The origin of life and evolution

[Hieronymus]

If this is intended as a serious response I shall be reporting you for infringement of forum rules.

If that's how you want to cop out of a response, you're free to do so.
You can join your friends on my ignore list.
God bless you, have a nice day.

 

[Ophiolite]

If that's how you want to cop out of a response, you're free to do so.
You can join your friends on my ignore list.
God bless you, have a nice day.

Excuse me, you are the one who is failing to provide an answer. You have claimed that the Theory of Evolution is based upon many assumptions. I think you may have said, "nothing but assumptions". Yet you refuse to give a single genuine example of any such assumptions. That is neither polite, logical, nor good forum etiquette.

 

[Hieronymus]

Excuse me, you are the one who is failing to provide an answer. You have claimed that the Theory of Evolution is based upon many assumptions.

ToE is the assumption.

 

[Ophiolite]

ToE is the assumption.

That is a meaningless statement and patently false. Stop avoiding the issue. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[dysert]

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.

Here are 4 possible sources for the origin of life on earth. Tell me how any of them effect evolution in any way.
1. Abiogenesis
2. Panspermia
3. Fiat creation by God
4. Something weird like being a science project for hyper-dimensional high schoolers.​

So, Creationists, can any of you step up to the plate and answer my question?

Any of the four are necessary conditions for evolution to take place.

 

[46AND2]

Any of the four are necessary conditions for evolution to take place.

Correct, so an argument against any one of those 4 has no bearing on evolution, since evolution could have started with one of the other ones, or even some not-yet-hypothesized reason.

 

[USincognito]

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

Nothing is ever proven in science. You've been corrected on that previously.

Is that the only thing holding you back? Just trying to figure out how important this problem really is.

I have no idea what this gibberish means. Can you at least try to answer the question in the OP?

 

[USincognito]

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.

Lies.

 

[USincognito]

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

Fascinating bit of conjecture. Utterly unrelated to reality, but fascinating none the less. Actually it's not that disconnected because we don't "disprove" in science, we falsify, but still, potential falsifications abound for evolution. If you had ever read anything on the subject, you would know that. In each one of Dr. Theobald's 29 Evidences he lists a potential falsification. Here's just part of one for Nested Hierarchies.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

Potential Falsification:

It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings. Proceeding with the previous example, some nonvascular plants could have seeds or flowers, like vascular plants, but they do not. Gymnosperms (e.g. conifers or pines) occasionally could be found with flowers, but they never are. Non-seed plants, like ferns, could be found with woody stems; however, only some angiosperms have woody stems. Conceivably, some birds could have mammary glands or hair; some mammals could have feathers (they are an excellent means of insulation). Certain fish or amphibians could have differentiated or cusped teeth, but these are only characteristics of mammals. A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies. Unlike organisms, cars do have a mix and match of characters, and this is precisely why a nested hierarchy does not flow naturally from classification of cars.

If it were impossible, or very problematic, to place species in an objective nested classification scheme (as it is for the car, chair, book, atomic element, and elementary particle examples mentioned above), macroevolution would be effectively disproven. More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified.​

So here we have, again, a Creationist talking about a subject they don't understand.

 

[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.

That's nice. How is the theory of evolution changed is one of my other sources of life on earth got the ball rolling. That's the question in the OP.

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

1. You will note the question is regarding the origin of life on earth.
2. How would panspermia, rather than abiogensis on earth, effect evolution?
3. Yes, 4 is a bit absurd, but how would it effect evolution?

 

[USincognito]

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

You keep repeating yourself. How would domino A being 1., 2., 3. or 4. effect evolution?

 

[USincognito]

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.

That there was an origin of life on earth is not in question. The question is does the form that origin of life on earth took change or effect evolution in any way?

 

[USincognito]

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

Oh stop with the inane magical Creationist words. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. That you are unfamiliar with it is your problem.

 

[Hieronymus]

Oh stop with the inane magical Creationist words. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. That you are unfamiliar with it is your problem.
View attachment 177258

Hahaha
Great show.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Nothing is ever proven in science. You've been corrected on that previously.

I have no idea what this gibberish means. Can you at least try to answer the question in the OP?

Already answered the question in the OP (on the first page.

Not gibberish at all, lol, just consider the subject...is that the only thing holding you back from proving (or whatever it is you do) that evolution is true? Funny how one can suddenly develop inability to understand the simplest of comments when the need to take a cut at their opponent arises. Relax, no ones out to get you....just trying to get at the facts/truth, nothing more.

A few more quick, but important questions if you will please..

1)Since you are already aware you can't prove evolution true, why even bother with the question in the OP?

2)Loudmouth said evolution could be proven beyond reasonable doubt, can you go that far anyway?

3)or do you disagree with the "proven" part of LM's comment even in the reasonable doubt scenario?

4)If so, am I to take form all this, there is essentially no way to prove evolution true since the very science that appears to be exactly what folks are using to convince us, is not valid proof? Right?

5)Or is there a way of proving evolution true, without proving it? And if so, what is that?

 

[46AND2]

Already answered the question in the OP (on the first page.

Not gibberish at all, lol, just consider the subject...is that the only thing holding you back from proving (or whatever it is you do) that evolution is true? Funny how one can suddenly develop inability to understand the simplest of comments when the need to take a cut at their opponent arises. Relax, no ones out to get you....just trying to get at the facts/truth, nothing more.

A few more quick, but important questions if you will please..

1)Since you are already aware you can't prove evolution true, why even bother with the question in the OP?

2)Loudmouth said evolution could be proven beyond reasonable doubt, can you go that far anyway?

3)or do you disagree with the "proven" part of LM's comment even in the reasonable doubt scenario?

4)If so, am I to take form all this, there is essentially no way to prove evolution true since the very science that appears to be exactly what folks are using to convince us, is not valid proof? Right?

5)Or is there a way of proving evolution true, without proving it? And if so, what is that?

Do you accept that DNA paternity tests are legitimate?

 

[USincognito]

Already answered the question in the OP (on the first page.

No, you blathered about evolution never happening so you don't know what you're talking about.

Not gibberish at all,

Yes, gibberish.

lol, just consider the subject...is that the only thing holding you back from proving (or whatever it is you do) that evolution is true?

I mentioned this previously, I've been here 13 years. You have been here for 6 months. The evidence supporting evolution has been presented here in thread after thread after thread. I myself have presented hundreds of posts with evidence for evolution. If you would like to discuss evolution and the evidence for it, we can do so in a new thread.

Of course you don't seem to interested in actually discussing the evidence. I mean I posted some evidence for whale evolution and you tried to hand wave it away rather than actually address it. Your shtick is not new and not something we haven't seen from Creationists a hundred times here.

Funny how one can suddenly develop inability to understand the simplest of comments...

Your fantasies are quite amusing, but not reflective of reality. I've forgotten more about the Creationism and evolution debate this month than you've learned your entire life.

1)Since you are already aware you can't prove evolution true, why even bother with the question in the OP?

Off topic. If you would like to start a thread about the evidence for evolution, feel free to do so.

2)Loudmouth said evolution could be proven beyond reasonable doubt, can you go that far anyway

3)or do you disagree with the "proven" part of LM's comment even in the reasonable doubt scenario

He's using the colloquial, courtroom sense. I don't.

4)If so, am I to take form all this, there is essentially no way to prove evolution true since the very science that appears to be exactly what folks are using to convince us, is not valid proof? Right?

5)Or is there a way of proving evolution true, without proving it? And if so, what is that?

Sorry, but your shtick is old and tired. If you'd like to discuss the evidence for evolution, we can do so in an different thread.

In fact I'll start a thread and we'll see if you're sincere in actually wanting to discuss the evidence.

 

[pat34lee]

Have you ever been vaccinated? Have you ever taken antibiotics? Those are made possible by our understanding of evolution.

Ever heard of biology, heredity and common design?
Those are all you need. Evolution has done nothing
but set science back 50 years looking for vestigial
organs and junk DNA.

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

You believe that your great-great x10000 grandfather
was a slug and his was an amoeba. After that, any
fairy tale should be considered science.

 

[pat34lee]

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

4th on this list is a known fake. And none are transitional. All are fully formed.
Flying reptiles are no more birds than are bats. Toothed birds are not dinosaurs
either. This is the type of bait and switch common to evolution.

 

[46AND2]

4th on this list is a known fake. And none are transitional. All are fully formed.
Flying reptiles are no more birds than are bats. Toothed birds are not dinosaurs
either. This is the type of bait and switch common to evolution.

I knew before I even clicked on the link that the fourth on the list would be Archaeopteryx. A known fake? Really? All ELEVEN specimens?