Natural Selection Cannot Account for the Complex Structures in Living Things

[bascule]

I use the same evidence science uses. I use the same findings from science.

 

I asked what was the first bit of life? How did it become life? And how do you know?

 

We don't know, because the evidence isn't there to answer these questions.

 

In the mean time, you're proposing an explanation: God did it!

 

The evidence does not support this explanation, sorry.

[Moontanman]

dunsapy I would personally like to see your evidence that god did it.

[dunsapy]

We don't know, because the evidence isn't there to answer these questions.

 

In the mean time, you're proposing an explanation: God did it!

 

The evidence does not support this explanation, sorry.

OK I can accept that science doesn't know how life started. So to be real science you have have your options open. You can't exclude creation.

But if we go on from there to evolution, are you assuming that the first life was a single cell? If this is so , what kind of cell, plant or animal,or what? Did this cell have DNA in it?

[ydoaPs]

Which god did it?

[bascule]

But if we go on from there to evolution, are you assuming that the first life was a single cell? If this is so , what kind of cell, plant or animal,or what? Did this cell have DNA in it?

 

These might prove a good starting point:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Other_models

 

One model I find particularly interesting is the idea of autocatalysis: certain molecules are "self-catalyzing", that is to say they are catalysts for the production of themselves. Experiments have also demonstrated that autocatalysts can produce variadic versions of themselves, which provides a mechanism for heredity and a rudimentary form of natural selection. See:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis#Abiogenesis_hypothesis

[Moontanman]

OK I can accept that science doesn't know how life started. So to be real science you have have your options open. You can't exclude creation.

 

We can exclude anything we have no evidence of, abiogenisis has evidence just not absolute evidence. Creation by God has no evidence what so ever, none, why should we consider it?

 

But if we go on from there to evolution, are you assuming that the first life was a single cell? If this is so , what kind of cell, plant or animal,or what? Did this cell have DNA in it?

 

The fact that you asked this question proves you do not even know the difference between different life forms how can you expect us to even try to explain anything to you? Animal? Plant?

 

Totally meaningless questions at the stage of the first DNA life. The first cell with DNA would have been so much more simple than any cells currently alive we still might not recognize it as life, much less the living chemicals that came before it and merged to form it.

 

I suggest you read something other than creation science and make sure it has been done in the last couple of decades and then maybe you can frame the question in an intelligent manner.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Which god did it?

 

I think it was the Goddess of the Moon, I plan to attend a worship service to her tomorrow evening as she rises over the ocean, it's the Red Moon. I even have a poem to recite. It's going to be wonderful!

[dunsapy]

These might prove a good starting point:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Other_models

 

One model I find particularly interesting is the idea of autocatalysis: certain molecules are "self-catalyzing", that is to say they are catalysts for the production of themselves. Experiments have also demonstrated that autocatalysts can produce variadic versions of themselves, which provides a mechanism for heredity and a rudimentary form of natural selection. See:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalysis#Abiogenesis_hypothesis

OK I read some of this.

This is a small quote from the Autocatalysis model

A single chemical reaction is said to have undergone autocatalysis, or be autocatalytic, if the reaction product is itself the catalyst for that reaction.

 

A set of chemical reactions can be said to be "collectively autocatalytic" if a number of those reactions produce, as reaction products, catalysts for enough of the other reactions that the entire set of chemical reactions is self sustaining given an input of energy and food molecules (see autocatalytic set).

The first thing I noticed "..... if a number of those reactions produce,....."

The question is what if they don't produce? What happens then?

 

Here is another quote from this article.

Abiogenesis hypothesis

 

In 1995 Stuart Kauffman proposed that life initially arose as autocatalytic chemical networks.[1]

 

British ethologist Richard Dawkins wrote about autocatalysis as a potential explanation for abiogenesis in his 2004 book The Ancestor's Tale. He cites experiments performed by Julius Rebek and his colleagues at the Scripps Research Institute in California in which they combined amino adenosine and pentafluorophenyl ester with the autocatalyst amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE). One system from the experiment contained variants of AATE which catalysed the synthesis of themselves. This experiment demonstrated the possibility that autocatalysts could exhibit competition within a population of entities with heredity, which could be interpreted as a rudimentary form of natural selection.

The first thing he says it is a "potential explanation for abiogenesis" What if this 'potential explanation' is incorrect, what happens then?

 

"This experiment demonstrated the possibility that autocatalysts could exhibit competition within a population of entities with heredity," This possibility, did really happen or are they saying it is only a possibility?

 

The final result is, there is still no life, and experiments by the scientists, show intelligence, was involved to set up the experiments and mix certain chemicals together. How do you know a creator did not do the same thing.

Besides this is on the I already quoted dictionary, that said biogenesis is discredited.

This is only one of many ideas, so nothing is for sure.

But I said that we should maybe go on to evolution because, science does not know how life started.

 

So the question is, what was there for evolution to take place, was it a single cell, what type, plant or animals or what? Did it have DNA?

[bascule]

dunsapy,

 

The scientific explanation of the origin of life is: we don't know.

 

Unlike creationists, science doesn't purport to have a definitive explanation when the evidence isn't there to support it.

 

There are only hypotheses: proposed explanations which don't contradict the evidence, but do not specifically have evidence to support them.

[dunsapy]

dunsapy,

 

The scientific explanation of the origin of life is: we don't know.

 

Unlike creationists, science doesn't purport to have a definitive explanation when the evidence isn't there to support it.

 

There are only hypotheses: proposed explanations which don't contradict the evidence, but do not specifically have evidence to support them.

Yes I realize this.

But once life is formed ( in sciences view) , where did evolution start? There must somewhere , to start for evolution to happen. You guys have said the start to life is different than evolution. So where did evolution start? ( what did it start from?)

[Moontanman]

dunsapy, at that stage animal and plant are meaningless ideas.

[dunsapy]

dunsapy, at that stage animal and plant are meaningless ideas.

Yes OK , but where does evolution start? I understand about not knowing how life started, but where does evolution start?

[Moontanman]

It depends a lot on where you think life started, if it started with auto catalysts then that where it started

[dunsapy]

It depends a lot on where you think life started, if it started with auto catalysts then that where it started

But if science says evolution is a fact, where does science say it started? If science doesn't know, where does science think it started at? Or if this is not known where does science start their explanation of evolution?

[bascule]

Yes I realize this.

But once life is formed ( in sciences view) , where did evolution start? There must somewhere , to start for evolution to happen. You guys have said the start to life is different than evolution. So where did evolution start? ( what did it start from?)

 

To reiterate, the scientific explanation of the origin of life is: we don't know.

 

Unlike creationists, science doesn't purport to have a definitive explanation when the evidence isn't there to support it.

 

Continuing to ask the question isn't going to change this fact.

[dunsapy]

To reiterate, the scientific explanation of the origin of life is: we don't know.

 

Unlike creationists, science doesn't purport to have a definitive explanation when the evidence isn't there to support it.

 

Continuing to ask the question isn't going to change this fact.

I am not asking about the start to life. I am asking after some life is already started ,how does evolution work from then on?

[Moontanman]

bascule is right dunsapy, it's all just specualtion what came before but it is not with out some science. It just can't be nailed down completly yet

[BhavinB]

I am not asking about the start to life. I am asking after some life is already started ,how does evolution work from then on?

 

I know what you're asking dunsapy. But you're incorrect again...it does not matter how evolution started to show that it exists.

[Mr Skeptic]

OK I can accept that science doesn't know how life started. So to be real science you have have your options open. You can't exclude creation.

 

We can't include creation because it is not a hypothesis. Not only isn't there any evidence of it, there can't be any evidence of it.

[Edtharan]

I always thought the computer I am using and the programing , were done with intelligence. Even my web browser, was written code. Does that mean your web broswer is myth?

 

The fact that some said here that there are at least 6 possible ways that life could have started, tells me science does not really know anything about this. I mean in a real way.

 

Lets leave creation out of this.

Lets just talk about the science.

On the start to life, what proof does science have that life can start on it's own? I mean real life, not just parts , not just chemicals, I mean life.

Ok. Could yuo stop with the straw men here. It is getting utterly ridiculous.

 

At that point, I was not trying to prove that web browsers were or were not created by intelligence. I was not even trying to disprove intelligent design.

 

Please read what I write and not make up your own versions of it.

 

I was actually trying to prove that Algorithms have a basis in mathematics, and this bases links all algorithms. Thus, if you can mathematically prove that a certain algorithm works, then using that same type of maths, you can prove that other algorithms work (or not).

 

That was what I was trying to establish there.

 

I then whent on to show that Evolution is an algorithm and has been mathematiclaly prove to work. There is no way you can argue against the FACT that the algorithm of evolution can not occur unless you can prove that 1 + 1 does not = 2.

 

It is a mathematically proven fact that the algorithm of evolution works. This is completely indisputable.

 

This only leaves the claim that living organisms can exhibit the algorithm of evolution. This is your only avenue of argument against evolution in organisms.

 

Now, the real problem for you in this is that DNA has been shown to be able to operate as a Universal Turning Machine. Yes, not just a Specific one, but a Universal Turning Machine. They have even built "Biological" Computers that use DNA to perform the role of your CPU ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_computing ).

 

What this means is that DNA is capable of running the Evolution algorithm as any Universal Turing Machine is capable of simulating any Spceific Turning Machine. This is a mathematical FACT.

 

In other word. I have just shown you that Evolution is a mathematical fact and that DNA and living organisms can perform the necessary functions to implement the Algorithm of Evolution (of course I have skipped over the mathematical details, but these do exist and if you take half an hour or so to look them up it is not too hard to understand them - most of modern information technology works because of this maths so it is probably important for you to understand them anyway).

 

So unless you can now prove that 1 + 1 does not = 2, then you have to accept that biological evolution can occur.

 

All I was doing in that section is to prove that Evolution is an algorithm, just like ant computer program (whether intelligently designed or not) and that this Algorithm has been mathematically prove to work.

 

So you can no longer claim that Evolution does not exist (this is just like trying to say that 1 + 1 does not = 2). It does and has been mathematically prove to do so.

 

So give up trying to disprove it. It exists. Accept it.

 

Yes your right. Abiogenesis has been discredited anyway.

I do know the difference.

Where does evolution start then?

One form of abiogenisis, that of creation form nothing. Oh but wait, this is what creationists are claiming. So they again have disproved themselves.

 

The creation of living matter from non living matter goes on all the time actually. Plants take non living nutrients form the ground and turn it into more of themselves.

 

See, there was an old proposition that living matter had some "animate essence" (called Elan Vital) that was not made of matter. Or that the matter that was in living organisms was some how fundamentally different from non living matter.

 

Chemistry has long since disproved this Elan Vital proposition. SO unless you are syaing all of chemistry is wrong, you have to accept that non living matter can be turned into living matter.

 

But if this can occur in living organisms, and there is nothing in these living organisms that is different from non living things, other than the arrangement of this matter, then it is not all that big a jump to accept (and this has been proven to occur) that without there being a living organism to do so (just through ordinary chemical processes - which are the same as those in living organisms).

 

So all a plant does is to take chemicals from its environment, and then through energy supplied by the sun, it arranges those chemicals so that they can be used to take more chemicals from the environment and with energy from the sun arrange them so that they can be used to take more chemicals from the environment...

 

This is, by definition: an Auto-catalytic process.

 

So this seems to be the requirement for life: That it arranges chemicals in its environment in an auto-catalytic process.

 

Did you watch those videos I linked to? The responses that you ahve been giving since my last post seem to indicate that you haven't. If you watched those videos, then you will see that through natural processes that existed on the pre-biotic Earth (and still exist today on Earth) can form, without the need for a lab or any interference from an intelligent designer, to form structures that enter into auto-catalytic processes.

 

I know that you haven't watched those videos because you stated that no scientist has been able to prove such an event can occur. But you use a source from 1995 that they said it was theoretical. Well it is now 14 years later and the experiments have been done, the natural environments needed to reproduce these lab results have been show to have existed (and still exist) and the process has been observed to occur in total.

 

If you once again state that no one has shown it to be possible for simple chemical reactions in the right environment to form structures that could lead to cells as we know them and even to produce DNA and RNA as we know them, then you can be called a liar because you have the links to the evidence already.

 

This means you can accept my word for it (and there is no reason you should), or you can follow the links and learn about i for yourself. Either way, if to continue to post that it is impossible for chemical reactions to react to produce structures that will closely resemble the basics of a cell and that these structures can not exhibit the processes of the algorithm of evolution, then you are either delusional, or are guilty of fraud.

 

If you don't want confusion , call it something else so people know which theory you are talking about.

 

 

It is impossible , without creation. (With out intelligence to do it.) But the building blocks of life are here. This is just like making bread. Because someone gets all the ingredients and mixes them, and then bakes it. This doesn't show that it could happen on it's own. This only shows that a baker can make bread. So unless science just finds life happening, without their interference, they can't prove it.

 

The other question is, why do you need the start to life and evolution to be separate. Shouldn't all of this all be part of the same theory, essentially the same process?

Actually, you seem to have a problem that scientific theories, if shown to be wrong are then examined and re worked to make them fit better. You seem to think that a person can have just a single thought that completely captures the processes that go on without any error in it.

 

Sorry, nothing in the world works like that. The bible claims it works like that. Science has never claimed to work like that, so why are you under the impression that it does (and so have a problem when it doesn't operate like that)?

 

See, this is the problem with Strawmen arguments (and why I keep telling you to stop using them). A strawman argument makes stuff up and then shows that the made up stuff doesn't work.

 

So, when scientists realised (through experimentation) that the proposition: that life spontaneously appears from stuff like rotting meat does not occur, it is exactly the correct thing to do to reject that proposition and look at the evidence and work out what is occuring.

 

You say on one hand that we should accept the proposition that there is an intelligent designer because you claim that you ahve evidence that Evolution is wrong. But, on the other hand, when another proposition has been rejected because there was evidence against it, you seem to think this was the wrong thing to do.

 

So, should we reject a proposition if there is evidence against it, or should we stick to it regardless of the evidence against it? Could you let us know in your response to this post please.

 

You would still have to prove, that life could happen on it's own. That it wasn't created. That doesn't change the science.

This also shows the thinking of science that is not correct. Because there is a huge universe they say there has to be other life out there. But this is an assumption, that life started on it's own, and that it probably started elsewhere. But science has not figured it out here yet. So that wouldn't change the question about us.

Something interesting about this is that science at one point was thinking that life came from somewhere else. And landed on the earth. But if you think about this , if life now started on Mars, could the Martians, say life started on it's own, or would they worship the Mars lander? But even there life comes from life.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Just use the evidence, that's all I do.

It has been shown that even without external input, life can and does form on its own. Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation that fits the evidence is most likely to be true.

 

As it is possible for life to form without any external input, this means that any proposition that there was and external (intelligent designer) adds extra things to the explanation (that would be the designer).

 

So unless there is evidence for said designer, or evidence that states chemistry does not work, then we all have to accept that life does not need a designer to start.

 

To accept a designer without evidence of that designer is to accept a delusion. frankly, I think that reality trumps imagination when it comes to working out what is real or not.

 

But if science says evolution is a fact, where does science say it started? If science doesn't know, where does science think it started at? Or if this is not known where does science start their explanation of evolution?

Well watch those videos I linked to and you will find out. This process has been SCIENTIFICALLY accepted as being true.

 

In other words: It can happen exactly as it stated it happens.

 

And, what happens in life appears from chemistry (and a little bit of thermodynamics).

 

the environments needed for the process are known to have existed at the time life started on Earth. The chemicals needed have been shown to have existed at the time life started on Earth.

 

So all the components of the process existed (and still do) for the process have been proved to exist at the right time. So why can you not accept that the process did occur?

 

It would have taken intervention to stop this process from occuring, and then intervention to make the process start. So all an intelligent designer would ahve to ahve done is not do anything and it would ahve occurred naturally anyway.

 

The evidence is there, the experiments have been done, and the mathematics prove that is exists.

 

So unless you are going to ignore the evidence, and ignore the mathematics and go live a delusion, then you have to accept that life does not need a creator to get started, and that evolution does occur.

 

The ONLY way to argue against this is to prove that chemistry does not work and that mathematics does not work.

 

Good luck with that...

[Sisyphus]

I am not asking about the start to life. I am asking after some life is already started ,how does evolution work from then on?

 

If you have a self-replicating process with minor variations that affect the probability of successful replication, then evolution becomes a logical necessity. The specific mechanics of how this process first began is basically the same question as how life began, as the definition of life isn't really separable from this process. Any living thing pretty much has to be part of evolution.

[dunsapy]

I know what you're asking dunsapy. But you're incorrect again...it does not matter how evolution started to show that it exists.

Is this the same for creation?

 

I then whent on to show that Evolution is an algorithm and has been mathematiclaly prove to work. There is no way you can argue against the FACT that the algorithm of evolution can not occur unless you can prove that 1 + 1 does not = 2.

Just as science with it's intelligence can use and understand math and algorithms so can a creator. I would think also that science could come up with a algorithm for bread. But that doesn't prove that bread happened on it's own.

 

This only leaves the claim that living organisms can exhibit the algorithm of evolution. This is your only avenue of argument against evolution in organisms.So you can no longer claim that Evolution does not exist (this is just like trying to say that 1 + 1 does not = 2). It does and has been mathematically prove to do so.

 

So give up trying to disprove it. It exists. Accept it.

Claims are not science. Science can replicate many things that happen in the natural world. The real question is can the natural world replicate what science does in the lab? It only exist, in sciences mind. This is the whole problem with this theory.

 

I know that you haven't watched those videos because you stated that no scientist has been able to prove such an event can occur. But you use a source from 1995 that they said it was theoretical. Well it is now 14 years later and the experiments have been done, the natural environments needed to reproduce these lab results have been show to have existed (and still exist) and the process has been observed to occur in total.

I did watch those video's, ( I have seen it before)

It is the same problem, science is doing it in a lab.

Is that proving, that is what happened?

 

Also how do you know these these precursors to life you find were not created?

Can anyone just off the street perform these experiments, or do you need special equipment and knowledge?

 

And if this is the case, science does know what the first bit of life was, so what was it, did it have DNA with the instructions, and how did it know it has to survive and and also divide?

 

Was this just one bit of life that happened or were there millions of these bits, and why do we not see these happening all over now with totally new types of life and evolution, with weird looking things?

 

Do you consider evolution to be part of the start to life or not?

 

 

We can't include creation because it is not a hypothesis. Not only isn't there any evidence of it, there can't be any evidence of it.

There is evidence all around you, it is in the design of life. It is also why man is so different than the rest of life.

 

I know what you're asking dunsapy. But you're incorrect again...it does not matter how evolution started to show that it exists.

 

OK, then ,.... where do you want to start evolution at? At what point?

[Mr Skeptic]

There is evidence all around you, it is in the design of life.

 

Nope, there cannot be evidence of a god, not unless you place limits on what that god can do. Why? To show that something exists, you need to show something falsifiable, something that would prove that it doesn't exist... and then show that never happens.

 

It is also why man is so different than the rest of life.

 

We're not. At the cellular level we are almost indistinguishable. We have a rather unique level of mental capability, but how is that more different that something which has, say, a unique pigment?

 

OK, then ,.... where do you want to start evolution at? At what point?

 

Whenever you have replication with variation, and a selection force to remove variation based on certain rules. There is no need for them to be alive. For example, we use evolutionary algorithms to design some things.

[dunsapy]

If you have a self-replicating process with minor variations that affect the probability of successful replication, then evolution becomes a logical necessity. The specific mechanics of how this process first began is basically the same question as how life began, as the definition of life isn't really separable from this process. Any living thing pretty much has to be part of evolution.

The process if reproducing, is not an easy thing, to have happen. Just for a cell to divide is an amazing thing. So where does the cell get this information to do this?

Some here have said that evolution is not part of the start to life. This tells me that science does not know or have any consensuses of what the start to life is.

That is why I asked for, some to give a start to where evolution it part of the process.

[iNow]

Some here have said that evolution is not part of the start to life. This tells me that science does not know or have any consensuses of what the start to life is.

 

Nonsense.

We have roughly six different VERY workable solutions to this question.

The ONLY uncertainty is in which one is most likely.

[dunsapy]

Nonsense.

We have roughly six different VERY workable solutions to this question.

The ONLY uncertainty is in which one is most likely.

You actually have 7 solutions. And the one you missed, was creation.

 

Science here really is basing their trust, or faith, that science will come up with the correct answer and it is what they have been saying. But they really do not have any proof that it could happen without creation.