Skip to comments.One Scientist Does No Believe in Evolution:
Posted on 06/10/2014 6:41:20 PM PDT by Vinylly
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
The article doesn’t say that he doesn’t believe in evolution, it says he believes life began in space. Evolution isn’t mentioned.
Aye Laddie, he does no believe in it.
Posting guidelines require posting of actual title.
“One Scientist Does No Believe in Evolution:”
Apparently you did not read the article. He says that we all descended (evolved) from microbes.
I’m not saying it was aliens...
If you saw some of my relatives, you’d believe the “microbe” theory.
DNA certainly contains a lot more information that we are capable of understanding. Just mapping it is not enough. Compared to a computer program, it is also the worst spaghetti code imaginable, and in the lowest-level language possible (except for binary). Maybe we can decompile very tiny pieces of it at a time, but then we can’t be sure if something in it depends on a completely different part of the code.
Evolution, the theory, makes sense to me as far as adaption and speciation, but I don’t think it fully explains us humans. According to the theory, evolution endows a species only with what it needs to survive, and anything else is by random change. That doesn’t explain how we are able to understand advanced mathematics, build computers, and go to the moon, however. That ability given to us just by chance seems very unlikely.
“All humans are ‘aliens from outer space’, scientist claims” is the actual title. Of course, it isn’t supported in the article either. There is only a claim about some other worldly origin for life but the good professor won’t touch where and how.
“our alien” benefactors being the creation of some other “alien” benefactors on some undisclosed planet..long ago and far far away.
I suspect this genius could project that back as far as need be, to deny the Existance And Omniscience Of God!
Isn’t that Scientology? :-)
“According to the theory, evolution endows a species only with what it needs to survive, and anything else is by random change. “
According to the theory, evolution endows nothing. Random change produces individuals that are then more fit or less fit to survive. The more fit tend to survive and produce more offspring.
The space within and between solar systems was quite warm and capable of supporting liquid water.
There might not have been enough time during this period for intelligent lifeforms to develop, but a large stew of amino acids and other building blocks of life could have developed during this period.
Those building blocks could have hopped rides on meteorites and asteroids which eventually bombarded the Earth providing it with water and the beginnings of life.
These Physicists had to do their work before the astro-biologists could do their work. Now, NASA sends the rockets up chasing comets to see if they can find/collect some life form or life precursor in the comet tail.
The Stuff or the old Art Bell Show!
Coming up in a couple months ESA will attempt land a probe on a comet directly and drill inside. Will be interesting what they find.
A four-year-old article with a misleading headline? Why?
Francis Crick, one of the men who discovered the double helix, proposed directed panspermia. Not only was life on earth of cosmic ancestry, but also that it had been specifically sent to or directed towards earth.
That’ll be the fallback when complexity makes ye olde primordial soup untenable. An alien intelligence sufficiently advanced to have launched such a scheme would be indistinguishable from a god. But, I suspect we won’t be hearing the argument that “aliens did it” will halt all scientific inquiry and should therefore be rejected out of hand, for some odd reason.
That life came from space? Yes, but not in the form of microbes, in the form of Xenu flying DC8’s filled with billion of captive souls of the Galactic Confederacy. That should be obvious to anyone taking enough drugs and alcohol.
Evolution (in particular genetic coding) also fails to explain how the body plan is formed. Simply producing proteins is insufficient.
Another of the many problems with evolution is the part about transition from one species to another. It’s never been observed. And if you have an intuition for probability, you might see that for evolution to be true there would have to be a whole lot more transitional species—not just fossils of transitional species, but currently existing transitional species.
I meant to say random chance, actually. But endowed in the sense that random mutations which promote survival allow for greater proliferation. In that sense, there is nothing to explain how humans have advanced abilities which have nothing to do with mere survival.
This explanation seems to ignore the likelihood that God spoke life into existence.
As in speaking some sort of language.
(Fascinating, how the genetic code is a form of language.)
Like you say, speciation is one of the key points of contention with evolution, because it’s never been directly observed. That, however, is probably due to the extreme time span which is required for it to happen. Simpler adaption is not in dispute. But speciation is just adaption over a much longer timeframe. When two members of the same species adapt differently under separate environments to the point where they can no longer breed with one another, speciation occurs.
The "something" that got us from nothing to a massive universe is the Word of God.
The Word of God gave us the Big Bang. The laws of physics that unfolded from that Big Bang could have led to an early "warm" period in the universe that was essential in the development of precursors to life that were eventually deposited on Earth.
10’s of thousands of scientists don’t believe in evolution. Will anyone hear about it - no.
Microbes from outer space led to human life implies evolution between the two. Humans just didn't fall out of the sky already fully developed.
No, you also have to produce fats and sugars.
If you want to know how the body plan is formed, look up embryonic development. First, the fertilized ovum grows. Then, at about 3 weeks, all of the organs start to form and all exist by 5 weeks, along with the limbs. This is all a result of cells producing and responding to chemical signals. After 5 weeks, the body grows and becomes more detailed.
Another of the many problems with evolution is the part about transition from one species to another. Its never been observed. And if you have an intuition for probability, you might see that for evolution to be true there would have to be a whole lot more transitional speciesnot just fossils of transitional species, but currently existing transitional species.
There are transitional species all around you. Considering that evolution is a continuous process, then, by definition, all species are transitional. Also, there exist living organisms at every "stage" of evolution--from simple colonies of identical but communal cells, through every level of complexity until you get to what we usually think of as the most complex organisms.
If you have ever noticed that children do not look exactly like their parents or each other, you have noticed a consequence of evolutionary forces at work.
Evolution takes place at the population level, not the individual level. Random genetic changes always happen, and over time, some of them become distributed throughout the population. But if a population is split into two populations of the same species (usually through a geological event), then the accumulation of random genetic changes is different in each population. Over time, those changes cause the two populations to be different and eventually to be reproductively incompatible, at which point they are considered two species.
Yes, you have it. Groups of the same species, somehow separated, and the common gene pool is split in two. Then they go completely separate ways.
Crick was on LSD when he “discovered” the DNA helix.
-— That doesnt explain how we are able to understand advanced mathematics, build computers, and go to the moon, however. That ability given to us just by chance seems very unlikely. -—
The effect can’t be greater than the cause, or stated another way, the greater can’t come from the lesser. So if evolution happened, it would have to have been caused through a greater cause, I.e., God.
But evolutionary theory has scientific problems. The fossil evidence contradicts microevolution because it displays stasis in species. Species exit the fossil record in the same form that they appeared. The fossil evidence is overwhelming.
And as far as macro evolution is concerned, no one has proposed a remotely plausible mechanism.
“Maybe we can decompile very tiny pieces of it at a time, but then we cant be sure if something in it depends on a completely different part of the code.”
Sounds like ObamaCare :)
I'm not saying it was God...
But it was God.
We ourselves could well be transitional species. We may be transiting from corporeal to spiritual beings. God can do anything.
Finally, someone to whom I can explain my vote for Mitt Romney!
You see, Mormons (and Scientologists) believe that eventually man can become god on another planet. On the off chance that this might be true, I figured that Earth was quite possibly Romney's planet.
One doesn't want to vote against that, does one?
I’ve heard all that about Mormons: that God was once a human, about the spirit wives, of being future gods of their own planets, etc. But every time you say that to a Mormon, they emphatically deny that’s what they believe. So either (a) it’s false, (b) they’re lying, or (c) it’s a belief only held among the ‘inner circle’. Whatever the case, Joseph Smith was definitely a strange one. But due to this ambiguity, I’m not quite willing to judge someone solely on the basis of their being a Mormon.
As far as I know, the manner in which shape is obtained from genotype has never been described.
What you’ve done is no more than suggesting a possible general mechanism—responding to chemical signals—which is only described on a microscopic level yet seems to be missing a lot of the details. I don’t think you can bridge the gap to show how shape is determined on a macro level.
That is, I don’t think you can take a set of gene sequences and predict what shape will come of it, for example shape of extremities or shape of trunk region. Or how to change the gene sequences in order to produce a particular phenotype size or shape.
As for transitional species—can you give me at least one example?
Actually, we do have many instances in which the appearance of the phenotype can be predicted from the genotype. And research is turning up more details all the time. It is a logical fallacy to assume that because we do not yet have the knowledge of exactly how *every* gene contributes to phenotype, that we have *no* knowledge in that area.
What youve done is no more than suggesting a possible general mechanismresponding to chemical signalswhich is only described on a microscopic level yet seems to be missing a lot of the details. I dont think you can bridge the gap to show how shape is determined on a macro level.
Every multicellular organism has its shape determined by molecular events. There are no exceptions. The propagation of chemical signals throughout the developing embryo is hardly a "possible general mechanism"--it is the only mechanism. Those signals direct cells when to grow, when to stop growing, when and how to differentiate, when to die (cell death is an integral part of development), etc.
As far as not being able to "bridge the gap", the fact that it is not yet possible to look at a genome and predict the person's appearance is meaningless. That does not mean that it will never be possible. The fact is that many features *are* predictable from genotype. For instance, since a few Neanderthal genomes have been sequenced, it is possible to determine their hair color without having any sample hair.
As for transitional speciescan you give me at least one example?
Only one? Humans.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that there is a defined end point for evolution, and that either species are heading for that end point or are already there. There is no end point since evolution is a continuous process. Therefore, by definition, every living species is a transition species.
I didn’t say appearance, or features—I said shape. How genotype predicts shape on the macro level seems to be information that is entirely unavailable.
As for species transition—if evolution is true, then some species currently existing would necessarily be defined as precursors of other species also currently in existence. And by the laws of probability, some of the precursors would have to be very close to their successors in the evolutionary trajectory, while others would be not so close.
But we don’t have this. We only have some species which can be claimed to be on the same line of evolution as others, but only distantly related—and even this often seems a stretch of logic. There are none which are close together on the evolutionary timeline, as would have to be the case if evolution were true.
Um... that is a real head-scratcher. Have you ever heard of DNA? All of the information needed to shape the organism is right there. Instead of memorizing the content of anti-science sites like Answers in Genesis and its ilk, how about reading up a bit on genetics, biochemistry, embryogenesis, etc.?
As for species transitionif evolution is true, then some species currently existing would necessarily be defined as precursors of other species also currently in existence. And by the laws of probability, some of the precursors would have to be very close to their successors in the evolutionary trajectory, while others would be not so close.
Obviously, you did not read my previous posts. Since evolution is a continuous process, every organism is, by definition, a transition organism. And evolution takes place a few mutations at a time, so it takes millenia to see distinct changes in a long-living species like humans. Nevertheless, your genome contains mutations not present in either of your parent's genomes, and none of your chromosomes (except the X and Y) match any of your parent's chromosomes. With that kind of genetic mix up at every generation, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the genetic composition of a species after 100 generations will be different than its genetic composition right now. And after 1,000 generations, it will be even more different, and at some point many generations hence, it will not be the same species any more.
We only have some species which can be claimed to be on the same line of evolution as others, but only distantly relatedand even this often seems a stretch of logic.
Um... science does not progress through logical exercises. The only criterion that matters in science is measurable and observable evidence. It is not logic that tells us that the genomes of humans and chimpanzees are only about 5% different--this determination was made by actually comparing the two genomes, chromosome for chromosome, gene sequence for gene sequence. These days, we use phylogenetic trees a lot for mapping evolutionary relationships. You might try reading up about them sometime.
Do not confuse your own ignorance of biology for any real gaps of knowledge within the field. You'd do well to assume that whatever you don't know, someone not only knows, but is actively researching that topic. Also, just because something isn't known yet does not mean that the knowledge does not exist or is unknowable--it just means that it is merely waiting to be discovered.
If you take a course in genetics at any university, you’ll find that exams require the ability to describe the processes of dna replication and rna transcription, the process of translation into proteins.
In other courses of biology and biochemistry, you’ll need to know about how carbohydrates and lipids are processed and sometimes synthesized.
But there are no exam questions that require a description of how particular genetic sequences produce particular morphological shape on the macro level. Knowledge of how this is achieved is totally absent in the field of molecular biology.
This is due to the fact that when it comes to an understanding of how body plan is formed on a macro level, evolution theory is entirely bankrupt.