Interesting Genetic Research Published on Dog Evolution (page 22)

jgnat

Can't prove there is no creator, prologos. The burden of proof is on the creationists.

If science follows the evidence through testing various abiogenesis theories, there is no need to prove God wasn't required. The experiment is enough.

prologos

Jgnat, let us suppose that any one of the hypothesises of abiobenesis is proven right by replicating startup of life from scratch.

A succesful experiment that has NOT happened yet, after centuries of trying, just like flying.

But success still would only prove that it took planning, a proper setup and the intent to do it. a major undertaking after centuries of attempts. re:Pasteur.

Our succesful artificial duplication of nature's wares argues in favor of a maker (however elusive) of life's forms, because

without our research, our work, these duplications would not have happened.

Look for example, at the tremendous effort, energy to recreate big bang conditions by just smashing 2 protons together at near c. at cern.

the work that went into that.

To my simple mind, eyie-ball engineering as I go,

The better our research gets the more the amazing nature is revealed, the more unlikely it seems that it just came poof! voila.

just because WE can do it, does not mean it was not DONE before, by the who?

This thinking is so ingrained that in central European languages the word for REALITY comes from the word "WORK"

cantleave

after centuries of trying, just like flying

Centuries??????? Flying????

Are you suggesting that ascertaining the conditions for flight are comparable to those for abiogenesis?

prologos

cant leave: I try to keep the text short.

It took millenia to successfuly build a flying mashine.

Icarus, Caley, lilienthal, Chanute, langley, Wright,

an epic struggle to levitate.

Just because we fly now, on our own, and birds evolved from dinosaurs

does not prove that there is no Creator, or disprove the existence of a creator/-trice.

it just makes it more plausible that there might be one, given our hard work to do it. safely.

We might not have flying dogs, but we have flying FOXES, close.

cantleave

It took millenia to successfuuly build a flying mashine.

And the conditions required for flight are clearly there for us to see. The conditions for abiogenesis are not, therefore it is not surprising that it is going to take longer for us to determine the mechanism. But we have come along way and there are some really good hypothesis out there which can be tested.

Just because we fly now, on our own, and birds evolved from dinosaurs does not prove that there is no Creator.

Agreed....

it just makes it more plausible that there might be one, given our hard work to do it.

Absolutely not. You have made an enormous jump in this conclusion. Evolution and adaptation give no additional to the idea of creator. In fact what they do is show us the complexity derives from simplicity and never the other way round.

prologos

but to my mind that is

the GENIUS in the evolution process,

A genius that speaks for a creator.

We have to hands-on work to make something complex out of the simple.

Nature/creation has found a way, with a little help from a friend, creator if you will,

to do it by itself.

A car company that would build cars that mate and reproduce little ones that grow, would really get credit for that would it not?

and go out of business, be forgotten? did the creator plan it that way?

Giving us a way to create those amazingly divers dog breeds?

jgnat

I like this quote from Darwin about abiogenesis:

"In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871, [ 13 ] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." [ 14 ] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory." - www.wikipedia.org

In other words, we would not be able to replicate the start of life in the wild, as the complex organic compounds would be quickly gobbled up by existing life.

Discovery remains in the sterile lab.

I agree that a concerted effort to duplicate conditions for life has taken a few centuries (we are in to our third). Steps 1 to 3 from the primordial soup theory have been replicated. Step 4 remains elusive.

The earth had more than a few centuries to mess around. We're talking 600 million years of random action.

looking ahead to death, did enough, will gladly make place,

very little benefit for the worms an microbes in that.

Interesting Genetic Research Published on Dog Evolution

Share this