For scientists who accept evolution

hammegk said:
Er, one 'creation event' would do it too. ;)

It is a fact life exists, so zero is not the answer under any scenario.
Click to expand...
Agreed, to both, actually.
I'd say you're missing something. At some number -- who knows what -- dozens, hundreds, thousands, ??? the common ancestor hypothesis falls apart. No doubt The Theory would get re-written but my there would be a vast amount of data to re-think the implications of. Perhaps a new and original thought might occur to someone during that endeavor.
Click to expand...
It only falls apart if the newcomer abiogenesis event is sufficiently "fit" to defeat the current champ. One (or more, now that I see that cool link) event gets lucky, and the rest have to (metaphorically speaking) take on the heavyweight champ while they themselves are still in diapers. There could be hundreds or thousands of events that do not overcome that particular challenge.

More to the point, if such a thing happened, there could be (depending on when and where it happened) very good genetic evidence to demonstrate that it did. If, for instance, a creation event made one species (let's call them "humans" for the sake of argument) separately from other species (by whatever definition of species you wish to use), then it is overwhelmingly unlikely that this event would have used the exact same DNA, including "junk" DNA, as the purported relatives which natural selection would claim existed without a creation event. Do you see evidence of this sort? Are there gaps in the genetic data large enough to convince you that "creation events" happened? If so, where?
 
Hammy did not say it negates evolution, merely that one "creation event" or one "abiogenesis event" would be sufficient to account for a beginning to life.
 
Mercutio said:
Hammy did not say it negates evolution, merely that one "creation event" or one "abiogenesis event" would be sufficient to account for a beginning to life.
Click to expand...

Oh, my bad then. I misread his post, I fear. In that case, I agree.
 
Taffer said:
No, I'm not.
Click to expand...
Good. Therefore, my claim was not baseless; at least one event on earth has resulted in life, athough the cause -- if any-- remains unknown. And, there could have been any number of such 'events'.


eta: Oops. Previously answered.
 
hammegk said:
Good. Therefore, my claim was not baseless; at least one event on earth has resulted in life, athough the cause -- if any-- remains unknown. And, there could have been any number of such 'events'.
Click to expand...
I recall one experiment where they simulated the Earth's primordial atmosphere and ooze over a year, and it resulted in generating more amino acids than they had hoped. I think someone mentioned it earlier in the thread. There is some dispute about whether or not the starting model was accurate, but at least it's been shown to be possible.

True, their could have been multiple such events, but it seems doubtful any extras were significant here on Earth, since all the big life here on Earth shows common descent. I imagine there might be some bacteria or other simple life forms with a different origin wandering around on Earth.
 
Mercutio said:
It only falls apart if the newcomer abiogenesis event is sufficiently "fit" to defeat the current champ. One (or more, now that I see that cool link) event gets lucky, and the rest have to (metaphorically speaking) take on the heavyweight champ while they themselves are still in diapers. There could be hundreds or thousands of events that do not overcome that particular challenge.
Click to expand...
Should a multitude of such events have occured -- presumably within some specific time-span that allowed/encouraged those events -- given a bit of geographic spacing, I'd disagree. And the extent of that time-span is completely unknown.

More to the point, if such a thing happened, there could be (depending on when and where it happened) very good genetic evidence to demonstrate that it did. If, for instance, a creation event made one species (let's call them "humans" for the sake of argument) separately from other species (by whatever definition of species you wish to use), then it is overwhelmingly unlikely that this event would have used the exact same DNA, including "junk" DNA, as the purported relatives which natural selection would claim existed without a creation event. Do you see evidence of this sort? Are there gaps in the genetic data large enough to convince you that "creation events" happened? If so, where?
Click to expand...
Why yes, yes, I do see such gaps. Darwin himself noted this problem, and even though evolutionists argue 'til they're blue in the face, damn few instances to the contrary -- if any --are available in the fossil record.

As to junk dna, Ed might know what is coded therein; we don't, and label it junk beacuse it doesn't code for things we think we understand. Parallel development fits the facts in a reasonable fashion, although getting to pick that option when you need it and ignoring when you may not makes the just-so-story easier to re-write.

BronzeDog said:
all the big life here on Earth shows common descent
Click to expand...
At least we can agree they are based on rna-dna. :)
 
hammegk said:
Good. Therefore, my claim was not baseless; at least one event on earth has resulted in life, athough the cause -- if any-- remains unknown. And, there could have been any number of such 'events'.


eta: Oops. Previously answered.
Click to expand...

Yes, as I already said, I misread your post. My apologies, mate. :)
 
More to the point, if such a thing happened, there could be (depending on when and where it happened) very good genetic evidence to demonstrate that it did. If, for instance, a creation event made one species (let's call them "humans" for the sake of argument) separately from other species (by whatever definition of species you wish to use), then it is overwhelmingly unlikely that this event would have used the exact same DNA, including "junk" DNA, as the purported relatives which natural selection would claim existed without a creation event. Do you see evidence of this sort? Are there gaps in the genetic data large enough to convince you that "creation events" happened? If so, where?
Click to expand...

hammegk said:
Why yes, yes, I do see such gaps. Darwin himself noted this problem, and even though evolutionists argue 'til they're blue in the face, damn few instances to the contrary -- if any --are available in the fossil record.
Click to expand...
1) Specifically, which gaps do you see in the genetic data?
2) Darwin was, arguably, not aware of any "genetic data". How is his view on the subject relevant?
3) Here and here. Don´t say we didn´t tell you. And if you don´t agree, please be specific as to why.
 
hammegk said:
Why yes, yes, I do see such gaps. Darwin himself noted this problem, and even though evolutionists argue 'til they're blue in the face, damn few instances to the contrary -- if any --are available in the fossil record.
Click to expand...

Oh, except that there are instances. What did you expect to see? Every species lined up in a nice row for us to find? :rolleyes:

As to junk dna, Ed might know what is coded therein; we don't, and label it junk beacuse it doesn't code for things we think we understand. Parallel development fits the facts in a reasonable fashion, although getting to pick that option when you need it and ignoring when you may not makes the just-so-story easier to re-write.
Click to expand...

This is true to a point, but there is some DNA that is almost certainly 'junk', in that it doesn't code for any amino acids or any proteins. It does have other uses, however, such as gene regulation or horizontal gene insertion sites.

At least we can agree they are based on rna-dna. :)
Click to expand...

No, they show common descent, as in exactly the same DNA sequences (or, more often, the same mDNA).
 
Pastor Bentonit said:
1) Specifically, which gaps do you see in the genetic data?
2) Darwin was, arguably, not aware of any "genetic data". How is his view on the subject relevant?
Click to expand...
Yup. My error. Those gaps in the fossil record have no genetic evidence, nor did Darwin know of genetic evidence.


Taffer said:
No, they show common descent, as in exactly the same DNA sequences (or, more often, the same mDNA).
Click to expand...
Er, internal to a specific species, that's so. So what?

On the cross species -- oh! common ancestor! -- data, at my layman's level, the cladistic hypothesis that x & y had a common ancestor xx million years ago implies gaps in the genetic record too.
 
hammegk said:
Er, internal to a specific species, that's so. So what?

On the cross species -- oh! common ancestor! -- data, at my layman's level, the cladistic hypothesis that x & y had a common ancestor xx million years ago implies gaps in the genetic record too.
Click to expand...

What? If every organism contains the same small DNA sequence, how does that imply a common ancestor? Or do you want the ancestor to knock on your front door so you can look at it?
 
I think I've just worked out how to demonstrate the Theory of Evolution to hammegk to his satisfaction.

The requirements are -

1. A state of the art genetics lab
2. A time machine

...simple, really
 
Dragon said:
I think I've just worked out how to demonstrate the Theory of Evolution to hammegk to his satisfaction.

The requirements are -

1. A state of the art genetics lab
2. A time machine

...simple, really
Click to expand...
I suspect he'd need those materials if we were debating criminal court cases, too.
 
Hey all (especially hammegk), it´s easy...

Science goes on.

Everybody is welcome...to join. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. :D
 
Last edited:
hammegk said:
Yes indeed. I just wish some genius would hurry up with zero point energy, although even cold fusion would probably be ok. :D
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, they don't have any evidence that they work, yet. But at least they seem to have falsifiable hypotheses.
 
Pastor Bentonit said:
Case closed!? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...
Not quite. If someone does manage to come up with such a generator that actually works, I'll be convinced. But for now, don't expect me to give 'em any investment money.

At least they're better off than IDers: They haven't even presented their charges, much less their case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom