ID and evolution in science.

[GinandTonic]

On the OP im a little conflicted.

On the one hand it is productive i any field of academia to have dissenting voices probing for weanesses - it stimulates the majority to constantly reapraise their position, to justify areas insuffiently filled in. On the other hand teaching such a hopelesly marginal position in schools is completely inapropriate.

 

[Phlegmak]

Evolutionists scientists know practically every part of a 'simple' cell. Let them assemble a cell in the Lab, from scratch, using 'parts' assembled from all the necessary vital chemicals. This will solve the debate, once and for all.

However, they cannot make a cell, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Yet the evolutionists claim that cells came into existence by chance, accidental encounters with a chemical soup, way back when!!! SHOW us the 'science' NOT the talk, and we will believe.

Jim

What you're talking about is abiogenesis, not evolution.

 

[idvsmyth]

Whoever told you that scientists have dismantled a cell and reassembled it, is either ignorant or a liar.

Also the idea that a pre-cellular (?) form ever existed is mythology. Speculated because they cant find even one to show us, anywhere, after all after in so very long a time there ought to be trillions of them everywhere we look. Otherwise, tell me who or what killed them ALL off over and over and over again.

DO your OWN homework, don't trust the words of someone else. Most are working on hearsay alone. What else can they do, there is NO scientific evidence for evolution.

 

[warpus]

Whoever told you that scientists have dismantled a cell and reassembled it, is either ignorant or a liar.

Also the idea that a pre-cellular (?) form ever existed is mythology. Speculated because they cant find even one to show us, anywhere, after all after in so very long a time there ought to be trillions of them everywhere we look. Otherwise, tell me who or what killed them ALL off over and over and over again.

DO your OWN homework, don't trust the words of someone else. Most are working on hearsay alone. What else can they do, there is NO scientific evidence for evolution.

What does any of this have to do with evolution?

Start a thread on abiogenesis if you would like to discuss this, please, and quit polluting this thread with non-relevant bs.

 

[Atlas14]

Whoever told you that scientists have dismantled a cell and reassembled it, is either ignorant or a liar.

Also the idea that a pre-cellular (?) form ever existed is mythology. Speculated because they cant find even one to show us, anywhere, after all after in so very long a time there ought to be trillions of them everywhere we look. Otherwise, tell me who or what killed them ALL off over and over and over again.

DO your OWN homework, don't trust the words of someone else. Most are working on hearsay alone. What else can they do, there is NO scientific evidence for evolution.

Oh there is plenty of evidence, you just seem to be denying it in favor of an emotional, "feel good about yourself" theory. And what Warpus said, this is not a thread about abiogenesis.

 

[.Shane.]

Why are you guys even replying to idvsmyth? Look at his name and post count. He's either someone who posts here regularly who is scared to post under his real name or a troll who created an account here to work you guys up. Looks like you're taking the bait.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

All of you who are so smug about ID being only a "US" problem or a "Bush" problem need to realize it isn't.

And evolution doesn't need a competeing theory to keep it honest any more than any other branch of science. All ID does is convince a lot of people that research and data are not as important to science as charismatic arguments.

 

[col]

Whoever told you that scientists have dismantled a cell and reassembled it, is either ignorant or a liar.

.

Really? How do you know? I'm amazed you know every strand of research everywhere in the world.

Actually you are wrong - it was done several years ago. But then I'm a scientist and read the literature.


btw I didnt say dismantled and reassembled. I said separated into parts that were clearly not alive then returned to life but then I dont suppose you care about the difference.

Here's someinfo on the next steps

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/556984.stm

 

[Sidhe]

Making a cell from scratch might be a bit more tricky though but then it took nigh on a billion years to get simple single celled organisms.

 

[col]

Of course it's more tricky but we have completely gene sequenced some simple bacteria - and from there its just an exercise in tedious chemistry to synthesise.

 

[Sidhe]

Of course it's more tricky but we have completely gene sequenced some simple bacteria - and from there its just an exercise in tedious chemistry to synthesise.

Aye, no one has the impetus to do it, or the means as such, unless they want to spend a few hundred years in the lab. It's an excercise in the obvious anyway as far as I see it.

 

[Bluemofia]

Also the idea that a pre-cellular (?) form ever existed is mythology. Speculated because they cant find even one to show us, anywhere, after all after in so very long a time there ought to be trillions of them everywhere we look. Otherwise, tell me who or what killed them ALL off over and over and over again.

DO your OWN homework, don't trust the words of someone else. Most are working on hearsay alone. What else can they do, there is NO scientific evidence for evolution.

You know, life is not static. Obviously the pre-cellular life forms were not as suitable to replicate themselves, that's why the aren't around, as they were out competed by other more suitable to replication life forms. And we do have some self replicating things out there, as DNA only needs 6 bases to self replicate, though slower than normal. What your argument is basically saying that "IF it does not exist now, THEN it never existed."

Ok, assuming there is none at the moment (which there are plenty), what scientific theory do you support that has evidence for? Or do you resort to God came in and created the world in a week? And why not limit yourself to Evolution? Why not go ahead and apply this to Gravity? They have about the same amount of evidence. We don't see this gravitational field pull things down towards the center of mass, thus it doesn't exist. Or go back to Intelligent Falling? Or disease as God's punishments? And lightning as God's wrath?

 

[Gogf]

Whoever told you that scientists have dismantled a cell and reassembled it, is either ignorant or a liar.

Do you know everything that goes on in every laboratory in the world? How can you be so sure of your claims?

Also the idea that a pre-cellular (?) form ever existed is mythology.

Or, perhaps it's because scientists were too wise to assume that cells were spontaneously created?

Speculated because they cant find even one to show us, anywhere, after all after in so very long a time there ought to be trillions of them everywhere we look. Otherwise, tell me who or what killed them ALL off over and over and over again.

They were out-competed by far superior cellular organisms. Perhaps they still exist in an obscure niche somewhere. Dinosaurs don't exist anymore either. Do you deny their existence?

DO your OWN homework, don't trust the words of someone else. Most are working on hearsay alone. What else can they do, there is NO scientific evidence for evolution.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[BasketCase]

Evolutionist across the board.

I can't say for certain that the Earth DID evolve without help at any point from some outside Intelligence, but it is definitely possible. In fact it's been scientifically proven to be possible--it has been proven that amazing (and even infinite!) complexity can in fact evolve out of utter simplicity, with no help from a God.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Actually, given the lack of a control group I am not sure we can truly say it is "possible" - but it is certainly reasonable, and likely enough not to worry about it.

 

[Sidhe]

Prokaryotes are archea RNA based bacteria and they were replaced by Eukaryotes (DNA bearing life) They are still around. Before this self repliating RNA would no doubt have existed, it can both form independently and synthesis proteins. They don't exist now simply because they evolved into prokaryotes. Any more myths for debunking.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

In fact, the vast majority of life on earth is prokaryotic. It's just that eukaryotes are bigger and include the life we recognize, like plants and animals.

 

[Gothmog]

For ID to be taken seriously it needs to specify the specific form of the creator such that predictions about the nature of life can be made from the hypothesis.

Currently there is no such theory. The scientific articles mentioned in the OP really have nothing to do with ID (except that they were funded by ID groups), they look like decent work though. If reproduced and understood they would be incorporated into a better understanding of evolution, they would not say anything about ID.

And just to acknowledge our new troll, I found this quite humorous. I actually laughed out loud:

According to my studies the scientists know just about every detail about a simple single cell.

This is so far from the truth I can't even describe it. Your studies must have been made in the funny pages, now try a biology textbook. In no way shape or form do we know every detail about a cell, to say that is just foolish.

P.S. bacteria rule!

 

[bhsup]

GOd created the universe, the world, and life. He did this via evolution! Evolution does not in any way exclude the possibility of a Supreme creator.