Abiogenesis and Evolution

[justlookinla]

That's hilarious.

Let's evaluate that statement:



Not a negative??
Do you understand what the suffix "-less" means??
It means "without". Or "NOT" if you will.

Mindless: NOT with a mind
Meaningless: NOT with a meaning
Purposeless: NOT with a purpose
Goalless: NOT with a goal

Did you really think that nobody would notice?
Or, perhaps more likely, you didn't realise it yourself how these words are negatives?

Amazing. Simply because the suffix '-less' is used doesn't make it a negative. As you pointed out, it means "without" which is a claim that Darwinist evolution infers. Randomness in the Darwinist view is creation without a mind, without a meaning, without purpose, without a goal.....all positive claims. The burden is then upon the person who claims those things (Darwinists) to offer evidence for their claims. In the Darwinist view, randomness is the evidence that humanity is a mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless creation. Unfortunately, the view isn't based on the foundation of the scientific method.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What part of "random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless, goalless" isn't part of the particular evolutionary view (there are several views) which claims that humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms? Point out the terms in error and tell us why.

"mindless, meaningless, purposeless, goalless".

Why? Because rational folks don't waste their time making any mention of things NOT part of a process.

If you wish to include that there IS "meaning, a mind, purpose and a goal" present in the evolutionary process, then you are going to have to support those claims as well as demonstrate their impact on the process.

If you can't do that, then there is nothing to talk about.

That's the problem, there is no 'knowing' of the HOW in Darwinist evolution. At least nothing supported by the scientific method.

You can repeat that all you want, but you're simply going to miss the fact that you're wrong.

No more than you can offer alternative explanations based on the scientific method.

I don't need "alternative" explanations when you don't have a single actual explanation.

I don't require "alternatives" for "nothing".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you realize how goofy it sounds for someone to respond with "the birds and the bees" in response to the question of how you and I were created?

Only if you are juvenile enough to pretend not understanding what the "birds and the bees" is in reference to.

It seems everybody here understood it properly like adults and only you insist on pretending that it must be taken literally and that it was meant literally as well.

Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous to entertain such ideas.
And then you wonder why people can't take you seriously....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Amazing. Simply because the suffix '-less' is used doesn't make it a negative

Yes, it does.

It means "NOT present".
To claim that something is NOT present, is a negative claim.

As you pointed out, it means "without" which is a claim that Darwinist evolution infers.

As I also pointed out (on numerous occasions), evolution theory makes no such claims.

Randomness in the Darwinist view is creation without a mind, without a meaning, without purpose, without a goal.....all positive claims. The burden is then upon the person who claims those things (Darwinists) to offer evidence for their claims.

Asking for evidence that "x is NOT present" is shifting the burden of proof.
The burden is on the claim that say that x IS present.

In the Darwinist view, randomness is the evidence that humanity is a mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless creation. Unfortunately, the view isn't based on the foundation of the scientific method.

Mutation certainly seems to be random, yes.

Do you have any reason to think otherwise?

 

[justlookinla]

"mindless, meaningless, purposeless, goalless".

Why? Because rational folks don't waste their time making any mention of things NOT part of a process.

But that IS the part of the process of random creation. Those are elements of randomness in mutations which allegedly created all of life we observe today from a single life form of long ago.

If you wish to include that there IS "meaning, a mind, purpose and a goal" present in the evolutionary process, then you are going to have to support those claims as well as demonstrate their impact on the process.

If you can't do that, then there is nothing to talk about.

If you wish to claim that random mutation was the mechanism which created the various life forms we observe today, with the elements I've listed which are part of randomness, then you're going to have to support that with evidence based on the scientific method. If you don't believe randomness includes those elements, please point out which of mindless, meaningless, purposeless or goalless isn't part of the random creation which produced humanity from an alleged single life form.

You can repeat that all you want, but you're simply going to miss the fact that you're wrong.

Back to ya.

I don't need "alternative" explanations when you don't have a single actual explanation.

I don't require "alternatives" for "nothing".

You require faith to embrace the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced you from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

Only if you are juvenile enough to pretend not understanding what the "birds and the bees" is in reference to.

It seems everybody here understood it properly like adults and only you insist on pretending that it must be taken literally and that it was meant literally as well.

Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous to entertain such ideas.
And then you wonder why people can't take you seriously....

Well, let's talk about how we were produced why don't we? Without the evasive mockery?

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, it does.

It means "NOT present".
To claim that something is NOT present, is a negative claim.

That's the claim of randomness. Unless you wish to eliminate some of the terms as not being part of a random process?

As I also pointed out (on numerous occasions), evolution theory makes no such claims.

The Darwinist form of evolution certainly makes those claims concerning HOW humanity was produced from a single life form.

Asking for evidence that "x is NOT present" is shifting the burden of proof.
The burden is on the claim that say that x IS present.

Simply offer evidence that humanity is the result of the random process with the inherent elements of mindlessness, meaninglessness, purposelessness and goallessness.

Mutation certainly seems to be random, yes.

Do you have any reason to think otherwise?

Do you have scientific evidence that random mutation (mindless, meaningless, purposeless, goalless) produced all of life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago?

 

[DogmaHunter]

But that IS the part of the process of random creation. Those are elements of randomness in mutations which allegedly created all of life we observe today from a single life form of long ago.

Perhaps.

That doesn't change the fact that there is no reason to include extra mechanisms for which no evidence exist.

Mutation is observed to be random.
It's not obseverd to be "guided" or "planned" or whatever.
So why would we assume them being "guided" or "planned"?

If you wish to claim that they ARE guided and planned, you're going to have to support or demonstrate that.

Why would we assume the presence of something when there is no data to suggest this presence?

If you wish to claim that random mutation was the mechanism which created the various life forms we observe today, with the elements I've listed which are part of randomness, then you're going to have to support that with evidence based on the scientific method.

Which isn't hard to do.
Mutation is observed to be random.

Some parts of genomes are more likely to mutate then others and that's about it.

Why, have you discovered a pattern in mutations that hint towards them being "guided" or "planned"?

Why would we assume that they are, absent of such a pattern?

If you don't believe randomness includes those elements, please point out which of mindless, meaningless, purposeless or goalless isn't part of the random creation which produced humanity from an alleged single life form.

I'll go ahead and agree that "random" implies "not intentionally planned with a purpose by some mysterious unkown entity".

If you have reason to suggest that there IS evidence that suggests that mutations are "planned and guided", I'm all ears.

You require faith to embrace the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced you from an alleged single life form of long ago.

No, I don't require faith to only include mechanisms that can be shown to exist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, let's talk about how we were produced why don't we? Without the evasive mockery?

Well, your dad deposits some of his sperm in your mother's uterus.
And then after 9 months of embryological development, a brand new human is born.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's the claim of randomness. Unless you wish to eliminate some of the terms as not being part of a random process?

Meh... it's more like the implication of something being random. It's not really a claim of "randomness".

A planned thing obviously isn't "random".

The data suggests that mutation is random.
We only have evidence that points to random mutations.

If you think there is reason to believe that mutations are NOT random, but rather planned and guided, then by all means: share those reasons.

The Darwinist form of evolution certainly makes those claims concerning HOW humanity was produced from a single life form.

And by doing so, it includes the processes that are known to happen.
It does not include unknown things because...well....they are unknown.

Simply offer evidence that humanity is the result of the random process with the inherent elements of mindlessness, meaninglessness, purposelessness and goallessness.

That would be any and all evidence in support of evolutionary theory.

Do you have any evidence that evolution was planned?
No? Then why should we assume that it was?

Do you have scientific evidence that random mutation (mindless, meaningless, purposeless, goalless) produced all of life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago?

Random mutation is one of the primary ways by which change occurs in genetic material, yes.

This can be observed in every new born. Even in you. You have stuff in your DNA that is unique to you. That you didn't get from your ancestors.
These are your very own unique mutations.

Everyone has them.

 

[justlookinla]

Perhaps.

That doesn't change the fact that there is no reason to include extra mechanisms for which no evidence exist.

Mutation is observed to be random.
It's not obseverd to be "guided" or "planned" or whatever.
So why would we assume them being "guided" or "planned"?

If you wish to claim that they ARE guided and planned, you're going to have to support or demonstrate that.

Why would we assume the presence of something when there is no data to suggest this presence?

Likewise, if the claim is that random mutation was the mechanism which produced the variation in the original life form which in turn produced all the life forms we observe today, one will have to offer evidence based on the scientific method to support such a claim.

Which isn't hard to do.
Mutation is observed to be random.

Some parts of genomes are more likely to mutate then others and that's about it.

Why, have you discovered a pattern in mutations that hint towards them being "guided" or "planned"?

Why would we assume that they are, absent of such a pattern?

Random isn't guided or planned, thus the elements of meaningless, mindless, purposeless and goalless.

I'll go ahead and agree that "random" implies "not intentionally planned with a purpose by some mysterious unkown entity".

If you have reason to suggest that there IS evidence that suggests that mutations are "planned and guided", I'm all ears.

If you have evidence that humanity is the result of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mechanisms, I'm all ears.

No, I don't require faith to only include mechanisms that can be shown to exist.

You have no evidence, based on the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

As?

"You are asking people to prove that evolution is not guided. That is a negative."

 

[Loudmouth]

see?
i told you that you would outright reject it.

I completely accept phsychosomatic reactions. What I reject is your claim that they are based on faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

Likewise, if the claim is that random mutation was the mechanism which produced the variation in the original life form which in turn produced all the life forms we observe today, one will have to offer evidence based on the scientific method to support such a claim.

You can read about the evidence yourself.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you realize how goofy it sounds for someone to respond with "the birds and the bees" in response to the question of how you and I were created?

We are on a Christian forum where children may be reading posts. Those types of euphemisms are exactly what people should be using, when possible.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's the problem, there is no 'knowing' of the HOW in Darwinist evolution. At least nothing supported by the scientific method.

Two scientific papers that use the scientific method to demonstrate that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/bio350/Lederberg.pdf

http://www.genetics.org/content/28/6/491.full.pdf

 

[justlookinla]

"You are asking people to prove that evolution is not guided. That is a negative."

I'm asking for people to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, that random mechanisms produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

You can read about the evidence yourself.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

Believe me, I've read that. In fact, I think I'm the first on the forum to reference the UC-Berkley site on Darwinist evolution.

Now, can you specifically point out the presentation of the scientific evidence in the article on HOW humanity was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago?

 

[justlookinla]

We are on a Christian forum where children may be reading posts. Those types of euphemisms are exactly what people should be using, when possible.

But those euphemisms do not address the issue. You and I were created by more than copulation (birds and bees thingie).

 

[justlookinla]

Two scientific papers that use the scientific method to demonstrate that mutations are random with respect to fitness.

http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/bio350/Lederberg.pdf

http://www.genetics.org/content/28/6/491.full.pdf

Who's arguing that observation of mutations dispute randomness?