Evolution

[noddy]

Argument-from-design is done in by paleontology straight up, not evolution. Every dead end, cross up, atavistic reemergence, divergence, and those critters which spring up out of nowhere that we've found under our feet are harder to square away with the means to an end argument from design than celestial Shakespeare composing itself in a void. It doesn't have a solid answer for extinction.

Ultimately, it goes awry by the contrivance that we can claim to know the designer's purpose beyond the instructions and condescension he gives to man.

Why presuppose that the Good Lord's purpose is perseverance and patience or edification for all that is created and especially man, all done out of a divine love&mercy? I wouldn't doubt any of those bits in the general, but all the mercy in the world still doesn't give us any insight into the ends to why a sloth survives but not a mastodon.

We've now dug up enough to make it unlikely that nature reveals a certain, plain teleology to us that some hoped it would; especially one centered around a fixity of animal types with a harmonious proportion of endowments ensconced in nice environments in which they had to live.

excellent points.

somewhere in all this we bang into the fatalistic, dictator version of god which dictates the flight pattern of every sparrow and fall of every leaf.

free will and the power of choices are made real in evolution.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Argument-from-design is done in by paleontology straight up, not evolution. Every dead end, cross up, atavistic reemergence, divergence, and those critters which spring up out of nowhere that we've found under our feet are harder to square away with the means to an end argument from design than celestial Shakespeare composing itself in a void. It doesn't have a solid answer for extinction.

Ultimately, it goes awry by the contrivance that we can claim to know the designer's purpose beyond the instructions and condescension he gives to man.

Why presuppose that the Good Lord's purpose is perseverance and patience or edification for all that is created and especially man, all done out of a divine love&mercy? I wouldn't doubt any of those bits in the general, but all the mercy in the world still doesn't give us any insight into the ends to why a sloth survives but not a mastodon.

We've now dug up enough to make it unlikely that nature reveals a certain, plain teleology to us that some hoped it would; especially one centered around a fixity of animal types with a harmonious proportion of endowments ensconced in nice environments in which they had to live.

excellent points.

somewhere in all this we bang into the fatalistic, dictator version of god which dictates the flight pattern of every sparrow and fall of every leaf.

free will and the power of choices are made real in evolution.

This is all a sore point because "evolution" runs right into all sorts of festering wounds of modern ages thinking.

William Paley was describing his watchmaker in the teeth of the deism fad. And part and parcel of his argument were his ideas of utilitarianism, non-magisterial protestantism and a most vociferous detestation for the slave trade. And we see a oft-unacknowledged thread there, that the rejection of Darwinism and Abolitionism went hand in glove for a multitude of people.

Is it a surprise that eastern Tennessee, which was thick on the ground with abolitionists, low church dissenter types and supporters of the union during the civil war, would be the setting for the Scopes Money Trial; that they would object to a teacher bringing a textbook into their community which stated of non-Caucasians: "If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this ..."?

It doesn't make the argument right but it highlights how we tend to use evolution as a watchword for settling scores in other battles.

[Typhoon]

The textbook in question was A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems, authored by George William Hunter, which espoused the then popular beliefs regarding eugenics.

In the first edition of Civic Biology, Hunter briefly discusses eugenics on one page of the 432 page textbook. Along with many other evolutionary biologists, Hunter embraced the idea of eugenics as a social doctrine. It was a popular idea in the early 20th century, and several states had enacted laws to compel the sexual segregation and sterilization of people deemed eugenically unfit. Hunter believed that society could perfect the human race by preventing intermarriage between people such as the mentally ill, criminals, and epileptics. Hunter also believed that the Caucasian race was the highest type of all the races.

As such, the section in question was a gross misinterpretation and unsupported extrapolation of Darwin's work and the resulting theory of evolution.

[Parodite]

The term "emergent" is currently used, somewhat loosely, in the physical sciences to describe the phenomena that very complex collective behaviour can arise from very simple interactions between some collection of material stuff.

P. W. Anderson | More is different

The material stuff under study can be elementary particles, atoms, molecules, or even populations.

Quanta Mag | Swirling Bacteria Linked to the Physics of Phase Transitions

Where are the emergent soda cans. Or, another question would be, is there a limit on what can be emergent.

The interesting thing about the idea of phase transitions and swirling bacteria or the behavior of a swarm of birds and the like, is that it challenges the old adagio that complex things are made of smaller simpler things. That in fact also the opposite can occur: that a collective of small and very complex units gives rise to a bigger organism (e.g. a swirl) that more resembles the shape and behavior of a simple amoeba which then behaves in a way with emergent properties that easily makes your forget about the individual birds that make up the amoeba.

As a thought experiment (with a tongue in cheek) and analogously: how does a swarm of rugged and libertarian individualists behave, what emergent properties arise? I would predict that precisely because those individuals are highly intelligent what will emerge will probably look rather disappointing.. amoeba-like.

Complexity, I will argue, is a not an easy concept. It is deceptive. The degree to which complexity emerges from the build up of smaller units where simple rules combine into more complex outcomes... or from units that are highly complex but that combine into a less complex collective where complex rules combine into simpler outcomes... is something to consider.

Along this line of thinking it is quite possible that the individual atoms that make up the human organism have a yuuuge internal complexity of structure and function that make the emerging human being look and behave more like an amoeba in comparison.

[Typhoon]

The Siphonaptera

Big fleas have little fleas,
Upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so, ad infinitum.

And the great fleas, themselves, in turn
Have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still,
And greater still, and so on.

or, a poetic description of emergent physics

Big whorls have little whorls
That feed on their velocity;
And little whorls have lesser whorls
And so on to viscosity.

[Mr. Perfect]

Suggest reading the articles.

I don't debate off site linked articles. They can be 1000 to 5000 words long or longer, and I would have no idea which part of the article you find relevant. If there was anything relevant you would have posted it.

[Mr. Perfect]

Pointing out that your

"Do you know why they don't investigate anymore"

claim is not even wrong.

The field has never been more active.

Lol, allow me to restate.

"100 years of scientific research has yielded zero evidence for spontaneous, random generation of DNA, and in fact scientists are so terrified of the subject no name scientist is willing to risk their reputation and career in failing to find proof of it themselves, and in all biological research searching for it represents far less that 1% of all spending as it always has an always will".

Hopefully that helps.

[Mr. Perfect]

key fobs have less to do with evolution than colonel suns angels do with gravity, so it seems their is a case of absurdity for thee but not for he.

I don't know what this means.

in recap, you are right that their is no proof of the first DNA and how it came to be and if you want to dispute evolution thats the best place to shout at.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that Dawkins et al are practicing faith while condemning it.

i doubt you will get many atheists buying into your faith analogy and you will only get raw ignorami buying into the keyfob thing.

Lol, "if you don't agree with me you are ignorant", how quickly that card is played by the insecure.

The point of this whole thing is you can only believe in random spontaneous DNA if you are ignorant. A quick perusal of the subject leads to one conclusion; it's impossible. Atheists are ignorant in this case, whether they buy it or not, and exercise the same faith as a cow worshiper. Few admit to their ignorances.

[Mr. Perfect]

The textbook in question was A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems, authored by George William Hunter, which espoused the then popular beliefs regarding eugenics.

In the first edition of Civic Biology, Hunter briefly discusses eugenics on one page of the 432 page textbook. Along with many other evolutionary biologists, Hunter embraced the idea of eugenics as a social doctrine. It was a popular idea in the early 20th century, and several states had enacted laws to compel the sexual segregation and sterilization of people deemed eugenically unfit. Hunter believed that society could perfect the human race by preventing intermarriage between people such as the mentally ill, criminals, and epileptics. Hunter also believed that the Caucasian race was the highest type of all the races.

As such, the section in question was a gross misinterpretation and unsupported extrapolation of Darwin's work and the resulting theory of evolution.

Darwin's work had racism in the title and his strongest early proponents were virulent racists (thomas huxley). Social Darwinism was an inescapable conclusion for those people. A stain that will forever be on that theory. Only the strong survive.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

[Mr. Perfect]

It doesn't make the argument right but it highlights how we tend to use evolution as a watchword for settling scores in other battles.

Evolution is an ideology, and as such is used in ideological contexts. You will rarely meet an evolutionist who can put together a paragraph or sentence in their own words that scientifically supports their belief system, usually mumblings about mutations (without citation) and natural selection (without realizing it is not predictive and results in fewer traits not more) followed by a quick exit, often preceded with ad hom insults.

But, not the topic of my thread.

The question, still unanswered is if a key fob cannot spontaneously come into existence in nature, how can something infinitely more complex, like DNA. Or, where can I go in nature and observe the "emergence" of DNA on any level at all.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The question, still unanswered is if a key fob cannot spontaneously come into existence in nature, how can something infinitely more complex, like DNA. Or, where can I go in nature and observe the "emergence" of DNA on any level at all.

It's a not-even-wrong type question.

We see emergence all the time in the form of RNA editing on-the-fly. Celaphods have lately been in popular science news because of the sort of editing they do isn't usually seen in bigger animals; mammals (to my knowledge) are observed to edit at the margins: Octopuses, Squid, and Cuttlefish: RNA Editing Instead of Genome Evolution?

[Mr. Perfect]

Well. We are about to find out.

Where can I go to witness DNA coming into existence out of non DNA.

[Mr. Perfect]

It's a not-even-wrong type question.

We see emergence all the time in the form of RNA editing on-the-fly.

What does this have to do with DNA coming from non DNA.

Celaphods have lately been in popular science news because of the sort of editing they do isn't usually seen in bigger animals; mammals (to my knowledge) are observed to edit at the margins: Octopuses, Squid, and Cuttlefish: RNA Editing Instead of Genome Evolution?

Cool stories, but what does this have to do with DNA coming from non DNA.

Man, you guys go right to obfuscation with the first card.

You have nothing.

[Mr. Perfect]

BTW, you are not even wrong.

But I'd like to see you keep trying.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

The microbiologist James Shapiro has infamously described the whole of the process as more akin to "natural genetic engineering."

I say infamously because there has arisen some controversy around him from neo-Darwinist types who accuse him of lending material support intelligent design theories while some ID/creationist supporters cite his work as evidence or proofs of whatever it is they are trying to argue.

But he's a biologist in good standing with a wide base of support and whose ideas are taken seriously now that emergence [vitalism and Aristotle all over again!] is back on the table. Natural Selection, as in an accumulation of mutations found in niches, is one of several ways biological material emerges.

[Mr. Perfect]

So far we have gotten some predictable responses.

Noddy was probably the most responsible, "billions of years anything can happen (except key fobs ) and while you have a point if you don't agree with me you are ignorant" which we see in cases like MMGW (also happens in evolution arguments all the time when dealing with those impossibilities).

CS "chemical stuff happens, therefore all chemical stuff happens (except key fobs )". 3 or 4 fallacies in there

Napster "complicated stuff over here, therefore DNA can come from nothing"

Personally I would be embarrassed to make these kinds of arguments, but that aside I think the fact that absolutely no science was submitted after this theory existing for 100 years only shows that you can only believe this by faith, the exact kind of faith kids have in the tooth fairy. I can't accept that kind of faith. It's too much. To believe in something based on absolutely nothing. And we haven't even gotten into the problems of creating the first cell (naturally).

To each his own. However, from this day forward, the Dawkins atheist never gets to ridicule others for practicing the same kind of faith they practice. Ever.

Now, I do not consider any of you Dawkins atheists. In fact, the atheists here are my favorite kind. I used to be one. Sort of. I can agree to disagree with all this stuff. However in my country people like Dawkins are making it dangerously close to illegal to disagree with him. And this is a problem.

[Mr. Perfect]

The microbiologist James Shapiro has infamously described the whole of the process as more akin to "natural genetic engineering."

How can he describe it.

I say infamously because there has arisen some controversy around him from neo-Darwinist types who accuse him of lending material support intelligent design theories while some ID/creationist supporters cite his work as evidence or proofs of whatever it is they are trying to argue.

But he's a biologist in good standing with a wide base of support and whose ideas are taken seriously now that emergence [vitalism and Aristotle all over again!] is back on the table. Natural Selection, as in an accumulation of mutations found in niches, is one of several ways biological material emerges.

Cool stories bro. Where is the evidence. Do you know what evidence is? Physical evidence?

Have you ever taken a science class. Do you know what appeal to authority is (see bolded).

Lol, how many fallacies do you guys think you can rack up on one topic .

[Mr. Perfect]

Natural Selection, as in an accumulation of mutations found in niches, is one of several ways biological material emerges.

I don't think you've ever taken a science class. Natural selection is about the elimination of traits, not the creation of them. That's supposed to come from mutations, yet no one can ever find one that does it.

But, back to the battle.

What science supports spontaneous generation of DNA. Citations please.

[Mr. Perfect]

I'll give you an out.

The spontaneous generation of DNA from non DNA is NOT POSSIBLE

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

What does this have to do with DNA coming from non DNA.

Everything

DNA by itself is negligible- it's not the be all and end all of what we know about replicating biochemical information systems.

And we don't get to anything we'd call life without addressing RNA and proteins and microorganisms or the ecology of all of these things combined.

You want to see free strands of dna and rna floating out there, take a look at viruses.

That's "life" with the premium set on DNA

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Have you ever taken a science class. Do you know what appeal to authority is (see bolded).

I didn't make an appeal to anyone; nor do I have an opinion of his theories.

There is a difference between comments and arguments.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I don't think you've ever taken a science class.

says the man who says this:

Natural selection is about the elimination of traits, not the creation of them. That's supposed to come from mutations, yet no one can ever find one that does it.

c'mon bro.

[Mr. Perfect]

I don't think you've ever taken a science class.

says the man who says this:

Natural selection is about the elimination of traits, not the creation of them. That's supposed to come from mutations, yet no one can ever find one that does it.

c'mon bro.

The most profound truths can be stated simply.

[Mr. Perfect]

Have you ever taken a science class. Do you know what appeal to authority is (see bolded).

I didn't make an appeal to anyone; nor do I have an opinion of his theories.

There is a difference between comments and arguments.

Ok. So no science that shows the spontaneous generation of DNA?

[Mr. Perfect]

What does this have to do with DNA coming from non DNA.

Everything

DNA by itself is negligible- it's not the be all and end all of what we know about replicating biochemical information systems.

And we don't get to anything we'd call life without addressing RNA and proteins and microorganisms or the ecology of all of these things combined.

You want to see free strands of dna and rna floating out there, take a look at viruses.

That's "life" with the premium set on DNA

Great stories. So no science showing the origin of DNA? My research shows it is impossible, yet you seem to believe in it. Am I wrong?