Need to prove to my mom that Evolution is real

[Norlamand]

well, he wants his mother to listen to reason. oh, dont we all...
such a fundamentalist belief doesnt belong in this century,
or even the previous one.

We'll lets grab some kerosene and matches and get the book burning underway!
She has a right to her belief in what ever rational or delusion system she chooses. Should everyone that believes that man is the sole source of global warming be shunned as well? Delusions come in many flavors......you probably have a favorite of your own.

 

[mdwh]

If proven the first life was by design then this would weaken evolution position since it could happen more than once. Thus the first bat actually came from the first design bat, modern man could also be an separate creation,etc. So I would disagree with you there no matter what definition you tried to separate the two.

If pigs could fly, it might happen more than once too.

However, the point is: not being able to explain how life started is not evidence against evolution.

 

[carlosMM]

You know, Smidell, you still owe me an answer: that is a 'kind' - the thing you now refer to as 'first design something'?

Come on, give us a definition....

oh, an Classical_Hero, too.

 

[warpus]

If proven the first life was by design then this would weaken evolution position since it could happen more than once. Thus the first bat actually came from the first design bat, modern man could also be an separate creation,etc. So I would disagree with you there no matter what definition you tried to separate the two.

Depends on what kind of level of design you're talking about here. If it was proven that everything was designed about 6,000 years ago, then yes, I'd agree that evolution would take a blow.

But if it was discovered but the very first lifeforms on this planet were designed about 3-4 billion years ago we wouldn't throw the theory of evolution out the window at all. The theory wouldn't be affected.

 

[FredLC]

Darwinists uses this argument because they have to, not because they want to. If abiogenesis was proven, they would without a doubt welcome abiogenesis with open arms using it as strong evidence for evolution.

Several problems:

1 - there is no such thing as a "Darwinist". Nobody worships Charles darwin. Stop trying to equate the recognition of a great science with the adoring of an idol or messiah. People are no more "Darwinists" than they are "Platoists", "Da Vinteists", "Kelsenists", "Eisteinists" or "Hawkenists".

2 - People use this argument because it is true. Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life, but just, with how environmental pressure causes changes in the configuration of living creatures. Not only the "origin of life" is not a part of it's process, it is in fact an axiomatic proposition that there was something living prior to the first beggining of the process.

3 - People which accept the concept of abiogenesys generally accept evolution (the contrario sensu is not a given, as many people who believes God created life do accept evolution), not because one follow the other, but because both are founded on scientific grounds, and both are "better tan the alternatives", which dodge the question (if life came from outer space, how did it came to be there?) or involves unnatural events (God did it). Besides, the explained process is reather reasonable - fill water with all elements required to life, provide plenty of energy and wait millions of years until, by chance, the right combination happens to pass.

Regards .

 

[Perfection]

No, as it has no relevence to evolution.

Sure it does. Abiogenesis and evoltution migled quite a bit in the earliest time of life.

What I think really needs to be stated is that the mechanisms needed to understand and support evolutionary theory before the earliest era of life does not require a coherant abiogenesis theory.

 

[Dionysius]

correct me if im wrong, but as i understand it
"Abiogenesis" is the forming of single celled
organisms from chemicals in the primordial seas,
evolution is how they grew and shaped afterwards.
saying they are the same is like saying;
brickmaking=architecture.

 

[Perfection]

correct me if im wrong, but as i understand it
"Abiogenesis" is the forming of single celled
organisms from chemicals in the primordial seas,
evolution is how they grew and shaped afterwards.
saying they are the same is like saying;
brickmaking=architecture.

Well, the delimitation is rather difficult because the first organisms or life-like entities where probobly quite unlike the ones we see today, and so a combination of abiogenesis and evolution is needed to understand these.

It's not like it just went

stuff -----> cells very similar to the ones we see today

 

[Dionysius]

It's not like it just went

stuff -----> cells very similar to the ones we see today

well... what was there before the cells, if not `stuff`, ie chemicals?
its either that or god made the first cells and proceded to allow evolution,
or we are all wrong about the first cells-not bloody likely.

 

[Perfection]

well... what was there before the cells, if not `stuff`, ie chemicals?
its either that or god made the first cells and proceded to allow evolution,
or we are all wrong about the first cells-not bloody likely.

Well there's a fair amount of speculation on what was before modern cells, but stuff like RNA-based cells and smaller self-replicating protobionts come to mind.

It's not as if some sort of bacterion-like cell came together spontaneously from a mix of chemicals.

 

[Dionysius]

fair enough. but we are all in the end just a pattern of atoms,
which is what makes me think... could a life emerge after a
random mixing of chemicals? or even "could we assemble an
organism out of atoms?" which
i doubt will happen any time soon.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Umpteen years in umpteen liters of water, each containing umpteen atoms and molecules, and there are probably umpteen ways to assemble something self-replicating.

(Numbers deliberately left out)

Not any time soon, no. Especially with all the established life.

 

[El_Machinae]

fair enough. but we are all in the end just a pattern of atoms,
which is what makes me think... could a life emerge after a
random mixing of chemicals? or even "could we assemble an
organism out of atoms?" which
i doubt will happen any time soon.

We've done it with viruses, but a bacterium is a whole order of magnitude more complex.

As well, we've used non-organic materials to substitute organic materials when needed (a hip still works whether it's mechanical or biological)

 

[Leifmk]

Not any time soon, no. Especially with all the established life.

Indeed. On Earth these days, any collection of the necessary "stuff" would get promptly eaten by something that's already alive.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Abiogenesis is actually easily explained in terms of the same logic as evolution.

Step 1. In the beginning there was a lot of organic (carbon-containing) material floating around. Random spontaneous synthesizing was going on in this environment.

Step 2. Eventually a structure (RNA) synthesized which was able to spontaneously self-replicate itself by assembling a copy out of other organic components (today in the lab scientists use this same technique to replicate DNA, they just tear a strand in half and each half self-replicates spontaneously, given the correct ingredients).

Step 3. As the number of these self-replicating strands grew, there was competition for the limited quantity of organic components in the environment (more kids in a playroom = competition for Legos, as an analogy).

Step 4. Eventually, one of these RNA strands mutated so that in addition to giving code for its own replication, it also gave instructions to build a "shell" around itself out of organic components. This shell allowed the RNA to engulf and store organic materials, protecting them from competitiors so it could use them itself.

Step 5. That was the first cell. The cells outcompeted the "naked strands" for "food," naturally, and soon most life on earth was cellular.

Step 6. Here's where evolution kicked in. Now each of these cells were competing to see which could best hunt down materials, store and process them most efficiently, and even engulf and eat other cells. As the RNA developed in complexity, strong competition selected for traits such as semi-permeable membranes, efficient organelles, etc... then billions of years later, the first MULTI-cellular organisms arrived on the scene...

Most of the questions in abiogenesis are related to WHERE and WHEN these steps took place. Was it a primordial "soup"? Was it in the interstices of porous clay? etc.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Now as to why life is not likely to evolve from scratch on this planet again there are 3 main reasons -

1. The earth's atmosphere has changed drastically and is no longer a spontaneous environment for most of the kinds of reactions described in steps 1 & 2.

2. Much of the earth's available carbon resources have been engulfed by the biomass, the sum of existing living organisms. Because of specialized organisms like the decomposers, most of the biomass simply cycles within itself.

3. Excluding viruses and other exceptions nearly all life on earth is now cellular, and would munch the creatures from step 3-5 for lunch.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's a great point - life selects for itself. Only the strands that were self-organising will continue to self-organise.

To the OP - does your mom think that dinosaurs lived 6000 years ago?

 

[Elrohir]

Apologies for the late response; I've had a friend from out of town staying with me for the past several days, so I haven't had much time to spend on the internet doing anything but checking my email. My responses will probably be slow for the next couple of days while he is here, but I can't help that.

Claim: The universe is less than 1 million years old.
Evidence: Physics tells us the stars are billions of years old.
Counterclaim: God created "aged" stars or stars that just look like they're old.

Ad hoc hypothesis, from wiki:....

You didn't answer either of my questions. My question was "how was my original response an "ad hoc" argument?". I can see how you would see my argument in my second post could be considered ad hoc, but not the first. Could you show me how my original post was ad hoc or incorrect in my assertion that plants need light, not necessarily the suns light to grow? All I said was that, according to the Genesis creation story, there was light before the sun was made; thus plants could survive without the sun, and saying that the story was wrong on those grounds was a simply awful argument. If you don't want to believe the Genesis story of creation, that's your business - but please, if you're going to critique it, do it intelligently, with actual arguments that make sense.

Additionally, you never responded to my other question: Namely, if my posts are, as in your words, "deserves neither respect nor rebuttal", why exactly you are attempting to rebut them? I'm genuinely interested, and I would appreciate an answer.

Claim: The earth is 6000 years old.
Evidence: all of geology.
Counterclaim: That's just Satan's trickery!

And while we're getting into logical fallacies, this is what's called a Strawman. I never said that "all of geology" (Or any of it, for that matter) was "Satan's trickery". This is a perfect example of a Strawman argument - need I quote the definition of it to point this out to you?

You wouldn't say this if you knew what you were talking about.

It must be wonderful to know how and why I say everything, and what it is I know. How did you become omniscient, again? I'm just wondering if there is an application process, or something, because knowing everything would be really cool.

She made the original, extraordinary, unsubstantiated claim. Therefore she should be the one to provide evidence.

In her view, his opinion, namely that evolution is responsible for life as we know it, is the one that is extraordinary and unsubstantiated. Why would, or should, she agree to provide evidence when she just as much as he, believes that the other's position is simply nuts?

My position hasn't changed: I want to know why exactly GoldEagle feels the "need" to "prove" to his mother that "Evolution is real". Why can't they both just go about their business as they see fit; why should close family members argue over something that truly doesn't have a serious impact on their lives? Come on: This isn't something that need come up in everyday conversation, and it doesn't matter nearly as much as everyone pretends it does - why not just let it go, and let everyone believe what they wish?

What genuinely puzzles me people, especially evolutionists, being so intractable about this issue. So many of you are so sure that you're right, that you seem to spend a whole lot of time arguing about it - if you're right, and you know it, why bother? Richard Dawkins especially comes to mind here. Methinks the evolutionists doth protest too much.

 

[croxis]

I just want to throw out that some are suspecting that a PNA came before RNA. ITs a phosphate only backbone that is self replicating. RNA is still a fairly complex molecule so it makes the transition into replication a bit more palatable. I do not remember if this has been made in lab or not.

 

[Masquerouge]

My position hasn't changed: I want to know why exactly GoldEagle feels the "need" to "prove" to his mother that "Evolution is real". Why can't they both just go about their business as they see fit; why should close family members argue over something that truly doesn't have a serious impact on their lives? Come on: This isn't something that need come up in everyday conversation, and it doesn't matter nearly as much as everyone pretends it does - why not just let it go, and let everyone believe what they wish?

If a member of my family believed in Creationism, I would consider it my duty to not let him/her err any longer. But that's because we highly value rationalism and science in my family (some of us are also religious, mind you, and very so).

What genuinely puzzles me people, especially evolutionists, being so intractable about this issue. So many of you are so sure that you're right, that you seem to spend a whole lot of time arguing about it - if you're right, and you know it, why bother? Richard Dawkins especially comes to mind here. Methinks the evolutionists doth protest too much.

Yeah right. First of all there is no such thing as "evolutionists", in the same sense that people who accept gravity are not gravitationists. Then Creationism and ID came to the front stage precisely because nobody challenged it in the first place, the general consensus being "It's not even worth it arguing against that". So these beliefs came to occupy all the media stage, and that somehow got mixed up with credibility.