Nice video showing how conditions of replication, variation, and competition can arise by purely mechanical and chemical forces.
Once these are in place evolution emerges as a consequence, i.e. there is increased complexity over time.

Iso website on this.

http://www.exploringorigins.org/index.html
from the youtube page of this vid

I listened to a guest speakER one time in my Linear Algebra class in college speak about the probability of the sequences to create the 12 protein's (I think it was 12) to coagulate blood in a closed circulatory system. He showed us the math but the probability for all of the protiens to form randomly exceeded the the amount of atoms in the universe and for statisticians that means it's impossible. Or atleast, it's impossible for a closed circulatory system to ever evolve from a OPEN circulatory system.

So when I read the bold above, I lol'd.

EDITS ARE IN CAPS


So I decided to look a few things up. You'll find a good discusion refuting the above and giving references to the math we were shown. I looks like another infinite loop until someone says..."to each his own". http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

So what do you think?

This post was edited by xnatex21 on Mar 9 2009 01:21pm

I understand your confusion here - obviously it would be hard to accept that all our useful proteins came about randomly. KEY POINT: They absolutely did NOT come about randomly - evolution clearly states so.

This is the single most misunderstood fact: evolution is the complete opposite of random. There is one random element in the recipe - the mutations between generations. These mutations, as we would expect from random ones (and your protein math would clearly show) are rarely any good, but they don't need to be. If you have billions of organisms reproducing, if even ONE of those tiny mutations grants anything beneficial (The same Protein math will show this too) then that one change is more likely to be passed on to offspring because the benefiting organism has an edge against peers. It has kids, and they are likely to have that same beneficial trait and the same advantage. This is not random at all - you are absolutely guaranteed to come out more complex given the variation, competition, and replication already shown.

Edit: I also understand that it can be hard to see how the incredibly complex cell machinery we see today came about randomly. Let me just drive home the point - it is absolutely not random that beneficial traits stay and non-beneficial traits go away.

This post was edited by heepajunk on Mar 9 2009 01:58pm

Yeah and the link I posted has a good analogy for how that 1 possibility could have happend the 1st time. But the converse is also possible.

When you boil it all down (info on both sides) it's safe to say that there isn't conclusive evidence for either side. Both would lead you to believe that they have all of the math, chemistry, biology, etc to prove their theory but in the end, there is no conclusion. That's why its just a theory and not a law.

I don't think we're understanding eachother here, but there's no need to press the matter - plenty of other forums dedicated to these discussions. In any case, just thought the vid was interesting.

I should make clear though that theory >>>>>>>>>>> law. When scientists talk about laws, those are just the factoids (akin to 2 = 2). They express a simple this-is-what-i'm-seeing idea about the world, whereas a theory makes the bold move of explaining why those laws exist, and as a consequence they can predict new laws! This is something laws can never do. For example, without germ theory attempting to explain infection (and testing to verify or deny that explaination) we'd never advance the field of medicine.

This post was edited by heepajunk on Mar 9 2009 02:35pm

and i wonder what the speaker believes is the probability of an intangible being existing everywhere, everywhen, who is omnipotent and omniscient.



abiogenisis has been brought up several times in these forums, but im glad it was brought up again, bc i enjoyed reading this post a lot. well put

There is definately more excitement and thrill in theories but debating them becomes tiresome when both parties have substantial data on either side (I myself do it only for entertainment and I fully appreciate the human beings that devote their lives to such things, regardless of the side they have choosen). I only wanted to point out that accepting one theory as the complete undeniable truth lends you to being completely and undeniably wrong. Not to say that you shouldn't choose a side, but do so with the caveat that you could be completely wrong. So in your pursuit to persuade people you are right about a theory, you have to respect that they might also have chosen and are equally likely to be right or wrong.

My personal feelings on abiogenisis are that it's equally likely to provide truth into how life was created on earth as it is not. So I am open to a plausable explaination but for the sake of argument, if no one else wants to step up and take religion's side, I will.

Let's debate?

Yeah i definitely agree, the best part about using the theory-experiment method (scientific method) is that if a single contradiction is found then any rational being is forced to reject the theory in question, no matter the bias they may have.