Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deism is to be rejected. God had a direct causal role in the development of life.
 
Here we have a diagram illustrating the structure of a bacterial flagellum:

Structure-of-the-prokaryotic-flagellum


There are a few youtube videos out there, but I’m only posting this for simplicity.

Clearly, I cannot convince true believers in materialism, but for those interested in the wonders of creation, do take a look.
 
Next I will direct your attention to a recent Royal Society meeting.

Here is a roundtable discussion at the Royal Society Meeting in 2016

19 minutes - no empirical evidence and leads to destruction. - And then Jablonka says “without God, we are excluding God”.
 
During the first Round Table audience discussion, Hands introduced himself as the author of Cosmosapiens: Human Evolution from the Origin of the Universe and made the following comments.

“It’s appropriate that this meeting is being held at the Royal Society, whose motto, we were reminded yesterday, is Nullius in verba”: Accept nothing on authority.

The current paradigm in evolutionary biology, NeoDarwinism, also called the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, has been the authority for some 65 years. It is, of course, a mathematical model based on several unquestioned assumptions, hose proof was given by 1940s game theory borrowed from economics.

What we have heard over the last 2 days is empirical evidence that new species arise rapidly, from such mechanisms as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, hybridisation, whole genome duplication, interactive systems producing novel emergent properties, and other mechanisms described in Part 2 of my book.

These mechanisms contradict the fundamental tenets of neo-Darwinism, namely:
Code: 
random gene mutations provide phenotypical characteristics enabling
successful Darwinian competition;
these random gene mutations spread through a population’s gene pool by
sexual reproduction;
Darwinian gradualism leads to the genetic transformation of populations
of individual species members over tens of thousands of generations;
information flows one-way from a gene to a protein in a cell.
Not one whit of empirical evidence shows that new species arise from the neo-Darwinian mechanism.

To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species. It is collaboration in its various forms that causes biological evolution. Hence I’m surprised by calls for extending the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis. You can’t extend something that is broken. Surely what is needed now, after 65 years, is using the empirical evidence to develop a new paradigm for biological evolution.
 
And, just to push all the chips into the pot, there is also the Problem of Mind that would have to be explained naturalistically.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
TomH1:
I am a Catholic; I am a biologist; I am a biology lecturer in a college.
Click to expand...
You missed a whole lot of current science in this now closed thread:

Here is one: Darwin Devolves
This is what Behe claims - The conclusions of all studies is that evolutionary processes are only capable of driving changes at the level of species and genera , but not at the level of families or higher. Stated differently, evolution produces a limited number of changes and then no further significant change is possible.

Darwin Devolves Book Review - Thus this book. In it Behe makes the case that random mutation and natural selection are actually quite “ de volutionary”:
Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counterintuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully de volutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information. Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting. That is, the very same factors that promote diversity at the simplest levels of biology actively prevent it at more complex ones. Darwin’s mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain .
Click to expand...
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2019/06/08/a-review-of-darwin-devolves-by-michael-behe/

Micro evolution - yes
Macro evolution - no
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ah, so this is the point where you change your mind. From the countless comments you have posted that claim that macroeveolution doesn’t result in new species, you slip in a new post that now says it’s up to genera.

But you do know that everyone knows, don’t you. You do know that everyone is aware that for months you have been posting incorrect statements. We all told you that you were wrong. We even told you that Behe said as much.

And here’s the proof above.
 
Are you aware of the challenges to evolution?

Royal Society Meeting - Modern Synthesis is Broken

Read a report on the Royal Society Meeting

“The Modern Synthesis, while undoubtedly productive for a time, is a misconception of reality that has reached the limits of its explanatory power. The problems are fundamental. No amount of cosmetic surgery is going correct them.”

“To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species .It is collaboration in its various forms that causes biological evolution. Hence I’m surprised by calls for extending the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis. You can’t extend something that is broken. Surely what is needed now, after 65 years, is using the empirical evidence to develop a new paradigm for biological evolution.”

“If you want the definition of the Modern Synthesis, take a look at how Neil deGrasse Tyson explains evolution in the 2014 remake of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series. Tyson, an astrophysicist, is unaware that he is misinformed, as are most in science, academia, government, literature, the arts, and the public by this outmoded theory of evolution.”
“Shuker tried to interrupt but Noble held his ground:
‘No, YOU need to listen. I used to think exactly like you. I embraced the reductionist mindset for years. When I got out of school I was a card-carrying reductionist. Reductionism is powerful and it’s useful. I am not dissing it. Many times we need it. But it is not the whole story.’ Noble described how bacterial regulatory
networks rebuilt those genes in four days by hyper-mutating, actively searching for a solution that would give them tails and enable them to Nind food. Natural selection did not achieve that. Natural genetic engineering did.’”
“It’s appropriate that this meeting is being held at the Royal Society, whose motto, we were reminded yesterday, is “Nullius in verba”: Accept nothing on authority."
“Not one whit of empirical evidence shows that new species arise from the neo-Darwinian mechanism. To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species.”

http://www.idvolution.org
 
buffalo said:
You missed a whole lot of current science
Click to expand...
I am very much aware of Behe’s work. This is one of the reasons I try to avoid this debate. On one side I’m pulled by my faith and on the other by my profession. Behe has been widely discredited in his claim on this issue and indeed, Miller, is one of his critics.
 
TomH1 said:
I am a Catholic; I am a biologist; I am a biology lecturer in a college. This is, however, a discussion I try to avoid. The reason I am making this sole contribution to this thread is to recommend two things are not conflated. Abiogenesis and evolution are not the same.

Abiogenesis is the name given to the undiscovered process by which life started on Earth.

Evolution explains how life developed and diversified. You could not have evolution without abiogenesis.

I’m not aware of the Church’s position on abiogenesis but I do believe the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution. I am prepared to be disabused of that fact but not by personal opinion; only by reference to an official source from the Church rejecting evolution.

I would refer you to the works of K. R. Miller, a professor of Cell Biology at Brown University. He is both a Catholic and a proponent of evolutionary biology.
Click to expand...
Just a heads up, Tom. You are now going to get flooded with all the stuff that Buffalo has been posting on a thread on evolution that went on for thousands of posts. With rare exceptions, he only posted on that one thread. It is now closed.

He will now use this thread to post his views all over again. We have seen everything multiple times. You appear to be an expert in biology. Enter at your peril.

There should have been a sticky at the top of the evolution thread that said: Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here.

I’m off to see if there’s an ignore button. Life is too short to rerun that thread for another thousand iterations.
 
Wozza said:
But you do know that everyone knows, don’t you. You do know that everyone is aware that for months you have been posting incorrect statements. We all told you that you were wrong. We even told you that Behe said as much.
Click to expand...
You are disengenuous. I remind you of our discussion and that speciation is essentially lineage splitting and loss of a reproduction function once had. You claimed Behe said something he did not. I corrected you.

But lets dive into this a little further. You admitted you believe an existing categorized species, can lineage split itself and begin a new kingdom with new and novel features. I don’t believe that and neither does Behe. The bottom line point it Behe and I understand evolution to be limited. You do not. So cut the BS.

There is no empirical evidence that continued lineage splitting does anything you claim.
 
Wozza said:
Can’t we agree that a natural process is one that we can explain scientifically? So planets don’t appear by direct divine act. They appear for well known scientific reasons. Eathquakes, solar flares, lightning…you name it. We know how they occur.
Click to expand...
That’s a different question, though, right? Aren’t you engaging in potentially invalid extrapolation?
 
The usual suspects. The usual arguments.

This is Return Of The Thread That Would Not Die.
 
Wozza said:
You are now going to get flooded with all the stuff that Buffalo has been posting on a thread on evolution that went on for thousands of posts.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not because I’m going to make one more response to his post below directing me to the UK’s Royal Society (it’s premier learned society in the sciences for those who don’t know) them I’m out of here.
 
This is the Return of the Return ad nauseum and I do mean nauseum.
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
Wozza:
Can’t we agree that a natural process is one that we can explain scientifically? So planets don’t appear by direct divine act. They appear for well known scientific reasons. Eathquakes, solar flares, lightning…you name it. We know how they occur.
Click to expand...
That’s a different question, though, right? Aren’t you engaging in potentially invalid extrapolation?
Click to expand...
I’m open to your views. How would you describe the difference?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top