Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism? (page 5)

Spectrum

Tetra,

"yes, parsimony. the law of the economy of explanation. when something cannot be established 100%, parsimony is used in science (and CSI btw) to establish the highest likihood of reality based on the available data. and guess what? yup, evolution has never lost once. if it has, and i have missed it spectrum, then by all means, please show me a naturally occuring phenomenon, biological or otherwise, that can be more economically explained with "god" or "intelligent designer", than it can with nature."

I've read the definition of parsimony and if it's as I've understood it then blind evolution fails it every freaking time. It's about taking the simplest path to a conclusion?

Here are the choices:

1. start with simple molecules that polymerise then self replicate, somehow stay stable, try getting that past a polymer chemist ( and were are not dealing with polythene), then self replicate then stay stable then create different self replicating molecules. Unfortunately there requires a mechanism to self-replicate in the first place but this mechanism also needs the self replicating polymer to be there first to create the mechanism. Tetra I'm already getting dizzy.

Choice 2

An intelligent designer programmed it all to happen stood back and watched it flower into a multitude of species.

Me thinks choice 1 fails your parsimony test.

Spectrum

Abaddon,

"Ya know how blind it is? Take RNA that infects bacteria. Stick a small amount in a test tube filled with suitable raw ingredients for RNA duplication. When the population expands to fill the tube, take a sample and place it in a new tube. Repeat. After 74 test tubes a 'wild' RNA very good at infecting bacteria, 3,600 units long will evolve into 'tame' RNA 550 units long that is very good at 'infecting' test tubes.

Each time you repeat the experiement you will get almost the same result (in terms of what the 'tame' RNA is like).

That is how non-random the process is."

I really don't get your logic here or what it proves. Please explain.

"Please find me ONE peer-reviewed article on abiogenesis in the past twenty years (if ever) that suggests life evolved in ordinary sea water?"

I don't now how many times evos say life started in the oceans.

Satanus

Spectrum

Choice 2

An intelligent designer programmed it all to happen stood back and watched it flower into a multitude of species.

Me thinks choice 1 fails your parsimony test.

I know they are going to jump on this, but even i can see the problem here; the intelligent designer. From where did it come? Please explain. Failing that, perhaps you will revert to choice 1 for now.

S

funkyderek

Spectrum:

1. start with simple molecules that polymerise then self replicate, somehow stay stable, try getting that past a polymer chemist ( and were are not dealing with polythene), then self replicate then stay stable then create different self replicating molecules. Unfortunately there requires a mechanism to self-replicate in the first place but this mechanism also needs the self replicating polymer to be there first to create the mechanism. Tetra I'm already getting dizzy.

Choice 2

An intelligent designer programmed it all to happen stood back and watched it flower into a multitude of species.

Me thinks choice 1 fails your parsimony test.

Restated somewhat, the choices are as follows:

1. At some point in the near infinite vastness of space-time a self-replicating molecule happened to form in an environment suitable for its replication.

2. There exists an infinitely powerful, intelligent, invisible entity whose existence has never been directly verified.

Now which one is the more parsimonious?

"Please find me ONE peer-reviewed article on abiogenesis in the past twenty years (if ever) that suggests life evolved in ordinary sea water?"

I don't now how many times evos say life started in the oceans.

Then you shouldn't have any problem finding the one example Abaddon asked you for.

Spectrum

Why Satanus?

We are not trying to figure out where God came from, just as evolutionist don't give much of a toss as to what sparked off the Universe other than curiosity, evolution is explained separate from that.

tetrapod.sapien

er ya spectrum. i thought you studied philosophy? if there is not proof for an intelligent designer/god that cannot be used more econmically under another hypothesis, then i don't see how saying that an intelligent designer did it, is simpler.

it's like the classic santa example:

erm, where did all these presents under my xmas tree come from?

dad worked all year long, paying off last xmas and saving up for this one. we know that dad exists because some scientists tested for his existence, and found him to be right freaking there in the room with them. and then he cleared a bunch of funds on his credit cards, and went around to 32 department stores and shops and malls, and bought all the presents, and had them wrapped and then snuck into the living toom on xmas morning and put them under the tree. poured out the milk, threw out the cookies, and had a whisky and a cigarette, and went back to bed.
santa did it all and then stood back to marvel at the wonderful work he and the elves and the flying reindeer did that night. note that there is no evidence for the existence of this phenomenon we call santa, unlike dad, unfortunately.

TS

tetrapod.sapien

We are not trying to figure out where God came from, just as evolutionist don't give much of a toss as to what sparked off the Universe other than curiosity, evolution is explained separate from that.

there is no need to give plausibility to a variable that cannot be shown to exist. when you start doing that, you can explain everything that way, and end up in 1342 A.D. again...

Satanus

Spectrum

We are not trying to figure out where God came from,

You aren't. A scientist, on the other hand, would. I guess that's the difference between a scientific type and you.

just as evolutionist don't give much of a toss as to what sparked off the Universe other than curiosity,

Oh, but they do and have tried to find out. Also, what sparked life, as they define it. I have read quite a few articles of experiments along this line. You really could broaden your view a bit.

evolution is explained separate from that.

That is true. I give one credit.

S

TopHat

Obviously we can argue about God's existents and the theroy of evolution unitl we are blue in the face....and we humans will get nowhere with it! Maybe the if the apes could talk?

Spectrum

Funky,

there you go. Happy?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2259

"The cherished assumption that life emerged in the oceans has been thrown into doubt. New research shows that primitive cellular membranes assemble more easily in freshwater than in salt water. So although the oldest known fossil organisms were ocean dwellers, life may actually have developed in freshwater ponds.

Most theories on the origin of cellular life presume that the first step was the formation of a spherical membrane called a vesicle that could enclose self-replicating chemical chains - the ancestors of modern DNA. The idea is that the ingredients for simple membranes were all present on the early Earth, and at some point formed vesicles spontaneously in water.

It seemed most likely that this took place in the sea rather than freshwater, largely because of the sheer size of the oceans. With their unique chemistry, deep-sea thermal vents and tidal pools are generally believed to be the most likely sites. "

The only other assumption I heard as to lifes origins other than oceans is aliens.

Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?

Share this