Six questions for Theists who endorse ET . . .

[Xru]

4.) Isn't that typically used as evidence not merely for the claim that evolution is false, but also for the claim that the earth is young?

I guess . . . R6 says above that the soft tissue is really not an accurate description, but that it was "fossilized" in some manner. I'm not sure what kind of "fossilization" results in tissue that is malleable, but maybe R6 knows of one. What about that R6?

BTW, I'm not taking a YE view. I think (hoping not to offend anyone) that supposing the Earth it 6,000 to 10,000 old is really a stretch.

6.) From what I understand, evolution and abiogenesis are treated as seperate issues. A person could believe one without the other.

Yes . . . I suppose so. Purhaps I should have phrased the question differently or posted it under a different OP. However, as misclasified as it is in this OP, to suppose Evolutionary Theory when the process by which life can come from inorganic substance is completely unexplained (if not please enlighten me) then this seems to me to undercut any naturalistic explanation of the development of life. If, however, the Evolutionist held to Theistic Evolution, then the lack of the demonstration of life arising from inorganic material would be much less an obstacle I suppose.

What do you think?

[nightbringer]

Yes . . . I suppose so. Purhaps I should have phrased the question differently or posted it under a different OP. However, as misclasified as it is in this OP, to suppose Evolutionary Theory when the process by which life can come from inorganic substance is completely unexplained (if not please enlighten me) then this seems to me to undercut any naturalistic explanation of the development of life. If, however, the Evolutionist held to Theistic Evolution, then the lack of the demonstration of life arising from inorganic material would be much less an obstacle I suppose.

What do you think?

I think if an argument was successfully mounted to show that it is impossible or significantly improbable that life could arise given naturalism then yes that would be an argument against naturalism. But refuting naturalism is not the same as refuting evolution. And of course, refuting naturalism doesn't give you any positive evidence for theism either (unless, given our background knowledge, theism and naturalism are the only two live options).

[rogue06]

I saw a video clip refuting that the now notorious flagella (allegedly irreducible) is in fact reducible because if certain organic molecules are removed that propel the flagella, the flagella turns into a spike like appendage that is good for sticking other organism and injecting some kind of poison (?).

Evidently, there are organism with flagella that don't propel but actually do stick another organism and kill it, but not quite an exact reduction of the flagella that propels. I suppose but it seems to me that finding possible uses for that pointed flagella to stick and kill another organism is sort of dodging the question in that it would mean that every so-called irreducible structure that has evolved would need to find a niche that would benefit the organism during its development from a less complex structure to the more complex, or else the organism would have to propagate the reduced structure even though it does nothing to enhance the survivability of the organism. Or is this wrong?

I'm a little rusty about the evidence presented that debunked the claim that flagella are irreducibly complex but if you're interested Ken Miller (a Christian who wrote Finding Darwin's God and Only a Theory and devastated ID at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial) has an in-depth article: The Flagellum Unspun

[nightbringer]

I think if an argument was successfully mounted to show that it is impossible or significantly improbable that life could arise given naturalism then yes that would be an argument against naturalism. But refuting naturalism is not the same as refuting evolution. And of course, refuting naturalism doesn't give you any positive evidence for theism either (unless, given our background knowledge, theism and naturalism are the only two live options).

I should say as well that it would have to be an argument showing that it is impossible or significantly improbable that life could arise given naturalism, not just an argument showing that we don't know how life could arise given naturalism.

[Xru]

I'm a little rusty about the evidence presented that debunked the claim that flagella are irreducibly complex but if you're interested Ken Miller (a Christian who wrote Finding Darwin's God and Only a Theory and devastated ID at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial) has an in-depth article: The Flagellum Unspun

Thanks for the link/

[rogue06]

6) why should I accept that life started spontaneously billions of years ago when scientist cannot demonstrate that the required organic molecules could be assembled in a primordial earth. "Life comes from life."

This really has nothing to do with evolution but rather a question concerning the origin of life. Evolution takes place only after life has arisen, whether through natural processes or ex nihilo -- it doesn't matter.

[Xru]

Originally posted by Xru 6) why should I accept that life started spontaneously billions of years ago when scientist cannot demonstrate that the required organic molecules could be assembled in a primordial earth. "Life comes from life." This really has nothing to do with evolution but rather a question concerning the origin of life. Evolution takes place only after life has arisen, whether through natural processes or ex nihilo -- it doesn't matter.

Okay . . . . . . but do you have any information that inorganic materials can be organized by natural forces into "life." Really . . . this isn't argumentative or is not meant to be. I'm just wondering.

[Xru]

Originally posted by rogue06 I'm a little rusty about the evidence presented that debunked the claim that flagella are irreducibly complex but if you're interested Ken Miller (a Christian who wrote Finding Darwin's God and Only a Theory and devastated ID at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial) has an in-depth article: The Flagellum Unspun Thanks for the link

I read the link and thank you very much. Learned a lot. I'm going to buy his book. It's highly rated on amazon.

[Xru]

Science never dismissed it but merely asked for more and better evidence supporting the conclusion. And being good scientists that was exactly what Schweitzer and her colleagues set out to provide rather than whining about conspiracies to silence her research. Further "soft tissues" is a bit misleading in that the material was most definitely fossilized, but through a process previously mostly unknown.

I undrestand . . . and the latest I've read is that she is finding still more of this "odd" fossil.

I saw a tape of her describing the tissue she found, and she certainly didn't talk about it as if it had undergone any type of fossilization. What is this " . . . [fossilization] process previously mostly unknown."

I've read of an archeologist who thought that it "must" be a fossilization process previously unknown, but I didn't know they had isolated this process, or even have a good idea about what it is.

BTW,I bring this up about the "soft tissue" of T. Rex 'cause if I was a strong supported of EvTheory, this would trouble me. It troubles me and I'd call myself a moderate supported of classical neo-Evolutionary Theory.

PS I just re-read an article (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...tml?c=y&page=3) on the smithsonianmag site and it doesn't mention anything about the tissue being some kind of fossilization. I'll do some more searching . . . do you know of any sources as to the fossilization process?

As I think about it I could understand of a t. Rex survived in isolation and the tissue was really only maybe a millions years old (like a fish . . . can't remember the name . . . that they caught, that was supposed to be extinct 60 million years ago), but then the geology around the find is supposed to be 68 million years old, so that messes that up.

[rogue06]

I undrestand . . . and the latest I've read is that she is finding still more of this "odd" fossil.

I saw a tape of her describing the tissue she found, and she certainly didn't talk about it as if it had undergone any type of fossilization. What is this " . . . [fossilization] process previously mostly unknown."

I've read of an archeologist who thought that it "must" be a fossilization process previously unknown, but I didn't know they had isolated this process, or even have a good idea about what it is.

BTW,I bring this up about the "soft tissue" of T. Rex 'cause if I was a strong supported of EvTheory, this would trouble me. It troubles me and I'd call myself a moderate supported of classical neo-Evolutionary Theory.

You're right. Schweitzer has been very hesitant to make any claims about how it remained preserved. I was thinking of a few reviews of her research I read. Too bad Dr.GH doesn't post here any longer since he has written several articles on the matter

[rogue06]

I read the link and thank you very much. Learned a lot. I'm going to buy his book. It's highly rated on amazon.

I've read Only a Theory and found it a good read. Another good review of the evidence against the irreducibleness (is that even a word?) of the bacterial flagellum is this one by Ian Musgrave: Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum

[rogue06]

Okay . . . . . . but do you have any information that inorganic materials can be organized by natural forces into "life." Really . . . this isn't argumentative or is not meant to be. I'm just wondering.

I would suggest looking up abiogenesis. From what I understand there has been a great deal of work in the field just in the past decade and while it isn't something I'm well acquainted with I understand there are many competing theories since the "Primordial soup" days.

[Xru]

I would suggest looking up abiogenesis. From what I understand there has been a great deal of work in the field just in the past decade and while it isn't something I'm well acquainted with I understand there are many competing theories since the "Primordial soup" days.

Okay

[Xru]

I've read Only a Theory and found it a good read. Another good review of the evidence against the irreducibleness (is that even a word?) of the bacterial flagellum is this one by Ian Musgrave: Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum

Ya . . . I think that's the book I saw on amazon . . . i'll buy it on payday next week.

[Carrikature]

IOW, many people are too quick to assert this or that mutation is detrimental without considering the environment.

And one last bit to chew on. Is the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia beneficial or detrimental, and why?

The answer is...both!

Figure 2 is a schematic of the natural selection that occurs with the gene for sickle hemoglobin in areas endemic for P. falciparum malaria. The left-hand side of the panel shows the situation in people with two genes encoding normal hemoglobin A (designated by red). These people have a significant chance of dying of acute malarial infection in childhood. In contrast, people with two genes for sickle hemoglobin (shown in green) are likely to succumb to sickle cell disease at an early age, as shown in the right-hand side of the figure.



In the center are people with sickle cell trait who possess one gene for normal hemoglobin and one gene for sickle hemoglobin. These children are more likely to survive their initial acute malarial attacks than are people with two genes for normal hemoglobin. Also, they suffer none of the morbidity and mortality of sickle cell disease. Therefore, the people with sickle cell trait are more likely to reach reproductive age and pass their genes on to the next generation (Ringelhann, et al., 1976).