Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

When the Pope refused to believe that the Earth moved about the Sun the Earth still continued its path around the Sun. Perhaps one day you will realize that reality doesn't care about what you believe.

My belief based reality works just fine. If there were more people like me the world would be a better place (less litter, etc.).

 

[Loudmouth]

You are constantly showing us that evidence. Why do think we shouldn't see God's hand in it?

You are constantly avoiding that evidence.

Where is there evidence of God's hand in anything? Why can you never produce that evidence?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are constantly avoiding that evidence.

Where is there evidence of God's hand in anything? Why can you never produce that evidence?

You have the evidence. You just don't see it, yet.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have the evidence. You just don't see it, yet.

WHAT EVIDENCE???????

Quit being a coward and present it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

WHAT EVIDENCE???????

Quit being a coward and present it.

We are both looking at the same evidence. It is our conclusions that are different.

 

[Speedwell]

Who created the 'iterative algorithm', or is that the place where "a miracle happens"?

Ultimately, God created it. You just don't want to believe it can work the way He intended.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ultimately, God created it.

I'll go with that.

 

[Loudmouth]

We are both looking at the same evidence. It is our conclusions that are different.

Baloney. How does a twin nested hierarchy lead to the conclusion of supernatural magic?

 

[Kylie]

Science is the study of creation, regardless of terminology.

I was just in another thread where someone was assuming the very thing they wanted to prove. Now you are doing it. You are saying it is a creation in order to conclude there was a creator, and since you have decided there was a creator, it must be a creation. But your argument only has itself to support itself, and it will never work.

It's like sitting on a chair, putting your hands under the seat and pulling up as hard as you can. You might think that you are pulling the chair up, and the chair will lift you, thus allowing you to pull the chair up even higher, but in reality, nothing happens.

In any case, you have not actually addressed my points at all.

 

[Kylie]

It's obvious that it does. What more can be said?

No, it is not obvious, as there are any number of natural processes that can result in complexity.

What we have here is the argument from incredulity. "I can't believe that complexity can come from a natural process, therefore it didn't!"

 

[Speedwell]

I'll go with that.

But no farther, huh?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said before, evolution is now a highly compartmentalized version of the whole picture.

"now"? As in, it wasn't before? Nonsense.

Evolution theory is an explanation of set of facts and data within a well-defined scope. As it should be. As every scientific theory is.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is that creation-evolution debates were being won by creationists because evolutionists couldn't explain abiogenesis.

No, the reason for this is because scientific theories always explain a set of facts within a well defined scope.

Evolution explains the process existing life is subject to and it was never meant to explain anything else.

No matter what lies dishonest creationists tried to make you believe.

So they compartmentalized evolution and removed abiogenesis out of the picture.

It was never a part of it.

On the origin of species.

 

[AV1611VET]

On the origin of species.

And how did the first species come about, if not by abiogenesis?

 

[SteveB28]

And how did the first species come about, if not by abiogenesis?

The first living thing/s came about through abiogenesis. When those living things reproduced, sharing similar genetic material and characteristics, the first species could be said to have formed.

I am sure the professional biologists who visit these pages might explain it more fully.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And how did the first species come about, if not by abiogenesis?

Irrelevant, to the theory of evolution.
As in, completely irrelevant.

Choose your origins of "first" life: extra-dimensional aliens, god, gods, a natural process, ...

It doesn't matter one bit for the theory of evolution.

At best, from the theory of evolution, a couple of predictions flow forward... The main one being that "first" life was primitive / simple.

"first" life wasn't a multi-cellular complex animal or something.
But how it came about, the process by which that happened? Not within the scope of explanation of evolution theory. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow. It never was and never will be.

Period.

 

[Gene2memE]

Perhaps a little incredulity.
Did you look at those butterfly wing patterns? Evolution? I don't think so.

Butterfly wings are a particularly bad example to use if you want to make an argument from incredulity. There have not only been hundreds of studies on them, because they are beautiful AND fascinating, but researchers have shown that butterflies can develop radically different pigmentation patterns in as few as six generations and that there are an array of very basic genetic 'switches' that can lead to rapid changes in pattern and colour.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not within the scope of explanation of evolution theory. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow. It never was and never will be.

So it isn't science?

 

[AV1611VET]

The first living thing/s came about through abiogenesis.

That was the first species ... right?

When those living things reproduced, sharing similar genetic material and characteristics, the first species could be said to have formed.

So mom & pop weren't a species? or were they?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That was the first species ... right?So mom & pop weren't a species? or were they?

Sex didn't develop until a couple of billion years after the first replicators, so there wouldn't be a mom & pop. You could call the first replicator the first of its species if you like - but it's not a particularly useful descriptor at this stage, and mixing of genetic material through horizontal transfer still makes it moot for some simple organisms even today, 3.8 billion years later. It's a convenient method of categorizing larger life forms, but has its problems; nature doesn't always resolve to the neat categories we prefer.

 

[AV1611VET]

You could call the first replicator the first of its species if you like -

I'd rather you call it.

Science can take a hike, as far as I'm concerned.

I'd just curious what the product of abiogenesis was.

More specifically, what its binominal was.