Evolution!! Did we come from monkeys?

[Jay]

Quote by: MerlinsByte By merlin Maybe that older more advanced intelligent life such as angles (ET?) are the first created life. Science cannot produce the simplest life. It should be easy, after all they know the processes the ingredients and the method. Where is even the most simple lab produced life? ... Merlin tolerantly; replies…you did not answer my question. Allow me to rephrase it. In your opinion how did the very first one cell creature or replicating life appear? mb

merlin, you may have heard of the scientist Stanley Miller and the term "chemical evolution". If you didn't you should do some quick research. Miller proved in an experiment he executed in 1953 that the conditions of the ancient earth atmosphere made organic connections possible which means, the first protozoas (beings consisting of only one cell) came into existence. (The experiment involved water vapour, CH4, NH3, H2 and an electrode which could be found in the form of lightnings in the ancient atmosphere).

This experiment proves that the basic organic elements of lifeforms could evolve in the atmosphere which then could develope into the most simple lifeforms from which all other life descended.

[Jay]

Quote by: Asian-American Actually, I see no reason why evolution will remain an accepted theory for ever: societies are always warring and changing: one scientist, Matt Nuenke, was stating how currently the Western World is becoming less rational and more superstitious. ...

I'm amazed with which mind-boggling amount of self-conception you accept the fact that all educational and rational ideals that have their roots in the Europe of the 16/17th century will go down the gutter soon. Shouldn't we do something about this? Shouldn't we criticze that it's simply wrong to exclude the Darwinistic evolution from the curriculum of american schools?

Besides, the Darwinistic evolution has always been under heavy criticism, however this theory was developed and improved by various generations of scientists, simply because it is the most reasonable and also most proven theory concerning the developement of life.

@ Merlin, how do you think did the broad variety of life forms developed if not according to the theory of random mutation and natural selection (Darwin)?

[MerlinsByte]

Maybe that older more advanced intelligent life such as angles (ET?) are the first created life. Science cannot produce the simplest life. It should be easy, after all they know the processes the ingredients and the method. Where is even the most simple lab produced life? ... Merlin tolerantly; replies…you did not answer my question. Allow me to rephrase it. In your opinion how did the very first one cell creature or replicating life appear? mb

merlin, you may have heard of the scientist Stanley Miller and the term "chemical evolution". If you didn't you should do some quick research. Miller proved in an experiment he executed in 1953 that the conditions of the ancient earth atmosphere made organic connections possible which means, the first protozoas (beings consisting of only one cell) came into existence. (The experiment involved water vapour, CH4, NH3, H2 and an electrode which could be found in the form of lightnings

Merllin ....I have covered this miller thing before in previous posts. the site below isn't the best one but It expresses what I feel about this flawed exp. Thanks for your comments Jay.

http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/amino.shtml

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Jay This experiment proves that the basic organic elements of lifeforms could evolve in the atmosphere which then could develope into the most simple lifeforms from which all other life descended.

It's a massive leap you're making. I'm afraid that your data doesn't support it. Now I'm not saying life can't form naturally but Miller's experiment can only establish that with a degree of certainty, the primordial earth possessed all the necessary components to form self replicating units. You're saying it proves the steps after where life actually forms, that conclusion is incorrect.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Merllin ....I have covered this miller thing before in previous posts. the site below isn't the best one but It expresses what I feel about this flawed exp. Thanks for your comments Jay. http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/amino.shtml

Your source is complete farce, allow me to demonstrate;

Unless evolutionists are able to demonstrate how life could have at least theoretically emerged by purely naturalistic means, the theory of evolution belongs to the realm of mythological and metaphysical speculation. Currently there is only one non-biological source known for synthesizing amino acids - a reductive gas mixture exposed to energy

First of all, may I remind you that the evolution theory is also known as the origin of species and not the origin of life. Therefore, even if we can't prove how the first life formed, it does not have the slightest effect on the validity of the evolution theory.

It's funny, the rest of the article repeats the same mistake over and over again.

Without the reductive atmospheric model for the synthesis of amino acids, the theory of evolution has no current scientific means to get off the ground

Your source insists on attacking from the wrong places, falsifying abiogenesis will not falsify evolution. The logic link is simply not there.
Regardless of that, you may have forgotten, we've found amino acids in space. Now, being that early earth was basically a huge chemistry lab, what are the chances that amino acids wouldn't form?
No wonder you're so misinformed MB, your sources are out of date and flawed to begin with.

[Matt W]

This is ridiculous:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4521157.stm

Why teach religious theories in a science class????

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Matt W This is ridiculous: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4521157.stm Why teach religious theories in a science class????

It reminds me of the Monkey trial: -

http://www.msu.edu/course/mc/112/1920s/Scopes/

[MerlinsByte]

By Chris the C....It reminds me of the Monkey trial: -

And — this just in — following the recent Kansas decision, an Oklahoma state schoolbook committee has decided to put a disclaimer in textbooks stating that evolution is a controversial theory. Well, I guess few would argue with that. Dayammm its getting good.



mb......

[Matt W]

That's fair enough, but teaching creationism as science? That's not a good thing.

[MerlinsByte]

Quote by: MerlinsByte
Merllin ....I have covered this miller thing before in previous posts. the site below isn't the best one but It expresses what I feel about this flawed exp. Thanks for your comments Jay.

http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/amino.shtml

by pooeypants...Your source is complete farce, allow me to demonstrate; Did I say that this was a good source? No

mb writes...Oh pooey! Wait. Its been know for a very long time that something like Glycine (this was the only one found I think) existed in meteorites, or could in deep space. And you are building my case, as I said many times that I believe that life was created elsewhere in the universe first.

Millers Exp did not produce DNA or life. In addition Oxygen was present on the early earth in various forms which reduces even Glycine quickly.

thanks for your comments, at least you were semi civil, if not informative, or properly informed.

mb

ps I did say that wasnt a very good site...here is one a bit better or a byte better

; } >

http://www.religion-online.org/showc...le=2237&C=2070

[MerlinsByte]

That's fair enough, but teaching creationism as science? That's not a good thing.

__________________

Mb....Teaching creation with purely religious aspects would be wrong . I think that intelligent design could be taught without mentioning that awful G word. I am not against scientific methodology, I am against express exclusivity of “scientific” doctrine.
Kids have fine brains teach both or more theories and let them choose as they grow.

mb

btw,, thanks for the input Matt W

[Lycan]

Mb....Teaching creation with purely religious aspects would be wrong . I think that intelligent design could be taught without mentioning that awful G word. I am not against scientific methodology, I am against express exclusivity of “scientific” doctrine.

But creation is purely religious.... There are no tangible facts to back up ID, only assumptions of faith and religious rhetoric. I could see teaching the numerous creation stories in a comparative religion class or in a private religous school but not in a public school science class.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: MerlinsByte Quote by: MerlinsByte Merllin ....I have covered this miller thing before in previous posts. the site below isn't the best one but It expresses what I feel about this flawed exp. Thanks for your comments Jay. http://www.sjchurchofchrist.org/amino.shtml mb writes...Oh pooey! Wait. Its been know for a very long time that something like Glycine (this was the only one found I think) existed in meteorites, or could in deep space. And you are building my case, as I said many times that I believe that life was created elsewhere in the universe first.

Erm, so now you're ascribing to the panspermia hypothesis? That life on earth was seeded by Aliens? It's plausible but I'm not adventurous enough myself to advocate that.

Quote by: MerlinsByte Millers Exp did not produce DNA or life. In addition Oxygen was present on the early earth in various forms which reduces even Glycine quickly. thanks for your comments, at least you were semi civil, if not informative, or properly informed. mb ps I did say that wasnt a very good site...here is one a bit better or a byte better ; } > http://www.religion-online.org/showc...le=2237&C=2070

Oxygen? present? One of the most reactive elements we have? Who are you kidding? The Earth was anaerobic until photosynthetic cyanobacteria had evolved. Most of the free oxygen in primodial earth would've reacted with the metals etc and be trapped say as haemitate for example. If amino acids were being continously produced for millions of years, there would not be constant oxidation because there is no free oxygen around!

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: MerlinsByte __________________ Mb....Teaching creation with purely religious aspects would be wrong . I think that intelligent design could be taught without mentioning that awful G word. I am not against scientific methodology, I am against express exclusivity of “scientific” doctrine. Kids have fine brains teach both or more theories and let them choose as they grow. mb btw,, thanks for the input Matt W

That's not possible. When we strip away the false veil of ID, we see creationism. At the end of the day, they both give the explanations as "god did it". ID or not, it is a god entity, playing with words won't make scientifically viable.

[tinybear]

OK, here's my question: If we came from monkeys (and I say "if"), where did monkeys come from?

[Logjam]

Quote by: lahokamal i ask for a brief answer; can you build a building without ground floor? you cannot. how can you build a theory without explaining the origin of first living organism? Add the lack of transitional forms, invalid evolution mechanisms to this. http://www.evolutiondeceit.com

I've read several theories about how life started. Most had to do with a lightening strike.

Homo Sapian Sapians are not the offspring of a monkey, but Monkeys and us, are related. We had a distant, distant uncle. Our genetic make up is about 97% the same...maybe it's 96%. It's speculated that if a man and a monkey were to mate that an offspring would be created. But it's have to be a pretty good looking monkey.

You can rail against evolution if you want to; but evolution is the way that living things adjust to meet the changes in our environment. It's just so, and it's a waste of your time to argue the fact.

Moreover, God created us all and everything. Evolution is not unGodly. It's just the way that He does things. Being religious and a believer in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

[OberonDOtherseid]

Quote by: tinybear OK, here's my question: If we came from monkeys (and I say "if"), where did monkeys come from?

First we came from dad.....then we came from mom.

[lahokamal]

The roots of evolutionist thought go back as far as antiquity as a dogmatic belief attempting to deny the fact of creation. Most of the pagan philosophers in ancient Greece defended the idea of evolution. When we take a look at the history of philosophy we see that the idea of evolution constitutes the backbone of many pagan philosophies.
However, it is not this ancient pagan philosophy, but faith in God which has played a stimulating role in the birth and development of modern science. Most of the people who pioneered modern science believed in the existence of God; and while studying science, they sought to discover the universe God has created and to perceive His laws and the details in His creation. Astronomers such as Copernicus, Keppler, and Galileo; the father of paleontology, Cuvier; the pioneer of botany and zoology, Linnaeus; and Isaac Newton, who is referred to as the "greatest scientist who ever lived", all studied science believing not only in the existence of God but also that the whole universe came into being as a result of His creation. Albert Einstein, considered to be the greatest genius of our age, was another devout scientist who believed in God and stated thus; "I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame."
One of the founders of modern physics, German physician Max Planck said: "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."
The theory of evolution is the outcome of the materialist philosophy that surfaced with the reawakening of ancient materialistic philosophies and became widespread in the 19th century. As we have indicated before, materialism seeks to explain nature through purely material factors. Since it denies creation right from the start, it asserts that every thing, whether animate or inanimate, has appeared without an act of creation but rather as a result of a coincidence that then acquired a condition of order. The human mind however is so structured as to comprehend the existence of an organising will wherever it sees order. Materialistic philosophy, which is contrary to this very basic characteristic of the human mind, produced "the theory of evolution" in the middle of the 19th century.

[G. Adams]

Erm, okay....

The Greeks did not attack creationism. If we're talking about Christian creationism, well you'll note that Greek power was dead by the time Christianity arrived. Additionally, I can't think of any instances where Greece came into great contact with Jewish culture, nor have I read anywhere of any drive by the Greeks to disprove Jewish myths.

Secondly, and much more importantly, the Greeks were creationists. You don't want me to give the whole tirade of how the Greeks thought the world was created, but believe me it involves a whole heap of Gods, and nothing to do with evolution.

Greeks were not a materialist society in the sense you make them to be, they were no more materialist than the nations of medieval Christendom. And if we look to their philosophers, you will see a streak of anti-materialism. Socrates was noted for not giving a flying fuck about his appearence, and frequently mentioned for not washing. Plato's ideas of The Forms, and how the world we see before us is nothing but shadows, all nicely demonstrated in the Cave allegory, all demonstrate dualism, not rampant materialism. Aristotle waxed lyrically about the need not to search for material wealth but eudaimonia, the good life, which could be pursued through living a virtuous life.

If you knew anything about european history, you would also note that the great Christian philosophers and scientists were profoundly influenced by Plato and Aristotle. From Aquinas to Roger Bacon (a monk and scientist), they all took as their inspiration the knowledge passed down to them from Greece.

You might also know that the disgust shown by Christianity towards masturbation and contraception are based upon Greek science. the Greeks believed every man had his children within his testes, and those children had their children within them, and so on and so on. So when a guy masturbates or uses contraception, he is in effect killing his possible offspring. It is also for this reason that when Adam was cursed by God we were all cursed, because we were all their when God punished him.

lahokamal, your comments appear to be some cheap shot at linking pagans to evolution, neither of which you appear to know much about.

[gallo]

I took the time to read this entire thread. I noticed several errors of science and knowledge.

First, lahokamal asserts that there is a lack of transitional forms. There is not. He/she then asserts that there are some sort of invalid "evolution mechanisms." Exactly what are those invalid mechanisms? Secondly, the theory of evolution explains observed changes in living and formerly living organisms. There is no requirement that the theory of evolution address the origin of life in the first place. It is a worthy question and one that has been taken up by other scientists (not biologists who are concerned with evolution). Mostly those other scientists are biochemists and the application of their science is known as abiogenesis.

MerlinsByte then raises a straw man and doesn't do a particularly good job of knocking it down. Merlin expects that evolutionary biology should be able to name every ancestor of man back to a virus. A hint: all known viruses are paracites that infect higher organisms. How could a virus be the ancestor without any higher organisms? Just wondering out loud here.

Merlin then quotes some unknown "anti-creationist" web site as follows:

"...it is true that scientists have not been able to bring forth any complete and reproductive living cells simply..."

The question that springs immediately to mind is, "So what?" Does Merlin think that we are in possession of all knowledge? Does he think that there is nothing more to learn? Science is working on that and they have made progress. Self replicating molecules have formed spontaneously in laboratory experiments. Given certain conditions, these self replicating molecules become enclosed in lipid membranes. On two occasions viruses have been constructed in the laboratory. Both viruses had been sequenced and that knowledge was used to assemble the bases in the correct order. One was a bacteriophage that was tested and found to be indistinguishable from the original virus. The other was the polio virus. That was never tested but by all other means it is indistinguishable from the original.

So if Merlin claims that a virus is alive (as it seems he did), then life has been created in a test tube.

And then Jay, who aptly dubs himself "melted cheese," claims that Miller (he completely ignores Urey) proved that protozoans could have evolved from a primitive atmosphere. But they didn't. They demonstrated that amino acids can from spontaneously under assumed primeval conditions. One problem is that research indicates that the Miller-Urey atmosphere wasn't realistic. On the other hand, amino acids seem to form spontaneously whenever the right ingredients are present.

And Jay, exactly what is "self-conception." Is it a concept of self? I have that. In fact, I think that my dog and cat do too. At least both know respond to their name. I think that they also have a concept of "other." My dog will actually go and find the cat if I ask her, "Where's Mable?"

But Merlin also depends on a site that argues against claims that were never made. Jay makes bogus claims and Merlin agrees with a site that raises several straw men about the Miller-Urey experiments. Miller-Urey claimed that amino acids would form spontaneously under the conditions of their experiments. They didn't claim to have made life and they didn't claim that their experiment was the way it happened. They demonstrated that a necessary precondition of life was possible. None of that supports or detracts from evolutionary theory which deals with living organisms.

Kudos to Pooeypants for pointing out Jay's huge leap of faith.

And Merlin celebrates a disclaimer sticker in biology books in Oklahoma about "controversial theories." Why don't creationists want to put such stickers in chemistry books, or physics books? The theories of gravity are much more controversial than evolutionary theory. Could it be that the stickers are motivated by religious dogma and scientific illiteracy?

Merlin states, "Teaching creation with purely religious aspects would be wrong . I think that intelligent design could be taught without mentioning that awful G word."

Then it is clear that creationists want to pretend that their religion is scientific because they attribute creation to some unnamed magical sky man, not their God by any means. Thanks, Merlin. You have made it clear that the purpose of the ID ruse is to introduce your religion into public schools as science. Please offer a comprehensive statement of the theory of intelligent design. Please present a method by which we may distinguish between your "designer" and the appearance of design. Dembske couldn't do it. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Merlin states, "In addition Oxygen was present on the early earth in various forms..."

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. What ignorance!

And then lahokamal actually returned with more irrelevant assertions. Let's see. Newton denied the trinity. For him, Jesus was an honorable man. Einstein was a Jew who claimed that he believed in Spinoza's God - that is the universe itself. The theory of evolution is neither philosophy nor materialistic. Evolutionary theory is naturalistic, as is all science.

Wouldn't it be nice if a creationist could actually present some evidence to support their view rather than erect straw men of evolution?