Why are there still Monkeys?

[McBell]

One thing about evolution that always fascinated me was that the whole idea of abiogenesis revolves around this idea that self replicating RNA molecules somehow came into being, which led to the first forms of primordial life.

That is fascinating, because it suggests that nature somehow spontaneously created purpose, the purpose to transfer information from one generation to the next.

Wondering if anyone can provide a naturalistic explanation for that?

:biglaugh:
You need to show this "purpose" you so boldly claim.

 

[outhouse]

Wondering if anyone can provide a naturalistic explanation for that?

Now I know why you choose not to post.


There are plenty of youtube vids explaining abiogenesis, without your "purpose" thing what ever that is.

 

[idav]

One thing about evolution that always fascinated me was that the whole idea of abiogenesis revolves around this idea that self replicating RNA molecules somehow came into being, which led to the first forms of primordial life.

That is fascinating, because it suggests that nature somehow spontaneously created purpose, the purpose to transfer information from one generation to the next.

Wondering if anyone can provide a naturalistic explanation for that?

This video is one of the better things I have found on the subject. Its long but a good watch.

It gets into explaining purpose and volition and how evolution could achieve it. It comes down to organisms falling in certain niches naturally and the purpose is more hindsight. Nature used what ever it could get, volition ends up being coincidence which would be the things that lets a species flourish. We look back and say that species used that as a tool but it was just the species falling in a niche naturally and acting accordingly.
[youtube]X1Rcg7MqeMw[/youtube]
PZ Myers: Chance in evolution (Eschaton 2012) - YouTube

 

[Valjean]

Originally Posted by Thief
And God cannot use evolution?
God created the chemistry.....and He can't manipulate it?

If he did the chemistry right, why would he need to manipulate anything? Evolution would unfold on its own, without the need for magic.

 

[MD]

If you atheists bothered to read my post, I'm obviously talking about the RNA world hypothesis. The RNA self replicating mechanisms gave rise to life, and it gave rise to a naturalistic purpose, which is the drive to procreate and pass on genetic DNA. That is a fact.

Now why did a collection of molecules start replicating themselves? Either there were several collections of nucleotides which spontaneously created self replicating enzymes or there was something more, something in the fabric of nature itself which gives rise to life in the right conditions.

 

[Bunyip]

If you atheists bothered to read my post, I'm obviously talking about the RNA world hypothesis. The RNA self replicating mechanisms gave rise to life, and it gave rise to a naturalistic purpose, which is the drive to procreate and pass on genetic DNA. That is a fact.

Now why did a collection of molecules start replicating themselves? Either there were several collections of nucleotides which spontaneously created self replicating enzymes or there was something more, something in the fabric of nature itself which gives rise to life in the right conditions.

Self replicating molecules form naturally, why they form is just chemistry.

 

[outhouse]

If you atheists bothered to read my post, I'm obviously talking about the RNA world hypothesis. The RNA self replicating mechanisms gave rise to life, and it gave rise to a naturalistic purpose, which is the drive to procreate and pass on genetic DNA. That is a fact.

Now why did a collection of molecules start replicating themselves? Either there were several collections of nucleotides which spontaneously created self replicating enzymes or there was something more, something in the fabric of nature itself which gives rise to life in the right conditions.

Dont look for a supernatural explanation, when nature is all you need.

The vids I recommended have exactly what you seek, without the supernatural.

 

[MD]

Dont look for a supernatural explanation, when nature is all you need.

The vids I recommended have exactly what you seek, without the supernatural.

I never mentioned anything about the supernatural, you in fact automatically assumed I did

I was referring more to the principles of self organization in chaotic systems and the formation of life.

 

[Bunyip]

I never mentioned anything about the supernatural, you in fact automatically assumed I did

I was referring more to the principles of self organization in chaotic systems and the formation of life.

Sure, but self organisation does not require any purpose, intelligence or mind. A bag full of bottle caps will self organise into long chains if you shake it. Snowflakes, crystals and soap bubbles all self organise.

 

[Ouroboros]

When it comes to origins science, science has been wrong before, which tells us that science isn't always right. Scientists can't duplicate the beginning of the universe and all that has happened in the past. Scientists used to accept that the universe had no beginning. Well guess what, it was found out that it did which ended up supporting religion, religion won over science.

Religion has also been wrong before. Actually, the majority of religious claims have been shown to be wrong at some point. The majority of religions in our history are dead, gone, "disproven" by the new religions. Science has only had 2-300 years to catch up on religions 5,000+ years history. Still, science has brought us cellphones, computers, medicine, food, cars, airplanes, and millions of other things (for instance Internet that you right now are ironically enjoying). Science has solved more thousands of times more problems than religion even have ever though of. Of course science is wrong sometimes, we're humans after all, but the benefit of the scientific process is that we fix the problems, not stick to them like blind bulldogs. Science requires evidence. If the evidence points in another direction, we change. Religion requires belief without evidence. When the evidence points in the other direction, religion does not change. I rather stick with the crowd that can admit wrong, than the crowd that never can admit any error.

Science changes because each theory tries to explain the facts the best way. Each time science is wrong, the new and corrected model/theory is more right than the old one. Being wrong in science doesn't mean that it changes everything, but that changes closer to the truth. The science we have today is closer to the truth about nature than the science we had 100 years ago.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, I agree that God could have used evolution if he wanted to and that science is the study of the physical which God could have created. However if we remove the philosophical pre-adherence to naturalism from science then it would have to accept that creation is a valid competing theory to evolution because the data supports the creation model as much as it does the evolution models. I also believe that God told us how he did it and I prefer to pitch my tent with him.

No, the data does not support the creation model as much as the evolution model.

The evidence shows that there's been five major extinction events. Where 50-90% of all species on this planet were eradicated completely, and never to return. Where are those extinction events described in Genesis? Can you give a bible verse for the Permian mass extinction event (the Great Dying)? It only took some 10 million years to recover from that one. Volcanoes, cooling, water levels sinking, drought, all of it at the same time, but the Bible has a flood... ??? And I'm not sure even any of the 5 big ones were a flood.

 

[psychoslice]

Well there's still the wolf, and yet we have so many breeds that stem from the wolf, what we call dogs.

 

[Parsimony]

Belief in God isn’t the question. The question is, did god have a hand in creation? Science pre-supposes that everything that happened in the past happened naturally. There is no question about that. If God used evolution to create man, then atheists couldn’t and wouldn’t accept the theory.

If God used gravity to keep the planets in orbit, then atheists couldn't and wouldn't accept the theory of gravity either, right? The difference is that atheists believe that evolution happened without a need for God and theistic evolutionists believe that either God guided evolution directly or that He simply let evolution work on its own without interfering with it. If evolution was inherently atheistic, then there would not be theistic evolutionists. Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a deity.

By the way, all widely-accepted scientific theories so far have been naturalistic. That does not make a one a naturalist for accepting them.

 

[FearGod]

Not as far as I can tell but computers have some intelligence.

No, computers got no intelligence.

Computers are designed by man to perform certain tasks,it need hardware and software.

Computers by itself is an evidence that things can't work in perfect manner except by design.

Let a computer have a hardware alone without a software,can it work ?

It is really stupid to think that the unconscious nature did this universe without prior plan and design.

Where did nature come from at first place ?

There should be a starting point and it should be always existing.

 

[johnhanks]

And I want you to debate other naturalists on this.

On what? You keep telling us that a furious debate is taking place among "naturalists" about the "tree and web models" of evolution, with the former - you claim - currently losing out to the latter. I have repeatedly asked you to link us to where - outside your imagination - this debate is occurring; I have also asked you to outline to us what you understand the "web model" to entail. You have repeatedly declined to respond to either request.

I have no dog in the hunt so to speak.

Then why do you keep posting these claims?

Both models are born of philosophy and built with imagination...

Models of evolutionary processes are born of evidence.

... which means there will be more models in the future, as there have been in the past.

Of course there will; models change as the evidence base expands. That is the nature of science.

 

[idav]

Let a computer have a hardware alone without a software,can it work ?

No need for a strawman. We know there is much more to a computer than the hardware alone.

Strawman right back at you. If your just a body and no brain do you work?

It is really stupid to think that the unconscious nature did this universe without prior plan and design.

I've already provided evidence that nature is a bit more than just plain ole unconscious, so I agree nevertheless. Still another straw, misrepresentation of my argument.

Where did nature come from at first place ?

Nobody knows.

There should be a starting point and it should be always existing.

I suppose so but then there needs to be a start for god, that is if god is existing. Right?

 

[idav]

No, computers got no intelligence.

Think again. They pass criteria 1.

Computers are designed by man to perform certain tasks,it need hardware and software.

Computers by itself is an evidence that things can't work in perfect manner except by design.

Doesn't matter how, they are intelligent.

They even got added to the definition of intelligent. :yes:

1
a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

5
: the ability to perform computer functions
Intelligence - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There should be a starting point and it should be always existing.

I suppose so but then there needs to be a start for god, that is if god is existing. Right?

Actually, no.

 

[idav]

Actually, no.

Then that would be a 'no' to FearGod. I don't like this "has to be a starting point" to begin with.

 

[idav]

There should be a starting point and it should be always existing.

That is actually a contradiction far as I can tell FearGod.