Let's clear this up once and for all

[Split Rock]

Evolution doesn't concern itself with a lot of stuff --- like time.

You can't get a shark into a fishbowl.

Sooner or later these philosophies will cross paths with the Bible --- and get exposed.

You mean "sooner or later these theories will cross paths with my semi-inerrant interpretation of scripture and get exposed for disagreeing with my opinion." Correct?

 

[Alunyel]

Evolution doesn't concern itself with a lot of stuff --- like time.

You can't get a shark into a fishbowl.

Sooner or later these philosophies will cross paths with the Bible --- and get exposed.

You can if it's a really big fish bowl. How big does it need to be? Well, it'll need to have a diameter of about 10 bits of string, which we'll need to divide by 30 forearms lengths. Naturally, it'll have to be a hand's width thick. These are very precise measurements. They're accurate up to several thousand decimal places.

Sooner or later, the Bible will cross paths with these theories and get exposed. Ooops, wait, it already has been.

 

[Washington]

ORLY? You speak for all evolutionists now?

Of course not, just every piece of evolutionist literature I've ever read, none of which has ever delved into origins or gone further than mentioning it in passing.

I'm not really sure who these "evolutionists" of which you speak are. However, in a lot of literature I've read (books, articles, research papers) the origin of life and the "building blocks" of life comes up quite a bit. Again, this tends to be moreso when dealing with evolution at a mollecular level. Someone looking into the population genetics of an ant colony isn't going to be concerned with life's origins, but someone concerned with the base functionality of DNA likely will be.

I've read the same, but not in literature concerning evolution; evolution defined as "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations." source

(From Panda's Thumb)

Okay, now I see where the bee in your bonnet came from. And if one insists that the likely evolution of replicators deserves to be included in evolutionary study because these replicators may have evolved, go right ahead, but as it stands, I have yet to see any evolutionist or any theory of evolution constructed by such evolutionist included them. Which goes to your claim that "If you remove evolution from your thinking about the origin of the first replicator then it is very likely you will never understand how it happened, or what the current research on the question is about." As far as I can see, evolutionists simply don't concern themselves with abiogenesis. That they should may be subject to debate, but right now "they should" does not translate into "they do."

If you or anyone else can show us where evolutionists have considered abiogenesis to be an important part of evolutionary study, one on par with the other factors relevant to the heritable changes in a population spread over many generations, be my guest. Please!


From Talk Origins.

Claim CB090:
Evolution is baseless without a good theory of abiogenesis, which it does not have.

Source:

Mastropaolo, J., 1998 (2 Nov.). Re: The evolutionist: liar, believer in miracles, king of criminals. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199811/0040.html

Response:

1.The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

2.Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.
source
​

 

[Hespera]

AV sez

Originally Posted by AV1611VET Evolution doesn't concern itself with a lot of stuff --- like time.QUOTE/////////////////



hepsera sez... sheesh! the things people say. Evolution doesnt concern itself with time!!!???? That doesnt begin to be true or make sense.

 

[Hespera]

Alunyel sez...You can if it's a really big fish bowl. How big does it need to be? Well, it'll need to have a diameter of about 10 bits of string, which we'll need to divide by 30 forearms lengths. Naturally, it'll have to be a hand's width thick. These are very precise measurements. They're accurate up to several thousand decimal places.

Sooner or later, the Bible will cross paths with these theories and get exposed. Ooops, wait, it already has been. ___QUOTE/////////////


hespera sez..

Actually it will have to be to an infinite number of decimal places! Not that it is accurate at all, let alone to thousands of decimal places. Of course, if it isnt then the the bible will exposed as only approximately true.

And if it is not really quite true here, how not true might it be elsewhere?


This has of course been exposed, as has the psychological trait known as "denial".

 

[Naraoia]

2) The origin of life will have a direct consequence on its subsequent evolution. It stands to reason that if there are multiple avenues to produce life, then the consequence of the path chosen will invariably affect the evolution of that life. This will influence the very makeup of life (chemical composition), mechanism for evolutionary change (RNA, DNA, reproduction) and so forth. Since evolutionary theory is essentially concerned with why contemporary life is the way it is, its origin invariably plays a role.

True, of course. Just like the value of the fine structure constant or the strength of the strong force plays a role. However, life as we know it exists; that's a given. We don't need to know how it appeared in order to have a good theory of evolution.

BTW, I agree with your main point; to say that the ToE isn't concerned with the origin of life is an oversimplification. (Unless you define "life" as "replicators", but as someone - you? - said, that doesn't necessarily give us a sharp division either)

The key point, I think, is that questioning the natural origin of life doesn't in any way invalidate the theory of evolution. A theory of abiogenesis may need evolution, but the opposite is not true. I suppose that's the point Washington was trying to make here.

Hi Pete

I think that to say that evolutionary biologists are not interested in the origin of life is indeed incorrrect. I agree with you there. However, the Theory of Evolution does not encompass abiogenesis. That is the point Washington is making. Creationists think they can destroy the TOE by questioning abiogenesis... it is this tactic that Washington is trying to address.

That.

Back to the OP: I particularly liked this one:

There is no evidence for the evolution model. This can be seen in the many unproven assumptions held by evolutionists.
First, there is no evidence for spontaneous generation. The belief that life evolved from non-life contradicts both the cell theory and the law of biogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiments have failed to produce life in the lab (if they were successful, it would be evidence for the creation model not the evolution model).
source

Such a no-win situation for poor evolutionists. The failure of the M-U experiments to produce life is evidence against evolution. If they had produced life, that would be evidence for creation.

Clever, clever. Only utterly wrong on both points... (Not to mention outdated by a few decades)

 

[Hespera]

If disproving evolution is so dang easy i wonder why none of the thousands of scientists around the world who work in related fields have ever noticed these flaws. ESPECIALLY when they keep getting pointed out? I mean, here is a chance for a real career boost, disprove evolution! You would be remembered along with the greatest of scientists.

What is WRONG with them scientists that they cant SEE this? is it collusion? conspiracy? intimidation? the Illuminati? What terrible force can sweep the world around, and control even the scientists in, say, china, why dont even know that there are Christian cultists who say their theory is wrong?

THIS is a bigger mystery, bigger story even than the "proof" that evolution is wrong.
WHO among us, brave investigators and journalists, dare approach this?

A Nobel in journalism ANd biology awaits he who has the courage.

 

[AV1611VET]

A Nobel in journalism ANd biology awaits he who has the courage.

Ya --- give yourselves a prize when you "discover" it --- give yourselves a prize when you debunk it.

Amazing --- just amazing.

 

[ragarth]

Evolution doesn't concern itself with a lot of stuff --- like time.

Time is the realm of physics, not biology. Because time is not a product of genetics or population dynamics, evolution makes no predictions about it. Rather, evolution makes the assumption that time is relatively constant, and is therefore in agreement with general relativity.

You can't get a shark into a fishbowl.

You're right, size does matter!

Sooner or later these philosophies will cross paths with the Bible --- and get exposed.

Don't you mean expose the bible as the desert-nomad mythology that it is?

In cases where the bible is contradicted by reality, I'll choose reality. You know what they say, Reality is far more amazing than fiction any day.

 

[Split Rock]

Ya --- give yourselves a prize when you "discover" it --- give yourselves a prize when you debunk it.

Amazing --- just amazing.

Interesting that you don't have anything to say about this little win-win scenario:

"There is no evidence for the evolution model. This can be seen in the many unproven assumptions held by evolutionists.
First, there is no evidence for spontaneous generation. The belief that life evolved from non-life contradicts both the cell theory and the law of biogenesis. The Miller-Urey experiments have failed to produce life in the lab (if they were successful, it would be evidence for the creation model not the evolution model)."

 

[BananaSlug]

I think that to say that evolutionary biologists are not interested in the origin of life is indeed incorrrect. I agree with you there. However, the Theory of Evolution does not encompass abiogenesis. That is the point Washington is making. Creationists think they can destroy the TOE by questioning abiogenesis... it is this tactic that Washington is trying to address.

I agree wholeheartedly. Creationists think they can destory the Theory of Evolution by trying to destroy abiogenesis by confusing it with spontaneous generation.
By all pratical accounts, biological evolution is simply allele frequency change over generational time that can lead to phenotypic changes. Though the first simple cell that developed is technically a form of evolution, it is not under the Theory of Evolution. If the development of the first cell is under evolution, then so is the formation of the earth and universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists think they can destory the Theory of Evolution by trying to destroy abiogenesis by confusing it with spontaneous generation.

Not this creationist:

1. Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
2. Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
3. Genesis 1:1a --- (first four words of the Bible) --- pwns abiogenesis.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Not this creationist:

1. Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
2. Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
3. Genesis 1:1a --- (first four words of the Bible) --- pwns abiogenesis.

*pats AV1611VET on the head*

That's nice. Run along now and go play with your friends, okay?

 

[AV1611VET]

*pats AV1611VET on the head*

That's nice. Run along now and go play with your friends, okay?

--- They just told me to come here!

 

[Washington]

Hi Pete

I think that to say that evolutionary biologists are not interested in the origin of life is indeed incorrrect. I agree with you there. However, the Theory of Evolution does not encompass abiogenesis. That is the point Washington is making. Creationists think they can destroy the TOE by questioning abiogenesis... it is this tactic that Washington is trying to address.

EXACTLY! thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution does NOT concern itself with origins. It only deals with the change organisms undergo. Evolution couldn't care less if it was god or Walt Disney who created first life. And the fact that the above quoted sources as well as so many other creationists don't understand this simple fact demonstrates just how ignorant they are of their arch enemy, evolution.

I've only been saying this for how long now?

140

 

[Washington]

I've only been saying this for how long now?

140

And good for you.

 

[Isambard]

Not this creationist:

1. Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
2. Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
3. Genesis 1:1a --- (first four words of the Bible) --- pwns abiogenesis.

Reality pwns Genisis.

 

[gaara4158]

Not this creationist:

1. Genesis 1 pwns evolution.
2. Genesis 1:1 pwns atheism.
3. Genesis 1:1a --- (first four words of the Bible) --- pwns abiogenesis.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I use it as a synonym for "refutes".