The origin of life and evolution

[Ophiolite]

That's a wrong assumption.

So educate me. Which are the two main assumptions you believe underlie my statement? You seem very certain, so you should have no difficulty in listing at least two. I'm waiting, assumption free.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

We have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Haven't you even tried a simple google search for "transitional fossil"? Does creationism prevent you from using google?

Where are the dino-birds, the sort-of amphi-fish or fishtiles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Dinosaurs_to_birds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Fish_to_tetrapods

 

[Loudmouth]

Names, names. and no real argument against them.
Just smear a little mud and hope the truth goes away.

Isn't that precisely what you are trying to do by calling evolution a religion?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

So does this mean we have to prove abiogenesis before we can say that germs cause disease? After all, germs had to come from somewhere, right?

 

[Hieronymus]

So educate me. Which are the two main assumptions you believe underlie my statement? You seem very certain, so you should have no difficulty in listing at least two. I'm waiting, assumption free.

It's a wrong assumption to assume there is more than assumptions to ToE.
It is assumed that ToE explains (or will explain because of the "we don't know everything yet" cop out) purposeful DNA writing itself.
This doesn't even happen in 'micro-evolution'.
Yes, mutations survive naturally, that's how we get hereditary diseases and all kinds of ugliness.

I mean, really, what do you expect form data corruption?
If it wasn't for the correction systems, living nature would have been a sad mess.

 

[dysert]

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

No, I don't recognize that. Sorry.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is assumed that ToE explains (or will explain because of the "we don't know everything yet" cop out) purposeful DNA writing itself.

False. We have the evidence that it does so.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Yes, mutations survive naturally, that's how we get hereditary diseases and all kinds of ugliness.

We observe that natural selection removes deleterious mutations from a population. It isn't an assumption.

 

[dysert]

So does this mean we have to prove abiogenesis before we can say that germs cause disease? After all, germs had to come from somewhere, right?

At the risk of being trivially true, if primordial soup ultimately led us to germs, then it must be recognized that (1) there was the primordial soup, and (2) something happened to it to produce life (which ultimately produced germs).

I must be all confused because it seems patently obvious that if you have a process in place where species S results (over millions of years) in species Q, then by going backwards in the process there was an initial population that somehow changed from inanimate (or inorganic -- not sure) to self-sustaining and self-replicating. All I'm saying is that this "beginning" is related to the ongoing process. Iow, abiogenesis is related to evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I don't recognize that. Sorry.

So why don't you tell us what would need to change in the theory of evolution if the first life form were created by God, and all of the species we see today evolved from that first life form.

 

[Loudmouth]

At the risk of being trivially true, if primordial soup ultimately led us to germs, then it must be recognized that (1) there was the primordial soup, and (2) something happened to it to produce life (which ultimately produced germs).

That avoids the question.

If you accept the scientific theory that germs cause disease, must you also be able to show that germs arose through abiogenesis in order for that theory to be true?

 

[Papias]

So does this mean we have to prove abiogenesis before we can say that germs cause disease? After all, germs had to come from somewhere, right?

Yes, this is a clear example of the purpose of this thread. The logic of those who require an answer for abiogenesis state "since we don't know how life started, we can't say we understand how the evolution of that life happened."

It's a non-sequiter. How is that different from saying that "since we don't know how life started, we can't say we understand how that life could get diseases from germs." ?

To be clear - I've stated on these fora many times that a perfectly plausible Theistic Evolution position is that God miraculously created the first life form, and that evolution created subsequent species from that - just as a perfectly plausible theistic medicine position is that God miraculously created the first life form, and later life forms can get diseases from germs.

All I'm saying is that this "beginning" is related to the ongoing process. Iow, abiogenesis is related to evolution.

"related"? I'm not sure what you mean there. Abiogenesis is clearly different from natural selection (heck, it's just chemistry - it's hard to get more different than that). Why couldn't God have formed the first life form, and then used evolution to do give the diversity of species we see today? That Theistic approach seems more "related" to me anyway, since then God is doing the creating in both instances.

Papias

 

[Ophiolite]

It's a wrong assumption to assume there is more than assumptions to ToE.

Unfortunately that is nonsensical answer. I shall give you an opportunity to redeem yourself. If you believe that I think that there are more than assumptions to ToE, what are these assumptions that I think there is more than. Don't equivocate. Put your money where your mouth is and provide the answer.

It is assumed that ToE explains (or will explain because of the "we don't know everything yet" cop out) purposeful DNA writing itself.

The ToE does not require that we even consider DNA. The Modern Sysnthesis was developed and defined before DNA was positively identified as the source of inheritance.

This doesn't even happen in 'micro-evolution'.
Yes, mutations survive naturally, that's how we get hereditary diseases and all kinds of ugliness.

I mean, really, what do you expect form data corruption?
If it wasn't for the correction systems, living nature would have been a sad mess.

Waffle, waffle, waffle. Now please answer my original question.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Creationists constantly claim that abiogenesis and evolution are and must be linked otherwise evolution is false. In response to that claim I have been asking this question and thus far, the responses have ranged from evasion to crickets.

Can you prove evolution is true with out this rule/hold? Is that the only thing holding you back? Just trying to figure out how important this problem really is.

 

[Hieronymus]

Unfortunately that is nonsensical answer. I shall give you an opportunity to redeem yourself.

Hahaha
So who made you judge and jury?
The Singularity?

If you believe that I think that there are more than assumptions to ToE, what are these assumptions that I think there is more than.

Than what? Or you meant 'then'?
I don't know what makes you believe it.
It can hardly be evidence, because there is no convincing evidence, just assumptions.

Don't equivocate. Put your money where your mouth is and provide the answer.

I think i did.
They just say: "Evolution did it." because that's what they (have to?) believe.
Attempts to make genealogical trees have failed, there are no specific scenarios for organisms developing into a new kind with new organs.
All organisms can do is implement the present data, when it's not too damaged by mutations.
Copying mistakes in amounts of data as found in DNA don't write new coherent data.
So why stick to this outdated 19th century conjecture?
Is it only because of peer pressure and indoctrination?

The ToE does not require that we even consider DNA.

Cop out.

The Modern Sysnthesis was developed and defined before DNA was positively identified as the source of inheritance.

But that's exactly why it is bankrupt ever since.

Waffle, waffle, waffle.

See what i mean?

Now please answer my original question.

I hope i just did, otherwise you must be disappointed. Sorry...

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you prove evolution is true with out this rule/hold?

We can prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that evolution is true without needing to know where the first life forms came from in the same way that we can prove that germs cause disease without knowing where the first life forms came from. Determining proximal causes does not require us to determine ultimate origins.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know what makes you believe it.

We are still waiting for you to tell us what assumptions are used in the theory of evolution.

It can hardly be evidence, because there is no convincing evidence, just assumptions.

29+ pieces of evidence for evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It would appear that the only assumption being used is your assumption that there is no evidence.

 

[Jimmy D]

Haven't you even tried a simple google search for "transitional fossil"? Does creationism prevent you from using google?

Thanks! You just made me laugh out loud in the office, everyone turned to look at me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

(beyond a reasonable doubt)

Who determines reasonable doubt?

 

[46AND2]

No, I don't recognize that. Sorry.

Let me show you:

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

Gravity:

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.

Evolution:

But where did "A" come from, and what caused it to fall? It seems to make sense to me that these questions belong in the same bucket as evolution since without "A" falling there would be no evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hahaha
So who made you judge and jury?
The Singularity? Than what? Or you meant 'then'?
I don't know what makes you believe it.
It can hardly be evidence, because there is no convincing evidence, just assumptions.I think i did.
They just say: "Evolution did it." because that's what they (have to?) believe.
Attempts to make genealogical trees have failed, there are no specific scenarios for organisms developing into a new kind with new organs.
All organisms can do is implement the present data, when it's not too damaged by mutations.
Copying mistakes in amounts of data as found in DNA don't write new coherent data.
So why stick to this outdated 19th century conjecture?
Is it only because of peer pressure and indoctrination?
Cop out.But that's exactly why it is bankrupt ever since.See what i mean?I hope i just did, otherwise you must be disappointed. Sorry...

If this is intended as a serious response I shall be reporting you for infringement of forum rules. Now answer the question. Specify two assumptions that you claim have been made in relation to the theory of evolution. It should not be difficult since you continue to maintain the theory is based upon and loaded with assumptions and all I want are two of them. Two examples please; in your next post.