sometimes reality occurs to scientist also

[jyro]

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."



scientific dissent (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/)

[Fobra]

:eek: Darwinism is slowly going bye-bye the more the public gets informed about its problems.

[supercharged99GT]

yeah and also everytime a teacher teaches evolution to students

[DarkWolf]

This is new information? I've always been under the impression that the scientific community at large understands the difference between Micro and Macro evolution. Micro evolution is real, provable, observable. Macro evolution is the idea that a fish can evolve from a brick... real? Doubtful. Provable? Observable? Nope.

You know. Cause... it makes sense. Science likes things that make sense. I think Darwin even rejected his own theories on macro evolution, later in life.

I'm not sure what type of evolution schools are teaching now-a-days. I know back when I was in school, it was micro evolution. Macro evolution was touched on, but the science books were explicit in saying it's a theory, and there's no solid evidence to validate it. If they've somehow changed to teaching macro evolution as fact, then yes, I agree, that needs to be wiped from the science books. But if they're, as I suspect, still teaching micro evolution as they were when I was in school, then eliminating that from science books would be a serious detriment to humanity.

[SVT93Style]

Darwin even in his day knew his theory was incorrect...said it himself...but at the time it was a valid theory that tried to explain life...
Darwin tree of life has been turned upside down from the archaeologic record...

Its crap like the Miller Experiement that drives me nuts, and that stuff is still in textbooks today...if you don't know about this look it up...horrible.

A great book on this subject is called "The Case for the Creator"...the books takes religion out of the topic...its basically evolution v.s. creation...

[White trash wagon]

The Discovery Institute is a front for a church organization. The church realized about 60-70 years ago they could never really challenge science, so psuedo scientific-religious groups like the "Christian Scientist" were created to attempt to whitewash christian dogma in a veneer of scientific objectivity.

If the church still controlled everything, I think we would be 200-300 years behind in technology.

Scott


Discovery Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank[1], structured as a non-profit educational foundation, founded in 1990 and based in Seattle, Washington, USA. Its areas of interest, social and political action include intelligent design, public school education, and transportation and bi-national cooperation in the international Cascadia region. Financially, the institute is a non-profit organization funded by philanthropic foundation grants, corporate and individual contributions and the dues of Institute members.

[Fobra]

This is new information? I've always been under the impression that the scientific community at large understands the difference between Micro and Macro evolution. Micro evolution is real, provable, observable. Macro evolution is the idea that a fish can evolve from a brick... real? Doubtful. Provable? Observable? Nope.

You know. Cause... it makes sense. Science likes things that make sense. I think Darwin even rejected his own theories on macro evolution, later in life.

I'm not sure what type of evolution schools are teaching now-a-days. I know back when I was in school, it was micro evolution. Macro evolution was touched on, but the science books were explicit in saying it's a theory, and there's no solid evidence to validate it. If they've somehow changed to teaching macro evolution as fact, then yes, I agree, that needs to be wiped from the science books. But if they're, as I suspect, still teaching micro evolution as they were when I was in school, then eliminating that from science books would be a serious detriment to humanity.

My biology book equivocates micro and macro evolution and the book doesn't distinguish the two. In addition, during the equivocation throughout the chapter, it's presented in a way as if it poses no error and/or any problem with things evolving from the the micro level to the macro level. In other words, the book merely implies it irrefutability.

[nailman]

The Discovery Institute is a front for a church organization. The church realized about 60-70 years ago they could never really challenge science, so psuedo scientific-religious groups like the "Christian Scientist" were created to attempt to whitewash christian dogma in a veneer of scientific objectivity.

If the church still controlled everything, I think we would be 200-300 years behind in technology.

Scott


Discovery Institute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Discovery Institute is a conservative Christian think tank[1], structured as a non-profit educational foundation, founded in 1990 and based in Seattle, Washington, USA. Its areas of interest, social and political action include intelligent design, public school education, and transportation and bi-national cooperation in the international Cascadia region. Financially, the institute is a non-profit organization funded by philanthropic foundation grants, corporate and individual contributions and the dues of Institute members.
SO.... where did that come from... I mean planet? No one was talking about your "Discovery Institute." Please refer to the first post.
Actually the Darwinian theory has set us back about 200 years by distracting scientists to frantically put all of their efforts into proving it. Now through their efforts (non-Christian scientists), they have proven it's unreliability and have returned to more rational thought. They are still looking for other explanations though.
Actually most scientists are diests now. That is, they believe in a creator, but not necessarily a god who controls the planet/creation now.

[White trash wagon]

SO.... where did that come from... I mean planet? No one was talking about your "Discovery Institute." Please refer to the first post.
Actually the Darwinian theory has set us back about 200 years by distracting scientists to frantically put all of their efforts into proving it. Now through their efforts (non-Christian scientists), they have proven it's unreliability and have returned to more rational thought. They are still looking for other explanations though.
Actually most scientists are diests now. That is, they believe in a creator, but not necessarily a god who controls the planet/creation now.

If you actually click on the link, at the bottom of the page you'll see it's hosted by the Discovery Institute. I went all through thier site, read about thier founders, mission etc. DID YOU ???? I then researched them on the internet. DID YOU???

Below is the copy/ paste righ off the above link

Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave., Suite 808 — Seattle, WA 98101
206-292-0401 phone — 206-682-5320 fax
email: cscinfo@discovery.org

Scott

[ScottEvil]

If you actually click on the link, at the bottom of the page you'll see it's hosted by the Discovery Institute. I went all through thier site, read about thier founders, mission etc. DID YOU ???? I then researched them on the internet. DID YOU???

Below is the copy/ paste righ off the above link

Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture
1511 Third Ave., Suite 808 — Seattle, WA 98101
206-292-0401 phone — 206-682-5320 fax
email: cscinfo@discovery.org

Scott


pwnd

[exlude]

This is new information? I've always been under the impression that the scientific community at large understands the difference between Micro and Macro evolution. Micro evolution is real, provable, observable. Macro evolution is the idea that a fish can evolve from a brick... real? Doubtful. Provable? Observable? Nope.

Actually, the more we uncover, the more likely macroevolution and the common ancestor are looking. We are getting closer and closer to being able to create life as well.

You know. Cause... it makes sense. Science likes things that make sense. I think Darwin even rejected his own theories on macro evolution, later in life.

Science is about finding a probably answer, then criticizing that. Hell, it's about criticizing everything in general. In a true to science fashion, Darwin questioned himself. People often try to say that Darwin rejected his theories but instead he was stating he had no answer for creation and theorized that a god was possible.

[exlude]

On another note: we have, in fact, observed macroevolution or atleast the greatest tool of macroevolution...that is, speciation.

The creation and destruction of species does happen and we have and continue to observe it.

[nailman]

White, That still does not fit the topic started. You could stasrt a new discussion about the "institute".

exlude, can you prove any of those statements? I kind of want to see the "speciation" thing.

Thanks

[exlude]

Speciation has not been documented in animals, per say, but it is commonly noticed in plants and bacteria. The reason for this is most likely due to the fact that both plants and certain types of bacteria produce SOOOOO many more offspring than any animalia do. Also, plants tend to have more copies of chromosomes than animals do (humans have 2 copies of each chromosome, I have seen some plants that have 6).

Here is a link to how speciation works in plants:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1iSpeciationPlants.shtml

As you can see in that link, there are several ways for a plant to reproductively isolate itself from its parent generation. Not all, but a few of these methods will work for animal genomes as well.

Below is a link of actual cases where speciation was observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
There is also a huge list of references if you have access to a journal database and wish to check any of them out.

And just as a final note: I am using the strictest definition of species accepted in science, a species is defined by being reproductively isolated from its ancestral lineage, and if the species reproduces sexually, it must produce fertile offspring. Sometimes, taxonomic similarities are also considered, but for this type of discussion...they will lead only to confusion.

[DarkWolf]

Actually, the more we uncover, the more likely macroevolution and the common ancestor are looking. We are getting closer and closer to being able to create life as well.

Science is about finding a probably answer, then criticizing that. Hell, it's about criticizing everything in general. In a true to science fashion, Darwin questioned himself. People often try to say that Darwin rejected his theories but instead he was stating he had no answer for creation and theorized that a god was possible.

Don't misunderstand, I accept the idea of a common ancestor. That doesn't really pertain to macroevolution. It's more microevolution over millenia. As I've always stated, macroevolution is spontaneous life from unlife (ie: a fish evolving from a brick), which is not observable, and likely not possible. However, microevolution is life from life (ie: a fish evolving from a single celled organism over millions of years), which is both observable, and provable, and therefore possible.

Nailman... speciation is observable in the numerous species on the planet. Either you accept that there's a common ancestor (or a number of them) for the various species, or you accept that every species that currently exists, as well as all the species that have become extinct, were around in the time of Noah when he created his ark (assuming you accept this as a "historical fact" as proposed by the Bible)... you also have to take it further and accept that every species was was around on day 6 when God brought them all to Adam so that he could name them all, and try to find among them a companion (Gen 2:19-20). One man saw and named every species that currently exists, including all that have become extinct... in one day? Either A) Adam was some superhuman that could not only see, but process every species (hundreds of millions), AND come up with a name for each, in one day (litterally hundreds of thousands, to millions of species would have to be brought before him each minute)... or B) Genesis is an allegory, and not a literal "historical fact" as proposed by Young Earth Creationists.

Generally, as Exlude has pointed out, speciation has only been observed in plants, and bacteria. However, it doesn't take a leap of faith to hypothesize if this occurs in both plants and bacteria, that it may also occur in animals.

[exlude]

Ah, I generally speak of macroevolution as the creation of new species and the "primordial soup to cyanobacteria" as just the beginning or something to that order, because it really only is one event. Past the first instance of life, it's not hard to theorize evolution from cyanobacteria to us.

[nailman]

Darkwolf, I think that Noah had two dogs (not two sheperds, two collies, two wolves, two dingos) and the rest were derived from them. (and etc)
I guess this is the speciation theory.

exude, so how did life START in the "soup" where there was no life?

[White trash wagon]

Darkwolf, I think that Noah had two dogs (not two sheperds, two collies, two wolves, two dingos) and the rest were derived from them. (and etc)
I guess this is the speciation theory.

exude, so how did life START in the "soup" where there was no life?

Several schools fo thought here, I'll give 2.

Back in the 1970's Carl Sagan filled large glass jars with carbon dioxide, methane, trace amounts of oxygen, and water, and sealed them. These were thought to be representative of the early Earth's atmoshere, and IS representative of many of our other planets. Then electrical charges were passed through the jars to represent lightening (it's known that all planets with atmosphere's have lightening). After a few hours a thick brown "ooze" ran down the walls of the jar, and collected at the bottom. The electricity was shut off, and the jar was opened to examine the brown "ooze". It was a rich mix of organic compounds, and complex amino acids. Any biologist will tell you these are the building blocks of life, all life on earth has organic compounds and amino acids. If this pre-life "soup" could be that easily made by man in a few hours, it makes you realize life is not such a magical and rare thing.

Second, when the second Apollo mission landed on the Moon, it was purposely landed about 100 yards from the then 7 year old Mariner 9, an early satellite that made first soft landing on the moon. The scientist wanted remove a few parts from Mariner 9, bring it back to Earth, to examinate the effects of radiation, space travel and extremes in temperture have on equipment.

When one Mariner 9 assembly was taken apart, they found a dried "splatter" inside, so some it was scraped out and analyzed, it was human mucous.....someone had sneezed during final assembly of Mariner 9 before launch. Out of curiousity, the lab put some of the scrapings in a petri dish of moist nutrients ( the same type to grow bacteria cultures. And 4 days later, there was a healthy crop of bacteria, the same type naturally found in human mucous. So we knew bacteria can survive space travel unprotected. So life here may actually be "alien" if it all started from a rock or asteroid from another world.

Scott

[Fobra]

Several schools fo thought here, I'll give 2.

Back in the 1970's Carl Sagan filled large glass jars with carbon dioxide, methane, trace amounts of oxygen, and water, and sealed them. These were thought to be representative of the early Earth's atmoshere, and IS representative of many of our other planets. Then electrical charges were passed through the jars to represent lightening (it's known that all planets with atmosphere's have lightening). After a few hours a thick brown "ooze" ran down the walls of the jar, and collected at the bottom. The electricity was shut off, and the jar was opened to examine the brown "ooze". It was a rich mix of organic compounds, and complex amino acids. Any biologist will tell you these are the building blocks of life, all life on earth has organic compounds and amino acids. If this pre-life "soup" could be that easily made by man in a few hours, it makes you realize life is not such a magical and rare thing.



It seems that you are refering about the "Miller Experiment" and that was conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller. The fact that this is even considered as credible is beyond me, but it is nonetheless an interesting experiment. The chemicals they used were Ammonia, Methane, Water, and Hydrogen. The results: they got mostly tar but some small amounts of amino acids. However, there are some problems with this. In the presence of sunlight both Ammonia and Methane would break down before dissolving in the ocean. Water vapor in the presence of sunlight breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. Thus far, there is no geological evidence indicating an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. There is a lack of evidence that suggest that there was ever a time when oxygen was not present in the atmosphere. Finally, Miller and Urey (Millers partner) knew that if they used "free floating" oxygen in the experiment, that it would have destroyed any elements necessary for life given its destructive properties.

[White trash wagon]

It seems that you are refering about the "Miller Experiment" and that was conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller. The fact that this is even considered as credible is beyond me, but it is nonetheless an interesting experiment. The chemicals they used were Ammonia, Methane, Water, and Hydrogen. The results: they got mostly tar but some small amounts of amino acids. However, there are some problems with this. In the presence of sunlight both Ammonia and Methane would break down before dissolving in the ocean. Water vapor in the presence of sunlight breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. Thus far, there is no geological evidence indicating an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. There is a lack of evidence that suggest that there was ever a time when oxygen was not present in the atmosphere. Finally, Miller and Urey (Millers partner) knew that if they used "free floating" oxygen in the experiment, that it would have destroyed any elements necessary for life given its destructive properties.

Carl Sagan's experiment is documented his book "Cosmos"(1980) on page 38, and there are pictures, although you are correct on the chemicals IN the jars. He does mention Miller's work, then discusses his experiements and his results are
"The tar is an extremely rich collection of complex organic molecules, including the constituent parts of proteins and nucleic acids. The stuff of life, it seems can be very easily made" He mentions that ultraviolet light made little difference in the results.

Scott

[exlude]

It seems that you are refering about the "Miller Experiment" and that was conducted in 1953 by Stanley Miller. The fact that this is even considered as credible is beyond me, but it is nonetheless an interesting experiment. The chemicals they used were Ammonia, Methane, Water, and Hydrogen. The results: they got mostly tar but some small amounts of amino acids. However, there are some problems with this. In the presence of sunlight both Ammonia and Methane would break down before dissolving in the ocean. Water vapor in the presence of sunlight breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen. Thus far, there is no geological evidence indicating an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. There is a lack of evidence that suggest that there was ever a time when oxygen was not present in the atmosphere. Finally, Miller and Urey (Millers partner) knew that if they used "free floating" oxygen in the experiment, that it would have destroyed any elements necessary for life given its destructive properties.

It seems you are arguing "lack of evidence" as "it must not be true". We don't have much evidence one way or another, just theorized possibilities. If we do consider an oxygen free atmosphere, the creation of these amino acids is very plausible. Also, it seems you are assuming our ocean, today, resembles the one around the time of creation, which is unlikely. It's also important to note that the most basic, defining characteristic of the cell...the plasma membrane...forms almost entirely on its own.

[Fobra]

It seems you are arguing "lack of evidence" as "it must not be true". We don't have much evidence one way or another, just theorized possibilities. If we do consider an oxygen free atmosphere, the creation of these amino acids is very plausible.
Scientific theories are based on observations and evidence to explain a certain phenomena. Therefore, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the proponents of this theory and thus far, it seems inductively weak based on the ladder. I do agree about the plausibility of amino acids being able to form in an oxygen free atmosphere, but as I said, it doesn't seem likely that our atmosphere ever had a time where it was absent of oxygen. It's also now believed that some O2 was present on the early earth because it contained much water vapour, and photodissociation of water in the upper layers of the atmosphere produces oxygen. Another reason that opposes the "free of oxygen" atmosphere is that large amounts of oxidized materials exist in the Precambrian geological strata.


which is unlikely.
Based on what?

Concerning amino acids...
To produce even non-functional amino acids and proteins, researchers must highly control the experiment in many ways (i.e. like in the Miller and Sagan experiments) because the very conditions hypothesized to create amino acids also rapidly destroy proteins. Examples include thermal denaturing of proteins by breaking apart their hydrogen bonds and disrupting the hydrophobic attraction between non-polar side groups. Not that many proteins remain biologically active above 50ºC, or below about 30ºC, and most require very narrow conditions. Cooking food is a good example of using heat to denature protein, and refrigeration of using cold to slow down biological activity. As any molecular biologist knows from daily lab work, the pH also must be strictly regulated. Too much acid or base adversely affects the hydrogen bonding between polar R groups and also disrupts the ionic bonds formed by the salt bridges in protein. This gives me reason to believe that even if there were amino acids created in an oxygen free atmosphere, the probability of them standing a chance to survive in a non-contolled environment doesn't seem plausible. And to further the unplausibility, what would be the mechanism used to some how guide these amino acids to randomly form functioning proteins?

[SVT93Style]

Several schools fo thought here, I'll give 2.

Back in the 1970's Carl Sagan filled large glass jars with carbon dioxide, methane, trace amounts of oxygen, and water, and sealed them. These were thought to be representative of the early Earth's atmoshere, and IS representative of many of our other planets. Then electrical charges were passed through the jars to represent lightening (it's known that all planets with atmosphere's have lightening). After a few hours a thick brown "ooze" ran down the walls of the jar, and collected at the bottom. The electricity was shut off, and the jar was opened to examine the brown "ooze". It was a rich mix of organic compounds, and complex amino acids. Any biologist will tell you these are the building blocks of life, all life on earth has organic compounds and amino acids. If this pre-life "soup" could be that easily made by man in a few hours, it makes you realize life is not such a magical and rare thing.

Okay, but you first have to remember this...where did the water and oxygen and etc come from to begin with?
This experiment was a remake of the miller experiment as Fobra pointed out but here are some key facts about this experiment.

1) The atmosphere that Miller was trying to create for this experiment was suppose to resemble that of the early earth. He was basing his theory on the work of Harlod Urey who was his doctoral advisor...this was incorrect. He used a hydrogen rich mix w/ methane, ammonia, and water vapor which was consistent with what "science" believed at the time. Now the best guess based on the facts is it had very little hydrogen....and consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.

2) When the experiment was redone with the correct gases...after Miller Experiment was flamed and declared bogus....they got what they tried to call "organic material"....what a joke. When it was all said and done they came up with FORMALDEHYADE and CYANIDE. Formaledyade is toxic and guess what it destroys protiens. When you put this t/g you get Embaling Fluid. Harldy the precurser to life.
This idea seemed to make sense when cell were believed to be basic...but that is far from the truth. Even if they could create ammino acids from this experiment with the proper gases they are so far from creating a living cell it is poposterous!


Second, when the second Apollo mission landed on the Moon, it was purposely landed about 100 yards from the then 7 year old Mariner 9, an early satellite that made first soft landing on the moon. The scientist wanted remove a few parts from Mariner 9, bring it back to Earth, to examinate the effects of radiation, space travel and extremes in temperture have on equipment.

When one Mariner 9 assembly was taken apart, they found a dried "splatter" inside, so some it was scraped out and analyzed, it was human mucous.....someone had sneezed during final assembly of Mariner 9 before launch. Out of curiousity, the lab put some of the scrapings in a petri dish of moist nutrients ( the same type to grow bacteria cultures. And 4 days later, there was a healthy crop of bacteria, the same type naturally found in human mucous. So we knew bacteria can survive space travel unprotected. So life here may actually be "alien" if it all started from a rock or asteroid from another world.

Scott

Interesting, but there is no way it would survive the re-entry process....it would burn up in the atmoshpere.

[nailman]

Right, if something did come in from space, it would have to have been shielded from radiation and heat. (so are we an alien colony?)

If we are discussing life springing from nothing without any help, except from nature (lightning), then, from what I have read, none of these experiments have been done in the correct atmosphere. That would be in a oxygen/carbon dioxide/nitrogen air mix and completely void of any kind of life. This would be an environment that is too completely steril to recreate now.