"Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend" Article

[Parsimony]

Speculation.

It's not without it's reasoning. Without life to replenish it, free oxygen tends to react with other substances and get trapped as oxides such as carbon dioxide, water and oxide minerals. Although other methods of generating oxygen are known (such as the break down of water due to various forms of radiation), these are not currently considered to have been important sources of oxygen on early Earth.

Although our understanding of the Earth's early atmosphere has changed over time (and continues to change), we are capable of studying the chemistry of the crust to get an idea that's better than mere speculation.

 

[Yerda]

It is my overwhelming experience that anyone who uses the phrase "darwinism" understands very little about biological evolution.

I'm not sure if they don't understand that biology has moved on from Darwin's work or they try to use it as a derogatory term.

It's hard to tell but I think it might just be catch-all term for people who believe evolution happens.

 

[Zosimus]

It's not without it's reasoning. Without life to replenish it, free oxygen tends to react with other substances and get trapped as oxides such as carbon dioxide, water and oxide minerals. Although other methods of generating oxygen are known (such as the break down of water due to various forms of radiation), these are not currently considered to have been important sources of oxygen on early Earth.

Although our understanding of the Earth's early atmosphere has changed over time (and continues to change), we are capable of studying the chemistry of the crust to get an idea that's better than mere speculation.

My complaint is not that you have theories, conjectures, claims, and reasoned arguments. My complaint is that you present these claims as though they were facts.

 

[gnostic]

Well, I think there is dramatically more to the origin of life than physical science knows at this time.

Well, unless you present actual evidences to support the life science exist before physical science, you are simply speculating about the origin of life.

I am not saying that life don't exist in oin our vast universe; we just don't have evidences for them.

The only and earliest signs of life, only appeared on earth, because we are currently incapable of travelling through space beyond the moon orbit. I am referring to manned space travels. All space missions that have travel further than the moon, have been unmanned crafts.

Our space telescopes have done wonder in the understanding of universe, but still limited in what we can observe, detect and measure.

Until we can go beyond our limitations, we are stuck because of these limitations.

 

[Parsimony]

My complaint is not that you have theories, conjectures, claims, and reasoned arguments. My complaint is that you present these claims as though they were facts.

Very well. I will amend my statement thus: it is currently believed by the scientific community that the atmosphere on Earth 4 billion years ago was anoxic.

 

[sayak83]

I accept evolution. Just thought I would post this article to understand what the author got wrong.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/evolution-just-got-harder-defend

100 years. That is my estimate of the maximum time for non-living organic chemistry to give rise to early forms of simple cellular life. I am an organic chemist, and what creationist forget is that abiogenesis is a more of field of organic chemistry than biology. We are not talking of giraffes that have cycle through successive generations over decades, but organic molecules and reaction chains whose turnover rate (i.e. time over which one generation of molecules react to produce the next generation) ranges from a few hours to a few milliseconds. It has to be fast, otherwise simple processes of diffusion will stop the reactions quite quickly, even in porous structures that can trap chemicals and allows more time for them to get concentrated. That is why chemists are trying to recreate abiogenesis in the lab in the first. We know that it would have happened quite quickly and hence they are trying to find the correct conditions and reagents that would get the process going and replicate something similar occurring in a few days or months in the lab. The idea it took millions, or even thousands of years for chemistry to create life is absurd. Either the reactions happen quickly or they don't at all.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, unless you present actual evidences to support the life science exist before physical science, you are simply speculating about the origin of life.

I am not saying that life don't exist in oin our vast universe; we just don't have evidences for them.

The only and earliest signs of life, only appeared on earth, because we are currently incapable of travelling through space beyond the moon orbit. I am referring to manned space travels. All space missions that have travel further than the moon, have been unmanned crafts.

Our space telescopes have done wonder in the understanding of universe, but still limited in what we can observe, detect and measure.

Until we can go beyond our limitations, we are stuck because of these limitations.

There are two things that you may be mixing. 1) What science knows and 2) What George-ananda believes.

Science must move slowly and my assertions contain no testable claims. Hence science must be agnostic to my claims.

Secondly, I was expressing my personal position on the OP subject and my personal position includes sources (those that I believe have knowledge beyond the physical senses and instruments) that are not within sciences domain at this time in history.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I accept evolution. Just thought I would post this article to understand what the author got wrong.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/evolution-just-got-harder-defend

First of all, they are committing the straw-man fallacy by assuming that abiogenesis is somehow necessary for evolution. It isn't. Disproving abiogenesis wouldn't do a thing to falsify the fossil record. Second of all, they don't seem to realize that the Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old and that liquid water was present up to 4.4 billion years ago. That's 700-800 million years worth of time for abiogenesis to take place.

The crux of Darwinism was to hypothesize a God-free method of designing all life on Earth. That's why Darwin and Dawkins agree, that any evolution that needs helped over the tricky parts by God, is no sort of evolution at all.

Do you think that God would provide everything necessary to get life started- but have no particular interest, plans, designs for what it would produce?- leave all that to pure chance? And then the ultimate result of a sentient being uniquely capable of appreciating his creation and giving thanks for it.. that was just a bizarre coincidence?

 

[Father Heathen]

It is my overwhelming experience that anyone who uses the phrase "darwinism" understands very little about biological evolution.

I'm not sure if they don't understand that biology has moved on from Darwin's work or they try to use it as a derogatory term.

Also, it's like calling the acceptance of the theory of gravity "Newtonism" or "Gravitationism". Silly and unnecessary.

 

[Parsimony]

The crux of Darwinism was to hypothesize a God-free method of designing all life on Earth. That's why Darwin and Dawkins agree, that any evolution that needs helped over the tricky parts by God, is no sort of evolution at all.

If that's the case, then I am not talking about Darwinism at all.

Do you think that God would provide everything necessary to get life started- but have no particular interest, plans, designs for what it would produce?- leave all that to pure chance? And then the ultimate result of a sentient being uniquely capable of appreciating his creation and giving thanks for it.. that was just a bizarre coincidence?

He would have known in advance what would come of it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If that's the case, then I am not talking about Darwinism at all.

He would have known in advance what would come of it.

Yes it does tend to come down to semantics, the late curator of the Chicago Field museum 'accepted' evolution, if defined as simple change over time. But so often 'evolution' is usually used to strongly imply Darwinism- which is a far less widely held theory

 

[Zosimus]

Also, it's like calling the acceptance of the theory of gravity "Newtonism" or "Gravitationism". Silly and unnecessary.

Maybe you should pass that on to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I'm sure they'll redo their entry on Darwinism just to make you happy.