Trav,

"On a theological level, my amatuer understanding is that it is definitely possible to fit evolution into a theological framework. On a theological level, my amatuer understanding is that it is definitely possible to fit evolution into a theological framework."

You assume a prioi that the theological framework is Judeo-Christian. That is does not take the guise of an objective observer.

If one were to spend a few hours putting together a serious paper on some OLO topics (if time did permit), then there is a fair chance that the fundamentalist Christians would respond with lols, lampoons or jump topic.

vanna,

Abiogenesis is an extremely rare event which have happened only a few times, perhaps, only once. Mutation on the other hand has been observed, for example, with regards the HIV virus

C J Morgan
I have recommended your post for deletion. It appears that you cannot make a post to any forum without name-calling or abuse of another poster, which is outside of forum rules.

Oliver,
“Abiogenesis is an extremely rare event which have happened only a few times, perhaps, only once”

Exactly.

So what other great evidence is there for evolution, or the theory that life evolved out of basic raw materials.

The concept that the right chemicals have suddenly appeared. Then the correct conditions and enzymes have also occurred for these chemicals to chemically combine, then the correct amino acids have resulted from these chemical reactions, then the correct proteins have been produced from the amino acids, then the correct tissue has formed from the proteins, then a fully functioning organism has finally been produced from the tissue, then the organism also has to have the knowledge that it has a limited life expectancy and must reproduce, and then the organism also has the means to reproduce and can also produce viable offspring that can also reproduce.

The chances of all that occurring without something extra are about zero.

There is considerable evidence for speciation, there is limited evidence for the accidental formation of life that is the basis of the theory of evolution.

There is also a possibility that life on planet Earth was seeded, but if someone only considers evolution, then every other possibility has to be discounted.

Precisely, CJ.

Vanna,

I’m starting to wonder what on Earth you think punctuated equilibrium is.

<<I previously have. Punctuated equilibrium.>>

You haven’t.

Evolution is fundamentally the fact and theory that species evolve over time, or more specifically, evolve over time via natural selection.

Punctuated equilibrium is one way describing how this has taken place - in big bursts here and there, due to sudden geographical or environmental changes, rather than a relatively smooth transition.

Both ideas fit evolution just fine, so you are still yet to name a test that evolution has failed.

<<Evolution infers that there must be continuous genetic change in a species.>>

Wrong.

There is nothing about evolution that says that species must continue to evolve at all times.

<<Unfortunately, some species have genetically stayed the same for many millions of years (or for many millions of generations), which exposes a major flaw in evolution theory.>>

Wrong again.

All this means is that the habitats of those species have remained relatively unchanged, or that change was not required for survival.

So on the contrary, they help to confirm natural selection.

<<Abiogenesis has never proven that organisms can accidentally or spontaneously develop, and has mostly been disbanded as a theory.>>

Wrong yet again.

Firstly, who is it that claims that “organisms can accidentally or spontaneously develop”? I certainly don’t know of any scientists who claim this.

Secondly, abiogenesis has not been disbanded at all. In fact progress is continuously being made in this field of research (that is still in its infancy, mind you) and various stages of abiogenesis have been repeated in labs.

And thirdly, what does this have to do with evolution?

Continued...

vana,

The light elements which constitute human bodies formed in the Big Bang. The heavy elements were formed in post-first generation stars, hence, the late Carl Sagan's dictum, "we are made of star suff".

Life did appear on Earth after a relatively short time on astronomical scales, it was 3 billion years ago, 1.6 billion years after the formation of the Earth. The processes were not really sudden on geological or atmospheric time frames.

Please consider the chemical composition of the human body:

http://www.random-science-tools.com/chemistry/chemical_comp_of_body.htm

To my eyes there is plenty of evidence an inorganic substratum to life. Although, life basically runs counter the second law of thermodynamics, it does not follow that locally, life cannot occur, because balance is found outside the encaptulated local system. This has been know for decades.

I have read that there is research into the old protein and amino acid chicken and egg puzzles. But these are merely problems to be solved. Perhaps, a primitive form RNA being captured in a bubble. Maybe, "two" unlikely events fused:Proto-cell A was invaded by proto-cell B (having the characteristics of a virus), herein, a dormant engine is supplied fuel.

HIV mutation is not aboigenesis. Yet, one can trace the handedness of the DNA modecule back billions of years, suggesting a common ancestor for life. Herein,there may have been only one ancestor. Albeit, before the Cambrian expansion 600 million years ogo, there was a mass extinction, which might have destroyed other life forms, but the evidence is not to hand.

The window of opportunity for abiogenesis might have been very small, yet nature has subequently provided billions of years for natural selection and mutation to work, afterwards.

Vanna,
I’m guessing that CJ Morgan’s post is going to stay. Yes, he does engage in name calling. And yes, it is an indicator that he doesn’t have much to say.

But the people who run this website seem to believe that it is worth letting a fair amount of those kinds of comments through if it is going to encourage vigorous debate. You have to grow a fairly thick skin to be involved in OLO. I’ve been called worse.

Note what Keating said, when he was calling people all sorts of names in Parliament. He said, ‘It’s the Australian way; at least in Australia we fight with words and not guns or grenades.’

Name calling nearly always reflects on the caller rather than the recipient. Let it stay as testimony to their vacuity.

Dear Michael Zimmerman,

The design argument is not dead. That you keep writing articles about it is testimony to that.

You even start off discussing the ‘latest attack’ against ID. Why would anyone raise another attack against something that was dead?

The debate certainly is alive and well here at OLO. It attracts quite a bubbly flow of attention.

As you say, the design/naturalist debate has bubbled along from the ancient Greeks through Paley and then Darwin and into modern times. It’s not going to disappear soon.

The more technology develops to understand the intricacies of biology, the more we marvel at its structure. Even the hardest of all atheists (Dawkins) has noted the appearance of design (describing it as an illusion to be explained away.) Scientific literature today is abounding in comments from researchers who, letting the ball slip, use language describing biological structures as being ‘designed’ in certain ways.

If it wasn’t for the philosophical implications, we might just follow the evidence to where it leads.

You claim that certain people (without naming any) are calling for scientific investigation to be halted. Who is doing this apart from you? You talk about Darwin claiming that certain organs in the body “bear the plain stamp on inutility”. If the organs are already declared to be useless, then why bother investigating them? It’s this kind of thinking that can discourage scientific investigation. Wouldn’t it be better to say that we suspect that the organs were put there for a reason; so though we don’t currently understand their function, we’ll investigate them further?

Those such as Michael Behe, knowledgeable and highly qualified to assess the evidence, able to scrutinise the weaknesses in Darwinian thought, brave enough to stand up to the current establishment, and willing to refine design theory, are likely to be increasing in number in future.

By the way, something imperfectly designed is still designed.

The design argument is not dead, even if certain people in intellectual circles wish it and declare it to be so. But keep it on your Christmas wish list.