Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RoyBoy (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 6 May 2005 (→"Creationist Response": update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note that I removed references to the idea that abiogenesis (in the modern sense) does not occur in the modern world. For all we know (well, for all I know; biologists may feel free to correct me) abiogenesis occurs constantly, and is generally unobserved because the new proto-life immediately becomes food for existing life. -- April

This still needs lots of work, but I'm increasingly unsure of my ground here. I'll leave this awhile in case a biologist may be tempted to do a better revision, and if not, come back to it after more reading-up on the topic. -- April 04:01 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

Is there a reason for using the term Aristolian instead of Aristotelian? Someone else

• Naw, if Aristotelian is the preferred term, by all means change it. -- April

Thing about Abiogenesis is, you need to define non-life before you can have life come from it. So, if you prove that nothing is non-living, you disprove abiogenesis. You also have to define life to have it come from non-life, in which case life would have to be something that really exists (not an illusion) in order for abiogenesis to have occured.

The trouble with making these definitions is, the words are still used as questions, not answers. We know some things are alive and some aren't, but we still don't know the exact difference. Living things can and do reproduce, but we have no proof that supposedly non-living things wouldn't, given the right circumstances.

There are things we can say about scientific observations of life, however. Life is apparently a state that certain combinations of matter can be in. Life is shaped into organisms, of a cellular nature. These organisms are composed of smaller mechanoids, including mechanoids for making other mechanoids. All known life is based on the RNA/DNA molecule, with supporting and resulting protiens and lipids.

If something was discovered to be analogous to life, but not based on RNA/DNA/protien, would it be called life? Our macroscopic robotics and computers come close. A nanomachine soup could come closer, perhaps. But robots and nanobots are hardly aboigenic themselves.

Merged some material with origin of life article

I think this article should this be merged with origin of life. The historical part can easily be part of that article, and the modern stuff overlaps with what is on that page right now in any case. --Lexor 19:25, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I have modified my position. I think it should probably be left as a separate page, since it is a slightly more general concept and has a history of its own. I have taken the liberty to move most of the "modern abiogenesis" stuff which is almost exclusively about the origin of life and merge it with the origin of life article, but have left a summary and a Main article: pointer here.

--Lexor 12:05, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Paragraph removed by anonymous IP address (not by me). --Lexor|Talk 10:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If abiogenesis is found impossible, this would seem to disprove both evolutionary and religious explanations of the origin of life, and would support the idea that life has always existed. The only remaining point would be whether or not life is modified by nature, as claimed by evolutionists, or not, as claimed by many religions

Proposal to Merge this page into Biopoiesis

I would like to know how you folks feel about merging abiogenesis into biopoiesis. This term carries less historical baggage and seems to be favored over abiogenesis in some situations. --Viriditas 11:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I prefer to leave it abiogenesis where it is (it gets around 18,000 hits: abiogenesis), and I think that biopoiesis should be merged with origin of life, it only gets 91 hits on Google: biopoiesis. With two sentences I can't really see it being expanded. --Lexor|Talk 11:45, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Google_test. "...the google test checks popular usage, not correctness." For some good links on the history and differences between the two words, see this link and this link. Biopoiesis has been used in place of abiogenesis by a number of researchers involved in origins related work. OTOH, abiogenesis has connotations of spontaneous generation, and it currently bears the weight of two different definitions, thus leading to ambiguity. I am therefore suggesting that abiogenesis should refer to spontaneous generation while biogenesis should be used to refer to its current definition regarding the origin of life.. IMO, I doubt that a google hit ranking will reflect this difference in any way, as most of the journals, articles, and textbooks that use these definitions are not online. When I have some more time I will try to present some further evidence for the proposed merge. In my proposal, the article for abiogenesis would still exist but it would not refer to the more modern implication of biopoiesis, just spontaneous generation. Thanks in advance for your response. --Viriditas 01:40, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

scientific view?

Brig Klyce proposes Cosmic ancestry which is a theory that intelligent life, through some natural mechanism, effectively began at the same time as the universe.

How is this a scientific view? It seems like a fantastic hypothesis. -- Temtem 16:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

May we need a section titled "Philosophical Critique of Abiogenesis." -- Temtem 16:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

More like "fantasies about the origins of life". Also notice that Klyce proposes an idea, not a theory. At any rate, I removed mention of both Klyce and Crick, since the paragraphs offered their opinions about origins, but didn't actually offer any criticism of the theory (as per the name of that section). — B.Bryant 17:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Creationist Response"

An anonymous user added a section called "Creationist Response", which I removed. I removed it for a few reasons: one, it is written in an informal, personal style; two, Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox (and it is highly POV), and three, I don't believe the material belongs here. More detailed message left at anon's talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Response: I re-edited it and put it back up. I did so because what is said is based on sound logic and the facts of science -- as the Links clearly indicate.

Reverted again, has no place in this article. Just because you want something to be scientific sounding doesn't make it so and this certainly is NOT science. --Deglr6328 16:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

TO THE CONTRARY, PLEASE FIRST CHECK OUT FOR YOURSELF WHAT I SAY AS IT IS BASED ON SOUND SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS, FACTS AND A LARGE DOSE OF COMMON SENSE.

Ohhh wow I'm convinced! not. Do you know how many others have come before you with the same nonsense? Think about it. --Deglr6328 16:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is an encyclopedia of information, not a platform for debate. This entry defines and provides a history to the theory of abiogenisis, Creationism has its own page. Feel free to add supporting information there as appropriate, Truthteller. (You may also like to visit creation-evolution controversy) -- Knoma Tsujmai

Saying we have "NO IDEA" what lifeforms were like prior to bacteria is verifiably false for anyone interested in actually researching the subject. Furthermore using the tornado in a junkyard analogy exposes selective ignorance. To make the pieces in a junkyard analogous to molecular biology; you would have to put complimentary magnets on pieces that are compatible (to simulate the electrical properties of atoms and molecules). It then becomes much easier for pieces to combine when they randomly meet each other; and they stick together. In environments with methane for example... much larger molecules can form quite easily. What is important to understand is chance isn't the only mechanism involved. Also your name is slightly self-aggrandizing. - RoyBoy 19:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

OK RoyBoy: Show me ANY documentation where a single Homochiralic protein molecule (i.e. the type that Living things are ALL made of) has EVER been observed to form naturally (i.e. apart from being created by an already living organism, or manually put together by a team of scientists.

And After that: please provide us with some sort of half-way plausible scenario for how that first (hypothetical) Mycoplasma came together. TruthTeller

TruthTeller (interesting choice of username, incidentally), I think you are misunderstanding what Misplaced Pages is. It is not a forum to advocate your opinions. The tone in which you write would be inappropriate for any article, in Misplaced Pages or in any encyclopedia. Please read Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not. Also, as I've asked you before, if many others disagree with an edit to an article, please respect the consensus. You may discuss it on the talk page, but it is inappropriate and ineffective to try to force the change through. Of course, each person believes he is correct; and it may be that God created the first life forms directly and that the scientific view is incorrect. However, most of the Misplaced Pages editors participating feel that this material does not belong in this article; please respect how Misplaced Pages works. Now Misplaced Pages, either articles or talk pages, are not there to discuss the merits of different scientific theories, political leaders, or economic models. This talk page is not here to convince you that the scientific model is correct or to convince me that your religious explanation is correct. However, your question deserves an answer. I am uncertain why you feel it necessary that homochiral molecules must arise before life forms do. As I understand it, homochiral proteins are simply a collection of proteins that all consist of the same enantiomer. You are correct that life forms today tend to produce homochiral molecules. However, I don't see why homochiral molecules should be a prerequisite for life. I also note that you are concerned that the Miller-Urey experiment only produced amino acids and not complex proteins. However, this is not a fair comparison. The experiment had only a week to run; indeed, recorded human history only lasts some 5,500 years, and our species has only existed for some 200,000 years. On the other hand, there was an estimated half billion years between Earth's formation and the emergence of the first life—some 26 billion times the length of the experiment and plenty of time for more complex molecules to emerge. Please note: I am not trying to change your beliefs; rather, I would like you to see why the edits you are adding do not belong. Finally, please note that as I told you before, you are violating our three-revert rule. We are a pretty tolerant community, but please respect our rules. The repeated reversion and the flagrant disregard of consensus would certainly justify a block. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC) (I also aplogize for my edit summary which was a bit judgmental. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC))

Knowledge Seeker hit the nail on the head... I don't actually have go address your questions because its ludricrous to think abiogenesis is right or wrong based on successful things (even as simple as your examples) that we see in our everyday environment today. That doesn't hold for everyday objects we know were designed (cellphones) etc etc which are a part of our everyday existance. It stands to reason there were less efficient precursors both in public and only as prototypes which are long forgotten (can't find them as they were relatively rare and short lived in comparison to their descendants). Anyway, getting off topic.

You posed the questions and I do feel obligated to answer. For Mycoplasma; do you mean Mycoplasma genitalium, which has the smallest known genome? If so my previous link explains DNA precursors. If you don't find that sufficient; then don't fret... libraries have books on molecular biology; and I'm sure there is more detailed explanations on the Internet. But that page does provide a decent overview.

A process of catalyzing for purely organic molecules homochirality occurred recently; an experiment confirming a prediction from over 50 years ago where the researcher(s) were pessimistic laboratory demonstrations of "autocatalysis" would be possible. Then here is research compiled previous to that showing how drugs are manufactured with homocirality on a regular basis. Good tact though, best I've come across in a long time... after reading one of Sarfati's books years ago a neighbor gave me I had a low opinion of the guy (playing semantics with the word theory, and saying famous scientists from centuries ago believing in creation gains credibility for it); I might have to rethink that position. Nawww, like most creationists I get the sense he does not concede being wrong; and just moves onto the next scientific unknown to cast doubt on evolution... rather than bothering to support creation.

- RoyBoy 07:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear "Knowledge Seeker", I don't know how else to tell you this but TIME And CHANCE are simply not enough. For example, let's say that the most simple self-replicating bacterium is of the order of complexity as a 1000 piece puzzle (even though the bacterium is vastly MORE complex than that). Let's further assume that you have ALL the pieces together in the same box (which neither Miller nor any of his colleagues have so far been able to do). Let's further assume that all the powers of Nature are at your disposal (i.e. wind, rain, cold, heat, fire, and the ability to shake up the box). Let's further assume that you have 100,000 Billion Years with which to put the puzzle together (using only the powers of Nature) -- meaning that you can shake up the box, heat it up, freeze it, blow on it, or even pour its contents out on the ground and pray over it. Any yet, even a third grader can tell you that TIME + NATURE Acting ALONE will NEVER put that puzzle together. This is not simply a matter of speculation, but rather of fact: a fact that NO AMOUNT of Wishfull thinking, or Doctoral Degrees, and assertions of Faith in the "power of evolution" will ever be able to change. Therefore your problem is not with me, or what I have written, but rather with the facts of science. I also don't have a problem with your editing the tone of what I have said, but rather get the strong impression that you only want ONE SIDE of the story to be heard -- the side that can never solve the problem. In fact, you Sir, have lowered my opinion of Misplaced Pages, and I am getting the impression that you are ALL a bunch of bigots -- who don't really care about the facts, but only of propagating your own (baseless) opinions.

Let's assume your analogy isn't good. Unlike a puzzle which is one individual, has one solution, and isn't "complete" (functional) without all the 1,000 pieces. Then we will assert (don't need to assume this) that biology and abiogenesis don't have your contraints. Furthermore your puzzle pieces do not behave like atoms and molecules. Yes, chance and time alone is insufficient; so either you're right or you've forgotten to include things. Doctoral degrees can help illuminate those factual gaps. - RoyBoy 07:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

OK then, please show me ONE example of a Homochiralic protein (like the ones that ALL living things are made out of) ever coming together by chance.

I've already addressed this; but I'll reiterate and clarify for your benefit. Chance is not the only mechanism involved and you neglect something very important in your description. Homochiralic protein is in all current living things found thusfar. You are making implied assumptions that are unwarranted; and undermine any truths you wish to communicate. Also your statement weakly implies homochiralic protein would form by itself, and then would be used as raw material; this is not the case. - RoyBoy 19:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, your scenario also falls apart, by simple physics -- as a half-way formed pre-creature (of any sort) that cannot maintain itself (by replacing it's decaying (would-be) protein molecules, nor replicate itself will only DECAY back to it's original components. It will not sit around and maintain itself, nor make itself more complex (unless an outside intelligent force is acting upon it).

There is not a single thing you've said so far that leads me to think you understand physics (ie. tornadoes in junkyards) better than myself, or the many physicists that do not see the obvious flaws you've uncovered; and statements like "pre-creature" indicates you haven't incorporated the implications of evolution on biology (creatures are in a constant state of flux, and there is no "goal" or specific creature in mind for evolution). As to your statements about protein "decay"; is that alluding to irreducible complexity? - RoyBoy 19:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Truthteller, this is an encyclopedia. Regardless of whether abiogenesis is possible or impossible, it deserves its own entry that explains the definition and the history of the the hypothesis. The entry that you have been defacing is exactly that. Whether or not it is possible does not change the history of this postulation. Again, creationism has its own entry as does the creation-evolution controversy. Linking to this debate makes perfect sense to me, but hosting the debate on a page that defines and provides a definition to the hypothesis does not. Far from bigotry, the Misplaced Pages community strives for entries with a neutral point of view NPOV. As people have already pointed out, please remember what Misplaced Pages is Not WIN. No one is attempting to change you opinion on this matter, nor should your opinion be debated here. Knoma Tsujmai 12:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that it is very difficult if not impossible to disprove a hypothesis of this nature. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis until an experiment can be created that will diffinitively prove or disprove it. In the case of abiogenesis, a (comparably) short running experiement in which nothing happens does not disprove the theory, because the modern theory of abiogenesis postulates that something happened over millions of years, between trillions upon trillions of molecules. This cannot be created in a lab. It is for this reason that there are no experiements that can be executed to disprove this modern theory of abiogenesis. If it is correct it will one day be proven, if incorrect it will always remain a hypothesis. Knoma Tsujmai 12:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I re-read your abiogenesis page again, and I must admit that your page is very neutral. You were right for rebuking me -- even though what I believe is based upon more than just "my opinions." I am speaking here about the more than 25 years of Personal Experiences (as in thousands of them) with the Creator Himself. Looking back now over the past few days, I have to admit that I think I was blowing off some steam at the (almost continual) bombardment (i.e. vandalization) of Western society by the Mass Media (i.e. Discovery Channel, National Geographic, Public Broadcasting, and probably over 90% of the Newspapers and Television stations in the US and Europe) -- who are always touting Evolution as if it were a Proven Fact of science (which it is emphatically not) -- like on the FRONT PAGE of today's Newspaper (with the assertion that we evolved from amoebas -- because we have similar things in common). However, is Similar DNA, etc. really "proof" of a common anscestor? Evolutionists (along with the Mass Media) are always telling us it is, but it is really? Why could it not just as well be "proof" of a Common Creator, who used something that works well over and over again -- like we do today with Rubber tires and Wheels with Steel Rims, and ball bearings -- that we (humans) use on Airplanes, Automobiles, Bicycles, Skateboards, etc. In fact, even MANY of our tools are round, as are door-knobs, ignition Keys, dials on instuments, radios and even light swiches on many lamps), but does this mean that wheels evolved by Chance? I rest my case -- and appologize again for using your web page to try to balance things out a bit. With that said, I may (in the future) be challenging you with your assertion of total neutrality. However, when I do I will try to be more diplomatic about it.

Sincerely, Randy Berg

Similar DNA is not proof, but it is compelling evidence... especially when unused DNA remains from bacteria in the human genome; its either sloppy work or a strong indication God – at the very least – set evolution in motion. Why does a Creator need to do the detail work... seems a little menial to me. I do not wish to offend, but many believers before you had many experiences with the Creator... yet they continued to believe in a flat Earth. In many ways evolution is fact; not all of it certainly... but it is a successful theory and the best explanation so far. As such, of course we should strive for accuracy, but its not of critical importance laymen understand precisely its limitations. - RoyBoy 19:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

To the Contrary, Royboy, Similar DNA is not even "compelling" evidence at all -- that evolution has (in ANY way) occurred, any more than it is compelling evidence of a Creator -- who chose to Use his own Blueprint / programming Language over and over again (with modifications to each different life-form that He Programmed from the Beginning (to function the way they do). As far as your "Flat Earth" assertion goes, it was (none other than Christopher Columbus -- a devout Christian, who used verses in the Bible to guide him to his convictions and) who went against the common "belief" of his day that the earth was flat -- and proved that it wasn't. It was also (none other than) Isaac Newton (another devout Christian) who invented Calculus and was perhaps the greatest scientist of all time. A great MANY of our other most famous Scientists were also devout Christians. But back to your "assertion" that evolution is "somehow" proved by the existence of DNA. This is emphatically NOT the case; however it does demonstrate your own propensity (and I do not mean ANY offense by this) to believe what you want to believe. For example, on my web page I descibe another (virtual) proof of a Creator -- that also deals with it's DNA. I am speaking of the "mystery" of what has been (appropriately) termed "Complete Metamorphosis". This is where (MANY 1000's) of Different Types of Butterflies and Moths and Flies and Flying Beetles, each enter into a cocoon stage, whereby their internal organs (literally) dissolve into a liquid, and then (somehow) --- within a matter of days -- "morph" (i.e. change very rapidly / transform) into something of a totally different appearance. In other words, this is very clear evidence of a MASSIVE amount of programming that went on within the DNA of each of these (probably 100's of 1000's) of Creatures -- all without the aid of "evolution" which can only propose very minor changes at one time (via proposed beneficial mistakes). Such assertions, however, completely Break Down with regard to each of these Creatures -- whose internal organs dissolve before morphing into something else (that is fully formed and "ready to fly". Nice Try though, And I do hope you have a good day -- and that you come to know the Living God even as I -- as the next life is going to make this one look like childs play (and I want as many people as possible to be there -- which is why I do what I do).

Sincerely, Randy Berg

Well, morphing from one thing to another is not such a mystery. My body is composed of parts of other living things that "morphed" into its constituent structures. I think the difficulty you're having, Randy, is understanding that science is an explanation. It's a way of looking at the world. It's not saying this is how the world is. It's saying this is the way the world can be explained. (Sometimes scientists have the same problem, when they forget that and take science for actually being the world rather than about the world.) It does its explaining without God, without magic. Wittgenstein compared it with a mesh that we see the world through. You are concerned with how the world really is. Well, perhaps your god did make everything. Science has nothing to say about that. You should try to recognise that. Trying to have your god impinge on science will always be a fruitless exercise because science's explanations work always within the bounds it sets itself. Any discussion of science that excludes gods is, in fact, neutral, because science by definition excludes them. It doesn't need them. But you are welcome to challenge its neutrality whenever it steps beyond the bounds it has set itself. Grace Note 23:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree; because it is compelling when in context with the rest of the literal and figurative mountains of evidence which support it.

I don't find it compelling at all. In fact, in the light of what we know about the coplexity of the cell, and how it maintains itself, and divides, and transfers information (in the form of a program) from one part of the cell to another, it is amazing to me that anyone can think that something as coplex as this could ever come about by chance. But then again, when we really don't want to CHANGE our lives, or surrender them to our Maker, then no amount of arguing, or facts, will be able to make us change.

How is "this is too complex" in any way convincing we should submit to your Maker? Time and again in history people such as yourself have thrown up their hands and said, we don't understand, God did it... and left it at that. If everyone did that I have my doubts we would have the medicine and technology we enjoy today.

(old earth, old universe, transitional fossils, speciation, etc.)

Most of the "evidence" for an old earth, and universe has LOTS of holes in it. Also, Time is not on the side of evolution either.

And you think scientists are unaware of those holes? I've read your website; every single thing on it is either misleading or has been shown to be false. For example your "critique" of radiometric dating is well understood by scientists; they predicted and understood why volcanic rock would give incorrect readings. Of course you understand one kind of reading can be corroborated by others to ensure accuracy. Putting evidence in quotations is cute, and exposes selective ignorance on your part. You may doubt its validity, experts do not (when it is done properly) and its corroborated by other evidence, but evidence it is.

God and evolution do not have be in conflict,

They are though, as God is making demands on our lives, while evolution tries to tell us that He really doesn't care -- but is just sitting back and watching, either unable or unwilling to intervene with us lower life forms down here on earth.

How does evolution say he doesn't care? God CAN, and I would argue SHOULD sit back and watch, and still demand things from us in this life in order to make it to the next life. If God was helping us and getting involved that would be cheating us of some of the struggle... at least that's how I look at it. I'm perturbed you may think your interpretation of evolution's implications and God's Will are the only correct interpretation.

and I'll reiterate its not Godlike to include unnecessary DNA in our genome...

Now you're talkin. Please tell us more about God, and what He, or she, or it is like? Does He or she or it want anything at all from me, or can I just do as I please and ignore him or her or it for the rest of my life, and the one after that....

LOL! I'm glad you see the splinter in my eye; get the log out of yours. As to my point above, Godlike implies perfection... it isn't perfection to have leftovers in a lifeform. (keep in mind, this is not "decay" I'm talking about, but extra unneccesary information which is unused)

vestigial organs and muscles, yet they are all over the place. You choose to believe things that are in conflict; but that's not God's fault. :') Anyway, your mention of Columbus illustrates the amount of care you put into opinions as they relate religion... Columbus like other sailors suspected the Earth was round (being on the open ocean gives that impression), and he accepted the calculations of Pierre d'Ailly of how much water there was between Europe and Asia. You can confirm this on Misplaced Pages itself; I'm assuming you have an internet connection. Columbus may have found solace, additional resolve, perhaps even using the Bible against (religious) flat earth critics; but his idea was founded on observations and deductive reasoning... not the Bible.

Here's to your "Flat Earth" and where is came from: ::http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

Quite informative links, but I didn't say all Christians believed flat earth, did I? Stop arguing points I never made; don't attempt to read my mind; seek clarification prior to wasting my time. I'm not surprised well educated people thought the world was round; regardless of their religion. I will repeat this again since you didn't address it; vestigial muscles (which would be useful for living in trees) exist in a percentage of the human population; and your links do not mention the point you made I was actually disagreeing with. Which is that the Bible wasn't Columbus' "guide" to his convictions regarding a round earth; but as the links point out it was a generally accepted idea among the well educated.

At the end of one of your links it said: "When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate." That is a ludricrous notion... at best the Bible is ambiguous; but when it lumps a bat in with foul, or mentions four legged "flying creeping things" I wouldn't call that accurate.

As to your butterfly example, I'm sorry, but butterfly experts get along in their field of interest quite fine without resorting to God.

I suggest you check out the (top link) -- to a One-page article -- below, as it includes a quote from one of those experts you refer to in this regard.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/ori/ori-0502.htm

How does this god of gaps argument make for actual evidence of God? And the quote from the expert says (paraphrasing); we don't understand. It does not say, we don't understand, therefore it is reasonable to evoke god. I still suggest you talk to some non-creationist experts in butterflies; call me crazy but they might have learned something since 1997. Why is it creationist insist on adding their own emphasis; but won't add emphasis to Darwin where it belongs, such as highlighting it is problem (not a "major" or "fatal" problem) and no obvious simplier or intermediate forms. So its not obvious; evolution doesn't have to be easy and straightforward. Its a challenge for evolutionary scientists! That's what they get paid for and its what makes science exciting.

These also I thought were worth their salt.

http://www.projectcreation.org/creation_spotlight/spotlight_detail.php?PRKey=32

http://www.geocities.com/farfalla247/lifecycle.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/metamorphosis.asp

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-237.htm

http://www.harrypottermagic.org/Creation/creation-not-evolution-9.htm

Here is some more on this subject: This comes from: ::Evidence of Creation or Extremely Rapid Change

I'm sorry but do you think it reasonable that I should go through all this information and explain to you why its wrong and misleading? I'm willing to have a discussion with you about issues you think put evolution in doubt; but I'm not here to debunk all of creationism. If you are unwilling to research that on your own; then so be it... I'm not going to research it for you to have it rejected out of hand. Religious people routinely say you have to be open to God to accept Him; its true and a good thing to say because the same can be said for evolution. Your website is beginners material; much of which is verifiably false if you bother to research explanations as to why trees can end up in coal; and why partial fossilization isn't a "problem" for science. Answers are available if you want to find them.

The transformation from caterpillar to butterfly poses a Major Problem for evolution. This is because caterpillars come from butterflies. But evolutionary theory says that life changes from one form to another slowly (i.e. over “millions of years”) as a result of multitudes of tiny mistakes in the DNA. If evolution were true, then how did the first two “protopillars” transform themselves into fully mature butterflies simultaneously in such a short time-frame (i.e. about three days)? I say “they” because both the male and the female are needed to make butterfly eggs. What makes this more amazing is that during “metamorphosis” the caterpillar’s internal organs dissolve into a liquid before they “morph” into a butterfly. What the first two “protopillars” did is the equivalent of a man and woman placing themselves in a deep sleep and within a few months being "transformed" into flying angels with wings -- and henceforth giving birth to "people" that would also (in time) transform themselves into angel-like beings.

Darwin said its a problem, not a major problem. You say its a major problem... I'd have to disagree. Your argumentation is without merit. Evolution is speaking about species, but an individual of a species can mature quite rapidly; you're confusing evolution with maturation. It happens all the time; normally it isn't as quick nor visually impressive. (ie. baby -> toddler -> child -> adolescent -> adult) we can see the transition over two decades occur quite slowly. But evolution does not dictate lifeforms mature slowly. Metamorphosis is a beautiful, unconventional and fast transition to maturity. The implication metamorphosis had to occur spontaneously, correctly and completely the first time (an adam and eve butterfly) is a strange concept. The things that do happen in metamorphosis is amazing, but so is a single fertilized cell turning into any lifeform; or a seed growing into a tree. Yet all these amazing things occur naturally; most are understood and explained by evolution; some are not. So what? It would be boring to be a evolutionary biologist if everything was explained.

For, without both male and female butterflies (with fully developed reproductive organs) you don’t have butterfly eggs, and without butterfly eggs, you don’t have caterpillars, and without caterpillars, you don’t have cocoons…

Male and female are not required; you should know better. Poor assumptions makes for poor reasoning. I'm willing to answer your questions, but I'm getting frustrated by your assumptions.

Note also that it wasn’t just the reproductive organs which formed, but also wings, wing veins -- with fluid that is pumped (both) into their wings, to make them straighten out, and then pumped out, to make them light again. But they also now have new jointed legs -- with all the ligaments and tendons and nerves connected in just the correct order so that the newly transformed creature can stand up and walk. And their wings also are jointed and have muscles attached in just the right place so that they can rapidly flap them back and forth to fly. They also have much more complex eyes and antennae that all just (sort of) spontaneously "developed". Even more amazing is that this mind-boggling transformation didn’t just happen once, but over 100,000 times with each species of butterfly, moth, fly and (flying) beetle.

In other words, in spite of the wishful imaginations of people who call themselves "scientists," the fact is that such evidence strongly "suggests" that these creatures were "programmed" to "transform" the way they do by an intelligence far superior than our own, and that the evidence of design is overwhelming: which leads to the (logical) Conclusion that there must be a Creator. But in spite of these facts, and major problems for the theory of evolution, (or even "Slow Creation") the American Media, popular "science" publications, and a great many University Professors -- whose Jobs require them to "toe the line" regarding evolution -- seem to be Hell-Bent on ignoring this evidence, along with the even more astounding "odds" against that first (purely hypothetical) self-replicating organism coming to life via purely Natural processes. In other words, they believe what they believe, in spite of the "odds" and overwhelming evidence against it. Or in other words, they have chosen a blind faith that is not supported by the facts -- as opposed to one that is. It is also very sad that such people have gained such a strong hold on our "Institutions of higher learning" that the truth is only important so far as it agrees with their AGENDA of brainwashing the public to believe something that is (almost certainly) a Fairy Tale.

Yes, its complicated facinating stuff; and a god of gaps argument. I'd have to express skepticism you can calculate the odds for something (abiogenesis) we have yet to observe. The odds you do have are based on things that exist today; which is illogical considering it stands to reason simpler things existed in the past, as they do for man made inventions. Saying we don't know is not evidence for anything; and if you believe in the Bible, it isn't evidence for God.

"Prove all things; hold fast to what is good." 1 Thes 5:21

- RoyBoy 16:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)