The origin of life and evolution

[DogmaHunter]

Gravity isn't moving (is it?). Evolution is a *process* but gravity is not. A process must have a beginning, just as gravity had a beginning.

The beginning of the process was the moment that imperfect replicators existed that competed for limited resources.

In other words, evolution starts once life exists.

That life exists, seems a pretty safe assumption to me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I disagree. Evolution does require that domino A exist and that it got tipped.

Meaning, for evolution to take place, life needs to exist.

Yes.

Life exists, doesn't it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution today cannot be falsified.

Completely false.

Here are some examples that would falsify evolution:
- rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian strata
- finding a mammal with feathers
- finding ANY animal other then great apes that share more ERV's with humans then great apes.

That last one can be applied to ANY branch of the phylogenetic tree of life. The closer related end points of branches, the more ERV's (and other genetic markers) they will share.

In short: ANY example of the nested hierarchy being broken, would be problematic for the theory.

http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html

Scanned over that one. It's one PRATT after the other.

Here's an idea: pick one of those 9 "facts", perhaps the one you find MOST convincing, and start a new thread about it. Plenty of people here will gladly destroy the argument for you

 

[Kenny'sID]

if you would actually put more importance on actual evidence instead of bronze age mythology.

Meaningless comment.

Because I see something different than you do as evidence, doesn't mean mine is not evidence at all. Yours isn't the only evidence out there, there are other things to consider, it's just a matter of what we choose to see as evidence and how we process that evidence. To drive the point home even further...I have all the evidence I need, and because it doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Not sure if this assumption comes for arrogance or ignorance.

There's no reason to pull gods into it, when you actually care about evidence, because no data suggests that any god had anything to do with it. Or that any god even exists in the first place, for that matter.

No, it's not that simple/easy to push God out of the picture. Of course there is a reason to pull God into it, and because I DO care about evidence, not because there is a lack thereof or I don't care. There you go again assuming your data or whatever is the only form of evidence. Ether you guys are genuinely generally very short sighted or you are knowingly making up more ridiculous, one sided rules where you define what constitutes "evidence".

All you really have with your evidence is something you choose to "think" makes evolution/whatever a fact, nothing
more. You have made a decision on what to accept and what not to accept with what you consider viable evidence, just as I have with the following 2 choices:

For instance, to me, the universe and all in it, and just the fact it is there, is the most compelling evidence there is supporting God. Let's start from my eyes first opening and looking at it all with no preconceived notions of how it got here (as much as possible) I then see the universe/all in it, and I can either decide:

A) Because the evidence I choose to see as the most viable evidence compels me to believe we were evolved, that our beginning is either uncertain, it all came from nothing or something mysterious over a long period of time, for those reasons I choose to accept that as the reason for it all. Also for the reason, I am being taught this, and there are a lot of very smart people that teach it, prove it (to me anyway) and believe it as well. The word has a few versions of what they believe, but the one where there is no God, we were evolved from an unexplained phenomenal beginning millions/billions of years ago, is the one I choose to go with. No God creating anything, it all just happened.

B) Or, since I have never once seen anything made by man come about from nothing, OR for no reason at all, OR, in a way we don't understand...in any way other than it being created, I first have to think...the universe must be created too. And Especially because what we as man create is not nearly as advanced as what we didn't, yet THAT occurred by accident? Or the more advanced, the better chance it occurred by accident/whatever...makes no sense at all. Plus the fact I have this Bible that they say was passed down to me because that creator saw fit to see too it I understood what was going on with all this (the creator that makes perfect logical sense to me as reason/how we are here). For all those reasons, I choose to accept God. Also, that Bible warns me not to believe what the world says. We have to now consider "why" we are here, that being, to believe there is God and God requires things of us, and that same world wants you to believe differently. And lo and behold the Bible is exactly right on that because that is exactly what is happening. So, though there is much more, with just the preceeding evidence, I choose to go with God, the God of the Bible and what the Bible tells me, over the alternatives. It's just the most sensible by far to me.

It's all a matter of what we choose to believe, and to pretend because you have gobs of evidence, it proves something more than the simple evidence I/others see, means nothing. All your gobs of what you see as evidence may prove, is it takes all that to try to prove God out of the picture to whatever degree, and it still hasn't convinced some of us because we have out own evidence to the contrary..

So, in the end, neither one of us have anything but a choice we have made by our logical processing of whatever we deem is evidence, and that's it. Beyond that, If we want to claim more, like feelings/gut or "God's built in, or put
it in my heart" type stuff is evidence (evidence CAN be defined as something that makes something evident...period)...surely if logic tells one to trust in the unknown as the beginning, we can trust our
feelings as well...one is certainly no less logical than the other.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you accept that DNA paternity tests are legitimate?

He wont answer that question.

 

[Kenny'sID]

He wont answer that question.

Just stopped in to answer but I think I'll let Bhsmte have his needed jollies and claim some sort of victory because I didn't...much more productive in my strive to helping others, as well as more important than the rather mundane answer I had....true but not earth shattering.

 

[Loudmouth]

Who determines reasonable doubt?

Those who have knowledge in the area under questions and are willing to look at the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just stopped in to answer but I think I'll let Bhsmte have his needed jollies and claim some sort of victory because I didn't...much more productive in my strive to helping others, as well as more important than the rather mundane answer I had....true but not earth shattering.

What it demonstrates is that creationists are not reasonable. They don't care what the evidence is. Creationists will protect their beliefs no matter what the evidence is.

 

[Loudmouth]

ToE is the assumption.

ToE is based on the evidence, not assumptions:

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

 

[Loudmouth]

4th on this list is a known fake. And none are transitional. All are fully formed.

We need more than denial. Why aren't they transitional?

Also, a transitional fossil will necessarily be fully formed. Being fully formed does not disqualify them from being transitional.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ever heard of biology, heredity and common design?
Those are all you need.

That doesn't explain why phylogenies based on DNA and morphology match each other. Only evolution explains that.

Evolution has done nothing
but set science back 50 years looking for vestigial
organs and junk DNA.

Science found both vestigial organs and junk DNA decades ago, and they are still considered vestigial organs and junk DNA. You seem to be getting some really bad science from professional creationists who have made it their career goal to mislead people with respect to science.

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.

I guess you don't practice what you preach?

"Names, names. and no real argument against them.
Just smear a little mud and hope the truth goes away."--pat34lee

 

[Kenny'sID]

Those who have knowledge in the area under questions and are willing to look at the evidence

So we are to just take someones word? Someone that probably has knowledge because they get paid to research or choose to believe it, hence they research it...just to name a few problems with that. And I'm sure there are legits that are knowledgeable as well, but all in all, I don't think that's going to work.

We each choose for ourselves. Even the public schools don't decide what the kids are to believe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok. Start with the family trees of bats, platypus, and narwhales.
Every transitional form to the last major kind.

First, you need to tell us what features a transitional fossil would have, and what criteria you are using to determine if a fossil is transitional. I have a feeling that you will deny any fossil as being transitional, no matter what it looks like. Am I right?

How good are sciencists? Not very, it seems.
"By some estimates, at least 51%—and as much as 89%—of published papers are based on studies and experiments showing results that cannot be reproduced."
http://qz.com/638059/many-scientific-truths-are-in-fact-false/

Those papers have nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Where are the proto-wings, all 100 steps or more?
Proto legs, hands, feet, knees, every change that it
took to go from one kind to another. There are none.

Why should we show you 100 fossils when you refuse to even look at 1?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Meaningless comment.
Because I see something different than you do as evidence, doesn't mean mine is not evidence at all.

When your "evidence" consists of a book from the bronze age, then you don't have any evidence. You have a story.

Yours isn't the only evidence out there, there are other things to consider, it's just a matter of what we choose to see as evidence and how we process that evidence. To drive the point home even further...I have all the evidence I need, and because it doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it isn't evidence. Not sure if this assumption comes for arrogance or ignorance.

It's not an assumption.
It's what the word evidence means.

A book making a bunch of claims isn't evidence of anything. It's just a book making a bunch of claims.

No, it's not that simple/easy to push God out of the picture.

You're misunderstanding the point being made......

Before one can push a god "out", there needs to be someone to put that god "in".
I don't need evidence to NOT consider a god. I need evidence to do the opposite.

Gods being involved in anything is NOT the default position here.

I don't need to "push" out that which has no reason to even be considered in the first place.

I'm sure you heared the statement "what is asserted without evidence, can dissmissed without evidence" before. It certainly applies here.

Of course there is a reason to pull God into it

What reason would that be?

There you go again assuming your data or whatever is the only form of evidence.

If you have any actual evidence in support of god(s), I'm all ears.
If your response is going to be "the bible", which you seem to be suggesting, then I'm afraid that won't do.

The bible is a collection of claims that are in need of supportive evidence. The bible is not evidence of itself.

Ether you guys are genuinely generally very short sighted or you are knowingly making up more ridiculous, one sided rules where you define what constitutes "evidence".

No. Rather, we realise that claims being made in the bible are just claims. Evidence is requird to support those claims. Do you have any?

All you really have with your evidence is something you choose to "think" makes evolution/whatever a fact, nothing more.

No. The evidence for evolution is independently verifiable by anyone.

You have made a decision on what to accept and what not to accept with what you consider viable evidence

Yes. Based on reason and rational thinking. Not wishfull thinking or a priori beliefs.

For instance, to me, the universe and all in it, and just the fact it is there, is the most compelling evidence there is supporting God. Let's start from my eyes first opening and looking at it all with no preconceived notions of how it got here (as much as possible) I then see the universe/all in it, and I can either decide:

A) Because the evidence I choose to see as the most viable evidence compels me to believe we were evolved, that our beginning is either uncertain, it all came from nothing or something mysterious over a long period of time, for those reasons I choose to accept that as the reason for it all. Also for the reason, I am being taught this, and there are a lot of very smart people that teach it, prove it (to me anyway) and believe it as well. The word has a few versions of what they believe, but the one where there is no God, we were evolved from an unexplained phenomenal beginning millions/billions of years ago, is the one I choose to go with. No God creating anything, it all just happened.

This is ridiculous.
1. no, I don't accept evolution based on an argument of authority
2. no, nothing in evolution (or science in general) mentions gods one way or the other. You seem to be saying that it STATES that gods don't exist. This is false. Science is neutral when it comes to god issues, because there is no way to test that.

B) Or, since I have never once seen anything made by man come about from nothing, OR for no reason at all, OR, in a way we don't understand...in any way other than it being created, I first have to think...the universe must be created too. And Especially because what we as man create is not nearly as advanced as what we didn't, yet THAT occurred by accident? Or the more advanced, the better chance it occurred by accident/whatever...makes no sense at all. Plus the fact I have this Bible that they say was passed down to me because that creator saw fit to see too it I understood what was going on with all this (the creator that makes perfect logical sense to me as reason/how we are here). For all those reasons, I choose to accept God. Also, that Bible warns me not to believe what the world says. We have to now consider "why" we are here, that being, to believe there is God and God requires things of us, and that same world wants you to believe differently. And lo and behold the Bible is exactly right on that because that is exactly what is happening. So, though there is much more, with just the preceeding evidence, I choose to go with God, the God of the Bible and what the Bible tells me, over the alternatives. It's just the most sensible by far to me.

1. argument from incredulity
2. argument from ignorance
3. false premises (false dichotomy etc)

It's all a matter of what we choose to believe,

I don't "choose" my beliefs, nore could I do it even if I wanted to.
Belief for me is a compulsion. I believe that which convinces me and I don't get to "choose" what is convincing and what not.

For example, I can't just "choose" to believe that an undetectable dragon is about to eat me.

and to pretend because you have gobs of evidence, it proves something more than the simple evidence I/others see, means nothing.

But you don't have any evidence, as you just demonstrated...
You have faith-based beliefs and fallacious thinking, instead.

All your gobs of what you see as evidence may prove, is it takes all that to try to prove God out of the picture to whatever degree

Again, this is just false. Nothing in evolution theory, or any other theory, is "proving god out of the picture". It doesn't even mention any gods.

Science just looks at the physical evidence and forms testable conclusions. That's it. Yes, there is no evidence of any gods or other such entities twiddling about with physical processes. So what?

So, in the end, neither one of us have anything but a choice we have made by our logical processing of whatever we deem is evidence, and that's it. Beyond that, If we want to claim more, like feelings/gut or "God's built in, or put
it in my heart" type stuff is evidence (evidence CAN be defined as something that makes something evident...period)...surely if logic tells one to trust in the unknown as the beginning, we can trust our
feelings as well...one is certainly no less logical than the other.

If this is your way of saying that I have "faith" in science just like you have "faith" in your religion, then I don't know what to tell you.......

Except perhaps that "prayer" won't boot my pc.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What it demonstrates is that creationists are not reasonable. They don't care what the evidence is. Creationists will protect their beliefs no matter what the evidence is.

That is simply not the truth...I have the evidence that convinces me and you have the evidence that convinces you. To assume yours is more compelling than mine is arrogant at the very least.

 

[Loudmouth]

If not ancestral, how can transitional be related? If they aren't
related, then they just look similar and they prove nothing.

Darwin explained this nearly 150 years ago.

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

Sister taxa (i.e. cousins to the main branch of the lineage) can still have the transitional features found in the direct ancestors. Transitional fossils are simply defined as having a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. What you and many creationists don't seem to understand is that evolution is tested by looking at which mixtures of features we don't see in both living and fossil species, and which we do see. Evolution predicts that both living and fossil species should fall into a nested hierarchy, or phylogeny. This means that there should have been species in the past who had a mixture of dinosaur and bird features. At the same time, there should NOT have been species in the past who had a mixture of mammal and bird features since those features evolved independently in different lineages. Each and every fossil is a test of these predictions, and evolution has passed test after test after test. What creationists fail to understand time and time and time again is that evolution is not falsified by gaps in the fossil record. Evolution would be falsified by finding a bird to mammal transitional fossil.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is simply not the truth...I have the evidence that convinces me and you have the evidence that convinces you.

No, you don't. In every thread where creationists are asked to present evidence, they completely fail. This is mostly due to the fact that they can't seem to understand the difference between a claim and evidence. They also refuse to address the evidence that is presented to them.

For example, I have yet to find a single creationists who will describe specific morphological features that a fossil would need in order to be transitional between humans and an ancestor shared with chimps. Why? Because they will never accept any fossil as being transitional, no matter what it looks like. Never. The same applies to DNA evidence.

To assume yours is more compelling than mine is arrogant at the very least.

Each and every post that creationists make without supplying evidence only further supports my conclusions.

 

[bhsmte]

Just stopped in to answer but I think I'll let Bhsmte have his needed jollies and claim some sort of victory because I didn't...much more productive in my strive to helping others, as well as more important than the rather mundane answer I had....true but not earth shattering.

No answer then.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's because in your god-argument of fine tuning, you are actually making claims that are directly related to the origination of universes.

Evolution makes no such claims about the origins of life.

Fine tuning doesn't care how the universe came to be, it is just the way it is required to be.