Well, if you’re any good at being Chemical Engineering student, you will realize that given enough time and enough energy, essentially every conceivable side-reaction in a system will occur, as will essentially every conceivable reaction from the products of the first.
Also, it’s a worthwhile thing for anybody to take a few Biology classes, but especially those studying related fields. A good one will refute nigh-upon everything you’ve said here.
Lemur866 - thankyou for your objectiveness and sincerity. It is people like you I was hoping to run into with my post. I will indeed consult the talkorigins.org faq since I desire to know more about the arguements people hold in favor of an evolved lifescape. (Wouldn’t it be great if everyone was as quick to agree to read Bible to see where the other side is coming from… =)
For the record, I did indeed confuse evolution with biogenesis, and for that and subsequent arguements stemming from that I am sorry.
I probably won’t post here anymore until I’ve had a chance to digest the material…and finish the book I’m reading (The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth). Sorry if anyone thinks I’ve wasted their time (some of you were more courteous than others on that matter:)
Peace,
~K2Rage101 (@hotmail.com, @yahoo.com, AOL IM)
Please keep in mind that “high-profile” is not synonmous with “scientifically accurate”. Or even “scientifically knowledgable”. And, please also keep in mind that some of us were actually Evolutionary Biology students at our respective universities, or have studied a great deal on the topic (more, certainly, than “a website”). I would not presume to indicate that you, as a Chemical Engineering student, are ignorant of chemistry; I would ask that you give those of us who have studied evolution the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our fields as well. You don’t have to accept what we say as gospel, but to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn’t agree with what one of your “high-profile” speakers said does nothing to foster intelligent debate.
That’s quite a bold statement 
I propose that you read the volumes of work on evolution which are likely available in your university’s library. Your proposition is false, to say the least.
And here we begin to see that, indeed, you do not have the full picture. What you describe is spontaneous generation, not evolution.
No theorizing necessary on this point - we’ve seen the fossils. We’ve seen real-life examples (Napoleon’s horse had three toes on each hind foot, just as one verifiable example of a horse having “more than hooves”). And, no, we haven’t seen a horse embryo evolving out of swamp mush. That’s spontaneous generation, not evolution.
Read Darwin’s The Origin of Species. This was no theoritcal leap. Darwin took great pains to formulate his theory such that each point followed logically from the evidence.
And need I point out that evolution is, in its simplest form, nothing more than long term changes brought about by adaptation?
So, which is it: do you wish to debate the scientific evidence for (or against, if you prefer) evolution, or do you wish to debate the existence of God? God’s existence (or lack thereof) is really not relevant to the question of whether or not evolution occurs. My advice is this (which you may feel free to reject, of course): if you wish to foster intelligent debate, do not fall back on the Creationist’s Creed of “God did it!” He may well have, but the only way you will be taken seriously here is if you can refute the scientific evidence on its own terms.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the fairies.
Sir Arthur is not the best model of scientific dispassion.
It’s nice when one of em admits it’s a drive-by.
Thomas Gold is wrong. Often times things are inconceivable simply because no one has thought of them before, or becuase they are unfamilar. How “conceivable” is it that time slows down as you approach the speed of light, or that electrons can go from point A to point B without traveling in between, or that there is a limit to knowledge about the speed and momentum of a particle? Robert Oppenheimer once dismissed black holes as inconcievable. He said, “It is absurd for the universe to allow such a fate for stars.”
True, so good thing there is a lot of evidence for evolution.
Propose all you like, that does not make it so
Just because we did not observe most large evolutionary changes first hand does not mean there isn’t any evidence. Is the only evidence allow the kind we can observe first hand? Here is some of the evidence for marcoevolution. Please take your time to evaluate it on your own and do not say that it doesn’t exist.
I sure hope not, since it is a very poor argument. I wouldn’t anyone on my side using it.
I agree, so if there is any empirical evidence for the creation of life, there must be a natural explanation, right? If there isn’t, then that empirical evidence could be used to prove God’s existence, which we agree is impossible.
Yeah, 'cause I never met a single evolutionist who’s read Genesis. :rolleyes:
Not only that, but it’s actually a quote of Sherlock Holmes. Written by Sir ACD, to be sure, but citing a fictional heroin-shooting detective has got to be one of the oddest arguments from authority I’ve ever seen. Still, as George Orwell said, “2 + 2 = 5.” 
In regards to the thread title, the most basic, complete, currently living single cell has approx. 210 genes. (I’m housesitting and don’t have my biology book with me to back me up.) There are two species with less genes but they depend on a host to provide a lot of proteins.
Without bringing God and evolution into this argument (Too Late!), how do we go from a self-replicating RNA molecule to a code containing about 200 genes with each very technical to not cancel each other, double more than what is needed, or produce something not needed? All wasting energy in the meantime.
It is a miracle a cell formed whether or not you believe higher powers.
As a soon to be graduating senior in Biochemistry from University of Michigan-Dearborn and a Christian, I’m very interested if people can help me understand some of the more detailed scientific ideas behind biogenesis. Not so much because my faith is dependent on it (it isn’t), but because I’m curious what happened in between.
Friend K2Rage101,
If you’re still reading, please consider the following:
I’m sure I don’t have to describe the scientific method to a ChemE major, but in sum: science is based in evidence–observable and replicable. Hypotheses are matched against data, and are discarded, altered, or amplified according to those data.
Your suggestions notwithstanding, there are no known data that contradict the body of scientific theory that is evolution. All known data support it as the most viable of hypotheses–so much so that evolution is an accepted scientific theory.
You are welcome to believe in Allah, and that He created the Universe. But keep in mind that such a belief is religious, not scientific. No less valid, mind you, but not scientific.
Wolverine wrote:
Proteinoid microspheres are capable of growing and dividing all by themselves, without the need for nucleic-acid-directed protein synthesis. If the first cells consisted of proteinoid microspheres with RNA strands trapped inside, the RNA wouldn’t’ve even had to tell the cell to “do” anything. It would have just been going along for the ride. (Prehaps the proteinoid envelope protected the RNA strand from the harsh, cruel external world, thus impoving the RNA strand’s chance for survival.)
Oh, right. Yes. A Chemical Engineering student. Who doesn’t understand the basics of the second law of thermodynamics.
Ooookay.
(I’ll give you 10 to 1 that he never actually goes away and reads any of the suggested literature. They never do.)
pan
Sadly not as surprising as one might suppose, just very very sad. I once knew a Chem.Eng. student in his senior year who did not understand how the bubbles got in soda!
Reading some of what K2Rage101 has written here I detect what I suspect is wilful ignorance.
Wolverine, in last month’s Discover, scientists reportedly tinkered with DNA and generated the simplest living thing with far, far fewer genes. I humbly apologize for having no specifics, as I only briefly scanned the article.
It seems to suggest to me that perhaps simpler genetic forms existed but were swallowed up, or that perhaps that particualr sequence of genes never bumped into each other. In fact, it also seems to suggest to me that it’s proof that there wasn’t an omniscient consciousness deciding how the genes should come together at all.
Going back to the car analogy: given enough time, one unknowledgable person might put the pieces together and get a “car” that actually runs, but that wouldn’t mean it would be the most efficient result given the materials.
And that some of us have just written an exam on Evolution and Systematics and now intend to forget everything about it before the end of their course. Or maybe that’s just me. (Yes, that is a non-sequitor, I just wanted to let everyone know I’m happy:))
And Wolverine, you asked:
and:
Remember that once you’ve got anything that can self-replicate you’ve basically had biogenesis, and natural selection\evolution takes over. That isn’t so hard, it’s the abiogenesis itself that’s the improbable bit, but I’l let talkorigins cover that, because I’d probably get it wrong.
Natural selection can act on something that isn’t technically alive, all you need is replication, variation, heredity and differential survival.
Haven’t met many “evolutionists”, have you? Many people who accept the fact that evolution occurs and accept the TOE that attempts to explain how and why it occurs have read Genesis. Many of those who have read Genesis believe in it (as a fable or allegory).
I can testify to this from personal experience as a regular reader of talk.origins. I am not aware of any polls asking exactly about those issues, but from Public Opinion on Evolution and Creationism 75 Years after Scopes:
“More than two-thirds of Americans (68%) believe that it is possible to believe both that evolution occurred as scientists say it has and that God created human beings and had a hand in their development. This means that for most Americans there is no either-or choice to make between God and science. In essence, most Americans appear to believe that God created evolution.”
Deep breaths, deep breaths! The rolley eyes were supposed to indicate that I was being sarcastic.
Sorry if you don’t like the term “evolutionist.” That’s how I refer to myself when it comes to this issue–it’s a useful shorthand.
[nitpick]
Sherlock Holmes used to shoot up with cocaine, not heroin.
[/nitpick]
Good to see ya, Jon. How’s things?
Here we go again:
How do you creationists explain protein homology, and what do you make of SELEX?
-Ben