Why male and female?

Originally posted by RJHinds
That depends on what life you are referring to. If the designed parts of that life are easily seen like the parts of an automobile, then one will be able to tell it is designed just by looking at it.

The Instructor

As soon as you pick a side on design you are making a choice, those that
think they see it and those that deny it. So who is right, that would depend
on how it all started, and since no knows they state what they believe.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Now if you didn't show your work you'd gotten full points. 🙂
Kelly

WHAT!?

In math classes I got less than full points for not showing my work! I hated going through all those extra steps just to show a correct answer.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As soon as you pick a side on design you are making a choice, those that
think they see it and those that deny it. So who is right, that would depend
on how it all started, and since no knows they state what they believe.
Kelly

Except that int the case of life, the absence of design is the default position. It is those that claim it had to have been designed who have a case to prove. As long as abiogenesis and evolution provide a sufficient explanation, no design hypothesis is necessary.
I also find it interesting that you quite happily accept that random rocks by the side of the rail were not designed, and do not consider it a belief, no claim to 'know how it all started' in order to make that decision.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Except that int the case of life, the absence of design is the default position. It is those that claim it had to have been designed who have a case to prove. As long as abiogenesis and evolution provide a sufficient explanation, no design hypothesis is necessary.
I also find it interesting that you quite happily accept that random rocks by the side of t ...[text shortened]... ot consider it a belief, no claim to 'know how it all started' in order to make that decision.

Abiogenesis is false and evolution is only partially true as far as it deals with the varieties and changes within species. And evilution is totally false. So abiogenesis and evolution do not provide a sufficient explantation. But the existence of a supreme being that designed and made it all does.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Oh, a play on words, like EVILution. But mine is so much better, because mine is true.

The Instructor

You are an evil-delusionist.

Mine is the best 'play on words' because it's the truest.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Abiogenesis is false and evolution is only partially true as far as it deals with the varieties and changes within species. And evilution is totally false. So abiogenesis and evolution do not provide a sufficient explantation. But the existence of a supreme being that designed and made it all does.

The Instructor

The problem with these interminable debates is that "God did it" is a totally untestable hypothesis, gods are outside of science because religions do not produce testable hypotheses. You end up explaining any anomaly in terms of God, and can't use the concept in practical applications. "Faith will keep our bridge from falling" isn't going to satisfy the Health and Safety folks.

The scientists here aren't going to accept a religious answer to a scientific question fairly simply because it's not expressible in scientific language. While you may be able to dent their belief in a specific evolutionary model, you aren't going to get them to replace it with your theory because it's not testable.

Abiogenesis followed by evolution as a theory has the merit of making various predictions and having aspects which are laboratory testable. I saw a documentary some years ago where they put a primordial soup of basic ingredients into a test-tube and exposed it to the conditions they though would be around (electrical discharges and ultra-violet light) and managed to produce amino acids (see caveat). The conclusion is that amino acids could have come about spontaneously in early earth conditions and so there is no obstruction to the overall "spontaneous creation" theory as far as producing amino acids is concerned.

Caveat: I'm guessing that it was amino acids - it was some basic "raw material" - the program was on a long time ago. Also there's the point that they only showed "possible" they didn't necessarily show that it could happen at a fast enough rate; I don't know the full details and the field has moved on about fifteen years in the meantime.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Abiogenesis is false and evolution is only partially true as far as it deals with the varieties and changes within species. And evilution is totally false. So abiogenesis and evolution do not provide a sufficient explantation. But the existence of a supreme being that designed and made it all does.

The Instructor

I have to agree with Deepthought on at least one point I believe he was making. Natural science doesn't intersect with anything outside a strictly naturalistic explanation of what we observe, because frankly we are natural beings constructed from natural elements. On the other hand, I'm intrigued by ideas like ID that challenge my preconceptions because there are questions that natural science has been unable to answer, and may never be able to answer.

For instance, if living things are machines then what in our experience tells us machines are able to self construct and self direct themselves? It's nonsense for someone to define what machines are and then directly apply that to living organisms. There is definitely a gap needing explaining that hasn't been explained, or perhaps never can be explained by the limitations of natural science. Science is not a religion, so it cannot pretend to know everything and to assume everything is explainable through science. But there are scientists who sound suspiciously like ministers proclaiming their truth from pulpits, as though science is the one true god that can prove a living and thinking god is either not needed or doesn't exist.

I don't believe anyone sitting on a fence isn't actually leaning one way or the other, and the laws of physics are not in favor of the person who tries to push rather than pull a fence sitter down onto his side.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The problem with these interminable debates is that "God did it" is a totally untestable hypothesis, gods are outside of science because religions do not produce testable hypotheses. You end up explaining any anomaly in terms of God, and can't use the concept in practical applications. "Faith will keep our bridge from falling" isn't going to satisfy th ...[text shortened]... full details and the field has moved on about fifteen years in the meantime.

The Miller experiment was discarded because the atmosphere in his jar couldn't have been the same atmosphere at the time when life began. Dean Kenyon was one of the evolutionists who revived the abiogenesis debate, but then abiogenesis quickly died again. And in a way you could say Kenyon was one of the casualties of war who also didn't survive that debate.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The Miller experiment was discarded because the atmosphere in his jar couldn't have been the same atmosphere at the time when life began. Dean Kenyon was one of the evolutionists who revived the abiogenesis debate, but then abiogenesis quickly died again. And in a way you could say Kenyon was one of the casualties of war who also didn't survive that debate.

The Miller experiment was discarded because the atmosphere in his jar couldn't have been the same atmosphere at the time when life began.

How do you know this?
Why couldn't have it been the same type or a very similar type of atmosphere?
Explain.

Originally posted by humy

The Miller experiment was discarded because the atmosphere in his jar couldn't have been the same atmosphere at the time when life began.

How do you know this?
Why couldn't have it been the same type or a very similar type of atmosphere?
Explain.

It was a few months ago I found this information so it may take some time to find it again. I'm doing other things as well, so I'm limited to briefly coming and going to and from this site today.

But just from a standpoint of common sense, why would we believe the atmosphere could be same before an eco-system developed? Conditions on earth evolved and (eco-system or not) it didn't look exactly the way it does now, and that includes what the likely composition of the atmosphere would have been at that time.

Originally posted by lemon lime
.....because there are questions that natural science has been unable to answer, and may never be able to answer.

For instance, if living things are machines then what in our experience tells us machines are able to self construct and self direct themselves? It's nonsense for someone to define what machines are and then directly apply that to living organisms.

Yes, its nonsense, yet it is exactly what you just tried to do. Then you concluded erroneously that this means that natural science has been unable to answer some questions. Your rambling lacks all logic.

I think we have a pretty good idea of how life works, as least those of us who did Biology in school do, and professional biologists have an even better idea.

Originally posted by lemon lime
But just from a standpoint of common sense, why would we believe the atmosphere could be same before an eco-system developed? Conditions on earth evolved and (eco-system or not) it didn't look exactly the way it does now, and that includes what the likely composition of the atmosphere would have been at that time.

No such assumption was made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

But even if they got the exact composition wrong the point is that amino acids can arise in nature and are not solely a product of life. There are presumably a vast number of conditions under which this can occur, and in vast quantities. The Miller Urey experiment was a tiny flask over a short period of time. Given the whole earth and millions of years, I imagine rather a lot of amino acids could be produced.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It was a few months ago I found this information so it may take some time to find it again. I'm doing other things as well, so I'm limited to briefly coming and going to and from this site today.

But just from a standpoint of common sense, why would we believe the atmosphere could be same before an eco-system developed? Conditions on earth [i]evolved[/ ...[text shortened]... and that includes what the likely composition of the atmosphere would have been at that time.

But just from a standpoint of common sense, why would we believe the atmosphere could be same before an eco-system developed?

I assume you meant “..be the same...” .
I don't understand what exactly it is you are saying that we believe that you are questioning here:
Who said anything about the atmosphere before the first ecosystem being either the same or different after that first ecosystem? And exactly how long 'after' are you taking about here?
I assume the atmosphere one year before the first ecosystem would not have been significantly different from the atmosphere one year after that first ecosystem -would you disagree?

Conditions on earth evolved and (eco-system or not) it didn't look exactly the way it does now,

Yes, we KNOW that.

and that includes what the likely composition of the atmosphere would have been at that time.

yes, we KNOW that as well. That likely composition of the atmosphere at that time has been physically simulated.
Your point?

Originally posted by humy

But just from a standpoint of common sense, why would we believe the atmosphere could [b]be same before an eco-system developed?

I assume you meant “..be the same...” .
I don't understand what exactly it is you are saying that we believe that you are questioning here:
Who said anything about the atmosphere before the first ecosystem ikely composition of the atmosphere at that time has been physically simulated.
Your point?[/b]

I'm assuming the miller experiment was repeated using various recipes of the likely gases. If so, then what did they find?

You have to remember this was an experiment to find if it was possible for life to arise from natural forces, which has already been explained to me as having nothing to do with the study of evolution. All this experiment was looking for was some basic building block (or blocks) of life, which does not by itself prove the possibility of the existence of a simple cell. The term simple cell is itself a misnomer, knowing what we know today about how a cell functions and its complexity.

There are cells that can live under extreme conditions, and this is often cited as a reason why life could have begun under extreme circumstances. This is not logical, because if you say Life can exist under extreme circumstances, therefore life was able to begin under extreme circumstances, you of all people should be able to see what is wrong with that logic.

Originally posted by lemon lime
It was a few months ago I found this information so it may take some time to find it again. I'm doing other things as well, so I'm limited to briefly coming and going to and from this site today.

But just from a standpoint of common sense, why would we believe the atmosphere could be same before an eco-system developed? Conditions on earth [i]evolved[/ ...[text shortened]... and that includes what the likely composition of the atmosphere would have been at that time.

You have to be very careful using common sense in science, it's not a great guide. What really counts is experimental evidence.

For the first couple of billion years the Earth's atmosphere was reducing, it was only with the rise of the photosynthesisers that we got a significant amount of oxygen in our atmosphere (with implications for searches for extra-terrestrial life). The early Earth atmosphere is nothing like the current one.

As a reinforcer to my point: classical physics is quite intuitive, unsurprisingly, as it deals with phenomena on the scales we live in. Quantum mechanics is not intuitive (except to the pros), but it deals with scales we do not access in our daily lives. There is considerable evidence that our universe is governed by something closer to quantum theory than classical physics, so common sense is not a great guide.