The origin of life and evolution

[JonFromMinnesota]

Try telling a scientist how you can disprove evolution once and for all,
and see if he gives you the time of day.

You'd win an instant Nobel Prize if you falsified evolution. If you had actual scientific research backing your claims, you'd be taken very seriously.

You will only find closed doors and even more tightly closed minds.

If you can't provide testable and verifiable evidence for your claim, people aren't going to waste their time. They have actual research to do. Have you ever been vaccinated? Have you ever taken antibiotics? Those are made possible by our understanding of evolution.

There are two main dogmas in the world of science today, and neither are scientific. Evolution and global warming.

So, you not only reject biology but you also reject chemistry too? Interesting.

Why would I try? It isn't as if you would actually think for yourself and see if what I post is true or not.

If you were actually posting research papers that support your claims, i'd be very interested. Instead you post conspiracy theory nonsense.

It's much easier to label it conspiracy or lunatic or fringe and ignore the truth, isn't it? You are free from thinking at all.

The site you posted also had an article about a guy saying that he was an extra terrestrial alien in a past life. I don't think any more needs to be said.

 

[bhsmte]

As far as I can tell, abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life for the atheist. So abiogenesis and atheistic evolution are certainly connected.

Panspermia is just abiogenesis once removed and option 4 creates much more problems that it solves (also it's absurd).

Nope.

 

[46AND2]

The problem isn't with one or a few items and outliers.
Nothing in evolution stands up to scrutiny. With the
thousands of fossils found, surely you would have one
or twe definitive missing links for each species and kind.
Where are the dino-birds, the sort-of amphi-fish or fishtiles?
Where do bats and platypus come into the record? The tree
of evolution has more holes than tree. In fact, it's more like a
lawn, with nothing interconnected past a few in the same kind.

There is plenty of documented research on all your questions. None of what you stated even classifies as outliers.

 

[46AND2]

As far as I can tell, abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life for the atheist. So abiogenesis and atheistic evolution are certainly connected.

Panspermia is just abiogenesis once removed and option 4 creates much more problems that it solves (also it's absurd).

Clearly you didn't read the thread before posting.

 

[dysert]

Let's say A is the origin of life on earth. If A happened by any of the listed methods how do any of those methods effect evolution (B, etc.)?

Domino A affects evolution because it started it all. Without A there would be no B, etc.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Names, names. and no real argument against them.
Just smear a little mud and hope the truth goes away.
Funny how those who say others are lying never show
how. As if your opposition magically lose all credibility
because you say so.

They never had any credibility to begin with and they had no truth to begin with.

 

[46AND2]

Domino A affects evolution because it started it all. Without A there would be no B, etc.

Of course, but do you need to know where A came from to simply observe K-O? You didn't answer this question last time I posed it.

 

[dysert]

Of course, but do you need to know where A came from to simply observe K-O? You didn't answer this question last time I posed it.

Sorry, I overlooked that. No, you don't need to know where A came from. Just like you don't need to know where gravity came from in order to observe it working.

 

[46AND2]

Sorry, I overlooked that. No, you don't need to know where A came from. Just like you don't need to know where gravity came from in order to observe it working.

So then why try to lump abiogenesis (A) with evolution (K-O)?

 

[USincognito]

As far as I can tell, abiogenesis is the best explanation for the origins of life for the atheist. So abiogenesis and atheistic evolution are certainly connected.

Panspermia is just abiogenesis once removed and option 4 creates much more problems that it solves (also it's absurd).

You didn't answer my question.

 

[dysert]

So then why try to lump abiogenesis (A) with evolution (K-O)?

You don't need to know *how* A came into existence, or *how* it was initially tipped, but for evolution to be true there must have been an A that was tipped. The two are related.

 

[46AND2]

You don't need to know *how* A came into existence, or *how* it was initially tipped, but for evolution to be true there must have been an A that was tipped.

As stated before in this thread...this is a trivially true statement, and serves no purpose.

 

[dysert]

As stated before in this thread...this is a trivially true statement, and serves no purpose.

Well, you asked "So then why try to lump abiogenesis (A) with evolution (K-O)?" I answered. I agree it's trivially true, so why do you guys want to separate the two?

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, you asked "So then why try to lump abiogenesis (A) with evolution (K-O)?" I answered. I agree it's trivially true, so why do you guys want to separate the two?

1. Because, although they are related they are two distinct things.
2. We have well established mechanisms for evolution. The mechanisms for abiogenesis have not been so established.
3. Proof that abiogenesis had a supernatural origin would have no meaningful impact on the theory of evolution.
4. Abiogenesis occurred, perhaps only once, in what was probably a highly specified set of conditions. Evolution acts within a much broader environment.
5. Etc.

 

[46AND2]

Well, you asked "So then why try to lump abiogenesis (A) with evolution (K-O)?" I answered. I agree it's trivially true, so why do you guys want to separate the two?

Because if (K-O) is observed, it doesn't matter what (A) is. There could be infinitely many possibilities for (A), and it is completely irrelevant to the veracity of (K-O).

 

[Hieronymus]

As stated before in this thread...this is a trivially true statement, and serves no purpose.

Well, since there is no evidence for unguided speciation nor a naturalistic mechanism to write purposeful DNA anyway, the whole thread serves no purpose.

1. Because, although they are related they are two distinct things.
2. We have well established mechanisms for evolution.

Nope, just assumptions and irrational hope.

The mechanisms for abiogenesis have not been so established.

Forget abiogenesis. Simple organisms don't exist.

3. Proof that abiogenesis had a supernatural origin would have no meaningful impact on the theory of evolution.

Hmmm.... okay then.
But it would make it even less probable though.

4. Abiogenesis occurred, perhaps only once,

The probability is next to zero.

in what was probably a highly specified set of conditions. Evolution acts within a much broader environment.

The premise is thriving life though, which narrows it down again.

5. Etc.

Best point so far.

 

[46AND2]

Well, you asked "So then why try to lump abiogenesis (A) with evolution (K-O)?" I answered. I agree it's trivially true, so why do you guys want to separate the two?

Do you recognize that you have given contradictory responses to this question:

Of course, but do you need to know where A came from to simply observe K-O?

depending on whether the topic is evolution or gravity?

Can you explain to me why that is?

 

[Ophiolite]

Nope, just assumptions and irrational hope.

There are no assumptions. But since you seem to believe this quite fervently, please state the two most important assumptions that you believe underlie my statement.

Note that there is no hope in my statement. Hope is an emotion that is appropriate when you wish something be 'true', or will come to be 'true', when this outcome is currently uncertain. I have no wish for evolution to be 'true'. I have no wish for evolution to be 'untrue'. I simply wish to provisionally accept the conclusions that the evidence and reasoned argument support. Hope is therefore not involved in this at all. Irrational hope, logical hope, faith based hope, emotional hope, objective hope, all of them are irrelevant to the matter. Please do not mention hope again in our dialogue. I do hope you will honour this request.

Forget abiogenesis. Simple organisms don't exist.

Define a simple organism and then explain the relevance in your argument. At present I could only work this out by employing assumptions and I don't work that way.

 

[Hieronymus]

There are no assumptions.

That's a wrong assumption.

 

[46AND2]

Well, since there is no evidence for unguided speciation nor a naturalistic mechanism to write purposeful DNA anyway, the whole thread serves no purpose.

Of course there is a purpose. There are many routes one can take when arguing against evolution. What we are attempting to show you is by arguing against abiogenesis, your arguments are utterly irrelevant. So when a creationist argues against evolution, and mentions something about the "primordial soup" or "spontaneous generation" then we can be sure that his or her point is completely fatuous.