Ah Yes, the "We were created by Aliens" argument. Panspermia does not solve the problem. It simply shifts the problem somewhere else. There is an issue of Abiogenesis - how life can form from non-life via random processes. Currently, the biggest problem for Darwinian Evolutionists is to explain how the first life occured. Pansperinia simply transfers the problem of Abiogenesis to another location in the Universe. It does not solve it. One is still faced with the 16 billion year old universe problem. Is the universe old enough for biogenesis to have occured whether here or somewhere else? Based on our current knowledge of biological processes, DNA, physical laws and probabilities; the answer seems to be a resounding NO.
I will be discussing the Abiogenesis problem in a latter post. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 6:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Panspermia releases evolution from the timeframe restrictions that earth places on it; That is the time frame for the evolution of life as beeing restricted only to the time when conditions on the earth was conducive to life. Panspermia is the hypothesis that the mechanisms of evolution formed before the earth existed and life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids. Panspermia proposes that life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophile archaea, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets that harbor life and Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB). Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its sustenance. In addition, you underestimate how rapidly that life can evolve. For example, bacterial pathogens evolve so nimbly that the drug industry cannot find a way to kill them given their most earnest efforts to do so. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: Yes given enough time Darwinian Evolution can happen. BUT, did the Earth really had "Infinite" time to accomplish the evolution of a Human. With all the complexity of the human body, its structure, its chemical composition, the cells structures, the millions of chemical processes, the cognitive abitlities, etc, it is clear that what is separating a human from a single cell are trillions upon trillions of small incremental changes. Is 4 billion years really enough to evolve a human? (Age of the Earth) I don't think so, not even 16 Billion years (the age of the big bang universe.) If human evolved within this time, the evolutionary process must be occuring at such an incredible pace, enough for a human to grow another feature within the period of our recorded history. Yet we find no such permanent change or mutation; (x-men hollywood fallacy aside.) No my friend, Darwinian Evolution is not observed because it is NOT happening. Jojo PS. As for God putting evolution is place. That idea is called "Theistic Evolution". It is a very sad sad attempt to accomodate a faulty idea into the Biblical narrative of creation. A sad compromise that serves neither side. Needless to say, I consider Theistic Evolution more fallacious than Darwinian Evolution. ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions From first principles of infinite time and random fluctuations of nothingness, humans can evolve. Said in simple terms, given enough time, the human species can come into existence as a result of random chance. The way modern theological though handles this sort of argument in terms of intelligent design: Since God’s plan made infinite time and random fluctuations possible, so God rightly gets credit for all the possibilities that these concepts engender; if it has happened, then God must have done it. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book "The Origin of Species". Later he wrote "The Descent of Man" specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in "features" that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this "Trait" to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term "Survival of the Fittest", or "Natural Selection". Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one step further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is the means by which variouis species emerge. Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several generations. becomes another species B - hence the term "The origin of Species". The nature or origin or mechanism of the mutation was unknown to Darwin. DNA was not discovered in his lifetime. Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. In other words, Darwinian Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. Darwinian Evolution implies the following: 1. The change must be small and minor and slow in an individual. The mutation results in a small change or small feature. If the change is big, there must be some other mechanism or directed Intelligence behind that change. Darwin recognized this and said so in his book. 2. The change or the new trait or feature must confer to that individual a survival advantage. Otherwise, that useful trait will simply die with that individual. A trait that may be useful but does not confer a survival advantage is a trait that does not result in natural selection hence Darwinian Evolution is NOT in operation here. 3. The trait must not cause any impairment or susceptibility to the individual. In other words, a trait that confer an increased survival advantage but also causes an increased susceptibility to some other stress will not result in natural selection. For example, a trait that results in an individual to survive a drought in food must not make that same individual be more susceptible to Cold weather. If it does, the chances of the trait being sucessfully passed down commulatively generation after generation is minimized and the survival of that individual will not be any better statistically compared to another individual without that mutated trait. 4. The trait or change must be permanent. In other words, the change must not revert back or disappear once the stress is removed. If it does, it will not be additive and hence can not result in a complex organ like an eye. This will result in natural selection only for a few generations and then that advantage dissappears and other individuals can compete again which will result in a dilution of that trait in the general population. 5. Each successive additive change must confer a survival advantage each and every step until a complex organ results. To illustrate, lets say it takes 5 steps to develop an eye. Change A, Change B, Change C, Change D and Change E results in a fully developed eye. (I am using only 5 steps to simplify the discussion. In reality, the steps required to develop a human eye requires billions of steps.) Change A must confer a survival advantage to the individual. An additive change B is added to change A that results in his children having a survival advantage also. Change C is added and must also confer a survival advantage to his grandchildren. Change D must also confer a survival advantage to his great grandchildren and change E results in a fully developed eye conferring a survival advantage also. Each additive change must confer a survival advantage for natural selection to work. If only one step in the chain does not confer a sruvival advantage, the entire series of changes previous to the change could be lost when that individual does not outperform the rest of the population. All the hard work and useful changes will simply be diluted in the population again. Natural selection is broken and a complex organ can not develop. 6. The evolution process occurs and operates over many generations. An evolution or mutation that occurs in one individual is NOT Darwinian Evolution, since no Natural selection is in operation. 7. The change or trait must not affect an individual's reproductive ability. If there is no reproduction, there is no natural selection, hence no Darwinian Evolution. 8. The change must have a random mechanism. If the cause of the change is not random, that evolution is NOT Darwinian Evolution by definition. 9. Natural Selection is the only mechanism that will differentiate one change from another change. In other words, within an individual we can not say a change is useful or not, until it enables that individual to have a survival advantage. Hence, natural selection operates between generations, not within a single generation. There is not natural selection process within a generation or within an individual. Natural selection can not be invoked within a generation to explain what mutation is useful and what is not useful. A process that operates within a generation is NOT natural selection. A process that does not confer a survival advantage is NOT natural selection. Survival is the criteria for natural selection. An individual has no mechanism wherein it can decide which change to retain or to not retain. The change is retained and acts only if the individual survives. I can not emphasize this enough. 10. The change must enable the individual to "outsurvive" other individuals in his group. It is not enough to merely allow the individual to survive, but it must cause that individual to "outsurvive" others. If it is not outsurviving other individuals, the change will merely get diluted in the gene pool and lost. In the next post, I will define the difference between Microevolution (aka Adaptation) and Macroevolution (aka Darwinian Evolution). Enjoy Jojo
