George Washington Carver Rolls in His Grave
by Hal_10000
Heavens to betsy! Peanut butter is not primordial soup!
Via Sully, we find this piece of creationist crap:
Words fails me. So—if I can’t recreate the conditions of primordial Earth—a soup of organic molecules, violent lightning storms and massive volcanic eruptions—in a can of peanut butter, that apparently over-rides the hundreds of facts supporting the abiogenesis scenario. I see.
As I write these words, I am about to give a lecture on some of most ancient stars in the Universe - a scientific hypothesis supports by hundreds of independent facts. But if I release hydrogen gas in my living room, it doesn’t form a star! So everything I’m about to say is a devil-lutionary fantasy.
Creationists. I swear to God.
Update from Lee: Attention creationists on this blog. (You know who you are.) See this video? THIS is how fucking stupid you look to the rest of us.
Comments
Holy shit! He opened that jar of peanut butter and I was TOTALLY expecting to see little organisms popping out! My whole world view has been shaken to it’s core. I’m going to need some serious soul searching to get through this. Maybe there’s a camp that can help.
^
|
|
|
R
u
n
n
i
n
g
a
w
a
y
s
c
r
e
a
m
i
n
g
I once bought a jar of creamy… and when I opened it… there was crunchy peanut butter inside. I thank the little baby Jesus for this miracle. There is no other valid explanation for the phenomonom.
Couldn’t this also disprove the theory of God? It’s not like God is putting pixies in peanut butter jars to show he/she/it still cares.
But if I release hydrogen gas in my living room, it doesn’t form a star! So everything I’m about to say is an devil-lutionary fantasy.
Hal, I think you are doing your experiment wrong. Fill your living room with Hydrogen and then light a match. I guarantee you’ll be seeing stars, and maybe even Elvis.
Words fails me.
Yeah. Me too.
Part of the problem is the ambiguity of human language. When the peanut butter guy says, “Evolution doesn’t happen”, did he mean in general, or within the confines of a container of food? Context might suggest the latter, but it’s more fun to assume, nay demand, the former, in order to have more anti-Creationism fodder.
But if I release hydrogen gas in my living room, it doesn’t form a star!
The typical inappropriate analogy…
When it comes to star formation, we do indeed have evidence of how the process works. We understand the mechanics, and observe stars in various stages of life throughout the Cosmos, from nebulae to protostars, on to main sequence stars, red giants, novas, white dwarfs, etc.
We have no such evidence for the creation of life. None. Zip. Zilch. Your “hundreds of facts supporting such the abiogenesis scenario” rhetoric is amusing, but I’d seriously like to see some of those alleged “facts”. When life forms appear in the fossil record, they appear fully formed. There is no record of non-living matter slowly becoming living organisms. Only the discrete lack of life followed discontinuously with the sudden appearance of life.
Finally, given that all that exists are matter and energy (i.e., there absolutely is no God), then yes, we have to assume that matter and energy alone, without any kind of guidance, can produce life. And yes, that assumption does amount to a fairy tale.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t basic gases an important part of creation and evolution. Doesn’t Nitrogen provide life to the basic bacteria that sustain plant life? And Oxygen provides basic needs for animals? And isn’t it the job of a peanut butter jar to keep those gases out, or at least in such a small quantity as to prevent life from forming?
Again, since a peanut butter jar is so hostile to life, if you opened one up and saw a pixie, that would prove the existance of God. So since that hasn’t happened and we have over 1 billion experiments every year, using creationist scientific processes, I deduce that God doesn’t exist. There is no higher power. Jesus was a carpenter before his career as a prophet.
I know that one can produce nice, large organic molecules in a chamber filled with nitrogen, methane, water, and a bit of static electricity in a few hours. However, we haven’t been able to let it sit and perculate for 750,000,000 years, which is about as long as it took on the earth to produce the first self-replicating nucleic acid. Add to that the ‘vat’ had not a cubic foot of volume, but, given that this mixing only took part in the top foot or so of ocean, about five thousand trillion cubic feet. Even if the chances were one in a trillion (a ten-billionth of one percent), the odds were good that it would have happened within the first billion years of our planet’s history, given the high percentage of these elements and compounds on the planet at that time.
And, something didn’t craw out of the ocean and open a Taco Bell stand. It took another billion years to get anything to produce oxygen, and yet another billion to get anything to use oxygen to metabolize foodstuffs. So, after three billion years, conditions were still relatively similar to that vat of brown, stinky sludge that we can brew up in a lazy afternoon. It’s only in the last 25% of the history of the planet that anything’s been able to move on it’s own, see, smell, and touch.
I am a good Catholic, but natural selection and evolution exist.
The ‘tard also compares the evolutionary timeline to billions of people opening jars of peanut butter for one hundred years. Sorry, but billions of people have not been opening jars of peanut butter for one hundred years. These arguments are born of feable minds.
And, what with rug on the first ‘tard?
And, what with [the] rug on the first ‘tard?
It’s not something that just grew naturally, but was created by an intelligent designer,
Yes, an insecure and extremely tacky intelligent designer.
If you are referring to the Miller-Urey experiment, in which simple amino acids were produced, then no that doesn’t prove abiogenesis. In addition, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller–Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life.
Then I can go into how the atmoshpere they used in that experiment isn’t even thought to be correct anymore…
Don’t get me wrong though, I think the whole peanut butter jar thing was a pretty stupid argument.
...if you opened one up and saw a pixie, that would prove the existance of God. So since that hasn’t happened and we have over 1 billion experiments every year, using creationist scientific processes, I deduce that God doesn’t exist.
So, the lack of evidence in support of X allows the deduction of Not X? That’s quite a leap in logic, there.
Funny, the Darwinian evolutionists keep claiming that ID is nothing but negative arguments against the Darwinian model, not a positive argument for a designer. So who’s right, you or the Darwinians?
Can’t be both, obviously.
And, for the record, what exactly is a “pixie”? Is that a scientific term?
I know that one can produce nice, large organic molecules in a chamber filled with nitrogen, methane, water, and a bit of static electricity in a few hours. However, we haven’t been able to let it sit and perculate for 750,000,000 years, which is about as long as it took on the earth to produce the first self-replicating nucleic acid.
Yes, the infamous Urey-Miller experiment. Of course, all it really produced was amino acids, not “large” organic molecules. And it takes a leap of faith to assume that 750,000,000 years and random chance can produce a living organism from such building blocks. Tantamount to having random chance create a 747 from a pool of molten iron, some carbon, molten plastic, rubber, etc.
And before you guys start harping on “natural selection”, let me reassure you that I am aware that NS is the alleged driving force behind the Darwinian model, not random chance. Explain what natural selection actually selects during that 750,000,000 year period. Can’t be living organisms, can it?
As I write these words, I am about to give a lecture on some of most ancient stars in the Universe - a scientific hypothesis supports by hundreds of independent facts.
It sounds like you have a degree of expertise in the field of cosmology. I’m wondering why you do not participate in the numerous cosmology posts here, especially this one since you posted it. I for one would be interested in your comments.
No no no NO, its more like randon chance developing a hammer or knife, but at the msot cruddest level....Yes, the infamous Urey-Miller experiment. Of course, all it really produced was amino acids, not “large” organic molecules. And it takes a leap of faith to assume that 750,000,000 years and random chance can produce a living organism from such building blocks. Tantamount to having random chance create a 747 from a pool of molten iron, some carbon, molten plastic, rubber, etc.
and then you need eaons and eaons of development to refine it before you get your 747........
so Hal, you excited about teh NASA DAWN misson to teh blet or what?… should be intreging… i jsut want to know if we really can mine those suckers or not…
No no no NO, its more like randon chance developing a hammer or knife, but at the msot cruddest level....
and then you need eaons and eaons of development to refine it before you get your 747........
I did err by misreading what John Cross wrote, so I stand partially corrected here. Cross claimed that the 750,000,000 years would produce the “first self-replicating nucleic acid”, which I presume isn’t a life form. Trouble is, where is the evidence that these “self-replicating nucleic acid” entites once roamed the Earth? No, so far, this “RNA World” conjecture is pure speculation (read, “Fairy Tale").
Where you err is in comparing a “self-replicating nucleic acid” to a crude hammer or knife. No, the “self-replicating nucleic acid” is much more complex. For one thing, it replicates. A “hammer” could be as simple as a medium-sized rock. A “knife” could be a shard of a rock or crystal. Not comparable at all, really.
That being said, it still takes a lot of faith to think we can obtain a 747 by throwing Time at the problem.
is about the crudes example of a life.“self-replicating nucleic acid”
the base from which all life woudl spring, or at lest have its foundation in.
that crude hammer and crude knife, would be the base of a civilization or a much larger machine…
That being said, it still takes a lot of faith to think we can obtain a 747 by throwing Time at the problem.
oh we got a LOT of time......
but the 747 is a fallacy…
we are not talking about machine..
the process of reproduction is like some massive R&D;lab, genetic material goes in and a “product” comes out.
natural selection, decides for the most part what designs survive, for the environments they are in.
As this process continues and more varied material is introduced the products become more and more complex.
This is the process of evolution, a mix of natural selection, forced development, blind chance, luck, and eon and eons of R&D;....
I will accept that all of this is educated speculation, as I wasn’t there. And I will also agree to that.
Let’s not forget about cometary impacts that can and have left amino acids and other multi-carbon molecules on the surface of the planet. Urey-Miller showed that said molecules can be formed given the correct environment. And for more than a half- billion years, the conditions (humid, nitrogen, methane, lightning) were there. The oxygen was locked in the water and crustal rocks for another billion years until photosynthesis occurred.
Fossil record covers a lot of that. Geologic record covers some more.
A lack of comprehesion of large time scales and of the varied levels of what could be defined as life does not demonstrate anything more than one’s ignorance.
is about the crudes example of a life.
the base from which all life woudl spring, or at lest have its foundation in.
that crude hammer and crude knife, would be the base of a civilization or a much larger machine…
Okay, I think I see where you’re coming from. It’s an analogy, rather than a direct comparison. However, let’s observe that even the crudest knife or hammer is a products of deliberate design, whereas I’m supposed to believe that the self-replicating nucleic acid, which is orders of magnitude more complex than a knife or hammer, simply sprang up without the aid of design. And, John Cross’ latest post notwithstanding, there is still no evidence that these self-replicating nucleic acid entites actually existed. Self-replicating nucleic acid are a long ways removed from the “amino acids and other multi-carbon molecules” he does mention.
Besides, RNA doesn’t replicate. It duplcates what’s encoded in DNA, and it’s the DNA that actually replicates, with RNA’s help. The RNA World scenario doesn’t solve this quandry, given that the RNA World precedes DNA.
This is the process of evolution, a mix of natural selection, forced development, blind chance, luck, and eon and eons of R&D;
Of course you realize that the term “R&D;” rather implies intelligent agency, while the Darwinian model forbids it.
When it comes to star formation, we do indeed have evidence of how the process works. We understand the mechanics, and observe stars in various stages of life throughout the Cosmos, from nebulae to protostars, on to main sequence stars, red giants, novas, white dwarfs, etc.
Ok, so this means life from lifelessness didn’t happen because we can’t directly observe it. What would you think if we found life on, say, Europa? Test of faith?
We have no such evidence for the creation of life. None. Zip. Zilch.
We’ll just assume this is a correct statement, and I’ll let you respond to yourself:
So, the lack of evidence in support of X allows the deduction of Not X? That’s quite a leap in logic, there.
A lack of comprehesion....
This shop-worn non-argument gets tiresome. Like I said, you simply throw Time at the problem and Voila! Life!
Yet there is no experimental evidence to support the assertion that lifeless matter can become living matter via undirected, blind processes. It’s all speculation (which Cross admits) and faith.
Like I said, you simply throw… [God] at the problem and Voila! Life!
Yet there is no experimental evidence to support the assertion that lifeless matter can become living matter via [directed, intelligent] processes.
I made some changes, highlighted in bold…
We’ll just assume this is a correct statement, and I’ll let you respond to yourself:
Clever, but the context of each statement makes it an apples-to-oranges comparison, and here’s why:
When I said, “We have no such evidence for the creation of life. None. Zip. Zilch.” it was not for the purpose of deducing that “God Did It”. No, it was simply to illustrate that Hal-1000’s analogy was invalid. Nothing more.
Since I wasn’t making an opposite deduction, your “clever” rejoinder is likewise irrelevant.
I try to avoid using arguments against the Darwinian model as being argument for theism. I generally submit such arguments to illustrate that holding to the Darwinian view is also a matter of faith. Nothing more.
I made some changes, highlighted in bold…
Yes, I see that. Do you have a point? Is tu quoque the best you’ve got?
I don’t actually go around saying that “God Did It”, for the record, so your “cleverness” is irrelevant. My purpose is to counter the nonsensical notion that “science” and “intelligence” absolutely must lead one to an atheistic view.
What would you think if we found life on, say, Europa?
We’ll cross that bridge if we ever encounter it. Until then, it’s just another meaningless hypothetical, useful only for mental masturbation.
Ok, but have you ever heard of the Reimann Hypothesis? If you have, I’ll mention it here for those that might not. I’m also not a math teacher, nor even a mathematician, so I’ll keep the description light. Reimann was a mathematician that proposed a method for a prime counting function, that is a function that when you plugged in a number, it would tell you how many prime numbers were less than that number. Basically there was one part of the method that hadn’t been proven. This hypothesis is still open to this day, and no one has proved or disproved it. Basically, if you proved the Reimann Hypothesis, you’ve proven a whole shit ton of theorems and hypotheses in many different branches of mathematics.
My point is simply that a hypothesis isn’t faith like a spiritual faith. You can believe that the Reimann Hypothesis is true, and your math will work out just fine. If someone disproves it (by finding a non-trivial zero not on the “critical line"), then no harm done, back to the drawing board. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a god. This is what is different about the two connotations of the word “faith” you’re using.
I said “basically” twice. Dammit.
useful only for mental masturbation.
Ya, but it feels so good.
The point that the video is trying to make is that evolution teaches that life formed billions of years ago in very harsh planetary conditions, but yet today with conditions far more favorable to life we have yet to see any indications that non-living matter and turn into life.
There are a world of problems with the life from non-life scenario, mainly things like the atmosphere. All living organisms require the atmosphere in it’s current state to exist. Problem is, the atmosphere needs current organisms to exist. If there is no atmosphere the Sun’s deadly rays would kill every living thing on this planet, but yet for evolution to be true the planet would have not had an atmosphere capable of protecting life when life started. So we are expected to believe that some fragile, simple organism (that has no reproductive, digestive or locomotion methods) can survive in environment that we couldn’t.
As much as evolutionists would like to fight it, there is no explanation for how life could not only start independently, but then some how evolve (even though it has no reproductive capabilities).
My point is simply that a hypothesis isn’t faith like a spiritual faith.
Of course not, and I don’t recall claiming it was. Faith in a hypothesis is faith in Man, in Man’s intellect and reason. Spiritual faith is a seeking of something beyond Man. What often motivates spiritual faith is the realization that Man and Man’s faculties are flawed, so one seeks something that might transcend those flaws.
Spritual faith can be motivated by Man’s limitations. Atheistic faith contends that those limitations can be overcome. So who’s right? The historical record isn’t very promising for the atheistic view, a point I keep hammering on.
There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a god.
It depends on what you mean by “prove”—one cannot prove the existence of God to another, agreed, especially if that other has a vested interest in there being no God.
To Hal_10000…
I apologize for getting your screen name wrong several times. I left off 1 zero—it should be ten thousand, not one thousand.
Again, my apologies.
I also defend the point of the video, and the example of a peanut butter jar. Again, the point the video was making was that the conditions in a peanut butter jar are far more hospitable to life than the conditions supposedly available to the primordial soup.
All life on Earth needs water to live, and there is plenty of water in a jar of peanut butter. All life needs fuel to exist, and there is plenty of potential full sources in PB. Life needs moderate temperatures, amply provided by our planet, and our PB. I can go on and on, but the point stands. If we expect life to form in such horrible conditions, why wouldn’t we expect it to form in far more favorable ones?
Just curious: are there any theories about “new life” occurring (or not occurring) in today’s environmental conditions? Not mutations of existing ones, but actual brand new ones? Like I said above, even if they appeared in the PB jar, they’d be too small to see anyway, though . . .
Of course you realize that the term “R&D;” rather implies intelligent agency, while the Darwinian model forbids it.
not necessarily....
“products” are made/ Birthed..
“Field tested"/live…
“pass or Fail"/produce viable offspring.
no need for a intelligence in that.
All life on Earth needs water to live
Dirk, aren’t you falling into the trap of assuming that primordial life required the same ingredients modern life?
If evolution is true, then the harsh conditions of early Earth might have been been just fine for those “fragile, simple organisms” and perhaps even *necessary*? Perhaps as the earth changed, those organisms that did not mutate died, while those that did adapted to a life of water and oxygen, instead of carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
As someone who sends his days working to fight cancer, I’ve actually become quite a huge proponent of the whole “cancer=evolution” argument. Suppose for a moment that 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times, a cancerous mutation is fatal, but that other time it creates a mutation that is resistant to the carcinogen. Voila. Evolution. Now, consider that we are “fighting” cancer. I’ve thought about this many nights in bed. What if we are dooming mankind as a whole for the comfort and “wellness” of individuals?
Way off subject, eh?
If we expect life to form in such horrible conditions, why wouldn’t we expect it to form in far more favorable ones?
Because there’s no source of energy. It’s all about thermodynamics.
As someone who sends his days working to fight cancer, I’ve actually become quite a huge proponent of the whole “cancer=evolution” argument. Suppose for a moment that 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times, a cancerous mutation is fatal, but that other time it creates a mutation that is resistant to the carcinogen. Voila. Evolution. Now, consider that we are “fighting” cancer. I’ve thought about this many nights in bed. What if we are dooming mankind as a whole for the comfort and “wellness” of individuals?
How could it have an evolutionary benefit if it kills the host anyway, and if the cancer was not going to be killing the host you wouldn’t be treating it would you?
I was under the impression that most cancers are due to errors in the DNA that control cell division and cell suicide and that many carcinogens can cause these, but do different carciogens really cause different types of cancer?
If we expect life to form in such horrible conditions, why wouldn’t we expect it to form in far more favorable ones?
How do we know it dosen’t. You would need to do trillions of observations and maybe in one of them it does.
Furthermore, any new life that was generated would fail dismally because exisiting life is already evolved to suit current conditions so it would have no chance at competing.
not necessarily....
“products” are made/ Birthed..
“Field tested"/live…
“pass or Fail"/produce viable offspring.
no need for a intelligence in that.
You’re ignoring the “R” in “R&D;”. Your unwillingness to see something doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
Suppose for a moment that 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times, a cancerous mutation is fatal, but that other time it creates a mutation that is resistant to the carcinogen.
Aren’t the majority of mutations neutral, followed by deleterious, with beneficial a distant third?
Maybe cancer is an indication of a deteriorating genome…
I think his point is that the same mechanism that causes cancer might also drive evolutionary change. So if you prevent (not cure) cancer by interrupting that mechanism, then it might have consequences further down the road. In other words, once the cancer exists, it’s already gone down the 999,999 path.
Of course you realize that the term “R&D;” rather implies intelligent agency, while the Darwinian model forbids it.
Not true, sexual selection uses varying types of intelligence for “improvement” of the species.
Where improvement simply means increased change of successful breeding of future generations.
All life on Earth needs water to live…
All life needs fuel to exist, and there is plenty of potential full sources in PB.
True, but what fuel? Different organisms require vastly different sources of energy.
Life needs moderate temperatures, amply provided by our planet, and our PB.
All living organisms require the atmosphere in it’s current state to exist.
Again not true...see the above links.
If we expect life to form in such horrible conditions, why wouldn’t we expect it to form in far more favorable ones?
How can you say that a jar of peanut butter has conditions more favorable to forming life than, say the classic primordial ooze?
Dirk, aren’t you falling into the trap of assuming that primordial life required the same ingredients modern life?
No I’m not falling into any trap. You are the one drawing assumptions about what the primordial life would need. All observable evidence tells that life needs certain conditions to exist, so assuming life can exist without those is unscientific and based on faith.
If evolution is true, then the harsh conditions of early Earth might have been been just fine for those “fragile, simple organisms” and perhaps even *necessary*?
Or they might not of, and without any evidence to back up those claims, it’s faith pure and simple.
Suppose for a moment that 999,999 out of 1,000,000 times, a cancerous mutation is fatal, but that other time it creates a mutation that is resistant to the carcinogen. Voila. Evolution.
No not evolution. Evolution is described as the change of one species into another(even though the word species has no definition). What you descibe can best be called adaptation. The cancer has not turned into non-cancer, only a different kind of cancer.
Not true, sexual selection uses varying types of intelligence for “improvement” of the species.
Explain. Enumerate a few of those “varying types of intelligence”.
And understand that sexual recombination isn’t under the control of the organisms—it is an essentially random process, dependent on the meiotic cells that are selected to form the child organism.
I think his point is that the same mechanism that causes cancer might also drive evolutionary change
Exactly.
Padders, my thought process is that cancer can be considered to be a cells’ “WTF!” reaction to an outside influence. For instance, if you sit out in the sun too long, you have a higher risk of cancer because of the risk of ultraviolent rays. Your cells begin mutation processes. These mutations usually do not provide a viable result and, therefore, cause death to the cell and, potentially, the body. Now imagine that one of these cell mutations resulted in a cell that survived and, furthermore, was resistant to UV rays. Then cancers’ most “dreadful” symptom, metastasis, would actually be a blessing, spreading that new “code” throughout the body.
In the history of time, this process could have occurred trillions of times, killing hundreds of billions, but allowing the fortunate few to adapt and move forward. This concept is not new—survival of the fittest—however, it’s rather taboo to suggest that cancer is this evolutionary catalyst, even though it seems to fit the bill as the smoking gun.
My point in the previous comment was to reflect my ruminations that my daily efforts might actually be stunting our adaptation to our changing planet. Perhaps our knowledge and ability to postpone or prevent the cancer, coupled with our obvious desire to survive in an individual sense, is killing those few potentially successful mutations before they have a chance to alter the gene pool. So John Smith’s chemotherapy in 1983 wiped out his skin cancer. Unfortunately, one of those cancerous cells was healthy and resistant to UV rays. And we never knew.
And understand that sexual recombination isn’t under the control of the organisms—it is an essentially random process, dependent on the meiotic cells that are selected to form the child organism.
Anything from humans to peacocks. The point is simply that humans are the way we are partly because of the intelligence of our pre-decesors.
In fact, there is a compelling theory that the reason we are intelligent now is not to do with the evolutionary advantage associated with being able to better out-compete other animals but in sexual selection and out competing each other.
Of course the continued presence of creationists and other forms of irrationality suggest our evolution still has a way to go.
All life on Earth needs water to live…
Not true.
The bacteria live and feed off the oil, which contains moisture. Nice try though.
All life needs fuel to exist, and there is plenty of potential full sources in PB.
True, but what fuel? Different organisms require vastly different sources of energy.
Doesn’t address the point. The point is that a fuel source is readily available. The contents of the PB can be broken down in a variety of methods in order to extract fuel, not forcing life to require anyone particular ingredient. Anyway the point has nothing to do exclusively with PB.
The point also applies, maybe even better, to the fact that innumerable incredibly smart and educated men have spent countless man-hours using well crafted and designed tools to create life. They have so far failed to accomplish this, yet expect all of us to believe that it happens accidentally in ridiculously hazardous conditions.
All living organisms require the atmosphere in it’s current state to exist.
Again not true...see the above links.
Showing animals that exist in extreme conditions doesn’t really invalidate my point. Those animals live in conditions produced by our current atmosphere. IF the atmosphere didn’t exist the planet would heat and cool in extremes like Mars does. These extremes would prevent liquid water from forming. The atmosphere also protects us from debris in space colliding into the earth on a constant basis.
You are the one drawing assumptions about what the primordial life would need
All observable evidence tells that life needs certain conditions to exist
Actually, you are. It’s common fact that the Earth is not the same as it was then. So that “observable evidence” is based on either a) todays conditions or b) scientists “beliefs” of what the conditions used to be. Your comments presume that what life needed back then is similar to what life needs now. *That* is the logical fallacy. My pointing it out is not. But your Kansas City shuffle was nice to watch.
common fact
replace with “commonly accepted”.
So John Smith’s chemotherapy in 1983 wiped out his skin cancer. Unfortunately, one of those cancerous cells was healthy and resistant to UV rays. And we never knew.
But ... we have all sorts of mutations happening all the time that are not cancerous because they don’t effect the cell division/suicide aspects of the cell - so the new positive mutations can still form.
For your argument to work, it would seem you would need to combined positive mutations with a requirement for uncontrolled cell division as well. I am not sure why you would need the later.
Then cancers’ most “dreadful” symptom, metastasis, would actually be a blessing, spreading that new “code” throughout the body.
Could you ever have a cancer like this that would not kill the patient?
I wonder if there has ever been a threat so great that this sort of evolution would work; for millions to die from cancer, the positive benefit would have to be very big.
OK....
You do need water for life as we know it. At least a little.
Also, if you would have taken the current environment (with no life...just the current chemical compositions) and put in on the planet 3 billion years ago, all life would be destroyed rather quickly. Oxygen is actually quite destructive to unprotected cells and tissues.
This point, though, is moot. I wasn’t there. I didn’t see it, but there is sufficient evidence to strongly suggest it. Does it interfere with my faith in God? No, it doesn’t, because I’m not a strict Biblical Christian....the Bible is full of parables and fables, told to make a point.
For your argument to work, it would seem you would need to combined positive mutations with a requirement for uncontrolled cell division as well. I am not sure why you would need the later.
That’s a good point, if you are wishing for no structural change in the organism. However, when taken in the context of Dirks comment,
Evolution is described as the change of one species into another
, it seems much more plausible.
I think most people have been deluded by X-Men and Heroes in suggesting that mutations would not necessarilly change the structure of the organism. However, it’s these structural changes that have been the hallmark of the evolutionary theory. Lastly, I assume that these changes are not driven by intelligence, rather by accident and therefore aren’t driven by “requirement”. It’s the rare cases where the accident creates something that can survive that evolution occurs.
The bacteria live and feed off the oil, which contains moisture. Nice try though.
Actually, your original statement was “water”, not “moisture”. Nice try though.
Of course, in the common usage, “moisture” implies “water”. If you read the article, you would have seen this quote: “It’s clear, however, that these living organisms can survive in heavy oil mixtures containing many highly toxic chemicals. Moreover, these bacteria survive with no water and little or no oxygen.”
If you meant “moisture” (or maybe liquid? organic compounds?) when you said “water”, then maybe you’ll just have to be more clear next time.
The contents of the PB can be broken down in a variety of methods in order to extract fuel, not forcing life to require anyone particular ingredient.
Yes, it forces life to require the particular ingredients that make up peanut butter, and no others. And with no external source of energy (which, unlike in the peanut butter, was available billions of years ago), these molecules could not be re-formed into anything without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
Could you ever have a cancer like this that would not kill the patient?
Well, that’s the rub, isn’t it? Common thought is ‘no’. But if such a case were to occur, it would be the biggest scientific event to occur in generations, if not ever.
I wonder if there has ever been a threat so great that this sort of evolution would work
What I’m suggesting is that, in the billions of years that this planet has existed, there has been tens of thousands of these “threats” and each time a species has adapted and/or evolved. The only thing I’m adding new to the argument is that what we consider “cancer” is actually that evolutionary catalyst and that we are overlooking it because we can’t see the big picture. We are raised to believe that cancer is bad because all we do is see it kill. I’ve lost friends and relatives, as we all have. However, it wasn’t until I became so active in it’s prevention and defeat that I began wondering.
There’s not too much literature in the defense of this position, mostly because it has such an awful effect on our society. It would be like saying that rape is beneficial to our society. However, just imagine if somebody survived metastasis and was no longer at risk of radiation poisoning. Entire wings of medical libraries would need to be replaced.
...So, I just watched this, and I can’t, uh, I, uh…
I think I need to go lay down now.
I want to know what happens if you put a banana into the peanut butter jar.
I want to know what happens if you put a banana into the peanut butter jar.
The older of us can recall what happens if you put a chocolate bar into a peanut butter jar. :)
Marianne Faithfull’s dog shows up at your doorstep?
All life on Earth needs water to live…
Not true.
The bacteria live and feed off the oil, which contains moisture. Nice try though.
well actually life as we knows it need Hydrogen, Carbon and oxygen, in various amounts.
I saw a claim that there could be life on Mars feeding on hydrogen peroxide.
Not true, sexual selection uses varying types of intelligence for “improvement” of the species.
Where improvement simply means increased change of successful breeding of future generations.
Exactly......... oh god STOP the World.. i agree with Padders!
Anything from humans to peacocks.
And what about the other 90+% of the biospere, you know, the part that either lacks intelligence or sexual selection or both? Such as the entire plant kingdom, for example? Or bacteria? Insects?
Okay, next question:
Of course you realize that the term “R&D;” rather implies intelligent agency, while the Darwinian model forbids it.Not true, sexual selection uses varying types of intelligence for “improvement” of the species.
Is “sexual selection” synonymous with the Darwinian model? Consider that the Darwinian model applies to asexual reproduction as well as sexual, and applies to non-intelligent organisms as well as intelligent.
The point is simply that humans are the way we are partly because of the intelligence of our pre-decesors.
To which single-celled predecessors do you refer?
Having watched this multiple times, I think it makes even less sense than that ‘tard Ray Comfort’s banana and Pepsi can arguments (if that’s even possible). Although, it’s hard to beat the celebrity idiot angle of Kirk Cameron.
Fundietard with a bad hairpiece or Kirk Cameron. Geez, that’s a tough one. Now if the fundietard with a hairpiece was gay, well, that would be no contest.
THIS is how fucking stupid you look to the rest of us.
With all due respect, that’s your problem, not mine. Come from painting us with the proverbial broad brush.
Do I think the video presents a strong argument? No, not hardly. I won’t even attempt to defend the argument, but I will note that creationists, like most groups, aren’t a monolithic homogeny.
I think the point is, be careful who you align yourself with. If you truly don’t care, then I would be surprised by any complaints.
And what about the other 90+% of the biospere, you know, the part that either lacks intelligence or sexual selection or both? Such as the entire plant kingdom, for example? Or bacteria? Insects?
Not all evolution happens through sexual selection of course, and not all sexual selection is driven by intelligence. Some is, and that was enough to disprove your point.
kevinmkr, I see your point but I really still wonder if there is any feature to humans or past relatives for which uncontrolled cell division (even if the cell was good) would have been useful as opposed to standard mutations.
I do see your point though, and the fact that the incidence of cancers has a genetic component to them definitely adds credance to your point of view.
Not all evolution happens through sexual selection of course, and not all sexual selection is driven by intelligence. Some is, and that was enough to disprove your point.
Sorry, but one doesn’t “disprove” anything by moving goal posts. I was referring to natural selection, you were referring to sexual selection, which simply ain’t the same thing.
I think the point is, be careful who you align yourself with. If you truly don’t care, then I would be surprised by any complaints.
Is this an admission that you tar with a broad brush? And who said I “aligned” myself with anything in particular? I simply believe what I believe.
Picture the typical bell curve normal distribution, which can apply to just about any type of population, including atheists. Let’s say that the curve represents intelligence. As in any population, there will be some utter dimwits who call themselves “atheists”. Do you “align” with those dimwits? Of course not.
The problem is that you look at the “creationist” bell curve, take that left-hand tail which represents the lowest 5%, and assume that their intelligence level applies to the whole population of creationists.
Conversely, you look at the “atheist” curve, take the right-hand tail which represents the top 5%, and assume that applies to the atheist population as a whole.
Just a typical confirmation bias.
"Intelligence” is a trait that can be seleced for by the Darwinian mechanism, but intelligence is not a part of that mechanism, any more than neck length or eye color are. So my point, that the Darwinian model forbids intelligence from being a part of the Darwinian Random Mutation Plus Natural Selection mechanism, stands. Perhaps you misread me and assumed that the Darwinian model forbids intelligence as a trait, which is not what I meant.
Oh...my...fucking...God. With a capital G.
How many blog posts over how many years did we keep going over the same arguments.
Evolution doesn’t teach how life began. PERIOD.
EVERYONE REPEAT AFTER ME. “EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE BEGAN.”
Class dismissed.
That being said, it still takes a lot of faith to think we can obtain a 747 by throwing Time at the problem.
You could never randomly generate a 747, because it is designed. Creating a 747 requires metalworking molds and other such things that I’m comfortable saying aren’t randomly created in nature. Adherents of intelligent design try to liken the scenario by quoting cellular structures and such that they THINK aren’t capable of being produced naturally, but have no factual evidence to back up their assertion, just a whole lot of “I think”.
However, let’s observe that even the crudest knife or hammer is a products of deliberate design, whereas I’m supposed to believe that the self-replicating nucleic acid, which is orders of magnitude more complex than a knife or hammer, simply sprang up without the aid of design.
You’re looking at it the wrong way. As complicated as self-replicating nucleic acids are, the part you’re not seeing is how these molecules interact. Whether they were DESIGNED to act that way, or it’s just the way the world is is a completely different argument, and philosophical in nature.
Evolution is described as the change of one species into another(even though the word species has no definition). What you descibe can best be called adaptation. The cancer has not turned into non-cancer, only a different kind of cancer.
No, Dirk, this is not what evolution is described as, it’s more specific than that. As you’ve noted, “species” are just categories that we as humans place all living creatures in. Individual organisms could have unobservable mutations that no one else has and still be considered among the same species, but that’s still the process of evolving. But, to get to the point that you’re trying to make, we have observed, in our lifetimes, the process of speciation. I’ve posted them in previous threads eons ago, and I’m not digging them up now. If you ignored them then, I’m not wasting my time so you can ignore them again.
The bacteria live and feed off the oil, which contains moisture. Nice try though.
You’ve obviously never seen an oil spill, or had Italian dressing. Oil and water don’t mix.
the Darwinian model forbids intelligence from being a part of the Darwinian Random Mutation Plus Natural Selection mechanism
I’m not sure I follow this. Intelligence obviously plays a large part in sexual selection in more complicated organisms. In other organisms, it’s instinct. One could argue viable evolutionary pathways from instinct to intelligence.
You could never randomly generate a 747, because it is designed.
I suspect that, given the length of this thread thus far, you merely skimmed, looking for “red flag” rhetoric to which to respond. I had hoped to prevent people from falling into the trap you fell into, which is why, after writing this:
Tantamount to having random chance create a 747 from a pool of molten iron, some carbon, molten plastic, rubber, etc.
I immediately followed up with this (emphasis added):
And before you guys start harping on “natural selection”, let me reassure you that I am aware that NS is the alleged driving force behind the Darwinian model, not random chance.
Go back up and check for yourself.
You’re looking at it the wrong way.
Oh, of course. That’s always the way, innit?
As complicated as self-replicating nucleic acids are, the part you’re not seeing is how these molecules interact.
What is the context, here? A living cell? Or a test tube?
Intelligence obviously plays a large part in sexual selection in more complicated organisms.
Again, you illustrate that you didn’t do a thorough reading of what I actually said. I’ve already addressed this, but I’ll repeat that traits are a result of the process, but not part of the model proper. Running fast is a trait that aids survivability, but would we claim that “running fast” is a part of the neo-Darwinian model of evolution?
I think you guys are tripping over the word “forbids”, thinking that my assertion is that the model “forbids” intelligence from being a selectable trait. No, I am merely paraphrasing Dawkins when he says that Natural Selection is a blind, unplanning process. Perhaps I could have done a better job.
I suspect that, given the length of this thread thus far, you merely skimmed, looking for “red flag” rhetoric to which to respond. I had hoped to prevent people from falling into the trap you fell into, which is why, after writing this:
I immediately followed up with this (emphasis added):
I actually spent an hour going back and forth reading, responding, reediting and deleting my statement as I read new responses, but most if not all of what I said is responding to several people, I just used your quote as the anchor point, so don’t be that way. I’m trying to keep it civil. Except for with Dirk, he’s historically talked out of his ass and every time I read something he says I feel dumber for having read it.
What is the context, here? A living cell? Or a test tube?
Doesn’t matter. I’m talking about the fundamental principles of organic chemistry. People try to use the 747 or knife/hammer arguments all the time, but the interactions in regular chemistry and organic chemistry are completely different, and I get frustrated when people try to pass it off as the be-all end-all argument.
Again, you illustrate that you didn’t do a thorough reading of what I actually said.
I tried to go back and figure out where it started, but I had a rough go of it. There’s several threads in the same topic and even reading it back to front is confusing, so stop being a douche. I said I don’t quite follow it, which is an indirect way of asking you to clarify and tie together your argument in one post.
I’ve already addressed this, but I’ll repeat that traits are a result of the process, but not part of the model proper. Running fast is a trait that aids survivability, but would we claim that “running fast” is a part of the neo-Darwinian model of evolution?
I’m failing to see the difference. A trait could be passed down genetically and lead to the survivability of future generations, why wouldn’t that be in the model? I must be misunderstanding you.
Running fast is a trait that aids survivability, but would we claim that “running fast” is a part of the neo-Darwinian model of evolution?
Are you trying to make the distinction between genotype and phenotype? And that phenotypes aren’t part of the model?
I actually spent an hour going back and forth reading, responding, reediting and deleting my statement as I read new responses, but most if not all of what I said is responding to several people, I just used your quote as the anchor point, so don’t be that way. I’m trying to keep it civil.
You’re trying to be civil? It’s coming across as sanctimonious, what with the “don’t be that way” rhetoric. I can only go by what I read, and your mind is not one of the things I can read, so if you quote something I said, I have no way of knowing that it’s an “anchor point” for some kind of “en masse” response. No, what it looks like is a direct response to something I said, and I responded accordingly. So stop being that way.
I’m talking about the fundamental principles of organic chemistry.
And where did those principles come from? IOW, how did we actually get from inorganic to organic chemistry? That is the crux. Was the Urey-Miller scenario (assuming its premeses to be correct in the first place) all it took? I’m not convinved.
...stop being a douche.
You first.
I’m failing to see the difference.
Convenient, I suppose. And you conveniently missed/skipped/ignored this:
No, I am merely paraphrasing Dawkins when he says that Natural Selection is a blind, unplanning process. Perhaps I could have done a better job.
The whole point is that the Darwinian model is not Intelligent Design, but someone compared it to “R&D;”, which rather implies something like Intelligent Design. I was just pointing out an irony, but too many of you guys are just too damned retentive and/or defensive, so we end up going off on semantic rabbit trails…
Are you trying to make the distinction between genotype and phenotype?
Are you trying to conflate selected traits with the Natural Selection mechanism? Is “intelligent agency” a part of the neo-Darwinian model? Yes or no?
"Premises”. And “Convinced”
Arrgh!
Iconoclast, you’re easily one of the most intelligent posters on the board and I enjoy having intelligent debate with you, but I’m not interested in discourse with veiled insults.
I apologize for continuing with reactions that I perceived were leveled at me first. I should have taken the higher ground, but didn’t.
Either way, you win, and I’m out.
Iconoclast, you’re easily one of the most intelligent posters on the board…
No fair! This is Thunderdome, dagnabbit! You aren’t supposed to disarm your opponents by pay them a compliment! That’s beyond the pale!
I’m not interested in discourse with veiled insults.
I apologize for continuing with reactions that I perceived were leveled at me first. I should have taken the higher ground, but didn’t.
Understood. I suppose I could have likewise taken a higher road than I did. It ain’t easy to turn off “battle mode” once engaged. But that’s no excuse for my not trying.
Next entry: Brother, Can You Spare A Few Million?
Previous entry: Browne-ie Moment
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8230
Total Logged in members: 8
Total guests: 53
Total anonymous users: 0
chrisbg99,
Hal_10000,
Important Aspects Of,
Manwhore,
Mississippi Yankee,
Orpheus,
Ronk,
Section8,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 08:58)
Mark_M: The average American is so fucking stupid I don’t give us much hope. I'll paraphrase a great line from Dennis Miller ..."The American people are so stupid...of course, I know better than them. But then again I DO have a bachelor's in communications from Tallahassee Junior College."
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(30 total, Last @ 08:56)
Manwhore: It is striking to me that Alex is now the only real voice of conservative thinking on this blog. For the few who rebel against the idea are hit in the face with a Limbaugh smear. I think it was fucking hilarious that he handed all of you your asses;…
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
Last 30 Comments
I don’t get it - “evolution doesn’t happen”?? I thought evolution describes how things, um, evolve, not how they originated.
Also, if there was “new life” in the jar, wouldn’t it be too small to see anyway?
And the use of the word “Fairy Tale” . . . oh my the irony . . .