Origin of Life: Another Great Challenge to Darwinism

[Dante]

Why die instead of resting for a bit and then spawning some more?

This one is probably situational. It's possible that there's a limiting factor of food, for example, and a still-living adult population would starve the next generation.

Right. This observation is consistent with natural selection only if aging is somehow extraordinarily useful. So what is this great benefit that could justify the existence of aging?

It's still a bit up in the air, but the explanation that I currently favour is that aging is not useful so much as it is a byproduct of other causes. For example, genes that promote strength and fertility at a young age may prove detrimental to a more mature individual. In species where predation is high, you generally find that life spans rarely exceed a few years. Simply put, if you're not going to live for very long due to predators, there's no point in attempting to balance out beneficial genes across a long time. Just pack them all into an early reproductive phase. You generally find that species with long life spans tend not to suffer from heavy predation.

If we assume the existence of an omnipotent God, I don't see the problem with believing that something can magically appear in every single species alive at once.

On the other hand, if you want to dismiss the possibility of supernatural events a priori, then you've already dismissed the possibility that a god might exist, so we have nothing to talk about here.

Quite. If you're going to accept supernatural explanations then might as well just turn to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be done with it.

[Wolf]

I keep trying to underscore the fact that Hwi's "Intelligent Design" does not provide the tiniest shred of evidence for the existence of the Christian God - so her whole enterprise is pointless - but she doesn't seem to notice the problem.

Yeah, I've been wondering about that, too. It seems like she'd even be okay with the "designer" turning out to be some alien organism--which is hilarious, since that would either have to have been designed itself, or it would have to have evolved naturally. And if it was designed, then what designed it had either to have been designed or have evolved naturally. I think we all see the obvious problem here: intelligent design is merely a rhetorical tool designed (hehe) to sidestep the issue of producing evidence for a metaphysical God per se. It fools people into thinking that because life is so complex (well, to us) and that so many scientific questions remain unanswered (well, by us), that there must, therefore, be a supernatural explanation. Nevermind that there's no explanation for the supernatural explanation: this glaring hole is ignored, and ID is touted as being "better" than Darwin's theory of evolution and the naturalistic origin of species. So, Edric, I think there's two explanations for the deficiency of ID to prove the existence of the Christian God: (1) Hwi's just not out to prove it, she's just out to make people think that some god exists, and she'll get to the Crusades later when it's easier, and (2) this isn't about God at all, it's about spite and "hurting" the naturalistic explanations for the origin of life. Clearly, something about that scares her, and she has (to date) been unable to accept that it does, or why it does, and this is the result. Of course, this is all just my interpretation. It isn't like I've been here, or anything.

Regarding God, I think there are two and only two explanations. One is the general Deistic vision I alluded to earlier: a purely metaphysical God, potentially a universal creator who is responsible for the creation of natural laws, ultimately and by definition unprovable by us in these lives. The other is the possibility that, just as the human brain is a machine that creates a subjective experience, the universe itself is a machine that creates a subjective experience. (Subjective experience itself is another one of those things that we don't have an answer for: why have it? What's the advantage?) However, it's unclear that this being would even be aware of us, or that it had (or even could) have created the universe. It's also unclear (and when I say unclear in this context, I also mean highly unlikely) that even if it was aware of us, that it could even interact with us. Not exactly your traditional definition of "god," but something approaching it. Perhaps even something that humans will one day resemble, provided we don't... uh... ******* kill ourselves.

EDIT: Well, there's of course a third explanation, but Mr. Chiggles can tell you all about that one.

[chatfsh]

I keep trying to underscore the fact that Hwi's "Intelligent Design" does not provide the tiniest shred of evidence for the existence of the Christian God - so her whole enterprise is pointless - but she doesn't seem to notice the problem.

Pointless? Hardly.  On a number of occasions I have explicitly stated the objectives of the ID argument.  At no time have I ever suggested that one of the objectives is to prove the Christian God.  While ID may have positive implications for the existence of a god (just as a purely naturalistic mechanism may have positive implications for atheism), ID is not concerned with the identity of the Designer, and therefore, is not attempting to prove the existence of the Christian God.  

What I personally infer from the ID argument is a different matter altogether.  My inference is directly linked to my faith, so naturally I

[Wolf]

For the life of me, I can not understand why anyone would be so frightened or threatened by the open critique of the origin of life theories.  If you find the thread so horribly offensive or suspect that it

[chatfsh]

Oh, I

[Wolf]

Hahahahahaha, what?!

Okay, (1) that's ridiculous simply because we haven't actually been talking about God all that long, (2) when we started talking about God, you acknowledged that it wasn't even the Christian God!, so I wonder why he picked Christ. Personally, I think Sikhism is a fantastic, very-cool, shockingly modern religion. (3) I'm going to question the value of an apostate's faith that's based in large part on an online debate that said apostate was not a party to. I mean, you don't have to, but I would, (4) which raises the question just how much of a role this debate played. I think very little, delude yourself much? I mean, I know the answer to that, I've been here!

Oh man, Hwi, oh man, oh man. Are you one of those people that comes up to me in McDonald's and tries to give me literature? I just wish I had been there to see you explain all this to him. I can't wait until Chigger gets here. I salivate in anticipation.

EDIT: Hwi, also, why are your quote marks justified differently than mine? Mine appear like "this" but yours appear like

[SandChigger]

<b>WHO DARES INVOKE MY NAME TWICE IN POSTS THREE?</b>

(I do hope, Wolf, you drew a pentagram in salt first, otherwise... MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!)

For the life of me, I can not understand why anyone would be so frightened or threatened by the open critique of the origin of life theories.  If you find the thread so horribly offensive or suspect that it

[Wolf]

WHO DARES INVOKE MY NAME TWICE IN POSTS THREE?

(I do hope, Wolf, you drew a pentagram in salt first, otherwise... MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!)

Nah, man, you're like Biggie Smalls--I have to say your name three times while looking in a mirror. Then I think you appear with a Glock 9 or something.

[arnoldo]

. . . Well, alright, there are other possible interpretations of Genesis, too. Christian doctrine holds that the Fall corrupted nature in some way, but it is never specified precisely what that is. Perhaps natural selection is not the corruption. Perhaps senescence (biological aging) is the corruption.. . 

Christian doctrine specifically states that the fall corrupted nature via human sin.

For the creation was subjected to frustration' date=' not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.[/quote']

[SandChigger]

Um, Wolf? The thought/image of you looking into a mirror and saying my name ... that's more disturbing than that thing 'Newt does. Eeew.

Christian doctrine specifically states that the fall corrupted nature via human sin.

Oh, goody! A quote from The Great Heresiarch himself! Always appropriate!

Mmm yes, anyway ... rather typical of Yahweh's childish tantrums when things didn't go his way, wasn't it, that? The hairless monkeys disobey him so he damns the whole shebang. THAT makes <b>perfect</b> sense. (Oh, right, we limited humans are incapable of comprehending his ways, right? Sorry, forgot that wrinkle!)

[Wolf]

Um, Wolf? The thought/image of you looking into a mirror and saying my name ... that's more disturbing than that thing 'Newt does. Eeew.

It's a South Park reference: it's how they summon the ghosts of dead rappers.

[athanasios]

(I do hope, Wolf, you drew a pentagram in salt first, otherwise... MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!)

How you dare profane a sacred symbol? The wrath of GOD will be on you! - Oh sorry, I forgot, you are an atheist.

Humor has its limits and is pointless if the other side fails to understand it.

Nevertheless it seems that you do not respect anyone and anything...

Needless to say that it is better to refrain from replying to such posts.

Christian doctrine specifically states that the fall corrupted nature via human sin.

I do not agree. IMO the verse you quoted refers to human race and the bad effects of their sinful conduct on nature, not that nature was directly affected by Adamic sin.

But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time for the dead to be judged, and to give [their] reward to your slaves the prophets and to the holy ones and to those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin (corrupt) those ruining (corrupting) the earth.

[Edric O]

Just last week I had the rare privilege of helping another atheist accept Christ into his heart. What a rich and rewarding experience that was! Much of the credit goes to this very thread. Who

[arnoldo]

I do not agree. IMO the verse you quoted refers to human race and the bad effects of their sinful conduct on nature, not that nature was directly affected by Adamic sin.

It is sinful people that have corrupted nature.

I think we are in agreement that the corruption of nature is addressed in the scriptures which Edric stated they didn't.

Christian doctrine holds that the Fall corrupted nature in some way' date=' but it is never specified precisely what that is. Perhaps natural selection is not the corruption. Perhaps senescence (biological aging) is the corruption.[/quote']

As far as aging is concerned my high school level understanding of biology is that it's due to the inability of cells to repair damage and/or DNA damage combined with environmental stressors (pollutants, lack of nutrition, radiation, etc). If cellular aging somehow disproves the concept of the fall of nature it would interesting to consider.  From there, it would be interesting to explore the mechanism for which life naturally occurred on earth.  Life may've originated in the primordial sea but the problem with that is that water is a universal solvent which would prohibit the formation of unicellular organisms.  Therefore the formation of life in small puddles of water by the sea shore perhaps would've been more likely.  Still, there is the problem of water solubility.  The answer?  Clay theory which states that the clay in these small puddles was able to stick to the molecules which eventually formed unicellular organisms.  I like this theory because it also has a biblical aspect to it  ;)  

[chatfsh]

Really? But I thought that Intelligent Design had nothing to do with Christ:

So which is it? Are you trying to make a pro-Christian argument or not?

Again

[MrFlibble]

It is in the exact same manner that evolution has positive implications for atheism.

Erm... as a matter of fact, it doesn't. It only has negative implications for the literary interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

Sometimes it is necessary to first deal with the misunderstandings of those who have been taught that evolution is a settled and proven science.  Too many people blithely accept evolution as fact without ever examining the evidence and as a result may be misled into embracing atheism.

Great. So science leads people to embrace atheism, too bad for science, eh? Not that I haven't heard that before, but this discussion started on far more civil terms, which were sadly thrown away as it progressed.

[SandChigger]

my high school level understanding of biology

Ah, an encouraging start...

Clay theory which states that the clay in these small puddles was able to stick to the molecules which eventually formed unicellular organisms.  I like this theory because it also has a biblical aspect to it  ;)

GOOD for you, arnoldo! You connected it with the use of the word "clay" in the Bible. BRAVO! ::)

[snip]

Well, at least you're <b>finally</b> being honest about the real purpose of this thread. Are you finding the truth to be as freeing as it's supposed to be?

[Dante]

As far as aging is concerned my high school level understanding of biology is that...

Without wishing to come across as holier-than-thou, this more or less summarises your point. I suggest that you have a look at

video and come back to discuss the ideas contained therein.

Great. So science leads people to embrace atheism, too bad for science, eh? Not that I haven't heard that before, but this discussion started on far more civil terms, which were sadly thrown away as it progressed.

I'm afraid this discussion is founded on spite and sour grapes, but you weren't to know that so no harm done.

Evolution and god are not mutually exclusive. Evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive, but anyone with two neurons to knock together can see that the former is infinitely more reliable than the latter. That's just my opinion of course.

[Wolf]

To be fair, I think arnoldo is doing more than simply connecting clay theory to the mere usage of the word "clay" in the Bible. As the story goes, mankind was formed from clay. However, clay theory states that all life was formed from molecules that bonded in clay, not just man, so... there's that. I mean, there are other issues, too. I suppose it could be metaphorical, but how are people in the Middle East in the first millennium, B.C. expected to know that?

[Edric O]

It is in the exact same manner that evolution has positive implications for atheism.

Evolution does not have positive implications for atheism. Evolution does show that it would be possible for a variety of different species to develop without divine intervention, but so what? Gravity shows that it is possible for rocks to fall without divine intervention. "X could happen without God" isn't really an argument for atheism.

It is God alone that draws people to Christ. We are merely vessels that He uses to accomplish the task of reconciling souls to Himself. A soul can not be saved unless it accepts Christ. No matter how hard one fights to save his soul, without Christ, his soul is consigned to the flames of hell.

I need to point out that I am not a Protestant, so I'm sure we have some disagreements of doctrine. The Orthodox Church does not believe that mere verbal acceptance of Christ is sufficient for salvation, for example. Also, we believe that hell is not the same - and not equally bad - for everyone. And we believe that the prayers and other actions of one person can help save the soul of a different person.

Basic Christianity

[chatfsh]

Evolution does not have positive implications for atheism. Evolution does show that it would be possible for a variety of different species to develop without divine intervention, but so what? Gravity shows that it is possible for rocks to fall without divine intervention. "X could happen without God" isn't really an argument for atheism.

And yet, a number of atheists that I have encountered have consistently stated that they don

[athanasios]

arnoldo keep in mind that cultures of human cells never die.

many people feel comfortable turning away from God because evolution falsely holds that our existence (the origin of life) is the result of a purely naturalistic mechanism.

That's their problem then.

Does any Christian denomination teach that the mere verbal acceptance of Christ is sufficient for salvation?

Yes, I have encountered people who believe this, but they shouldn't be taken seriously. Faith without works is dead.

[Wolf]

So, Edric, I realize that you don

[ErasOmnius]

What is sad, is that Creationism cannot be taught in schools as well as Evolution.

[Dante]

That's not sad. That's positively glorious.