Skip to comments.Darwin's warm pond theory tested
Posted on 02/16/2006 6:00:37 PM PST by jwalsh07
click here to read article
Do ya think?
Search is your friend.
Alas, not all warm little ponds are volcanic vents.
Sometimes, sometimes not.
Not my friend obviously. But thanks for the notice.
"One possibility is that life really did begin in a 'warm little pond', but not in hot volcanic springs or marine hydrothermal vents," he added."
Maybe it formed in a cold pond. Maybe it formed on dry land. Maybe martians put it there. Maybe the first organism just spontaneously formed out of thin air. Maybe Maybe Maybe....
Maybe there are some things that just cannot be proved through science.....
Warm little ponds have their own problems which is why OOL researchers went to the vents and clay.
Sounds to me like the scientists are lost in their theories and don't know what new theory to turn to next.
Wonder what other parts of Darwin's theory will remain unprovable.
Well, they were certainly hopeful that vents and clay would be the holy grail of OOL studies. Back to the drawing board.
Evolution is a theory, Darwin's comment about a warm pond was merely a hypothesis. The difference between the two terms must be understood.
I liked this article. It reflects my thinking. It was the closest to the truth of many origins articles I've read on FR. There are simply too many unanswered questions for either evolution OR ID to claim victory or scientific "proof".
We all know we were dropped here from a mother ship.
Glad you liked it.
There is no such thing as scientific proof.
Nothing can be proved by science. Science only provides a method for explanation not proof.
Gosh, how did you get to be spring-loaded to the pissed-off position? The point I was making is precisely the point most creationists and ID-iots seem to miss.
Nice talking to you.
"Nothing can be proved by science. Science only provides a method for explanation not proof."
Hmmm. well science has proved the earth is round, that the planets rotate around the sun, that dinosaurs existed...etc etc
How about this..."Maybe there are some things that just cannot be explained through science."
What does this article have to do with evolution? It offered no information for or against ID either. What are you talking about.
That's mathematics, not "science". But of course you knew that.
Semantically, there is no "proof" in science.
Maybe space-time is merely warped to make the earth look round?
The "theory" of how the first living cell came to be has always intrigued me. No matter what anyone calculates as the odds against it, naturalists will always reply that, "given enough time and space, anything can happen."
So how could this "theory" possibly be disproven? It can't be disproven. But, as evolutionists constantly claim, that means it is unscientific! Remember, a theory must be "falsifiable" to be scientific.
The idea that science will someday be able to explain the first living cell by purely naturalistic means (with no intelligent design) is really just a hope and a dream (or an assumption) of evolutionists. The problem is that they have a very bad habit of confusing those hopes and dreams (and assumptions) with science.
Good point. Since the announcement that two more dimensions of "time" may have been found, space could well be wrapped around the ever present existential "I", and everything else could be little more than a projection of some sort.
Warm pond? I thought this thread was going to be about peeing in the pool.
Co-inkydinkily, I just read this yesterday:
Maybe space-time is merely warped to make the earth look round?
Maybe arguing logic with liberals and evolutionists is equally pointless.
Ruprecht: "May I go the bathroom?"
M. Cain : "Why certainly,...."
Ruprecht: [slumps in chair relieving himself]
The very same hypothesis I always seemed to end up pondering whenever I was stoned in the 70's.
Wonder when people will ever bother to learn enough about biology and/or Darwin to snap to the fact that the origin of life is in no way any part of "Darwin's theory".
Evolutionary biology, and Darwin's writings about it, deal entirely with how life changes once it's here, not how it started or where it came from.
While it's true that biologists investigate *both* fields of study (as well as many others), they are *different* fields of biology. Origin of life questions are no part of "Darwin's theory" or evolutionary biology, just as where the atmosphere may have come from originally is no part of (and irrelevant to) meteorology, which is the study of how the atmosphere behaves and changes now that it's here.
Maybe if someone would ever start arguing with "evolutionists" based on logic, we'd actually be able to test that hypothesis. Almost without exception, though, people end up trying to argue against evolutionary biology via misrepresentations, misunderstandings, fallacies, and lies (2). Hearing anti-evolutionists try to "refute" biology (and physics, and geology, and...) is like listening to a Michael Moore fan try to dispute conservatism, and for exactly the same reasons.
When and where?
..."Maybe there are some things that just cannot be explained through science."
How about this, we start with the definition of science and its method. Science is the observation of a material thing that exists in nature (fact) and there is evidence and empirical evidence for the fact and would provide a logical explanation (theory) for the observance of the fact. You are correct, science cannot explain everything. By definition it cannot explain the unknown or something that occurs that is not of a material existence. It cannot explain any faith or belief of the unknown or gravity. Faith and belief are observed by philosophy, gravity is observed by mathematics.
That simply doesn't matter. They both attempt to explain the complexity of life, either it's origins, or its variations, with a mechanism that has no possibility of producing those results.
And that mechanism is the same. Chance events, and long periods of time, combine (with the help of another inadequate factor in the case of evolution...selection) to produce the most complex, intricate, and purposeful structures known.
So then, the Earth isn't round, and planets don't go around the Sun, and science never proved it, and is not capable of proving it because science can't prove anything. Is that your position?
Would you state the theory or paste a copy or furnish a link where this theory is stated and exists? Not research, the theory itself.
The method of science does not prove or disprove anything. Any variation of the term proof is not used in science. The method of science is to explain a material fact.
Maybe making points to creationists about the scientific meaning of the word "proof" is pointless.
Like a joke, I hate to explain it, but science doesn't recognize the word "proof". However unlikely, highly unlikely, it may be, it is always possible that we might find another explanation for what appears to be a "round" earth.
That simply doesn't matter.
It does when people mistakenly try to imply, or often outright claim, that evolutionary biology is somehow dependent upon, or inextricably linked to, the validity of various origin-of-life hypotheses.
They both attempt to explain the complexity of life,
No, they most certainly do not. Biogenesis does not attempt to explain the complexity of life. It attempts to explain the origin of replication, period, no matter how simple. Please try to learn something about a topic before you attempt to expound upon it.
either it's origins, or its variations, with a mechanism that has no possibility of producing those results.
Why, because you say so? Because you're unfamiliar with how evolutionary processes produce complexity and functionality?
And that mechanism is the same.
Wrong again. Evolutionary biology deals with evolutionary processes, which involve replication as a necessary ingredient. Biogenesis is pre-replication, and must obviously occur by different mechanisms. Again, please try to learn a subject before you start trying to "lecture" on it.
Chance events, and long periods of time, combine (with the help of another inadequate factor in the case of evolution...selection) to produce the most complex, intricate, and purposeful structures known.
Congratulations, you've left out some of the other necessary conditions for evolutionary processes to occur -- your description is a fallacious analogy, and utterly fails to examine, critique, analyze, or refute the actual properties of those processes. Your post is just a classic "appeal to ignorance" fallacy -- these fallacies have the general form, "because *I* can't conceive how X could take place, then it can't happen!"
Here, start your neglected education then get back to us:
To cover other anti-evolution talking points you think you might have, check out this list of common creationist claims -- each item is linked to a discussion of the weaknesses of that talking point.
- 29 Evidences for Macroevolution
- This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, or cannot be falsified.
- Evolution and Philosophy: An Introduction
- Critics of evolutionary theory very often misunderstand the philosophical issues of the speciality known as the philosophy of science. This essay seeks to summarise some of the more important recent developments, provide a reading list, and to show that evolution is no worse off philosophically than any other science would be, and that the usual arguments against evolution from a philosophical approach fail.
- Transitional Vertebrate Fossils
- It is impossible to to debate creationists without hearing them claim that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. This essay puts the lie to that claim by listing and briefly describing a large number of transitional fossils among the vertebrates.
- Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation
- Creationists often argue that evolutionary processes cannot create new information, or that evolution has no practical benefits. This article disproves those claims by describing the explosive growth and widespread applications of genetic algorithms, a computing technique based on principles of biological evolution.
- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
- This essay is a must-read for anyone who wants to participate in talk.origins. It lays out the land for evolutionists and creationists alike, presenting the ideas behind and the evidence for biological evolution.
- What is Evolution?
- All too often creationists spend their time arguing with a straw-man caricature of evolution. This brief essay presents a definition of evolution that is acceptable to evolutionists.
- Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
- Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less well understood, and it is these mechanisms that are described by several theories of evolution.
The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in Evolution. By Stuart Kauffman, S. A. (1993) Oxford University Press, NY, ISBN: 0195079515.
Eigen M, and Schuster P, The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Springer-Verlag, isbn 3-540-09293, 1979
Stadler PF, Dynamics of autocatalytic reaction networks. IV: Inhomogeneous replicator networks. Biosystems, 26: 1-19, 1991
Lee DH, Severin K, and Ghadri MR. Autocatalytic networks: the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems. Curr Opinion Chem Biol, 1, 491-496, 1997
Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, and Ghadiri MR, Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature, 390: 591-4, 1997
Koch, AL: Evolution of antibiotic resistance gene function. Microbiol Rev 1981, 45:355378.
Velkov, VV: Gene amplification in prokaryotic and eukaryotic systems. Genetika 1982, 18:529543.
Romero, D & Palacios, R: Gene amplification and genomic plasticity in prokaryotes. Annu Rev Genet 1997, 31:91111.
Stark, GR & Wahl, GM: Gene amplification. Annu Rev Biochem 1984, 53:447491.
Reinbothe, S, Ortel, B, & Parthier, B: Overproduction by gene amplification of the multifunctional arom protein confers glyphosate tolerance to a plastid-free mutant of Euglena gracilis. Mol Gen Genet 1993, 239:416424.
Gottesman, MM, Hrycyna, CA, Schoenlein, PV, Germann, UA, & Pastan, I: Genetic analysis of the multidrug transporter. Annu Rev Genet 1995, 29:607649.
Schwab, M: Oncogene amplification in solid tumors. Semin Cancer Biol 1999, 9:319325.
Widholm, JM, Chinnala, AR, Ryu, JH, Song, HS, Eggett, T, & Brotherton, JE: Glyphosate selection of gene amplification in suspension cultures of three plant species. Physiol Plant 2001, 112:540545.
Otto, E, Young, JE, & Maroni, G: Structure and expression of a tandem duplication of the Drosophila metallothionein gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1986, 83:60256029.
Maroni, G, Wise, J, Young, JE, & Otto, E: Metallothionein gene duplications and metal tolerance in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 1987, 117:739744.
Kondratyeva, TF, Muntyan, LN, & Karvaiko, GI: Zinc-resistant and arsenic-resistant strains of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans have increased copy numbers of chromosomal resistance genes. Microbiology 1995, 141:11571162.
Tohoyama, H, Shiraishi, E, Amano, S, Inouhe, M, Joho, M, & Murayama, T: Amplification of a gene for metallothionein by tandem repeat in a strain of cadmium-resistant yeast cells. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1996, 136:269273.
Sonti, RV & Roth, JR: Role of gene duplications in the adaptation of Salmonella typhimurium to growth on limiting carbon sources. Genetics 1989, 123:1928.
Brown, CJ, Todd, KM, & Rosenzweig, RF: Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Mol Biol Evol 1998, 15:931942.
Hastings, PJ, Bull, HJ, Klump, JR, & Rosenberg, SM: Adaptive amplification: an inducible chromosomal instability mechanism. Cell 2000, 103:723731.
Tabashnik, BE: Implications of gene amplification for evolution and management of insecticide resistance. J Econ Entomol 1990, 83:11701176.
Lenormand, T, Guillemaud, T, Bourguet, D, & Raymond, M: Appearance and sweep of a gene duplication: adaptive response and potential for new functions in the mosquito Culex pipiens. Evolution 1998, 52:17051712.
Guillemaud, T, Raymond, M, Tsagkarakou, A, Bernard, C, Rochard, P, & Pasteur, N: Quantitative variation and selection of esterase gene amplification in Culex pipiens. Heredity 1999, 83:8799.
If you still have any unresolved questions or require further explanation of why you're talking nonsense, ask me and I'll cover it in more detail.
You have zero comprehension of what evolution is. Abiogenesis, by definition, cannot evolve because it cannot reproduce. While evolution totally depends on reproduction and genetic changes. These two things are in no way "the same".
"Would you state the theory or paste a copy or furnish a link where this theory is stated and exists? Not research, the theory itself."
Actually, it's a hypothesis rather than a "theory." You got me on that one. But that's semantic quibbling and is beside the main point.
Evolutionists routinely claim that the theory of evolution is separate from the origin of life. That's technically true, but if the origin of life cannot be explained by purely naturalistic means, that more or less blows away the notion that science must be premised on pure naturalism, eh?
No, science never proved the earth round or that the planets go around the sun. Science can never prove anything, the only method of science is to explain a material fact. That does not mean the earth is not round or that it does not revolve around the sun. That is observed by mathematics for things that occur as time, distance, velocity etc. Mathematics and science are two different methods for different observations.
No. All that means is we can't tell you today exactly how life began via naturalistic means. Like we couldn't tell you 100 years ago that the mechanism of inheritance was DNA.
What supernaturalists can't explain is why they believe that any supernatural thing exists at all. Besides the fact that they believe it is so.
Let me expand on that.
Natural explanations exist. Water evaporates and then condenses to form rain. Thousands of other natural processes are understood.
By contrast *no* supernatural phenomenon can be documented. None. Not fortune telling. Not ghosts. No Goddess Pele has been measured. Zeus can't bee found. Nothing, nada, zip.
So what makes you believe that any supernatural entity exists at all?
And creationists compare scientists to liberals who believe things for no reason at all ....