Of course they aren't separate. If life can't start on it's own from lifeless chemicals then evolution is just a meaningless theory.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course they aren't separate. If life can't start on it's own from lifeless chemicals then evolution is just a meaningless theory.Also, evolution and abiogenesis are separate from each other, and the legitimacy of one has nothing to do with that of the other.
"Le shrug" the problem isn't exactly fixed by putting a deity in there, now is it, because then the question just becomes "where did God come from?".A "singularity" isn't nothing. I want to know where the singularity came from.
You seem to think evolution has a point behind explaining how life changes over time. It doesn't. It would still be useful even if abiogenesis was disproven.Of course they aren't separate. If life can't start on it's own from lifeless chemicals then evolution is just a meaningless theory.
Math goes far beyond science, it has actual proof. Science can't prove, only disprove, and gather evidence for that which explains.Nope, the really bold statement has been made, so it's up to that person to show the rest of us where it came from. Also, I thought mathematics was one of the sciences - I'm pretty sure it is regarded as such here in the UK.
Those claims are backed up by evidence. That is why something like 99.8% of biologists accept the theory of evolution as being correct. The problem is that most creationists do not understand the nature of evidence. You can't demand evidence if you do not understand what scientific evidence is in the first place. You will incorrectly reject the evidence when it is shown to you.To make such bold statements as...
"Wrong. It has been observed in the lab and in the field.
Wrong. We have an extremely well developed explanation.
Wrong again. We have a record of it occurring."
...requires evidence to back up such astounding claims. Otherwise, these statements are a complete falsehood. I'm pretty sure that if such claims were actually true, it would have been trumpeted around the world by every available means under the sun. Even the creation websites would have headlines such as "Scientists have made an astonishing discovery - They have fathomed out how God could have created the first life" If I'm wrong, let's see the proof. I'm sure we're all dying to see it.
Give the benefit of the doubt first.Those claims are backed up by evidence. That is why something like 99.8% of biologists accept the theory of evolution as being correct. The problem is that most creationists do not understand the nature of evidence. You can't demand evidence if you do not understand what scientific evidence is in the first place. You will incorrectly reject the evidence when it is shown to you.
For example, why do humans have vestigial, useless remnants of a third eyelid at the corner of our eyes? From an evolutionary perspective, it makes perfect sense; the need for a third eyelid was lost, a mutation occurred that reduced the structure, and it spread throughout the population of one of our ancestral species, but the mutation didn't remove it entirely.
Give the benefit of the doubt first.
Oh no, not with such a bold claim as this. Bold claims require solid evidence. Either someone come up with the goods or it will remain a fairy story and I'll continue to quote the lack of evidence for this claim at every opportunity. Perhaps I should notify the press to see if they have heard anything. I'm sure they would love to have a scoop on a story such as this, although perhaps they already have and I just happened to miss it. I wonder where I was when the story came out?Give the benefit of the doubt first.
Loss of a structure is just as much evolution as gaining one is. Devolution is when it goes backwards, such as a human being born with a tail (it happens sometimes).It's interesting that you consider this to be example of evolution, as does the article I have reproduced below (my emphasis added at the end). A creationist would argue that it's just another example of a trait that was useful in the past, but has since been lost (loss of information is not evolution but devolution as has happened with the dog kinds for example). Remember, creationists don't argue against changes, sometimes quite dramatic changes, but only against one type of creature changing into something totally different. So this is just another example of something that has nothing to do with supporting evolution being used to try to show otherwise. No wonder those of us who don't accept [macro] evolution are highly sceptical about said theory.
Here's the article...
"Long ago when we were more dependent on our sight for hunting and/or defending ourselves from various animal attacks, we had a third eyelid that could move sideways and was half transparent so we would not waste valuable time of sight as a result to blinking.
At least this is what is thought by most scientists and biologist. The proof of this is all around us. A lot of different birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish have this weird third eyelid which is actually called the nictitatingmembrane. Even though it is not as common, the nictitating membrane has been found on a number of different mammals. The only primate that has the nictitating membrane is the Calabar angwantibo. Therefore the chances are big that previous primates, including an older version of the Homo sapiens, had it as well.
What is thought to be the remains of this third eyelid on us humans is the plica semilunaris. This is the pink stuff located in the corner of our eye and it is similar to the nictitating membrane that other animals have today. This is an additional proof to the theory.
Today the muscles that used to control the nictitating membrane are completely dispatched. No one is known to be able to use these muscles anymore and the reason why not is most likely because at some point in time, supposedly when we started living more and more in groups, we didn’t need it anymore. As evolution tells us, anything that has no use goes bye -bye." I could substitute this with, "as creation science tells us, anything that has no use goes bye bye" and it would make just as much sense.
We're not talking about the theory of evolution. Someone earlier in the thread claimed that life had been created from non-living chemicals and that there was proof of it. I want to see such proof.I would be extremely surprised if Not by Chance has not been given examples of evidence that support the theory of evolution.
I was talking to someone that was stating giving sources would be futile, as you would never get anything from them. I was telling him to give YOU the benefit of the doubt. Everyone is worth the effort until their actions prove it otherwise. I will be providing you with my sources when I get home.Oh no, not with such a bold claim as this. Bold claims require solid evidence. Either someone come up with the goods or it will remain a fairy story and I'll continue to quote the lack of evidence for this claim at every opportunity. Perhaps I should notify the press to see if they have heard anything. I'm sure they would love to have a scoop on a story such as this, although perhaps they already have and I just happened to miss it. I wonder where I was when the story came out?
Did they? They exaggerated.We're not talking about the theory of evolution. Someone earlier in the thread claimed that life had been created from non-living chemicals and that there was proof of it. I want to see such proof.
Because when a claim that supports evolution also supports creation, it can't be regarded as proof of one theory over the other.Why do you think losing a trait wouldn't count as evolution?
I can't wait to see this proof of someone having created life from chemicals. It will be worth the wait.I will be providing you with my sources when I get home.
You mean, they lied! And you wonder why some of us don't trust all this non-theistic propaganda.Did they? They exaggerated
Evolution evidence, although I do have some abiogenesis related sources, nothing that would qualify as a living organism has resulted from those as of yet. I'm not the one that claimed that.I can't wait to see this proof of someone having created life from chemicals. It will be worth the wait.
There is evidence for abiogenesis, but nothing like living things being the result of those experiments. I doubt they were trying to be deceptive on purpose, and they may have just used poor wording choices. I'll look back at previous posts and see it for myself.You mean, they lied! And you wonder why some of us don't trust all this non-theistic propaganda.
A loss of a trait is not a "loss of information". That so called information is usually still in your DNA. Specific genes have been shut off and they may have mutated beyond usefulness. We can show how new traits are formed and how they are lost. It is rather easy to show how traits are lost. It does not matter as much if an unused trait is changed by mutation so selection is lost for that particular trait. Traits that are actively used are protected by selection, changes in those are usually bad and bad mutations tend to die out.It's interesting that you consider this to be example of evolution, as does the article I have reproduced below (my emphasis added at the end). A creationist would argue that it's just another example of a trait that was useful in the past, but has since been lost (loss of information is not evolution but devolution as has happened with the dog kinds for example). Remember, creationists don't argue against changes, sometimes quite dramatic changes, but only against one type of creature changing into something totally different. So this is just another example of something that has nothing to do with supporting evolution being used to try to show otherwise. No wonder those of us who don't accept [macro] evolution are highly sceptical about said theory.
Here's the article...
"Long ago when we were more dependent on our sight for hunting and/or defending ourselves from various animal attacks, we had a third eyelid that could move sideways and was half transparent so we would not waste valuable time of sight as a result to blinking.
At least this is what is thought by most scientists and biologist. The proof of this is all around us. A lot of different birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish have this weird third eyelid which is actually called the nictitatingmembrane. Even though it is not as common, the nictitating membrane has been found on a number of different mammals. The only primate that has the nictitating membrane is the Calabar angwantibo. Therefore the chances are big that previous primates, including an older version of the Homo sapiens, had it as well.
What is thought to be the remains of this third eyelid on us humans is the plica semilunaris. This is the pink stuff located in the corner of our eye and it is similar to the nictitating membrane that other animals have today. This is an additional proof to the theory.
Today the muscles that used to control the nictitating membrane are completely dispatched. No one is known to be able to use these muscles anymore and the reason why not is most likely because at some point in time, supposedly when we started living more and more in groups, we didn’t need it anymore. As evolution tells us, anything that has no use goes bye -bye." I could substitute this with, "as creation science tells us, anything that has no use goes bye bye" and it would make just as much sense.
But losing traits doesn't support creationism, especially not when it happens to humans.Because when a claim that supports evolution also supports creation, it can't be regarded as proof of one theory over the other.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?