Ok, let’s go back to the primordial ooze. Like I’ve said, I’m a molecular biologist and I prefer not to deal with the physics issues. We’ve got primoridal ooze (methane, ammonia and other stuff). Now somehow, that formed nucleic acids. I seem to recall reading that some scientists mixed together some methane and ammonia, hit it with some electricity and voila!, produced some nucleic acids. Doesn’t prove anything other than it can be done, but they did it. Then, these nucleic acids got together to make a protein. A bunch of proteins got together to form a cell (actually probably formed mitochondria and ribosomes first, a cell later). Cells formed organisms, something crawled out of the primordial ooze onto dry land, and the next thing you know I’m typing away at my computer.
Mind you, we didn’t even address where the methane and ammonia came from. Should I keep going?
Actually, a theory is observed phenomenon explained with overwhelming evidence. Maybe you forgot that part, since you’re so absorbed in your own little experiments.
**
A theory is as close to proof as science allows. A scientists should know this.
**
Your preferences on scientific terms means little. A hypothesis is exactly that - an educated guess with (possibly) some data which substantiates it, but not yet any evidence that does not unsubstantiate it, but it needs more evidence to be accepted. Right now, for example, sexual orientation being a inherited trait is a hypothesis that many researchers are working on.
Whereas a theory is already backed with evidence - in this case, overwhelming evidence - in favor of it, and it is accepted as “factual” as far as science goes.
You conveniently ignore the analogy above about the other theories. Can you prove gravity false? Why don’t you jump off of a bridge since you can’t?
You rewording what science dictates because “others” are confused only shows your own confusion, hon.
**
And since just about every scientific discipline has findings that all correlate wih evolution, that is overwhelmingly the most likely explanation.
**
Believe anything you want! That doesn’t make it science.
The Bible is certainly considered in many things. It is considered in History class. It is considered in Theological class. It is considered in classes on Mythology, Literature, and probably even more. But you cannot confuse it with a scince textbook.
Most people I work with in science don’t use the word theory at all. Call evolution a theory, a hypothesis, an attempt to explain, whatever you like. The bottom line is, what scientists perceive the best explanation of anything to be is constantly changing, and the closer you are to a field the more aware you are of the changes. Lots of things that were thought to be true when I was an undergraduate are no longer considered true. For example, one of my college textbooks stated that DNA was fixed in position in chromosomes. Then Barbara McClintok won the Nobel prize for discovering “transposons,” or as she liked to call them, “jumping genes,” pieces of DNA that move within (and I think between) chromosomes. She had actually been suggesting that such a thing existed since the early fifties, but since it didn’t fit with conventional dogma it took 30 years for the scientific community to admit that she was right. While Watson and Crick were winning their Nobel prize for discovering the double helix, Linus Pauling was saying it was a triple heliz. Turns out they were all right: DNA is a double helix under most conditions, but triple helical forms exist in nature. Only took Pauling about 20 years to convince everyone. Point is, what is believed to be true is changing all the time.
You do know that the primordial ooze to life event is called abiogenesis and not evolution.
abiogenesis
Definition:
The scientific study of how life originally arose on the planet, presumably from nonliving things and the presence of nonliving organic matter.
Just noticed a mistake in my beginning of life scenario: The nucleic acids got together to make DNA, the DNA coded for amino acids which then got together to make a protein. IIRC some people think the nucleic acids made RNA, which then coded for either DNA or protein, I don’t recall. Having worked with RNA I can tell you that it is highly unstable and I wouldn’t want to bet the existence of life as we know it on RNA holding up in the primordial ooze.
Shuffle a deck of cards. The odds of the deck being in that particular configuration are one in about 8.07x10^67.
Then have them cut and dealt, and have everyone play their hand. When you consider all the possible choices that can be made, the chances of that hand happening exactly as it did are staggeringly low.
You could say, “Wow! The odds against that hand happening are unbelievably low! There’s no way it could have happened!” You know that it did, though, because Dr. J has all your money.
Yes, evolutionary theory involves events that were quite unlikely, but there was plenty of time for them to occur. (IE, if we played cards from now on, that hand would probably happen again.) Life also could have started any number of other ways. Just because the particular path we took to get here was unlikely, it doesn’t mean we didn’t take it.
Regarding “considering God in the equation”–how can science do that? What if you had said, back when you were doing your dissertation, “Hmmm, I wonder what turns that collagenase gene on and off in osteoblasts? I don’t know. God must do it.”
Regarding protein homology–hate to say it, but this is not a great argument for or against either side. Yes, this would be the case in evolution, but why couldn’t God have done it that way? An intelligent designer would have no reason to re-make proteins unless He had to. Then again, an intelligent designer wouldn’t have come up with the coagulation cascade, either.
How do you know God wouldn’t have come up with the coagulation cascade? I’m still trying to figure out why He put the kneecaps on the flamingos backwards.
And when trying to figure out how collagenase gets turned on and off, I did say “God must do it.” The question is how does He do it.
Satan,
My department chairman just came in and asked me how we’re going to “prove” that NFkB translocates to the nucleus. His exact words.
I am quite serious. Each event you mentioned happens trillions of times daily, except for something crawling out of the primordial ooze onto dry land, which is not a part of evolutionary theory anyway. Perhaps the nucleic acid synthesis only happens in a reducing atmosphere, but as Stanley Miller’s experiment indicates, we can replicate that in a lab as often as you wish. However, nucleic acids form proteins, cells are formed and organisms are formed continously.
So yes, I think you should keep going if you wish to give evidence of a highly unlikely event.
Jesus H. Christ in a chicken box, woman, science does NOT include God in what it does since God is NOT testable!
You want to believe that God, or for that matter, the Invisible Pink Unicorn did it (or anything) feel free! But what does this have to do with science?
So that means there are two more scientists who are unaware of how science works, to add to the “Creation Scientists.” Hell in a handbasket!
David B! Dr Fidelius! Where are you? Haven’t you guys seen the “batgirl” signal I sent yet?
Batgirl, you’re being very patient and polite. Please keep your patience–the folks here are not attacking you personally, just the beliefs you hold with which they disagree.
I for one have no interest in proving you wrong, but I’m extremely interested in your beliefs and why you believe as you do. SO keep it up, keep an open heart and mind, and remember that Satan, Dr. J, Hradcore, et al. have nothing personally against you.
That said . . . skeptics, good work. Sic 'er!
Actually I don’t think my dept. chairman is a creation scientist. But given that he is the chairman of a department that was just ranked third in the country by U.S. News and World Report, I think it’s safe to say he knows something about how science works.
As for “proving” God, you can’t prove He doesn’t exist anymore than I can prove He does. Unless of course you let me use the Bible, which Dr. J has stated is not scientific evidence although no one has told me why not.
Actually I don’t think my dept. chairman is a creation scientist. But given that he is the chairman of a department that was just ranked third in the country by U.S. News and World Report, I think it’s safe to say he knows something about how science works.
As for “proving” God, you can’t prove He doesn’t exist anymore than I can prove He does. Unless of course you let me use the Bible, which Dr. J has stated is not scientific evidence although no one has told me why not.
That was not a grammar slam, folks. Neither was it meant to express doubts about batgirls claims to an advanced degree. If you had read teh note that followed you would have seen that I was using batgirl’s statement to make a teasing reference to the state of higher education in our country. The further discussion has done nothing to make me question that sentiment.
This statement provides a lovely example of the maxim that posessing a PhD in science does not imply that a person thinks like a scientist at all tims.
Ancient scrolls are considered evidence for what ancient people believed. They are sometimes also considered evidence for historical events. Considering them evidence for anyting else is not justifiable rationally. If you wish to believe that the world was covered in ice until the great cow licked down to the land feel free. To put forth that belief as scientific, though, is sheer fantasy.
You have said you find the chain of events leading to abiogenesis unlikely. You have also mentioned that there are competing models for how that chain of events ws structured. Surely you understand that this contradicts your assertion that “to believe the evolutionists I would have to believe that a series of highly unlikely events all happened in a precise order for the world to come into being.”
Of course, these are all somewhat tangential to th ecore question. For whatever reason, you find the theory of evolution unconvincing. Science thrives upon disagreement. It is the engine that drives the process. However, rather than propose an alternative scientific explanation you have chosen to shut your mind to questions of evidence and experiment and selected a particular faith-based explanation. This by no means makes you unique. My question, though, is why you feel it necessary to represent that faith-based decision as scientifically supported?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
When babies are made everything is made from living material already in existence - not non-living material. I still think it’s a miracle, but it doesn’t violate a central tenent of cell biology which is “Cells can only be formed from other cells.” That was item #1 under “Cell Theory” in my high school biology book (back when Carter was president) and as far as I know that hasn’t changed.
Andros,
Thank you for the words of encouragement, but I don’t feel personally attacked at all. Actually one of the things I like most about what I do for a living is the opportunity to discuss ideas, try to convince people I’m right, try to figure out how to get more evidence to sway their opinion. That’s the exciting part of science and unfortunately the part that students don’t get exposed to until late in their scientific careers. I think a lot more kids would like science if they knew it wasn’t as boring as many science teachers make it seem. (And yes, I have taught high school science and tried to instill that excitement in my students, so I know how hard it is to do so and I sympathize with those who try.)
Not Satan’s point, Batgirl. It’s not the job of science to prove or disprove God. If, however, you want to use elements of your faith a scientific evidence, they need to be, well, scientific.
So your real problem is with the abiogenesis event, not all the other items you listed. Since you find it difficult to accept, you throw the rest of the science away and pursue a non-scientific faith-based belief (i.e. a 6000 year old earth). Why not simply believe that God caused the abiogenesis event and that the scientific explanations are correct thereafter?
