Evolution & Creation (4/6/06)

[Tarrou]

xEmoChildx

Evolution, just can't be... 1st of, the Bible says that God made everything in six days. Not, "he started it, and the rest is history."

Literal interpretation of Genesis is not mandatory!

Quote:

There is a tropical fish that is a carnivore, so it must have teeth. Like all organisms that have teeth, they must have a way to clean them. (Humans brush their teeth, dogs chew on bones and such.) The fish is an Oriental Sweetlips, this fish will go to areas of coral and wait with its mouth open. After a while a Blue-Streak Wrasses will swim in the Sweetlips mouth and eat the food and plaque off its teeth. This is a form of Mutualism.

Leaving your logical blunder in equating carnivorousness with teeth (flesh-eating birds and invertebrate carnivores, for example, don't have teeth), your assertion that all teeth require cleaning in the sense that humans clean their teeth is incorrect. To take two examples: dog saliva's high pH helps prevents teeth from demineralizing, making dental decay less likely (or at least a slower process) in dogs than humans regardless of whether the teeth are cleaned or not; and sharks have absolutely no need to clean their teeth thanks to the fact that any lost tooth can be quickly replaced. And just to whip out a third example, rodents' incisors don't need to be cleaned because the organism is constantly producing new enamel (this goes for every tooth in a rabbit's head, by the way, not just the incisors; and yes, I know that rabbits aren't rodents), which actually necessitates that they constantly wear their teeth down.

The point I'm making is one that I'll be making again below, but with less specificity: the Sweetlips is not necessarily using the cleaner fish to prevent tooth decay, nor is teeth-cleaning a necessity for every toothed animal.

Quote:

Mutualism presents a huge challenge for evolution. An example of how evolution could explain this is... At some point in time the Sweeylips ancestor's did not have any teeth. After a few generations the fish started to form teeth. Now, in order for their teeth to aviod rotting and falling out, they would have to develop the instinct to seek out the Wrasse. The Sweetlips would let the little fish swim in and clean its teeth, and at the same time know not to eat the little fish, even though it has carnivorous instincts. The instict to seek out the little fish, would have to develop at the same time as his teeth were developing. That is not all... The Wrasse would have to develop the instict to swim in the Sweetlip's mouth with out fear of getting eaten. If all of these thing did not happen at the same time the ststem would not work

I'm sorry; I'm about to be rather rude to you. That is one of the worst examples of irreducible complexity that I've every heard. Michael Behe is weeping right now—weeping with shame—and he's a scientific hack.

Okay, first point: fish have had teeth for millions of years; almost all bony, jawed fish have teeth. They do just fine keeping them from rotting out without the help of cleaner fish. Second point: your understanding of the cleaner fishes' function is flawed. They remove (eat) dead skin and parasites from the 'host' fish's mouth. It is not aquatic dentistry, and it is not geared towards increasing tooth longevity. Third point: as per points one and two, it was not necessary, nor was it even possible, for the host fish to have evolved its teeth at the same time as its relationship with the cleaner fish. The teeth precede that mutualism by quite a few millions of years.

So the evolutionary scenario pre-mutualistic relationship is that we have a toothed, predatory host fish, and the proto-cleaner fish. At that time, the cleaner fish was certainly not a dedicated 'cleaner'; it relied on some other, similar source of food. What may have happened is that the proto-cleaner fish began taking hit-and-run shots at the detritus in the mouths of host fish who had recently eaten and where thus less likely to try to eat the cleaners. The hosts that tolerated the cleaning without eating its providers thus gained a fitness benefit (cleaner mouths), while those that didn't gained nothing. Over time, 'toleration' on the host's part became an instinct to actively seek out cleaners, and the proto-cleaners evolved into a specialized niche to become the full-fledged cleaners we see today.

Or, to put it as bluntly as possible: it didn't all have to happen at once, you don't understand your example half as well as you'd like to think you do, and, sorry, your argument doesn't hold water. I feel a bit guilty about being so harsh there, seeing as I was just a short while ago lamenting that people on my side of this debate are not as patient as we sometimes ought to be, but I have limits.

Quote:

When an evolutionist looks at the world they must see way too many of these "happy coincidences"...

Except that they're not coincidences at all—that's what creationists never seem to understand about evolution. Every one of these coincidences so-called stem from an eminently logical process of trial and error. There's nothing vexing or confounding about them at all.  

[scotch0069]

im just curious and would like another question answered... in biology (in the university) they stated that a molecule (i know you what it is, but for others, a chemcial composition that has no nucleus or membrane or anything. Just a compilation of elements like ethanol.) some how developed a membrane. the protective outer layer for a cell... and thats how it all started... right? if you've heard of this could you explain it a bit more cause that just sounds really fuzzy to me....  

[Tarrou]

scotch0069

im just curious and would like another question answered... in biology (in the university) they stated that a molecule (i know you what it is, but for others, a chemcial composition that has no nucleus or membrane or anything. Just a compilation of elements like ethanol.) some how developed a membrane. the protective outer layer for a cell... and thats how it all started... right? if you've heard of this could you explain it a bit more cause that just sounds really fuzzy to me....

Well, obviously the cell membrane didn't just spring forth fully formed. Life on earth probably started with non-living organic 'replicators', that is, complex molecules with the ability to create duplicates of themselves. If you're wondering how those came about, first take into consideration that we already know that you can get amino acids and some of the DNA bases to form using prebiotic chemistry (via the Urey-Miller experiment and othes). As these organic molecules are floating around in the primordial ocean or wherever they've first appeared, they're going to start combining with each other in various ways. At some point, what probably happened was that a complex, chain-like molecule arose whose component molecules had what you might call an affinity for their own kind. So as this molecule floats around, its component molecule A's are bonding with free-floating A's, and it's component molecule B's are grabbing any unattached B molecules that they happen across, and so on with the rest of its other molecules. After a while, all the component molecules have paired up, effectively creating an exact duplicate of the original complex molecule; the molecule then splits from its new twin and now there are two of these molecules going about making copies of themselves.

Once there was a successful replicator on the loose, it would have quickly begun using up all the freely available building block molecules creating new copies of itself; and since no copying process has perfect fidelity, there would have been errors giving rise to new variants of replicators. It's very likely that, via this early form of mutation, some replicators 'discovered' a means of breaking down other replicators and stealing their component molecules for use in producing more of themselves (not a complex process, mind you; just put the right molecule in the right place and you've got a 'predator' replicator, ready to break apart any other replicator that it bumps into). This development would have favored other replicators with an extraneous molecule here or there that did not react with the predators' killing mechanism. Over time, these defenses would become more comprehensive, eventually forming entire suits of molecular armor for these replicators, both predator and prey alike. And at this point, you're well on your way to a cell!  

[scotch0069]

Tarrou

scotch0069

im just curious and would like another question answered... in biology (in the university) they stated that a molecule (i know you what it is, but for others, a chemcial composition that has no nucleus or membrane or anything. Just a compilation of elements like ethanol.) some how developed a membrane. the protective outer layer for a cell... and thats how it all started... right? if you've heard of this could you explain it a bit more cause that just sounds really fuzzy to me....

Well, obviously the cell membrane didn't just spring forth fully formed. Life on earth probably started with non-living organic 'replicators', that is, complex molecules with the ability to create duplicates of themselves. If you're wondering how those came about, first take into consideration that we already know that you can get amino acids and some of the DNA bases to form using prebiotic chemistry (via the Urey-Miller experiment and othes). As these organic molecules are floating around in the primordial ocean or wherever they've first appeared, they're going to start combining with each other in various ways. At some point, what probably happened was that a complex, chain-like molecule arose whose component molecules had what you might call an affinity for their own kind. So as this molecule floats around, its component molecule A's are bonding with free-floating A's, and it's component molecule B's are grabbing any unattached B molecules that they happen across, and so on with the rest of its other molecules. After a while, all the component molecules have paired up, effectively creating an exact duplicate of the original complex molecule; the molecule then splits from its new twin and now there are two of these molecules going about making copies of themselves.

Once there was a successful replicator on the loose, it would have quickly begun using up all the freely available building block molecules creating new copies of itself; and since no copying process has perfect fidelity, there would have been errors giving rise to new variants of replicators. It's very likely that, via this early form of mutation, some replicators 'discovered' a means of breaking down other replicators and stealing their component molecules for use in producing more of themselves (not a complex process, mind you; just put the right molecule in the right place and you've got a 'predator' replicator, ready to break apart any other replicator that it bumps into). This development would have favored other replicators with an extraneous molecule here or there that did not react with the predators' killing mechanism. Over time, these defenses would become more comprehensive, eventually forming entire suits of molecular armor for these replicators, both predator and prey alike. And at this point, you're well on your way to a cell!

So (just to make sure im on the right track here).. its kinda like how a new country was found... a group of people come to this (sparsly habitated) land and grouped up with their own kind (germans with germans, africans and africans... so on) and once all the people grouped with eachother the tribes would then split to two tribes and so on till all the land was inhabitated... but with the rescoures used up by atleast one tribe. the tribes made 'war' in a sense taking the other tribes rescoures for their own tribe... and in that coming war the other tribes against the war tribe made defences against it.... am i close?  

[Tarrou]

scotch0069

So (just to make sure im on the right track here).. its kinda like how a new country was found... a group of people come to this (sparsly habitated) land and grouped up with their own kind (germans with germans, africans and africans... so on) and once all the people grouped with eachother the tribes would then split to two tribes and so on till all the land was inhabitated... but with the rescoures used up by atleast one tribe. the tribes made 'war' in a sense taking the other tribes rescoures for their own tribe... and in that coming war the other tribes against the war tribe made defences against it.... am i close?

Yeah, reasonably close. Of course, unlike people, the replicators had no agentive capacity and there was no defensive 'reaction', just replicators that did have defensive adaptations and those that did not. To tweak your war analogy a little bit, it would be as if you had several tribes living together in one area, some of which had discovered how to make copper weapons, some who had learned how to make copper armor, and some who were still using rocks and furs. When resources get scare, the copper weapon tribe(s) go to war. Subsequently, the number of rock-and-fur tribes, unable to defend themselves, drops significantly, while the copper armor tribe(s) are able to weather the assault. Those tribes who have mastered rudimentary metallurgy, by virtue of their increased survivability, prosper and multiply and continue to improve their technology, while the defenseless ones are out-competed.  

[Isaac742]

I think that the whole adam and eve thing was made up because people back in the old days had no idea where they came from and neeeded an idea. Kind of like how indians believed the moon was trapped in a box until 200 thousand years ago confused I personally believe in evolutiion to the full extent. 1- because there is evidence for it 20 there is no evidence for creatonism 3- we have already proved the earth is like 40 billion years old. Also do you know the pope believes in evolution confused  

[divineseraph]

Tarrou

scotch0069

im just curious and would like another question answered... in biology (in the university) they stated that a molecule (i know you what it is, but for others, a chemcial composition that has no nucleus or membrane or anything. Just a compilation of elements like ethanol.) some how developed a membrane. the protective outer layer for a cell... and thats how it all started... right? if you've heard of this could you explain it a bit more cause that just sounds really fuzzy to me....

Well, obviously the cell membrane didn't just spring forth fully formed. Life on earth probably started with non-living organic 'replicators', that is, complex molecules with the ability to create duplicates of themselves. If you're wondering how those came about, first take into consideration that we already know that you can get amino acids and some of the DNA bases to form using prebiotic chemistry (via the Urey-Miller experiment and othes). As these organic molecules are floating around in the primordial ocean or wherever they've first appeared, they're going to start combining with each other in various ways. At some point, what probably happened was that a complex, chain-like molecule arose whose component molecules had what you might call an affinity for their own kind. So as this molecule floats around, its component molecule A's are bonding with free-floating A's, and it's component molecule B's are grabbing any unattached B molecules that they happen across, and so on with the rest of its other molecules. After a while, all the component molecules have paired up, effectively creating an exact duplicate of the original complex molecule; the molecule then splits from its new twin and now there are two of these molecules going about making copies of themselves.

Once there was a successful replicator on the loose, it would have quickly begun using up all the freely available building block molecules creating new copies of itself; and since no copying process has perfect fidelity, there would have been errors giving rise to new variants of replicators. It's very likely that, via this early form of mutation, some replicators 'discovered' a means of breaking down other replicators and stealing their component molecules for use in producing more of themselves (not a complex process, mind you; just put the right molecule in the right place and you've got a 'predator' replicator, ready to break apart any other replicator that it bumps into). This development would have favored other replicators with an extraneous molecule here or there that did not react with the predators' killing mechanism. Over time, these defenses would become more comprehensive, eventually forming entire suits of molecular armor for these replicators, both predator and prey alike. And at this point, you're well on your way to a cell!

Seems rather intellectual of these replicatiors to actually seek out ways to reproduce. No other chemical type will go through such lengths for any other chemical reaction.  

[Tarrou]

divineseraph

Seems rather intellectual of these replicatiors to actually seek out ways to reproduce. No other chemical type will go through such lengths for any other chemical reaction.

Firstly, it was not 'sought out'; there is no agency in evolution. Secondly, the reproduction requires no great 'lengths': all you need is a molecule or group of molecules that attract and arrange like molecular components and then somehow divide themselves. Crystals, for example, are formed in manner very similar to the first half of our speculative pre-cell replicator model. For example, enough dissolved salt molecules floating around in a bowl of water will eventually start to coalesce and arrange themselves into regular geometric patterns, forming salt crystals. And division of molecules happens all the time, even if it is generally not self-initiated. All you need is a slightly more complex molecule with a mechanism for division instead of continuous growth (crystals will continue to grow as long as there is available material to build with) and you've got a basic self-replicating molecule. Maybe the first ones were split apart by some external chemical trigger rather than of their own volition. Regardless, it's hardly far-fetched. Also, computer models suggest that some interstellar dust may behave in ways that mimic the behavior of organic compounds.

Yes, this account of the origins of life is speculative; however, it is not without some known analogues, even if they are only partial analogues. Try to avoid making definitive pronouncements on topics in which you are not fully, or even partially, versed.  

[divineseraph]

Tarrou

divineseraph

Seems rather intellectual of these replicatiors to actually seek out ways to reproduce. No other chemical type will go through such lengths for any other chemical reaction.

Firstly, it was not 'sought out'; there is no agency in evolution. Secondly, the reproduction requires no great 'lengths': all you need is a molecule or group of molecules that attract and arrange like molecular components and then somehow divide themselves. Crystals, for example, are formed in manner very similar to the first half of our speculative pre-cell replicator model. For example, enough dissolved salt molecules floating around in a bowl of water will eventually start to coalesce and arrange themselves into regular geometric patterns, forming salt crystals. And division of molecules happens all the time, even if it is generally not self-initiated. All you need is a slightly more complex molecule with a mechanism for division instead of continuous growth (crystals will continue to grow as long as there is available material to build with) and you've got a basic self-replicating molecule. Maybe the first ones were split apart by some external chemical trigger rather than of their own volition. Regardless, it's hardly far-fetched. Also, computer models suggest that some interstellar dust may behave in ways that mimic the behavior of organic compounds.

Yes, this account of the origins of life is speculative; however, it is not without some known analogues, even if they are only partial analogues. Try to avoid making definitive pronouncements on topics in which you are not fully, or even partially, versed.

Yet they will not replicate themselves, nor search out means to survive and replicate.  

[Tarrou]

divineseraph

Yet they will not replicate themselves, nor search out means to survive and replicate.

What have I said about agency? They do not seek anything; they are not trying to survive. The 'means' of survival in the era of pre-life organic replicators probably involved nothing so much as floating around and blundering into free-floating bits of organic material that it could use to build a copy of itself. A replicator is as simple as a molecule that has the ability to attract and arrange surplus of its constituent parts into an duplicate of itself (similar to how a crystal forms), and which then is capable of separating itself from the replicate, thus creating two versions of itself. The division could be self-initiated or, in the very early stages, could have been caused by some external energy source or chemical reaction. Self-initiated division may have taken a long time to arise; it's quite possible that in the primordial organic stew, there were organic 'crystals' that never managed to master the art of division. Once a replicator exists, it will continue to replicate because that it was it does as a matter of course. As it and its copies duplicated themselves, there would have been copying errors, or additions, and new replicators would have been born.

That crystals do not replicate is irrelevant: I brought them up because they prove that there is nothing unique about the acquisition and arrangement of molecular components. The cleaving of one molecule from another is so commonplace that it does not need an illustrating example. The combination of those two phenomenon is unique, yes, but that does not prove anything other than that it arose under unique circumstances.

What, by the way, are you getting at? Are you trying to make an argument for the improbability of naturalistic abiogenesis? If so, you're going to have to try harder. Pointing out that organic molecules behave differently from inorganic ones is unimpressive; pointing out that a phenomenon is unique is not the same as pointing out that is impossible. If you've got a point to make, stop screwing around and make it.  

[divineseraph]

Tarrou

divineseraph

Yet they will not replicate themselves, nor search out means to survive and replicate.

What have I said about agency? They do not seek anything; they are not trying to survive. The 'means' of survival in the era of pre-life organic replicators probably involved nothing so much as floating around and blundering into free-floating bits of organic material that it could use to build a copy of itself. A replicator is as simple as a molecule that has the ability to attract and arrange surplus of its constituent parts into an duplicate of itself (similar to how a crystal forms), and which then is capable of separating itself from the replicate, thus creating two versions of itself. The division could be self-initiated or, in the very early stages, could have been caused by some external energy source or chemical reaction. Self-initiated division may have taken a long time to arise; it's quite possible that in the primordial organic stew, there were organic 'crystals' that never managed to master the art of division. Once a replicator exists, it will continue to replicate because that it was it does as a matter of course. As it and its copies duplicated themselves, there would have been copying errors, or additions, and new replicators would have been born.

That crystals do not replicate is irrelevant: I brought them up because they prove that there is nothing unique about the acquisition and arrangement of molecular components. The cleaving of one molecule from another is so commonplace that it does not need an illustrating example. The combination of those two phenomenon is unique, yes, but that does not prove anything other than that it arose under unique circumstances.

What, by the way, are you getting at? Are you trying to make an argument for the improbability of naturalistic abiogenesis? If so, you're going to have to try harder. Pointing out that organic molecules behave differently from inorganic ones is unimpressive; pointing out that a phenomenon is unique is not the same as pointing out that is impossible. If you've got a point to make, stop screwing around and make it.

No, it's just that life is different from crystaline compounds. Something about it programs it to strive to exist- to develop conciousness toward this goal, develop means to NOT not recreate. I was merely commenting on the strangeness of this one type of reaction, which is so unlike any other.  

[Tarrou]

divineseraph

No, it's just that life is different from crystaline compounds. Something about it programs it to strive to exist- to develop conciousness toward this goal, develop means to NOT not recreate. I was merely commenting on the strangeness of this one type of reaction, which is so unlike any other.

Prior to the advent of the brain, organisms (bacteria, protozoa, plants, un-brained animals) didn't strive to do anything: they behaved exactly as their genes programed them to. It's only after the brain evolved that there were organisms that were capable of 'striving' to survive (i.e. by making choices from within a broadly programed field of behaviors). Everything prior to that was a complex but agentless machine built to effect the survival of its genes. And to this day, many, many, species survive without any sort of consciousness.

Once life exists, it will perpetuate itself, knowingly or not. Replicators become cells become complex organisms, and throughout that progression the primary focus of any living organism was, is, and will always be to propagate its genes. The basic mechanisms of this process are protein production and genetic copying; everything else is merely consequent.  

[cwizard]

This is a topic that could be debated till the cows come home, so I'll throw in my two cents. Both are right, God created the heavens and earth, the Bible is not specific in how long it took. "A day is a thousand years and a thousand years is but a day in the house of the Lord." Naturally evolution takes a very, very long time. Secondly, evolution is the basic principle that an organism changes over time to fit its environment. This needs to occur when there is a dramatic environmental change. since God knows all, He could have made such changes, even if not directly. Third, how everything fit and works so perfectly, like DNA, demands that there must be a higher power at work. if you wish to know more about this look up "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel, i don't know all the finer points. Finally, evolution is not human evolution, God made us as we are. Case in point, there are still monkeys around, and they don't seemed to have become humans. Also you can talk of cells and the brain, but look at what we do, what other organism has even come a fraction of what humans have. Some would say they are smarter for this. However, everything were are now had to have originated from some divine being. For what other answer is there?  

[brad175]

People are still talking about this, huh? We could discuss the many holes all across the theories of evolution and just how incompatible the Bible and evolution are, but I think I'll leave it at this.
2 words:
Irreducible Complexity.
That really should be the end of it.  

[Aquiella]

I can poke so many holes in the Gap Theory, that you could use it as a seive!!

To my understanding, the Gap Theory is a combination of the "billions of year" idea and the beginning of Genesis that describes the earth's creation. The Gap Theory states that the bible is really describing the creation, but left out the extra time.

Gap Theory: The 5th day came the animals, and the 6th day came people. But the bible left out that there were hundreds of millions of years between these two occurences.


Am I the only one who read the first chapter of Genesis? Or do you lot see the same problem with that that I do? *giggle*

I see the Gap Theory as a smart idea somebody came up with to try and get the bible to prove Evolution.(or whichever theory it is that says man came millions of years after animals. I don't keep track of all that junk. XD)

The biggest problem with that theory is this: if there were thousands and millions of years between each of the one-day events described in the bible, then the planet wouldn't be alive today!

According to the bible, plants and birds were created on the third day.

No disputes? Good.

It also says that the Sun and Moon were created on the fourth day.

...and there is where the problem lies!!!

That means that those plants were waiting a thousand+ years for the sun to come up!! XD

I find that idea to be rediculous!!

...please don't tell me I'm the only one?!?! blaugh rofl rofl


Anyone care to explain away that one? *biggrin*