MY Darwin Challenge.

Mountainmike said:

There is no evidence a simpler cell existed than our current minimum cell existed which is frighteningly complex , and nobody knows when , where or how it happened.

Click to expand...

What’s the simplest cell that you are referring to called?

Larnievc said:

What’s the simplest cell that you are referring to called?

Click to expand...

That case is arguable.
Some would say mycoplasma or similar.
But at 800000 base pairs, 500 genes and a metabolic pathway chart as complex as a city road map it is anything but simple.
That’s way more complex than chemical factories. Thousands of proteins made.

there is a catch 22 .
The first living ( ie self evolving, self replicating ) cell must be
- complex enough to be self evolving and replicating with a genome of sorts,
- so complex enough to evolve to rna/dna genome, and the hideously complicated pathways of our minimum cell
- but simple enough to just happen as a chemical product of non living things. That’s the kicker. The hard part.
- and if the last was likely enough to happen, why is it not happening still? If it was we would see a production line all the way from non life to present life.

It is a hideously complex problem.

Craig ventner etc does not count.
Playing Frankenstein with bits of current living things , and an intelligent mind directing, has little relation to establishing where they came from in absence of guidance, He reminds me of Jurassic park. “ so obsessed with whether he can, doesn’t stop to think whether he should”. He will fill and kill the seas with a Frankenstein slime from an experiment gone wrong . Will he say sorry then?

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

...Why does it matter so much that Darwin has to be shown to be right or wrong about anything he directly said about evolution?...

Click to expand...

Charles Darwin has been personalized as an enemy of certain popular type of Christian faith.

Its important to denigrate the enemy.

AV1611VET said:

As do about nine different theories as to how we got our moon.

Click to expand...

I think you are confusing the complexity of the components of evolution with the the theory of evolution which is simply that all species are related, i.e. common ancestor and gradually change over time. It takes a million years or more for major changes which is why the creationist claim that no one has ever seen it is beyond silly.

May I ask what an "invalid scientific theory" looks like?

Click to expand...

To be scientific a theory must follow the scientific method

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5. Test the prediction.
6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Examples on non-scientific theories are:
ID, specified complexity, irreducible complexity, mutations can not produce new information,
creationist probability attempting to prove that evolution is a mathematically impossibility. Many others but I will stop here.

Mountainmike said:

Colncluded from ZERO knowledge about me!
Isn’t it fascinating - the atheists & agnostics always presume ignorance of others.

Click to expand...

What knowledge did you have of what Frank Robert studied when you made your original comment? I believe I correctly assumed you had none. Perhaps you will find that amazing also.

On the other hand I have forensic evidence of living tissue created in multiple so called Eucharistic miracles. Multiple pathologists, incidents and continents. I know they were recently live because of leukocytes.

Click to expand...

When I was young I believe I witnessed a miricle, I still think I might have but I can't say for sure.

That’s already a lot more evidence than there is for abiogenesis from random chance chemistry, which is pure supposition.

Click to expand...

Abiogensis is irrelevant to evolution.

deleted

durangodawood said:

Charles Darwin has been personalized as an enemy of certain popular type of Christian faith.

Click to expand...

You mean "demonized"?

durangodawood said:

Its important to denigrate the enemy.

Click to expand...

You mean like this?

AV1611VET said:

But I like to think that Mr Darwin is in Heaven, not Hell.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

I'm the only one here who has argued extensively that Charles Darwin is in Heaven -- no thanks to his "friends" here.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Click to expand...

These are just two of 23 posts where I argue for Darwin being in Heaven.

Frank Robert said:

Many others but I will stop here.

Click to expand...

Like Phlogiston theory, alchemy, and a dozen other dime-a-dozen theories?

Frank Robert said:

What knowledge did you have of what Frank Robert studied when you made your original comment? I believe I correctly assumed you had none. Perhaps you will find that amazing also.




When I was young I believe I witnessed a miricle, I still think I might have but I can't say for sure.




Abiogensis is irrelevant to evolution.

Click to expand...

“ frank Robert” … wow … someone who refers to themselves in 3rd person? I thought only the Queen of the U.K. did that!

Now read your post 47.

You posted a cookie cutter response -
( including a word you like to use but not evidence of others “ nonsense”)
- applied to my accurate statement of what Darwin said would falsify his theory . Do you dispute he said it?

You did not attempt to address the part of the post you quoted , before an arbitrary actack on “ creationists” ,( whoever you think that was referring to) nor did you address the evidence specific I provided that calls it into question.

You are long on cookie cutter responses and short on nuance that shows understanding. I take as I find.

Evolution and abiogenesis are inseparable unless you impose a completely arbitrary start point. Do you?
Evolution presumes the more complex cell evolved from the simpler and first, all the way back to non living. For obvious reasons the first cell cannot have had anything like the complexity of our minimum known cell.
The path between the two is presumed by evolutionists to be evolutionary.

durangodawood said:

I got it in sentence one!

(And I was alive during the pre-eminence of his invention. Who knows how smart Id a been if I was born later!).

Click to expand...

Being quick off the mark here is your award.

AV1611VET said:

You mean "demonized"?You mean like this?


These are just two of 23 posts where I argue for Darwin being in Heaven.

Click to expand...

Thats great. He seems like he was a decent guy in addition to being a terrific scientist.

durangodawood said:

Thats great. He seems like he was a decent guy in addition to being a terrific scientist.

Click to expand...

Can't say as I knew him personally.

Just what's written about him.

Mountainmike said:

“ frank Robert” … wow … someone who refers to themselves in 3rd person? I thought only the Queen of the U.K. did that!

Click to expand...

What is wrong of playacting as royalty?

Now read your post 47.

You posted a cookie cutter response -
( including a word you like to use but not evidence of others “ nonsense”)
- applied to my accurate statement of what Darwin said would falsify his theory . Do you dispute he said it?

Click to expand...

I don't recall commenting on your statement of what Darwin said.

You did not attempt to address the part of the post you quoted , before an arbitrary actack on “ creationists” ,( whoever you think that was referring to) nor did you address the evidence specific I provided that calls it into question.

Click to expand...

If you are referring to my examples of non-scientific theories I explained whey they are non-scientific. if you disagree then you should be able to tell the rest of us what the specific scientific evidence is.

You are long on cookie cutter responses and short on nuance that shows understanding. I take as I find.

Click to expand...

Yes I am short with my responses on creationism simply because creationist usually mangle the science and fail to provide any scientific evidence that support their claims or provide testable hypothesis.

Evolution and abiogenesis are inseparable unless you impose a completely arbitrary start point. Do you?.The starting point of evolution is life on earth.
Evolution presumes the more complex cell evolved from the simpler and first, all the way back to non living. For obvious reasons the first cell cannot have had anything like the complexity of our minimum known cell.
The path between the two is presumed by evolutionists to be evolutionary.

Click to expand...

Many evolutionists scientists believe that God created life on earth such as Professor Ken Miller who has written many text books on biology.

Those who affirm evolution do so because of the consilience of evidence from multiple scientific fields.

Here is another cookie cutter:

Mountainmike said:

so complex enough to evolve to rna/dna genome, and the hideously complicated pathways of our minimum cell

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. RNA Can exist outside of a bi lipid layer.

Larnievc said:

This is incorrect. RNA Can exist outside of a bi lipid layer.

Click to expand...

The problem with creationist is they seldom venture beyond the apologetic.

Frank Robert said:

The problem with creationist is they seldom venture beyond the apologetic.

Click to expand...

Why would they search when they
already have the Answer?

Estrid said:

Why would they search when they already have the Answer?

Click to expand...

Good question.

Science plays connect-the-dots.

We like to play Jeopardy!

AV1611VET said:

If he was wrong, would he be given the title: "The Father of Evolution"?

Would he be buried in Westminster Abbey? his face on a ten-pound note? or a major capital city named after him?

Click to expand...

Probably.

For example, Newton was wrong and yet he received a steady stream of accolades, honors, and awards including knighthood, admission to the Royal Society, a seat in Parliament, marble and bronze statues, his image on the £1 banknote from the Bank of England, an island named after him (along with Lagrange, Descartes, Laplace, Pascal, and Monge), astronomical features named after him, the Principia is regarded as a turning point in the Scientific Revolution, and he was buried in Westminster Abbey.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Which is the key component for Nazism.

But also not at all what is written about in On The Origin of Species.

Click to expand...

They seem to think Darwin went by an alias, Francis Galton.

Frank Robert said:

What is wrong of playacting as royalty?

I don't recall commenting on your statement of what Darwin said.

If you are referring to my examples of non-scientific theories I explained whey they are non-scientific. if you disagree then you should be able to tell the rest of us what the specific scientific evidence is.


Yes I am short with my responses on creationism simply because creationist usually mangle the science and fail to provide any scientific evidence that support their claims or provide testable hypothesis.

Many evolutionists scientists believe that God created life on earth such as Professor Ken Miller who has written many text books on biology.

Those who affirm evolution do so because of the consilience of evidence from multiple scientific fields.

Here is another cookie cutter:

...the theory of evolution is supported by a convergence of evidence from genetics, molecular biology, paleontology, geology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, and many other fields.[5] In fact, the evidence within each of these fields is itself a convergence providing evidence for the theory. (As a result, to disprove evolution, most or all of these independent lines of evidence would have to be found to be in error.[2]) The strength of the evidence, considered together as a whole, results in the strong scientific consensus that the theory is correct.[5] In a similar way, evidence about the history of the universe is drawn from astronomy, astrophysics, planetary geology, and physics.[2]​

Click to expand...

So on post 47 you quote part of my post referencing Darwin’s falsification criteria. Which by convention is the part of the post you intend to discuss.

No such luck.
Your post Faied to counter it, confirm it or even refer to it, preferring a cookie cutter attack on something unrelated, whilst disregarding the forensic evidence I identified for the part of the post you do quote.

Alas not even that. Just a bland cut and paste of (an) unrelated aspect (s) of evolution.

Escuse me if I find such reasoning so illogical as to be hard to engage, I am a scientist -
so please base responses on logic or science?

Your post mistakenly regards evolutionism and creationism as a dichotomy.

Not so. Both can coexist.

Mountainmike said:

So on post 47 you quote part of my post referencing Darwin’s falsification criteria. Which by convention is the part of the post you intend to discuss.

Click to expand...

Again I do not recall mentioning a falsification criteria. My posts in support of the ToE has been the consilience of multiple scientific fields. You appear to disagree but you simply dismiss the consilience w/o any reasoning.

No such luck.
Your post Faied to counter it, confirm it or even refer to it, preferring a cookie cutter attack on something unrelated, whilst disregarding the forensic evidence I identified for the part of the post you do quote.

Click to expand...

Your ignoring the consilience is YOUR failure.

Alas not even that. Just a bland cut and paste of (an) unrelated aspect (s) of evolution.

Click to expand...

You have failed to support one iota of creationism, not even with a cut and paste.

Escuse me if I find such reasoning so illogical as to be hard to engage,

I am a scientist - so please base responses on logic or science?

Click to expand...

What science have you presented. Zero testable hypotheses, nata evidence, only denial, especially of the consilience of evidence for evolution.

Your post mistakenly regards evolutionism and creationism as a dichotomy.

Not so. Both can coexist.

Click to expand...

When you don't have the facts you need to make things up.

Both evolution and creationism can coexist with the understanding that one is a minority religious belief and the other is science. Talking about failures, for a scientist you fail to note the difference between religion belief and evolution. What creationists get wrong is their belief that creationism is an alternative to evolution.

You are a scientist, I am an addictions psychologist. The hallmark of addictions is denial and what I see over and over among creationists is denial of evolution. Makes one think that creationism is an addiction.