Do you accept evolution as a valid scientific theory?

[coolstylinstud]

Do you still want to take a bet whether or not Creationists tend to be less likely to understand evolution?

I never said that all creatonists know what evolution is but I am just saying that you guys always asume that we are completely oblivious to it

 

[david_x]

evolution deals with the origins of life.

wait a minute?

both think that evolution deals with the origins of life

did you misprint or have a sudden reliztion that i'm right.

 

[random_guy]

I never said that all creatonists know what evolution is but I am just saying that you guys always asume that we are completely oblivious to it

Well, it just seems like the majority tend to be misinformed. I guess part of the problem is it's always evolutionists that must correct Creationists. If Creationists would also correct other Creationists when they post something wrong, it would show otherwise.

 

[david_x]

Well, it just seems like the majority tend to be misinformed. I guess part of the problem is it's always evolutionists that must correct Creationists. If Creationists would also correct other Creationists when they post something wrong, it would show otherwise.

It might be the fact that we have a majority!

And i finally figured it out, you don't know chemical evolution or you misunderstand.

 

[random_guy]

The problem lies in your inability to keep a statement in its proper context.

From the atheists point of view, evolution does have something to do with abiogenesis(the theory that life evolved from non-living matter). But abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are not the same of course.

And then you started talking about the evolution of stars, which has nothing to do with the so-called evolution of human life. So you are out of context, because we aren't talking about the origin or evolution of non-living matter, but of human life.

Even from an atheist point of view, evolution still doesn't deal with the origins of life. Atheists could have the position where they don't know how life began. Again, evolution is completely separate from the origins of life. I really don't see what's so hard to understand.

I don't see people complaining that Atom Theory is invalid since it doesn't explain the origins of atoms, why do they think that this is a problem for evolution?

 

[random_guy]

wait a minute?



did you misprint or have a sudden reliztion that i'm right.

Hahaha! There you go. Unless another Creationists post something, I think this about sums up the entire problem. Creationsits will almost never correct each other, even if one applies some of the most deceptive tactics I've ever seen.

 

[david_x]

Hahaha! There you go. Unless another Creationists post something, I think this about sums up the entire problem. Creationsits will almost never correct each other, even if one applies some of the most deceptive tactics I've ever seen.

anyone else think this is off topic. Are you going to keep doging or take it like a man?

 

[woobadooba]

Even from an atheist point of view, evolution still doesn't deal with the origins of life. Atheists could have the position where they don't know how life began. Again, evolution is completely separate from the origins of life. I really don't see what's so hard to understand.

Again, you are not paying attention to what I had said.

Didn't I say that abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are not the same?

And I also said that from an atheist's point of view, evolution does have something to do with the origin of life in the sense that life evolved from non-living matter.

Without evolution taking place in this way, there could be no life, that is, if one were to truly believe that life evolved.

So although they aren't the same, they do share close ties. Thus they do have something to do with each other.

 

[random_guy]

Again, you are not paying attention to what I had said.

Didn't I say that abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are not the same?

But I did say that from an atheists point of view, evolution does have something to do with the origin of life in the sense that life evolved from non-living matter.

Without evolution taking place in this way, there could be no life, that is, if one were to truly believe the life evolved.

So although they aren't the same, they do share close ties. Thus they do have something to do with each other.

Sorry, I think we're just misunderstanding each other. I view that life evolving from non-living matter isn't evolution. Evolution comes into play when we have non-perfect replicators competing with each other. So, evolution comes into play after life is formed. I guess it's really hard to draw the line where evolution finally kicks in, since the line between life and non-life during abiogenesis is very sketchy.

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from. Can we at least agree that scientifically, one shouldn't make an argument against evolution by using problems with abiogenesis?

 

[david_x]

cool, so start with your definition since your the wiz.

 

[woobadooba]

Sorry, I think we're just misunderstanding each other. I view that life evolving from non-living matter isn't evolution. Evolution comes into play when we have non-perfect replicators competing with each other. So, evolution comes into play after life is formed. I guess it's really hard to draw the line where evolution finally kicks in, since the line between life and non-life during abiogenesis is very sketchy.

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from. Can we at least agree that scientifically, one shouldn't make an argument against evolution by using problems with abiogenesis?

Now I understand where you are coming from too. After looking at it in this way, I can agree with you to a certain extent.

As for refuting evolution with arguments about the flaws of abiogenesis, I have to agree that if abiogenesis can be refuted then there is no sense in talking about evolution.

But then again there are theistic evolutionists, so I can understand your point here too.

 

[random_guy]

Now I understand where you are coming from too. After looking at it in this way, I can agree with you to a certain extent.

As for refuting evolution with arguments about the flaws of abiogenesis, I have to agree that if abiogenesis can be refuted then there is no sense in talking about evolution.

But then again there are theistic evolutionists, so I can understand your point here too.

Yeah, with TEists, refuting abiogenesis will have no effect on their beliefs of evolution. Of course, that'll cause problems with scientists since they can not have a supernatural explanation due to the nature of science.

However, I think that one thing will remain the same, they'll accept that abiogenesis happened is a given, the theories on how will constantly change. I remember the originally idea by Miller-Urey showed that amino acids could be formed from inorganic molecules, however, their setup was not the same as early Earth. I think their experiment has already fallen out of favor of how organic molecules formed on Earth.

Personally, I find abiogenesis research fascinating, but it's such a new area with so little funding. I remember reading about how a scientist wanted to create a completely new form of life. Anyway, that's my little aside. I love science since I grew up watching Nature.

 

[shernren]

Ah ha you fell for my trap, you don't know what you are talking about! There is an entire branch, no pun intended, of evolution that deals with the start! Chimical Evolution. The fact was introduced by Darwin. He said somthing like,"if it so happened that lightning hit a prehistoric puddle of condensed matter that perhaps a living organism could have been formed." (not a quote, but i heard the sort somewhere)

This idea is rediculous! even if the lightining produced the protins needed to form an organism from amino acids (all 26) that happened to be present it is entirely impossible for the DNA needed to reproduce to form.

Facts being intense probability, it is a fact that evolution is false.

Ahh, doesn't the idea that creationists feel compelled to lay "traps" say a little about their character? ... if it's a trap, it's not a good one.

Regarding "chemical evolution", that is not a term I have heard before in relation to abiogenesis. But fine, we'll use it. The fact is that biological evolution - as described by the NDT - does not depend on chemical evolution. The atheistic evolutionary viewpoint of course does, but since no poster here on OT needs to hold to the atheistic evolutionary viewpoint, no poster here needs the integrity of chemical evolution to defend the integrity of biological evolution.

Now, note that chemical evolution is not necessary to biological evolution - the Neo-Darwinian theory as it's called. Why? Look at these 4 belief systems:

1.
God specially created life.
God specially created biodiversity.

2.
God specially created life.
God allowed biodiversity to evolve naturally.

3.
God allowed life to come together naturally from pre-existing non-living chemicals.
God allowed biodiversity to evolve naturally.

4.
Life came together naturally from pre-existing non-living chemicals.
Biodiversity evolved naturally.

The Christian can hold any belief 1, 2, or 3. The atheist only has 4. The atheist does not just champion evolutionary theory, he holds to the atheistic evolutionary worldview which holds that all order and beauty in nature has to have naturalistic, chaotic, unordered origin - because there is no God to direct it.

It is obvious to see that ony for the atheist in his atheistic evolutionary worldview does special creation of life ("theobiogenesis") hold any problem. Even then, it is not because it jeopardizes biological evolution. After all, descent with modification and speciation can and do happen whether or not the first strand of DNA was created by God or assembled naturally. All that matters is that DNA exists and DNA works, which both abiogenesis and theobiogenesis accommodate. The only reason an atheist holds to "chemical evolution" is not because it is necessary for biological evolution, but because it is necessary for an atheistic worldview.

Now, to details. Firstly even if that quote is authentic it makes no sense in this context. Darwin barely knew anything about DNA, let alone abiogenesis, and therefore he isn't qualified to speak about it.

Secondly, putting forward that quote and then debunking it is pure strawman stuff. The currently favoured theory of abiogenesis is that catalytic sites on clays on which organic materials could precipitate served to concentrate the organic materials to useful densities. Bilayer lipid membranes form naturally given preexisting lipid molecules (which aren't that hard to manufacture either, they're basically esters that form from dehydration reactions between alcohols and carboxylic acids), AATE and RNA self-replicate given the right constituent chemicals and are stable, AFAIK, etc. If proteins could come together then so could D/RNA, since AFAIK polynucleotides are far more stable than polypeptides (though more susceptible to base changes via mutation).

And there are more than 26 possible amino acids, and about 20-22 (IIRC) of them are used to construct proteins in modern cells. Get your basic facts right.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah ha you fell for my trap, you don't know what you are talking about! There is an entire branch, no pun intended, of evolution that deals with the start! Chimical Evolution.

If you mean abiogenesis then you are talking abut something alien to the theory of modern evolution.

The fact was introduced by Darwin. He said somthing like,"if it so happened that lightning hit a prehistoric puddle of condensed matter that perhaps a living organism could have been formed." (not a quote, but i heard the sort somewhere)

Darwin in one of his letters described a warm little pond where he imagined life could have gotten its start. Darwin knew absolutly nothing about chemical evolution and it would never have occured to him that life was as complicated as it really is.

This idea is rediculous! even if the lightining produced the protins needed to form an organism from amino acids (all 26) that happened to be present it is entirely impossible for the DNA needed to reproduce to form.

Facts being intense probability, it is a fact that evolution is false.

I think I should tell you that this post has been reported and the allegation is trolling. While I don't see this as trolling I am a little disappointed with the quality of the details. It was not lightning that was the fallacy of Darwin's reasoning but something common in his day called the blending of characteristics.

I don't see the need for a warning here but here is an obvious need to get some of the details straight. Darwin was the first to suggest natural selection as the primary means of evolutionary adaptive change, not chemical evolution.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[random_guy]

I know we might not agree on evolution, but I'm glad to see that you're here to correct david_x on his post. It did seem like he was trolling when he took my post and made it look like I said evolution dealt with the origins of life.

Thank you for stepping in Mark and being a voice of reason.

 

[gluadys]

it is except for the fact evolution is a one-way street. Doesn't that bother you that you're arguing against something you don't even understand?

Depends on how long the species has been going down the street. If the changes are recent and minimal, they can also be reversible. We see that in the finches, and also in the pepper moth. When environmental conditions reverted to what they used to be, before the new trait had fully spread to all members of the species, a reversal occurred.

But if the environmental conditions do not revert to the previous situation until after new traits are fixed in the species, then the species will not revert to what it was. It would have to re-adapt based on its current form.

 

[charityagape]

Hahaha! There you go. Unless another Creationists post something, I think this about sums up the entire problem. Creationsits will almost never correct each other, even if one applies some of the most deceptive tactics I've ever seen.

Well I'd correct him if I could figure out what he's saying.

 

[random_guy]

Well I'd correct him if I could figure out what he's saying.

Basically, I've been arguing that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, and that many Creationists tend to mix up evolution and abiogenesis.

I posted

Except evolution has nothing to do with the start of life, and evolution still applies to life, even if God specially created every creature. It's like some sort of theory. The limit of the probability that a Creationist will mention the start of life as a problem of evolution goes to 1 as the number of posts increase.
...
Really? You want to make a bet? Look at the david_x, woobadooba, both think that evolution deals with the origins of life. It gets worst as you start reading the other replies. I'm talking about pure wrong replies due, not just interpretation of evidence. Many Creationists replies in this thread are completely scientific wrong due to misunderstanding of science definitions.

david_x then said that I posted:

evolution has nothing to do with the start of life

evolution deals with the origins of life

as evidence that I said evolution does deal with the start of life. This is one of the worst quote minings I've seen done by a Creationist. However, what surprises me is that only one Creationist has even mentioned david_x's actions.

Where are the other honest Creationists speaking out to correct the lies of their own members?

 

[Metaphor]

Basically, I've been arguing that evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, and that many Creationists tend to mix up evolution and abiogenesis.

I posted


david_x then said that I posted:





as evidence that I said evolution does deal with the start of life. This is one of the worst quote minings I've seen done by a Creationist. However, what surprises me is that only one Creationist has even mentioned david_x's actions.

Where are the other honest Creationists speaking out to correct the lies of their own members?

Buddy, to each his own. Every Creationist has slightly different opinions. Some may be liers [I don't know either way in this situation; I have not followed it.] some may be honest. Just because one is doesn't mean the rest are. Don't stereotype us Creastionsts please.

-John

 

[david_x]

as evidence that I said evolution does deal with the start of life. This is one of the worst quote minings I've seen done by a Creationist. However, what surprises me is that only one Creationist has even mentioned david_x's actions.

QUOTE MINING? I did not get them from the same post. I was just tryn' to help

Hey, more evidence for you coolstylinstud. Here's another person that refuses to accept that evolution deals with the origins of life. Just like star formation has the word evolves in it, abiogenesis has the word evolves, but it's not biological evolution.

Sorry for the confusion, but isn't this a missprint.