Old Hippie,
Special creation is a fact. I just love statements like that.
Primordial soup can it be simulated?
by haujobbz 16 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
TheOldHippie
So let's make love, larc, not war ........................
While leaning more towards special creation than towards blind lumps of slime starting to think that "Hey! Me thinks it would be one great advantage to develop some blue eyes!", I think the road in the middle is the most probable one. Wide possibilities for micro-evolution, but within specific, set boundaries, evolving around a middle pattern somehow, and then main groups somehow created - but I most of the time am too tired and busy trying to sort it out. Much of my spare time circles around riding my horse - and man! is she stupid!
-
Goshawk
Hi All,
My first post so I guess I will jump in the deep end. :-)
If memory serves the PM Soup experiment was tried with a new twist. The presence of several different types of clay (from the erosion of different types of rock) was added to the mix at the start. The clay minerals (the inosilicate & phyllosilicate families) allowed formation of some protien chains (nonreplicating) from the organic compounds by the compounds alligning along areas of net chage of the mineral. This was an important step in producing chains of organic molecules but still far from something growing eyes and looking back out of the chamber.
Without pulling out lecture notes for dates and types of materials used this is all from memory. ;-) Hope this helps for a direction to look for more information.
Goshawk
-
Realist
well oldhippie,
you haven't studied the subject so you don't know what you are talking about. get and read a science book about evolution and biology and then we can talk.
sorry but thats the way things are,
Realist
-
jgnat
LOL. "Something growing eyes and looking back out of the chamber." Welcome Goshawk! Thanks for giving me the Nightmare of the Week. Sounds like a great plot for a made-for-TV horror flick - "Primordial Soup".
-
JanH
Old Hippie,
When scientists say that "evolution is a fact" that means that all living organisms today have a common ancestor. It is a fact that we and all other species have evolved from ancestor species that were different from us and are no longer around. That is beyond serious dispute. You may not like it, but that is the state of reality.
Exactly how this happened is something else. The synthetic theory of evolution, called Neo-Darwinian, while extremely well supported by evidence, cannot really be called a "fact". It pretty much explains everything we know about how life evolved, but nobody can a priori rule out the possibility that newer theories will surpass it and explain the fact of evolution better.
It is also a fact (pretty obvious) that life somehow originated. The theories about abiogenesis, how life originated, are pretty well substantiated, but none of them are facts, and I doubt we'll ever be able to know for sure which of a number of possible scenarios actually happened 3.5 billion years or so ago. You'd really have to know biochemistry very well to be able to evaluate whether the current theories have merit or not.
Even so-called Design Theorists, or neo-creationists, mostly accept the fact of evolution (common descent). They insist, however, that God has somehow tweaked a gene here and there, to keep evolution flowing in the right direction. In this, they look for 'skyhooks', examples of organic structures that could not have originated by natural selection. The scientific community has been very little impressed with their attempts to do this.
Science is a disipline that has been successful exactly because it ignores supernatural "explanations". Scientists who discovered and explained electricity had not been content with supernatural explanations of thunder and lightning. I doubt theists today are deeply offended that science textbooks do not open up for the possibility that lightning strokes are really the acts of an angry deity. Why, then, should they not accept that the science of biology is also conducted without looking for deities and spirits?
I also have a problem seeing how making God smaller and smaller by pushing him into small gaps in current scientific knowledge is really sound theology.
- Jan
Blogging at Secular Blasphemy -
TheOldHippie
Yep, Jan - for once, your way of talking to me was civilized .............. Things are improving .......
I've bought a couple of Scherer's books, a German biologist who is also an anti-Darwinist or anti-evolutionist, and whose text books are used in quite anumber of schools in Germany, and I've bought Denton's books and Behe's. I think I'll try to really make a go at it this winter, and see what comes out next spring. I guess I still have a few more good years to reads, before the evening darkness starts sinking down on me.
One kind of gets overwhelmed as years go by, or tired, or disillusioned, or whatever. Starts reading junk books in stead. Or starts learning new languages just to have something to do in stead of reconsidering the fundamentals.
A glass of whiskey every evening, to be able to sleep .............