Science And The Bible - Introduction

[lukec]

Can 'evolution' be reversed, in the case of an experiment (model on a computer perhaps?) to show life being stripped back to simpler and simpler forms to see if we can find the initial living thing?

Evolution cannot be reversed in life with an experiment, and frankly on a computer would be impossible too right now with the tech we have, and because evolution is based on changes in DNA. Theoretically if you had a computer which "read" DNA you could project whatever organism coded for. But if we could project this back in time....? Not by any way I can think of. You see, the DNA molecule does not fossilize all that well, and without an actual genetic map stretching back from organisms today to the dawn of life, we cannot "look" at every creature there has ever been. And it's not like we can just take, say, a piece of your DNA and take off bits, and that is a more primitive animal, then take a bit of that animal's DNA off and so on, because that's not how evolution works. If you're interested in a looking at increasingly older organisms, you'll get it when you read The Ancestor's Tale. But it's impossible to "strip back" as you say to simpler forms- this kind of assumes that organisms now are much more advanced genetically speaking- which is not necessarily the case. A variety of wheat has around 120 chromosomes. A kind of small, rat-like animal is not a diploid animal- the mutation in this organism caused it to have 2 pairs of each chromosome. Mutations such as these cannot simply be reduced, in the hopes of reaching a more "primitive" ancestor.

As far as I know, I'm trying to say, no. You cannot.

---

I've heard on several occasions that the new evidence shows that the big bang is thought to actually expanding still rather than shrinking as it was thought before. AND the speed of the expansion is increasing at an exponential rate.
And apparently this means that in not too long a time (I'm not sure how long but this is what was said, paraphrased by me) there will be no evidence that the big bang ever occurred and nothing to measure anymore.

Yes- the idea is that the stars are moving away from each other so fast that soon the distances will be too great or the speed in the opposite direction too fast for light to reach anywhere else... which would get rid of the evidence for the Big Bang. I'm not sure if the expansion could still be increasing exponentially though, I'm not sure if that meshes with the theory that the fastest expansion of all was within the first second. Of course, I know next to nothing about physics.

[Edwardo Piet]

The exponential part I have heard more than once. I haven't looked into it yet though.

[Daystar]

Biogenesis is an absolute, undisputed fact.

Yes, apart from nothing in science being absolute, biogenesis is an absolute, undisputed fact

Kyu

Hmmm . . . this is going to take a while, isn't it?

---

Well abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. If you want to discuss creation how life on earth started, then I'd certainly include abiogenesis as the opposing view. Evolution is what happened after that to create the diversity in life, with natural selection as the guiding force. Creationists debate that some evolution occurs (they call it microevolution) but I have no doubt that what they call macroevolution is a fact.

So its up to you, but I would include abiogenesis, and the theory of evolution, but try not to pull both together as one.

I have noticed your attempts to give attention to the a in abiogenesis. Lets talk about that. My spell check doesn't allow for abiogenesis. In my 2002 College Dictionary abiogenesis is listed, but only as spontaneous generation. Earlier in this thread you seemed to object to that very word as well as to it as fact. You refer to it as a study.

It is then, the study of the genesis or beginning of biology. Ultimately this would beg the question where did inanimate organic and inorganic molecules come from, would it not? And this isn't fact.

I really have no faith in what creationists think, most creationists don't even know the Bible. Unless someone else thinks it important for some valid reason I am not terribly interested in hearing about it.

Although I am reluctant to include anything that isn't thought to be fact by 'science' itself, I think that the study of abiogenesis might have some relevance in the discussion, but it should be noted, decided or debated as to whether or not it is believed to be fact or not.

Part of this discussion - a big part of it in fact - is the very same question regarding evolution itself, so whatever the outcome it (abiogenesis) should at least be a part of the discussion.

It is duly noted that there should be a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. The former being the study of how life began and the later being how it changed over time.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yes, apart from nothing in science being absolute, biogenesis is an absolute, undisputed fact

Hmmm . . . this is going to take a while, isn't it?

I was being silly (in a semi-serious way) but, just so I know what you mean, what is?

Kyu

[leo-rcc]

I have noticed your attempts to give attention to the a in abiogenesis. Lets talk about that.

By all means, lets.

My spell check doesn't allow for abiogenesis.

Mine didn't either so I've added it myself.

In my 2002 College Dictionary abiogenesis is listed, but only as spontaneous generation.

Biogenesis is life forming from life, abiogenesis is life forming from non-life. How that generation of life started is debatable, but that life formed is a fact (not counting the silly "well this could all be a computer simulation" argument). And whether you believe life started with gods creating life or reproducing aminoacids were triggered to copy themselves by some clay catalyst, the fact that we are here means life must have formed somewhere.

Earlier in this thread you seemed to object to that very word as well as to it as fact. You refer to it as a study.

It would appear I am not the only one since people seem to call it that on Wikipedia as well.

It is then, the study of the genesis or beginning of biology. Ultimately this would beg the question where did inanimate organic and inorganic molecules come from, would it not? And this isn't fact.

Sure, I have no problem with that. Just as you would have to define who created your definition of a god at some point.

Although I am reluctant to include anything that isn't thought to be fact by 'science' itself,

Science is all about the discovery and the gathering of fact before they are facts. Science is not about "These are the facts so there" but "We don't know all the facts, lets find out".

I think that the study of abiogenesis might have some relevance in the discussion, but it should be noted, decided or debated as to whether or not it is believed to be fact or not.

Part of this discussion - a big part of it in fact - is the very same question regarding evolution itself, so whatever the outcome it (abiogenesis) should at least be a part of the discussion.

It is duly noted that there should be a distinction between abiogenesis and evolution. The former being the study of how life began and the later being how it changed over time.

I agree.

[lukec]

Ok, great. So we all agree that evolution, the change of organisms throughout time, will be the subject of this thread? Perhaps for the sake of the argument we can just agree that somehow, somewhere on earth, life started, and again for the sake of the argument we have to agree that it was around 4 billion years ago. Without this assumption of sufficient time, we cannot possibly reasonably discuss evolution.

Next, Daystar, I was actually hoping you could start asking some of the questions you have now- perhaps you could outline exactly which points of the theory of evolution you disagree with? What exactly doesn't make sense to you. This way you can ask questions like you talked about somewhere else, and saves the trouble of outlining the entirety of the theory of evolution and natural selection.

However, I'd also like to post this quote, since I think it sums up the idea of Natural Selection quite nicely:

Summary of Darwin's Theory of Evolution


• A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring.

• Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them.

• Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened:

— More organisms are produced than can survive because of limited resources.
— Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.
— Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring.
— Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others.
— Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their genes to the next generation.
— Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct.

-Taken from this site.

[Daystar]

Yes, apart from nothing in science being absolute, biogenesis is an absolute, undisputed fact

Hmmm . . . this is going to take a while, isn't it?

I was being silly (in a semi-serious way) but, just so I know what you mean, what is?

Kyu

Uh ... what is what?

I was saying it is going to take a while to sort all of this out.

[Tiberius]

To further the definition. Abiogenesis is more of a prediction based on the combination of biology and chemistry. It is understood that in biology, life is the self-replication of molecules to form amino-acids and RNA, etc. So the prediction is that if we can experiment with certain conditions and certain chemicals, and create those amino-acids, we would be confirming abiogenesis.

The Miller-Urey experiment remains the long time champion for this. Even though they got the conditions wrong for an early Earth, they successfully made several amino acids out of "inorganic" matter.

[Daystar]

Science is all about the discovery and the gathering of fact before they are facts. Science is not about "These are the facts so there" but "We don't know all the facts, lets find out".

Then the question is: Is evolution a fact that you have found out or is it a possibility, and the same question could be asked about the Genesis account.

[LukeMC]

Forget about evolution for a second.
The genesis account isn't a possibility simply due to research in areas such as astronomy and geology. The age of the Earth is greater than 6-8 thousands years. If you aren'y denying this, then I'll carry on.
Evolution is a simple fact. Variation occurs within a species. If an organism has the genes for a trait which increase its likelihood of reproducing, its genes are more likely to be reproduced (because of the advantageous nature of the gene, the organism can survive long enough to reproduce). The offspring which inherit this gene inherit the advantages (thicker fur, longer neck?) and these advantages help them survive long enough to reproduce, and the genes are successfully passed on again. Some of the offspring might not inherit these genes, and are in a disadvantageous position in comparison, and are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce. If they fail to reproduce, their genes cannot be passed on. The advantageous trait therefore is reproduced more often and will eventually make up a great proportion of the population.

But it doesn't stop there. If a mutation occurs which exaggerates this trait further (even thicker fur, even longer neck?) it will again be favoured. Imagine I was talking about a small mammal. A certain proportion of these mammals will have inherited the genes for longer necks, and these genes would be exagerrated and the necks grow longer and longer. Another proportion of the mammals may be benefitting from the thicker fur, and this trait will likely be exagerrated. Now from having a small mammal with a short neck and thinner fur, we have a proportion of furry mammals and a proportion of long-neck mammals. As they continue to diverge in traits (long necked mammal starts to grow longer legs, elongated mouth, taller ears, etc) their genes become different in so many different areas that their offspring (when breeding long necks and thick furs) is no longer fertile. When they can no longer interbreed because of the amount of variation, they are classed as seperate species. So from one species of small mammals, there have evolved a species of long necked, tall eared, elongated mouthed mammals, and a species of short and stubby, thick furred, streamlined, long tailed mammals (as an example).

This is not up for debate.

Now, you could debate how long this has been going on for, and whether or not it originated from nonliving matter, but there is a consesus on that too. Fossils have been dated right back to the dinosaurs and beyond (throwing the 8k years hypothesis out of the window), and this fits perfectly with what geologists have found (an old earth) and what astronomers have found (an old universe). If fossils went back (for example) 60 million years, but we predicted the age of the universe to be 400,000 years old, then we'd have a problem. But this isn't what we see. We see an old universe, an old earth, and fossils which are very old, but not preceeding the predicted age of the earth.

What more do you want, Daystar?

EDIT: and as for abiogeneis (I forgot to outline that in my last paragraph), you may debate that as much as you like, there is no consensus as to how it happened, only that it probably did]