Consider This Article

[Anguspure]

14 June 2018 Anguspure: Irrelevant "Abracadabra" gibberish when abiogenesis is published science.

The probable lies below are becoming more probable with no sources in this post.

11 June 2018 Anguspure: Abiogenesis ignorance.
13 June 2018 Anguspure: Bits of ignorance about abiogenesis.
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A probable lie that abiogenesis has been falsified and shown to be false daily (sources?).
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A probable lie that ID explains common descent (sources?).

So what is the metric of abiogenesis?

 

[Anguspure]

Stating that you lied without retracting the lie is not good. You need to explicitly retract:
11 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that evolution explains nothing when it explains a lot.
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A "an unintelligent framework says nothing" lie about evolution and its evidence.

14 June 2018 Anguspure: An evolution "hides the definition" of abiogenesis lie when he has knows evolution is separate from abiogenesis.
Evolution is a scientific theory about life. Evolution explains the overwhelming evidence that species change and can become new species.
Abiogenesis is a scientific theory about the formation of the first life forms.

The real world evidential explanatory power of evolution is limited to evolution !

Jolly good, now what is the method by which Abracadabra....sorry Abiogenesis creates life from non-life. Even a Magician has his method surely the secrets of this magic word can be revelealed here! Imagine that headline "The Secrets of Abiogenesis First Revealed on a Creationist Website"

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is no reason why the force, law or principle should not be evident at a subsequent time.

All other forces, laws or principles recognised scientifically are evident and repeatable on a daily basis, and in fact the creative principle is also evident and repeatable (and repeated) many millions of times daily.

The supposed magic that gets the ball of evolution moving up mount improbable and leaping up every step on the way is not repeatable, not testable and its adherants deny it's falsifiability.

Evolution is "repeated" every day in fields like medicine, agriculture, breeding programs, etc.

This is why people pay big bucks for the sperm of a specific horse.
This is why we have nice eatable banana's these days.
It's how we obtained vegetables like brocoli, brussel sprouts, etc etc from a single cabbage plant.

No, we can't repeat the evolutionary process step by step that has been going on for the past 3.8 billion years and which resulted in all the species we know today.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Physicists still haven't figured out what gravity is or developed a unified theory of gravity. Why isn't anyone here complaining about that?

Likely because their religion doesn't impose some crazy idea like "intelligent falling".

 

[DogmaHunter]

and the truth is that Darwins theory is little more than a molecular fiddler that fine tunes and preserves species living in a given environment.

1+1+1+1+1+1+.....+1+1+1+1 = big number.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No kidding batman.....and the mechanism of the beginning?

Is pretty much unknown at this point.
Abiogenesis researchers are working on that puzzle. And they have been making incredible progress leading to a couple very plausible and supportable hypothesis. But there is no conclusive theory at this point.

But the fact of the matter is that this is not relevant for evolutionary biology.

Life exists. Fact.
Life exists, and we can study it.

No matter how life began, it evolved once it existed and it is through this evolution that diversity came to be.

Evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are different fields of research.

At best, evolution theory makes a couple predictions in terms of what first life might have looked like and that it was rather primitive, since according to the evidence (note: THE EVIDENCE - not the theory) that first life was the common ancestor of all life that followed, in all its diversity.

But as far as how first life came about - evolution has nothing to say about that.

So little in fact, that if tomorrow you find conclusive evidence that God created that first life, evolution theory would remain as valid as it is today.

It is falsified and shown to be false daily. I believe Louis Pasteur is well known for recognising the principle.
It is positively medieval to believe that life can spontaneously arise from a chemical soup and far from scientific.

Facepalm...................................................................
That's like trying to argue against plate tectonics while pretending that it is the same as continental drift (and I bet you didn't even understand this comparision without googleing it...)

As Dawkins has pointed out these things would not falsify chemical biogenesis (He is more than happy to consider panspermia, qualified by the idea that chemical biogenesis would have happened on the alien planet).
These things would on the other hand supply confirmatory evidence of the position held by ID advocates.

Only if those cdesign proponentsists agree that all species evolved from a universal common ancestor through the mechanisms of evolution theory.

Which is not the case at all.

The page shows me many things that are just as easily explained within an ID framework.

You mean asserted.

Yes, making assertions is rather easy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Speciation is not novel and not a developement apart from Kind.

What is a "kind"?

Speciation is an environmental fine tuning to fit environment.

So, evolution...

 

[DogmaHunter]

In so far as Intelligent design certainly does not fulfill the Scientistic Dogma of Naturalism then I guess it is not Scientistic, you are correct.
However in so far as it employs the common knowledge of the best explanation for design where it becomes apparant certainly fulfills the definition of science, if science can be defined in terms of things that we know to be true about the natural world.

What's your objective method for detecting design?

 

[Sanoy]

I considered posting this to get the other perpective on it since I can't seem to get an idea for the strength of the evidence and it's conclusion. (I'm a creationist and it seems like a weak foundation for such a hard conclusion) I didn't because it's so ridiculously polemic here with everything being all or nothing. I really don't want to wade through all 6 pages for a review of it. So if any one gave it a fair, open minded, non polemic review can you link me to the post or quote me if you decide to do it.

Nevermind, I found a review on Todd Woods blog. He is a young Earth Creationist (I'm not) that is very fair to scientific evidence. He expresses some doubts that we might want to consider. Todd is a good source to weed through the headline hype.

Clip from the review...
"The first thing that crossed my mind here is that the authors are essentially comparing apples and oranges. Differences in DNA barcodes within a species are not the same thing as differences in DNA barcodes betweenspecies. "
.....
"This is really interesting research, but I don't think there is enough data to show that the researchers' claims are correct. They need to do more research to rule out other possible explanations."

 

[pitabread]

Speciation is not novel and not a developement apart from Kind.

"Kind" has no biological reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kind" has no biological reality.

I've heard educatees say the same thing about Moses.

 

[Anguspure]

Evolution is "repeated" every day in fields like medicine, agriculture, breeding programs, etc.

This is why people pay big bucks for the sperm of a specific horse.
This is why we have nice eatable banana's these days.
It's how we obtained vegetables like brocoli, brussel sprouts, etc etc from a single cabbage plant.

Speciation.

Precious little beyond speciation within kind has ever been shown, and certainly not at a rate that could be expected for the development of the worlds biodiversity as it observed now, far less the much greater biodiversity that has existed in the past.

No, we can't repeat the evolutionary process step by step that has been going on for the past 3.8 billion years and which resulted in all the species we know today.

Speciation through natural selection has been going for this length of time, obviously.

Furthermore this natural breeding program is demonstrable as a process that is happening all of the time.

It is special pleading to then claim that we should not be able to see evolution over an experimental time frame.

50 000 generations of E-Coli show us a degree of evolution that would take +/- 2 000 000 years for anthropic kinds to achieve so one could expect something beyond molecular fiddling to be evident.

 

[pitabread]

Precious little beyond speciation within kind has ever been shown, and certainly not at a rate that could be expected for the development of the worlds biodiversity as it observed now, far less the much greater biodiversity that has existed in the past.

What makes you say that?

50 000 generations of E-Coli show us a degree of evolution that would take +/- 2 000 000 years for anthropic kinds to achieve so one could expect something beyond molecular fiddling to be evident.

Not sure how you can compare a (relatively speaking) limited experiment of single-celled organisms in a highly controlled environment for only ~25 years versus an entire ecosystem of millions of species evolving over 2 million years.

On top of that, the E.Coli experiment has resulted in a number of considerable changes to the populations even within the limited scope of that experiment.

 

[Anguspure]

1+1+1+1+1+1+.....+1+1+1+1 = big number.

Ahh yes, a version of Mount Improbable.

Very simplistic and neglects the actual heirachy evident in biological forms.

For a start off the basic building blocks are not 1+1, are they? Rather they are a complex string of specific amino acids.

So we have hundreds of numbers to choose from, only 20 of them can be considered organic (in so far as they are used for proteins), and they must all have the correct handedness when they are used.

You can wait for a big number to form in your pre-biotic soup all day long (A day being 15 billion years in this case) but the lilklihood that it will be useful for any purpose (even one little protein) is vanishingly small.

To posit enough proteins to build a self replicating living thing (let alone build it) is just blithering craziness.

A person who has won the lottery 20 times this morning is have a bad luck day by comparison with this sort of expectation.

 

[Anguspure]

Is pretty much unknown at this point.
Abiogenesis researchers are working on that puzzle. And they have been making incredible progress leading to a couple very plausible and supportable hypothesis. But there is no conclusive theory at this point.

So no mechanism has been identified, and yet it is a fact that it happened in a way that satisfies materialism? Somebody has an apriori commitment to something here.

But the fact of the matter is that this is not relevant for evolutionary biology.

Life exists. Fact.

Not a very scientific position to hold.

Life exists, and we can study it.

No matter how life began, it evolved once it existed and it is through this evolution that diversity came to be.

There are numerous taxa defining traits that contradict this assertion.

Evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are different fields of research.

At best, evolution theory makes a couple predictions in terms of what first life might have looked like and that it was rather primitive, since according to the evidence (note: THE EVIDENCE - not the theory) that first life was the common ancestor of all life that followed, in all its diversity.

But as far as how first life came about - evolution has nothing to say about that.

So little in fact, that if tomorrow you find conclusive evidence that God created that first life, evolution theory would remain as valid as it is today.

Design is evident and aknowledged widely, it is only a naturalism that demands that it is willfully ignored.

Facepalm...................................................................
That's like trying to argue against plate tectonics while pretending that it is the same as continental drift (and I bet you didn't even understand this comparision without googleing it...)

Well.....I do live in NZ so pretty familiar with the concepts....your point is?

Only if those cdesign proponentsists agree that all species evolved from a universal common ancestor through the mechanisms of evolution theory.

Which is not the case at all.

ID does not make any commitment beyond the inference to design.

 

[Speedwell]

So no mechanism has been identified, and yet it is a fact that it happened in a way that satisfies materialism? Somebody has an apriori commitment to something here.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary it remains a reasonable hypothesis. On the level of material causality (the kind that science studies), God appears to have created the universe as a self-contained system. Why could not that include abiogenesis?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Jolly good, now what is the method by which Abracadabra....sorry Abiogenesis creates life from non-life....

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A lying "what is the method" question and nonsense.
He knows that we have several credible scientific mechanisms for abiogenesis and that the evidence is not currently enough to select any one or more of them.
Abiogenesis

11 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that evolution explains nothing when it explains a lot.
11 June 2018 Anguspure: Parrots a "biological diversity cannot occur in 3.8 billion years" Behe delusion
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A "an unintelligent framework says nothing" lie about evolution and its evidence.
11 June 2018 Anguspure: Abiogenesis ignorance.
13 June 2018 Anguspure: Bits of ignorance about abiogenesis.
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A probable lie that abiogenesis has been falsified and shown to be false daily (sources?).
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A probable lie that ID explains common descent (sources?).
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A lying "A specific example of this happening is......???" question.
13 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that the concepts in modern evolution make it "only more implausible".
13 June 2018 Anguspure: Shoots himself in the foot with a philosopher lecturing that evolution "makes a mockery of reason itself" [when the same applies to ID].
14 June 2018 Anguspure: An evolution "hides the definition" of abiogenesis lie when he has knows evolution is separate from abiogenesis.
14 June 2018 Anguspure: Irrelevant "Abracadabra" gibberish when abiogenesis is published science.
14 June 2018 Anguspure: A "kind" mistake and a speciation is a "complete fantasy in the real world" lie.
14 June 2018 Anguspure: Unthinking parroting of Darwin's finches lies from the creationist/ID Discovery Institute.

 

[RealityCheck01]

So what is the metric of abiogenesis?

15 June 2018 Anguspure: Nonsense question about a "metric" of abiogenesis.

 

[pitabread]

Design is evident and aknowledged widely,

Sure, but only when we can infer or outright demonstrate how something is designed and manufactured. A relevant point which you continue to ignore for some reason...

 

[RealityCheck01]

Speciation is not novel and not a developement apart from Kind. ...

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A "Kind" lie when speciation is the development of new species.
But a bit of truth: We have maybe millions of examples of speciation, e.g. from the fossil record, so it is not novel.

15 June 2018 Anguspure: A lie that Neo-Darwinism includes any design.
Neo-Darwinism is an emphasis on the Darwinian part of the modern synthesis of evolution, e.g. a "gene-centered view of evolution".

14 June 2018 Anguspure: Unthinking parroting of Darwin's finches lies from the creationist/ID Discovery Institute.