Re: The universe looks designed to me

Wall of Sleep wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>Wall of Sleep wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You all know that there are problems with the theory of evolution. You
>>>just won't admit it when one of "us" is in the room.
>>
>>
>>What problems, exactly, are you referring to?
>
> Ok here's a list:
>
> 1. Abiogenesis: the overwhelming evidence on this earth is that life
> comes from life. Life from non-life is speculation and conjecture. (I
> know this is not part of the theory of evolution - it is, however,
> necessary for naturalism as an explanation for life.)

But it's not a part of evolution, quite. As you agree. Anyway, I think
this is more than speculation, though less than perfectly known.

> 2. The Cambrian explosion: What is the proof that unguided natural
> causes are capable of producing so many divergent lifeforms so rapidly?

What do you mean by "so rapidly" and "so many"? I see no sign that the
Cambrian explosion requires unusually rapid speciation or morphological
evolution. Certainly not out of the observed range of rates, though
perhaps more sustained than we have otherwise observed.

> 3. The transition from replicating molecules to populations in
> protocells: This is explained only in terms of speculation and
> conjecture. There is no hard evidence that unguided natural causes are
> up to the task.

I believe that's part of your #1. No fair repeating yourself.

> 4. The transition from independent replicators to chromosomes: This is
> explained only in terms of speculation and conjecture. There is no hard
> evidence that unguided natural causes are up to the task.

Not sure what you mean by chromosomes here. And it's still part of #1.

> 5. The transition from RNA as a gene and enzyme to DNA and proteins:
> This is explained only in terms of speculation and conjecture. There is
> no hard evidence that unguided natural causes are up to the task.

Still part of #1.

> 6. The transition from prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells: This is
> explained only in terms of speculation and conjecture. There is no hard
> evidence that unguided natural causes are up to the task.

Why is this even a problem? The major part of the transition is just
endosymbiosis.

> 7. The transition from asexual clones to sexual populations: This is
> explained only in terms of speculation and conjecture. There is no hard
> evidence that unguided natural causes are up to the task.

Not true. There are in fact plenty of living intermediates.

> 8. The transition from single celled organisms to multicelled organisms:
> This is explained only in terms of speculation and conjecture. There is
> no hard evidence that unguided natural causes are up to the task.

You know, this list would be a lot shorter if you left off the "This is
explained...up to the task" litany. This transition too has plenty of
living intermediates.

> 9. The transition from solitary individuals to societies: This is
> explained only in terms of speculation and conjecture. There is no hard
> evidence that unguided natural causes are up to the task.

Sorry, what is this? Why is it a problem?

> 10. The transition from primate societies to human societies: This is
> explained only in terms of speculation and conjecture. There is no hard
> evidence that unguided natural causes are up to the task.

Beg pardon? Is this in some way different from human evolution as a
whole? I don't see why this is a problem either.

> 11. Ants, bees, wasps and termites: How did eusocial societies develop
> naturally - since most are non-reproductive castes?

This too is well explained. I recommend E. O. Wilson's fine book The
Insect Societies for a rundown. Again, we are aided by the presence of
plenty of living intermediates.

> That's about it for now. Please limit your answers to hard facts, laws
> and irrefutable evidence. Thank you.

I appreciate your attempt to engage in real discussion. But you haven't
explained any of the problems well enough for me to figure out why you
think they are problems, and thus to figure out how to answer you
properly. I'm going to avoid #1 and the others that are part of the same
subject, just because I don't really care about abiogenesis. But try
amplifying a few of the others.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The universe looks designed to me
    ... the overwhelming evidence on this earth is that life ... Life from non-life is speculation and conjecture. ... The transition from independent replicators to chromosomes: ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Enchanted Loom-Mind in the Universe.
    ... And speculation is useful for exercising the brain, but unless one can produce hard evidence to prove the speculation, it can not be used as evidence or factual data. ... God, too, is a nebulous conjecture which science cannot prove or disprove, especially since not even theologians can agree on a definition of God to be testable. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: The universe looks designed to me
    ... And the overwhelming evidence (in fact the ... Earth at one time was sterile, now it is not; therefore life did ... The second part is conjecture. ... >>>This is explained only in terms of speculation and conjecture. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Elsberry on-the-run?
    ... asked to explain why the changes didn't constitute evidence of a ... AP> T Pagano ... Response to Pagano, including puncturing his claims about what ... Transition Fossil Challenge Met on 01Mar2001.) ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A critique of the BBC aquatic ape programme and the transcript.
    ... >> You appear to be justifying supporting speculation with more wild ... > evidence of paleoclimate and zero evidence of any soft tissue? ... true, would function without wading. ... "Waist deep water" is your repeated red herring. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading