Creation or Evolution, does it matter?

[juvenissun]

That makes no sense whatever. You're accusing biologists of not using an inappropriate paradigm to investigate abiogenesis as if it was some kind of cop-out. Do you really think the theory of evolution was ever supposed to be a theory of everything?

If you DARE, I would like to examine the principles of evolution with you one by one and see if it will fit to the study of abiogenesis.

I think we have done one. What is the next?
Environment controls the evolution? It seems it definitely would apply. If the environment does not fit, somekind of chemical reaction would never happen.

 

[Speedwell]

If you DARE, I would like to examine the principles of evolution with you one by one and see if it will fit to the study of abiogenesis.

Why is it a "dare?" You are acting very strange about this, as if showing that the processes of evolution don't occur in abiogenesis will actually prove something important to you, but I can't imagine what that might be. Why don't you just say what it is, rather than being coy about it?

I think we have done one. What is the next?

Perhaps you had better list them first. You seem to be in some confusion about what they are and how they are used.

Environment controls the evolution? It seems it definitely would apply. If the environment does not fit, somekind of chemical reaction would never happen.

Right. That is true of all chemical reactions. So what?

 

[juvenissun]

Why is it a "dare?" You are acting very strange about this, as if showing that the processes of evolution don't occur in abiogenesis will actually prove something important to you, but I can't imagine what that might be. Why don't you just say what it is, rather than being coy about it?


Perhaps you had better list them first. You seem to be in some confusion about what they are and how they are used.

Right. That is true of all chemical reactions. So what?

My point is: The idea of evolution is USELESS.
We can figure out everything without the idea of evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

My point is: The idea of evolution is USELESS.
We can figure out everything without the idea of evolution.

Why is it useless if it doesn't apply to abiogenesis? That's just silly. Why is it useless in its own field because it doesn't apply to some other field?

 

[juvenissun]

Why is it useless if it doesn't apply to abiogenesis? That's just silly. Why is it useless in its own field because it doesn't apply to some other field?

Because whatever the field is, we can do the same work, and have the same achievement, without using a single idea of evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some small organic particle can only "grow" into a particular type larger organic chemical. Why is it not heritable?

When 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom bind to form a water molecule, is there then any inheritance going on?

Or is it just a chemical reaction?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you describe the process that a smaller organic particle becomes a larger organic particle?

Chemistry.
Or maybe Bio-chemistry since it concerns organic molecules.

Is it random?

As random as any chemistry.

Is it natural selection?

No, since natural selection in evolution is about reproductive success and survival of already living things. Not about chemical compounds forming.

Is it a heritable variation?

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Solved or not, why not use principles of evolution to study it? Why should it be rejected from the evolutional processes?

Because evolution is about the origins of species, not the origins of life.
Different fields, different area's of study?

How many times do we need to repeat it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never see any evolutionist tried that. There must be a reason.

There is a reason. They are different processes, different area's of study, different scientific fields.

I think the reason is: When applied, it will fail.

Yes. Because it makes no sense.
Evolution is a process existing life is subject to.
The formation of life, is another process.

So.... better not touch it,

There is no reason to touch it. It makes no sense to touch it.
Different models, different area's of study, different scientific fields.

One is about the formation of life, the other is about processes existing life is subject to.

Get it into that head of yours.

simply claim: it does not belong.

It's not a claim. It's a fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That makes no sense whatever. You're accusing biologists of not using an inappropriate paradigm to investigate abiogenesis as if it was some kind of cop-out. Do you really think the theory of evolution was ever supposed to be a theory of everything?

But what I believe is that you are trying to discredit the theory of evolution by showing that it doesn't explain abiogenesis and in order to do that you have to show that it was intended to explain abiogenesis in the first place. That is why you are insinuating that we know it was intended to explain abiogenesis and are trying to cover it up.

Creationists will jump at every opportunity to bad mouth science they don't like and they don't have any problem lying about the science to do so.

Here we have a prime example.

He has been told and explained more times then I can count that evolution is about existing life and not the origins of life.

He does not care. He just keeps on being dishonest because it's all he can do. If he would start being honest, he would have to face the fact that reality doesn't agree with his fundamentalist religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you DARE, I would like to examine the principles of evolution with you one by one and see if it will fit to the study of abiogenesis.

I think we have done one. What is the next?
Environment controls the evolution? It seems it definitely would apply. If the environment does not fit, somekind of chemical reaction would never happen.

And the same goes for the process of water freezing. If the environment does not fit, no freezing happens.

But nobody in his right mind is going to suggest that therefor evolution theory can explain the process of freezing or that a freezer is a practical application of evolution theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My point is: The idea of evolution is USELESS.

No. YOUR idea of evolution is useless.

We can figure out everything without the idea of evolution.

Let me guess: we must read the bible instead?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because whatever the field is, we can do the same work, and have the same achievement, without using a single idea of evolution.

This is a truelly epic facepalm moment..................................

So because other fields aside from evolutionary biology (and its sub fields) can be done without the theory of evolutionary biology, therefor evolutionary biology is useless?

Ow my.......................


Hey.... I can do geology and figure out how rivers form without using a single idea of germ theory. Therefor germ theory is useless!





This is a new low.

 

[juvenissun]

When 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom bind to form a water molecule, is there then any inheritance going on?

Or is it just a chemical reaction?

Why does H prefer O? That is a type of inheritance.

 

[juvenissun]

Chemistry.
Or maybe Bio-chemistry since it concerns organic molecules.



As random as any chemistry.



No, since natural selection in evolution is about reproductive success and survival of already living things. Not about chemical compounds forming.


No.

Is part of evolution also chemistry?
If I use chemistry, physics to replace evolution, what would evolution still have?

 

[Speedwell]

Why does H prefer O? That is a type of inheritance.

Do atoms reproduce with randomly distributed variation?

 

[juvenissun]

Because evolution is about the origins of species, not the origins of life.

Why not include it? Chicken.

 

[Speedwell]

Is part of evolution also chemistry?
If I use chemistry, physics to replace evolution, what would evolution still have?

Evolution already makes full use of physics and chemistry.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not include it? Chicken.

How would that work, exactly? Would it be similar to merging quantum mechanics and auto mechanics?

 

[juvenissun]

And the same goes for the process of water freezing. If the environment does not fit, no freezing happens.

But nobody in his right mind is going to suggest that therefor evolution theory can explain the process of freezing or that a freezer is a practical application of evolution theory.

Are you saying in the study of evolution, water does not freeze?