opinions among those who claim to believe, then it becomes a question of just how important is mankind to God. And, of course, which God, and then possibly comparing beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Regardless of how scientists differ on the definition of what is life, the idea that life came about (and "is") without believing in the prime intelligent inventor causing life as we generally know it, is unfathomable as far as I am concerned. Scientists may explore the mechanics of combinations of chemicals in living matter (as many look at it) but that's where it stops.

It's all just so incredible. The incredible must have magical origin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If scientists cannot agree on the terms of evolution and/or abiogenesis, then it's not a done deal. In any case. Darwinian or not. In the case of religion, since there are so many different opinions among those who claim to believe, then it becomes a question of just how important is mankind to God. And, of course, which God, and then possibly comparing beliefs.

Finding that life has a natural origin is not evidence that says there is no God or gods.

 

[YoursTrue]

The journey beyond this world is an evolving spiritual journey through many worlds.

I see. May I ask how you came to this conclusion?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, as translated in the 48 translations I mentioned they sure do. Just what do you think the words "birds" and "fowl" mean?

Getting back to the discussion, if all translations were correct in both exact translation and context, (two different things), there would be no need for scholarship.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Getting back to the discussion, if all translations were correct in both exact translation and context, (two different things), there would be no need for scholarship.

If we knew all the answers, there would be no need for science.

 

[leroy]

Very unlikely x billions of chances = a statistical probability, and when a useful fold is chanced upon it's selected for.

No, do the math

1 in 10^77 times "billions" of chances = 1 in 10^64

There is not enough time for sufficient random positive foldings to account for the diversity of life......

But I have a theory, maybe folding is not random, maybe there is a bias towards "funcional folding".... Sounds reasonable to you?

 

[shunyadragon]

I see. May I ask how you came to this conclusion?

From the Baha'i writings: The Human Soul | What Bahá’ís Believe

The Human Soul
The essential identity of every human being is a rational and immortal soul, which is “entirely out of the order of the physical creation.” Bahá’u’lláh uses the metaphor of the sun to explain the relationship between the soul and the body: “The soul of man is the sun by which his body is illumined, and from which it draweth its sustenance, and should be so regarded.”

It is through the exercise of the powers of the soul that human progress is achieved. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has said that the soul “can discover the realities of things, comprehend the peculiarities of beings, and penetrate the mysteries of existence. All sciences, knowledge, arts, wonders, institutions, discoveries and enterprises come from the exercised intelligence of the rational soul.”

We are able to reflect divine attributes to the extent that we cleanse the mirrors of our hearts and minds through prayer, the study and application of the Sacred Scriptures, the acquisition of knowledge, efforts to improve our conduct and to overcome tests and difficulties, and service to humanity.

When death occurs in this world, the soul is separated from the body, and continues to progress in an eternal journey towards perfection.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, do the math

1 in 10^77 times "billions" of chances = 1 in 10^67

There is not enough time for sufficient random positive foldings to account for the diversity of life......

But I have a theory, maybe folding is not random, maybe there is a bias towards "funcional folding".... Sounds reasonable to you?

No it is not reasonable, because it is phiny use of probability to justify a religious agenda.

"statistics do not lie, but liars use statistics"

Randomness of the process of protein folding. - PubMed - NCBI

Randomness of the process of protein folding.
Go N, Abe H.
Abstract
How specific or definite are pathways of folding and unfolding in globular proteins? In order to study this question, computer simulation of the folding-unfolding transition was carried out in a two-dimensional lattice model of proteins in which it is assumed that strongly specific intramolecular interactions contribute to the stability of the native conformation. This specificity of the interactions should tend to make the pathways of folding and unfolding more definite than reality. Yet, the analysis of the record of simulation indicated the process of transition to be stochastic rather than definite. This poses a fundamental problem of how to describe the pathways of folding and unfolding transition. It is argued that the description should consist of (i) a definition of intermediate states in terms of characteristic conformational features and (ii) stochastic rules of transitions between these intermediate states. The simplest would be the case in which the transitions occur as a markoffian process.

More to follow . . .

If you have sufficient knowledge to understand this. I cite specific scientific research without a religious agenda.

 

[leroy]

The natural origin of nylonase refutes claims of a designer by CSI.

What is CSI?

 

[leroy]

Functional reduced structures and functional reduced pathways refuting all of Behe's examples of IC have been found. In order to claim a biological system or component is irreducible, would require the impossible task of testing every possible permutation and demonstrating that each was not functional in the least capacity. It cannot be done. IC is thus refuted. Behe has acknowledged this in court. If the guy that came up with the concept cannot support it, you sure are not going to.

Irreducible Complexity remained untested, leroy.

Even Behe has not tested his concept, because it is unfalsifiable. All Behe have done is make unsubstantiated assumptions about the eyes and about flagellum.

So Irreducible Complexity isn’t even science. There is no need to refute claims that re already unfalsifiable.

You really don’t understand the concepts of Falsifiability and of Scientific Method, do you?

You are making as if Behe has the fact regarding to Irreducible Complexity, and yet he has not once provided a single evidence to support his claim.

You keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again, using his eye and flagellum examples, but these are his claims, which he has never been able to test and verify.

It just how very little you really understand what is and what isn’t science.

Then decide, what exactly is it what you are claiming

1 that behe was refuted
2 that his argument is un falsifiable
3 that behe hasn't support his claims

You are jumping from one argument to an other,

 

[shunyadragon]

If scientists cannot agree on the terms of evolution and/or abiogenesis, then it's not a done deal. In any case. Darwinian or not. In the case of religion, since there are so many different opinions among those who claim to believe, then it becomes a question of just how important is mankind to God. And, of course, which God, and then possibly comparing beliefs.

First 'Darwinian' is not a good term to describe the science of evolution today. If I was asked as a scientist today I would say that I do not believe in Darwinian nor Neo Darwinian evolution, but I believe in the 'science of evolution.

I am not certain what you are referring to as 'cannot agree on the terms of evolution and/or abiogenesis,' because by far the majority scientists within the fields related to evolution agree and support the science of evolution and abiogenesis. Are there still many unknowns and disagreements within the science of abiogenesis and evolution, but that is a given in virtually all sciences. That is the stimulus for further research and discoveries.

It is very clear that the public perception of the science of evolution and scientists is indeed distorted by agendas and the lack of scientific knowledge.

From: Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues

Do Scientists Agree?

Despite the overwhelming agreement among scientists about evolution and climate change, substantial minorities of Americans think there is no scientific consensus on these issues. While a 60% majority of the public says that scientists generally agree that humans have evolved over time, nearly three-in-ten (28%) say that scientists do not generally agree.

A comparable majority (56%) says that scientists generally agree that the earth is warming because of human activity. However, more than a third (35%) says that scientists do not generally agree.

In both cases, people’s perceptions of a scientific consensus are strongly correlated with their own views on the issue. Fully 79% of those who say life has evolved due to natural selection say there is a scientific consensus on this issue. Fewer than half (43%) of those who say life was created in its current form see such a consensus.

This pattern is even more pronounced when it comes to views about whether there is a scientific consensus over climate change. About three-quarters of people (76%) who say human activity is driving global warming think that most scientists agree on this point. Fewer than half (41%) of those who say warming is mostly due to atmospheric changes think there is a scientific consensus on the issue. Among the small share of the public (11%) that says there is no solid evidence of global warming, just 22% say there is scientific agreement that human activity is causing global warming, while 68% think there is no agreement among scientists on the issue.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then decide, what exactly is it what you are claiming

1 that behe was refuted
2 that his argument is un falsifiable
3 that behe hasn't support his claims

You are jumping from one argument to an other,

I will go with all of the above, but two and three are the top of the list,

 

[leroy]

But that is not *at all* what I am proposing. I am not tweaking to give something as precise as English words on a distant world. I am simply saying the constants adjust to maximize complexity. And *that* inevitably leads to enough complexity to form life.

Well that is why a good definition of "complexity" is relevant, without such definition it would be impossible to tell whether if you are tweaking to something less specific than English words.