The View From 1776

Rational Evolutionary Hypothesis?

Evolutionists make truly wild assumptions to fill the gaps in their hypotheses.  Check out Richard Dawkins’s thesis that DNA originated spontaneously in inorganic mud crystals.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/25 at 01:26 AM
  1. I like the one where the scientist says he can create life and starts to gather all the materials he needs. As he is doing this, a voice from Heaven thunders out and says, "you have to get your own dirt, that belongs to me."

    The scientists can never answer were the "dirt" came from that life came from. They say a "big bang," but where did what went "bang" come from. Thus, we know there is an eternity in space at least, if not in the "soul." Until they can explain what "eternity" is and how what we can see, came about and the force behind the material, the bang (the power that created the bang) and the very nature of the force that created atoms which in turn created the "dirt" and air that "life from dirt" was going to need and the water "life from dirt" was going to need all the theory of evolution is mute for they can't take it back to a "beginning." They are looking at something in "mid-stream" and trying to say where it came from and where it will go when all they can really say is which way the stream is flowing. They don't know when it entered the stream or will leave the stream or if it is actually a product of the stream in some way.

    If there is a "force" that created all the atoms then it can also create anything, including life. What is that force? That force can't be destroyed, only what "forms" it creates can be. Life uses life forms but life itself can't be seen even with a electron microscope. What actually is life?

    The human body is a community. You have different members of that community that are all lifeforms that work as a team to make the one organ, especially, the skin, have shape and identity that we can see and call "life." Yet, if any of the team, liver, kidneys, intestines, lungs, heart, brain, stop functioning, without life support, the rest of the team dies. Also, no liver ever stops being a liver until it dies. Even as the person is dying, the liver continues to live as a separate member of the community and have a life form until its own death. But, where did the force go that was making it only function as a liver? (DNA)The information given by the force the liver based its life on may not be destroyed. That communicator for "life forms" whether a liver or more complex team of life forms is what evolutionists can't explain. How does DNA get its start? Where did the very first DNA come from that "programmed" even a simple one cell amoeba?

    Most people, even secular humanists and atheists worship life in that they don't normally want to surrender it voluntarily. Yet, when other people put a name to Life or the force behind life, I should say, such as "God" and define the things that Life deems best for a good life, a healthy life and a long life, they ridicule it.

    The Bible defines what the human mind can't truly comprehend, eternity. The mind expects a beginning and an end to things. Even our solar system has in man's mind a beginning and a projected end. Yet, matter, according to man himself can neither be created or destroyed nor the force that controls matter and the life (half-life) of matter and elements. So, what happens at the end? There is no end, only a change in direction at the most for each particle in an eternal space that may have no end to the number of universes in it. How can man really understand a force with no beginning or end?
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  02/25  at  09:19 PM
  2. Its a pity so many of you dont read anything about evolution from anyone but creationists.

    Mud Crystals?

    Okay, lets back up a bit and get a primer education on how "life from primordial ooze" ideas came about. It is not as far fetched as the scientificly illiterate religious right would like us to think.

    For a long time Scientists believed our primitive atmosphere was one of "reducing gases". The Gas Giants have atmospheres of reducing gases (Methane, Ammonia, etc). Being so, back in the 1950s, Stanley Miller and his assistant Urey devised a simple experiment to test this environment. Miller and Urey believed the Earth's atmosphere has many electrical storms so they figured this into the experiment.

    When Miller and Urey passed electricl currents through the atmosphere, the strangest and most wonderful thing happened (rather unexpected, too): many of the essential building blocks to DNA//LIFE were instantly synthesized. The real kicker was that ADENISONE was synthesized in significant amounts. Adenisone is the backbone for ATP, or Adenisone Triphosphate. What is ATP? It is the molecule in (almost) every living creature in existence that performs the energy processes that keep us alive. ATP is the workhorse that makes energy out of food and air. It is the engine in the car. Without those ATP processes, youre dead. (Or you never came into existence!)

    What the experiment points to is that the basic building blocks of life can come into existence through the simple chemical and physical process called PHASE TRANSITION. No God needed; no creation moment; no magical hand.

    The logical extension of the experiment implies that life could come into existence, step by step, by purely natural means. If the very building blocks of life can come about because of natural causes, it makes sense that there is a possibility that the steps by natural causes could continue and life could emerge. Its a simple logical deduction that it is possible. Every hypothesis is tied to the rule that the degree of probability is directly related to the evidence. Religion has only hearsay, not real evidence. Science is open ended with error-detection built right into the basics (Occham's Razor comes to mind) of the scientific method. Religion says you can't doubt it. The matter is settled. "How dare you question my blind faith". Contrary to the "God did it" crowd's argument from faith, the emergence of life from primordial natural causes has some evidence.

    Since the time of the experiment, scientists have modified their ideas about the reducing atmosphere. Fundies have made some pretty dishonest propaganda about this but the view from the scientific community remains the same. The Miller-Urey experiments have been duplicated thousaands of times with a wide variety of reducing atmospheres with the same relative outcome. For a good read, go to NASA's Exiobiology site whioch has a great deal of information on these matters. As you will see, all the radical religious propaganda has no foundation in facts.
    Posted by James Veverka  on  02/26  at  09:47 AM
  3. You still haven't addressed the force that created the matter that is used to create these building blocks. You have defined the force that determines what each building block will be and why it will be the same regardless of where in the universe it is formed. You have defined the force or forces that drive this action to take the next step and go from a the formation of a building block to actual life.

    Did they create live, or just the building blocks? Until they actually create life itself, what have they accomplished? Nothing really. They just have a better understanding of whatever force there is behind life and the steps it takes to form a life form. Until they can actually duplicate life, not just building blocks it will be a theory.

    I notice that you used "could," and "possibility" and "implies" and "modified ideas" and "believed." Where are there any "facts" that can't be refuted, debated or have different conclusions drawn from. Once they create life, they can state, this is a fact. This is what happened. These are the steps from building blocks to actual life.

    What is the force that changes building blocks into life? What happens to that force when there are no building block materials? Isn't that force still present but unable to create life because there are no "building blocks?" Nature and the forces in it don't disappear just because the "building blocks" aren't there. Gravity exists, doesn't it, even if there is nothing that "falls?" That force is there throughout the universe every time something is "dropped" it falls because the force is always there. The force that creates life is always there.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  02/26  at  03:05 PM
  4. Your readers should read the comments to this article submitted to The Consevative Voice (Feb.25,27,28,2007) by Custer,John Galt, Sageandscholar and Bauhaus.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/27  at  04:25 PM
  5. Your readers should see what biologists think about your claims: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/intellectual_conservative_seem.php
    Posted by Ed Darrell  on  03/01  at  02:58 PM
  6. The force is nature, just like the force that created the basic building blocks of nature by itself. Nature is what exists and changes eternally by chemical and physical phase transitions. Energy and matter are interchangeable so we know that every bit of matter in existence is a phase transition of energy. Matter is frozen energy. Matter is what we get when energy cools down. I think our big bang is most likely a phase transition, too.

    Just because we dont understand something yet doesnt mean we cop out and say, God did it. That shuts down the inquisitive mind from reaching other conclusions if they are possible. Of course, there are certain individuals who would rather die than to to ponder other conclusions.

    A lot of mysteries have been unraveled in the last century. Can you name one in which there was a supernatural reason for the way something worked? Its the way it will always be. It can't come out any other way because the supernatural is a creation of the mind. We can want it forever but nothing in this world will ever evidence it. Civilization, when it is a million years old will have no greater insight than we do into an area that is a product ofd the mind. It is the product of wishes to decide that, even tho we dont have the slightest idea how some things happened, "God did it". Thats just not human enough for me. Humans dont give up that easy.

    Just because we dont understand something in nature doesn't give us an excuse to blame it on the myths of ancient tribe's that had very little information to work with. They had no tech and no science.

    We should all be skeptics on issues of science and supernaturalism.
    Posted by James Veverka  on  03/02  at  12:24 AM
  7. But that is the whole point. God is nature and all the forces in nature. God is the order we find in the universe and in the atom and in the relationship of everything to everything else. It was the religious people of the U.S. that started the great universities to seek all the knowledge they could find about everything in nature. It isn't religion that blocks that search for knowledge but religious people who are blind to the "whole truth" and want to be secure in only what they know so far and then say that anything they don't know should be somehow feared. They are afraid of proving themselves wrong, I believe, more than anything else. They have their view of God but aren't secure in their view and are afraid somebody will tear it down.

    Yet, I find the more I learn about nature and forces and design and life, etc. the more secure I am in my faith in God. Does that mean I "understand" God anymore than anyone can fully understand nature or the forces of nature or what actually is the force that takes building blocks and turn them into intelligent life forms. Even a tree has intelligence, just nothing like what man has. Some would say it is only "instinct" but that is still a form of intelligence since it is predictable as to what it will do when confronted by the forces of nature. Also, we find that everything is dependent on other life forms in some way all the way to the bottom of the food chain. Even the "breathing" of plants is necessary for the "breathing" of people.

    That is the beauty of "intelligent design." Everything is dependent on other things and the "evolution" of a specie may cause it to change over millions of years but, they have yet to show that each specie didn't evolve on its own. Trees evolving from one single cell source with Tree DNA and Lions from another single cell that slowly became the forerunner of lions but always a lion. Also, the timing was great too. Each was able to evolve only when there was already the food chain established up to that point.

    What is there to fear of science when science is God. While it is true that Christians and Jews and Muslims, and others place many restrictions and also many powers that they can understand, on God, God is all of those things and more because God is all the forces in nature and the universe and eternity that we know exists because space has no limits whether there is anything present in it or not that we can see. Space is - it is never beginning and never ending. It is only man that has "limits."

    The more we learn about nature, the more we learn about God. Man has always worshiped nature. The gods of sea and storm and war (man's nature causing them), love, and of course life, itself. The most primitive society worships nature and gives it names or an all encompassing name for all the forces and matter and things visible and invisible that he can understand and can't understand.

    That was what I loved about the Bible which I didn't read until I had read many books on the sciences like sociology, psychiatry, elements, anatomy, geology, etc. As I read the Bible, I then saw how people, even people who never had scientists were able to understand the "human mind" and the affects of nature on him and society. Even in Genesis, they were able to get the food chain right. Yet, there were no scientists to tell them about it.

    And the truths about human nature were better than the books the so called scientists had written.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  03/02  at  01:46 AM
  8. The "beauty" of intelligent design is that there is nothing there. No one has ever articulated a hypothesis of intelligent design beyond Phillip Johnson's "God did it," no one has ever conducted a lick of research that supports intelligent design in any way over evolution, nor that questions evolution in a way to suggest an alternative hypothesis is required, and no one is working now to provide such research.

    ID is the modern, biology equivalent of Al Capp's shmoos -- whatever you want it to be.

    That may work for bar room chats, but it's not science, and it's terrible theology.
    Posted by Ed Darrell  on  03/02  at  06:54 AM
  9. If you don't think the "food chain" is intelligent or that the interplay between plants and animals for breathing is intelligent or that the solar radiation and how it warms is intelligent, that is certainly your right. But, to me, all of nature is connected and orderly in cause and effect. (apples fall down each time they are dropped on earth) Intelligence is order. Man uses intelligence to create order in his life. Intelligence is taking in chemicals from the soil by a tree, any tree but never becoming a different tree even though it is next to different trees all using the same soil for nutrients. It is a tree or carrot always producing off springs that are the same specie for "self-preservation."

    It is one thing to create building blocks and another to bring them to life or to make them change from one specie to another once that life form begins.

    Since nobody has ever proven the theory of evolution (or it wouldn't be a theory anymore) it is also a matter of theology. Remember, a religion doesn't require a god. Secular humanism and atheism are religions and even the Supreme Courts states that. Until they prove one specie can come from another, it will also remain just a theory with ardent believers in it. Yet, what we do know is that there are different specie, no matter where they came from and they all answer to the laws of nature. Nature is God. God is nature. What man decides beyond that is a matter of faith.

    For me, it is easy. I lived without God and then with God and the change in my life was huge and for the better once I chose God and tried to become one with nature and the forces that I find in nature (man included). The more I learn about science and life, the more I believe the force that takes building blocks and actually makes them alive, can't be destroyed whether it is a tree or a person. God is the force that keeps electrons moving in an orbit in an atom as well as the force that keeps the planets moving. Can God part the Red Sea? We know that nature can. We know that nature even caused the Mississippi to briefly flow north during an earthquake.

    Science believes a shift of the poles may have caused the earth to change its relationship to the sun that some points on earth would seem to make the sun move faster but others seem to have it stand still. Even though the earth as a whole, never changed its path around the sun, its axis in relationship to the sun did change.

    We know that we have had periods when the oceans were 100 ft higher and there were no polar ice caps or at least not where they are now. There is so little we know about nature and the forces in nature, that man is incapable fully understanding it because man's mind is limited and nature isn't limited in time or space. We could a billion years from now, find that an atom is a solar system with life forms on electrons that in turn are made up of even smaller particles. Man's mind can't fully grasp infinity where there is no beginning or end to anything.

    However, the reason God is important is not so much the existence or non-existence of something supernatural. It is the unity that people who share common beliefs have. A secular society like Singapore which brags on its secular government, can't be extraordinarily wealthy if the people in that society have common beliefs, needs and solutions that they, in the majority, believe in and practice.

    Our society is falling apart because we got away from the principles the nation was founded on where majority rule under a Constitution and a republic of different societies came together for some common needs but each society was free to go its own way for social and moral issues. Thus, you could have Nevada with legalized gambling and prostitution next to a society with neither legalized. People where free to choose which society they lived in but, for 175 years they couldn't force the majority to change their laws just because those laws weren't fair to them. They had to either assimilate, leave, or suffer the consequences of breaking the laws.

    That was what made our nation strong and prosperous (some states more prosperous than others, naturally, based on the choices the majority made). The people in each society were united and working together under a set of laws and norms that they agreed to. That unity has been destroyed in the name of tolerance and like all empires that have done that, we will decline in power and another will rise and replace us. That, of course, is nature at work.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  03/02  at  12:36 PM
  10. Cont:
    Definition of theology besides those dealing with a god.
    "A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary."

    Since religion is any set of core beliefs,(4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion) with or without a god, the study of evolution is theology as well as science since it is based on a core set of beliefs that specie evolved from other specie and that certain forces were involved to cause that evolution and an initial creation of life.

    Yet, I have still not seen an evolutionist explain the force that creates life from building blocks and that causes those building blocks to procreate. They not only have cause them to come to "life" but procreate as well either through cell division or in more advanced forms through sexual reproduction. Since simple forms were asexual, what would make an efficient system like that "evolve" to sexual reproduction? What would be the "need" if asexual reproduction was working? Nature knows, man doesn't.

    I think both the religious people and scientists have a lot to learn and that frequently both close their minds to new information or new theories. The religious may have an advantage since they trust nature to do what nature is going to do and that in the long run, man is going to have little effect on it.

    For example, global warming. Nature has the ability to completely destroy mankind and start over. Scientists believe one super-volcanic eruption lowered the population of the earth to about 10,000 after there were millions on earth. It can do that again and totally eliminate mankind in many ways. Just as we saw Mastodons frozen in Siberia in fairly large numbers with grass not completely digested, as in the rapid onset of an ice age, man can also disappear in a short time. Man is not and never can be in control of nature.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  03/02  at  12:39 PM
  11. JanPBurr, evolution theory does not cover the origin of life.

    Let me repeat that, in the hope vain though it may be, that it sinks in: Evolution theory does not cover the origin of life. Evolution theory explains the diversity of life on Earth now, and how life came to be so diverse.

    However life started (Darwin said life was "breathed into" forms on Earth, rather as Genesis 2 says), evolution is what happened after, and what happens today, before our eyes. All parts of evolution which have been observed to occur in real time. All processes of evolution are amply demonstrated in fossil form. Evolution is corroborated solidly by DNA and all other possible molecular studies. Evolution is corroborated by cladistic studies of anatomy.

    So, what is it that ID people complain about, in evolution? JanPBurr says the origins of life are not adequately explained by evolution theory. Neither is the designated hitter rule adequately explained by evolution theory. Both are about equally relevant to evolution.

    Rapid onset of an ice age? One would need to posit some studies that make such claims . . .
    Posted by Ed Darrell  on  03/02  at  07:23 PM
  12. I pointing out that the how life begins is critical to evolution. If specie come from other specie that is one thing but if each specie develops from a separate source that is another. In order to understand which system of evolution there is, you have to know the beginning.

    Most Christians I know, don't deny there is evolution to specie. It is that they don't belief a horse's ancestor became both a horse and some other creature or that some other specie became a horse. That is the big hang up. Evolutionists haven't proven there actually are "missing" links" as much as a diversity of some specie like a dog to a wolf to coyote to a fox etc. but not that a fox became a wolf or vice versa naturally.

    We breed animals and come up "new breeds" but they are still just a composite of what we bred and we can't create a giraffe from the mating of a horse and a cow and usually, unless closely related, can't even come up with a new offspring.

    If evolution were proven, it wouldn't be a theory any more. All ID does is remind people there may be some other "theory" that is just a viable and just as unprovable at this time with man's limited knowledge. All both sides in this can say is that the "laws of nature" are consistent laws and that man doesn't know that much yet about the force that creates life. And all I have pointed out is that some people believe that force, whatever it is, is God or they at least call that force God.

    To limit research to proving evolution isn't sound science. There should be as much effort in trying to disprove it as prove it just like should be with any theory. The more attempts to disprove and prove theories, the more likely we are to come up with a final "absolute" truth that is no longer a theory.

    Nature is "intelligent" and the things that nature does to balance this earth, for example are amazing. Just think about when there was no oxygen and oxygen was like poison to what was here. But, the plants kept "polluting the air" with oxygen and nature created something that used oxygen. NPR or one of the National Geographic type stations was covering this recently and I thought it was intersting as they talked about how the earth compensates for warming, cooling, changing poles, ultraviolet radiation, sun spots, etc.

    Yet, we know that in the "long run" the star we call the Sun will also evolve and when it does, our solar system will then adjust and create a new balance but there will be order come from temporary chaos. Alway, at all levels from atoms to eternity, there is "intelligence" because intelligence is "order" and the opposite is chaos, without order.

    The design is "intelligent" and what man learns from that "order" can be very beneficial in all things man does the more he understands that order and the "laws of nature." Understanding that intelligence is what allows us to have a space station and travel to and from the earth to space. If we ever learn the "force" behind life, we will probably be able to do thousands of things we can't do now.

    Suppose the day comes when "beam me up Scotty" can really be done without destroying the life form's ability to regroup and be alive in another place at the speed of light or of sound or some other "transport" speed. Remember that life forms have no real structure. What we see is an illusion, in a sense because the skin is made up of not only cells, but atoms that are actually more space than matter. The body, rocks and the earth itself, is more space than matter. That is why scientists say a tiny ball of matter could explode and become the universe we know.

    It is hard for the human mind to understand how an entire planet might "implode" and become a ball the size of a basket ball. Yet, the forces that science study or rather the ultimate force that determines how all other forces we understand, like gravity, work is still a long way from being fully understood. It was that search for knowledge that caused our early religiously founded universities here in the U.S. to found those University. They knew that the more they understood about the "laws of Nature" the more they could have better lives with fewer deaths, hunger, suffering.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  03/04  at  03:49 PM
  13. 1. So far, all the evidence points to a beginning in which all life forms on the Earth now evolved from a few, or perhaps one, ancestor. We know this with evidence much more solid than any evidence that Jesus ever existed, to note one comparison.

    2. The evolutionary paths from the common ancestor to wolf, fox, coyote, other wild dogs, and domestic dogs, are not exactly clear. But that such paths do exist is certain. DNA "proves" that.

    3. We breed new species, and sometimes new species pop up and surprise us. All modern bovines were bred from one stock, from the aurochs. The last aurochs died prior to 1050 a.d. (it was shot in a poaching incident) -- but the original species is gone, and all we are left is totally new species and subspecies. When you eat a hamburger, you eat a species whose origin is known, and which has been around not yet one millennium. "Missing links?" For most well-known species, there are dozens of links -- about 20 for humans, for example. The existence of one such link disproves the doubts about evolution; how many does it take to convince a creationist in denial?

    4. In science, when things are proven beyond the point of rational doubt, when things are proven so that there is workable theory that is very solid, we pronounce it a "theory." Theory does not mean "unproven," to a scientist, but exactly the opposite. So when scientists say evolution is a theory, they mean it is established better than a few facts, better than a "law" of science. Here is a good link to what serious, real scientists really think: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/introduction.html

    5. ID advocates claim that ID does not mention God in any fashion. Could you get together with those guys and see which fib you plan to tell, and get it consistent?

    6. Scientists are not asking any limit to science -- ID advocates are. Scientist test evolution, trying to disprove it, thousands of times every month. There is a certain Nobel to anyone who does so. Darwin himself spent more than 20 years conducting experiments trying to disprove evolution before he published -- that's how science works, disproving hypotheses. Scientists have difficulty with ID advocates because ID advocates do not pose any attempt to disprove evolution, or anything else. They don't do science.

    7. Big Bang was not an explosion; planets do not implode. Yes, early universities were established to further knowledge. That's why it's so sad to see religious people opposed to the advancement of knowledge now.
    Posted by Ed Darrell  on  03/04  at  11:15 PM
  14. quote:
    We know this with evidence much more solid than any evidence that Jesus ever existed, to note one comparison.
    =======================
    We had written eye witness accounts of Jesus. Were there eye witness accounts to the beginnings of life or one specie becoming another specie?
    Quote:
    But that such paths do exist is certain. DNA
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  03/05  at  12:57 AM
  15. Number one comes about as close to your definition and yet, doesn't say proven, just accepted by those who use those principles. We believe the "theory of relativity" too but that doesn't mean it is true or the only explanation. Yet, there is little proof of a more than sub specie from parent specie, let alone a mammal evolving from a fish or reptile.

    Keep in mind, that isn't to say that evolution won't be proven at some point. Even if proven it doesn't disprove the laws of nature or that there is no beginning or end to space or what the force is that actually created the life that evolved. Evolution is a small part of the overall picture even if true. It doesn't answer a lot of the questions man has about life.

    And speaking of the definition of theories what have they predicted each specie will become like Einstein used the theory of relativity? What will man become since they are supposed to be able to use these accepted facts to predict what will happen next? Will we evolve in to a new form of creature like those they used to draw as "Martians" where the lack of exercise and use of brain changed the shape? Will Chinese stop being Chinese in features before Africans stop being African? Since evolutionists know beyond a doubt what happens and what causes it, etc. they should be able to predict what each specie will become and evolve into if we have more global warming or a new ice age. Or would those be "theories" too?

    Yes, we have learned a huge amount about how environment affect life forms but not life itself. Who really cares about life forms when it is life itself we should be more concerned about. We know a lot about the building blocks of life, but not life itself.

    quote:
    Scientists have difficulty with ID advocates because ID advocates do not pose any attempt to disprove evolution, or anything else. They don
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  03/05  at  01:17 AM
  16. If we learn the force behind life, we can "create" a liver. Isn't that what study on "stem cells" hopes to some day be able to do? Study on the theories regarding "life" in stem cells has much more potential than study of how a fish became an amphibian or a wolf became a dog or was that the other way around? But, if they studied how life forms actually took on life that could procreate, since that is what evolution involves, the gradual change from generation to generation, they would have something worth the time they put into defending their theory. Evolution isn't important without the study of life with it and what causes life. Understand that and you can understand all the missing links or separate evolving of different life forms from different sources of DNA.

    You do believe that if life exists on other planets that any specie similar to that here will have similar DNA don't you? The laws of nature would not be replaced just because they occur on a different planet.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  03/05  at  01:21 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.