Natural selection v Intelligent design

[DogmaHunter]

Why be so bent on evidence scientifically attained and then believe in abiogenesis? All that science has continually proved is biogenesis...why suddenly not trust the evidence you all so adamantly demand?

Some abiogenesis event necessarily happened.

At one point there was no life. Then there was life.

However it happened, at some point life came into existance where there was no life before.

Abiogenesis necessarily happened. How it happened exactly remains to be figured out. But it is a fact that it happened.

 

[stevevw]

yes in theory if they are closer to each other on the tree. but lets take frogs and fish I think this was the original example but couldn't find it when I tried looking a while ago.

Fish Y may be 20% different from humans in a gene, while frog X could be 50% different from humans in genes, technically the human might be more closly related to the frog. The thing is the fish has been evolving since the split with humans for hundreds of millions of years, so there may have been some selective pressure that caused that gene to remain stable, while the frog has a pressure that causes it to radically change.

Look at humans, there are some genes between us and apes that are simular, and yet others that radically have changed for one reason or another.

Something like I said often forgotten is that when we split off from a branch on a tree, that tree doesn't stop evolving, it still is moving along it's own branch changing as it goes.

And thats interesting if HGT is true, though that doesn't change evolutions tree, we know that happens with bacteria, why not very rarly with higher life, the trouble is the bacteria/virus and such has to effect the exact sperm cell wich is why it's so rare, but we've known about ERV's wich a viruses leaving DNA in us for years.

The thing is mutations that give a beneficial function or feature that gives a gain in complexity with animals is very very rare if not at all happening. Mutations will either have little effect and there will be no selection or they will have a deleterious effect. Most changes are a loss of function which may give a variation of existing genes to allow an organism or creature to take on a new environment or condition. But there is no evidence that evolution can grow and create new functions that add complexity say from a fish to a frog or an ape to a human.

When you consider that from a fish to a mammal is a fantastic amount of complexity that is impossible. Evolution likes to minimize the effect by saying it happens in tint steps so it doesn't sound as amazing. But the fact is it is still adding a great amount of stuff that wasn't there to begin with. Tests have shown that this cannot happen and if they could would take more time than the earth has been in existence just to evolve small steps.This is not even considering how life could come into existence from non life. Thats why scientists are looking beyond our planet for life because its just to impossible to explain how it could start here on earth.

But scientists can always come up with an explanation about evolution and give a reason for this or that when it seems impossible or when the theory contradicts itself. There is always a way out and more and more explanation has been added with time to explain the contradictions and stuff that doesn't add up with things like convergent or punctuated evolution or ghost linage's. The evidence is subject to interpretation and there is no direct observable and testable evidence to prove it. In fact the evidence is showing that the chances of Darwin's theory of evolution is unlikely and that creatures gain their variety from existing genes or other methods like HGT or epigentics.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I cant prove God with the type of evidence that science would want me to anyway. If God is beyond our reality and is a supernatural agent then how can we ever see that directly.

If that is the case, how can you pretend to know anything about this god?

But then you couldn't disprove there isn't a God either.

Why should we need to?

Nor can scientists directly prove that there are multiverses or hologram worlds like they suggest.

The difference is that scientists don't usually posit things they can't prove as "truth", like theists tend to do.

Nor can they prove that life came from non life directly

And no scientist claims they can at this point, what is the problem?

or that evolution is true as it has never been observed or proven by test in a lab.

That is just blatantly false.

All scientists can do is appeal to the indirect evidence. They can come up with ideas that fit the maths or evidence they see. But you could fit more than one idea via this method.

Really?

I'ld certainly would like to see your testable, falsifiable idea that rivals evolution but accounts for all the data.

This is the kind of stuff people say when they only have very superficial knowledge on how science works.

There is indirect evidence for God or a design in nature.

Such as?

Test have been done to show that life has design about it and is too complex to have been formed by a naturalistic process.

What were these tests? Where are the publications of the results?
In which peer-reviewed journal were these published?
What methodology was used? How are these results tested?

The finely tuned universe is another example of evidence for design.

You mean, it is another example of the argument of incredulity/ignorance.

Now you can try to explain these things away and that is what a world view will try to do.

No... that's what YOU do by "explaining" them through "well, god-dun-it".

You see, science actually looks for proper answers by using objective methodologies instead of subjective opinions influenced by a priori faith based beliefs...

They want an explanation that takes God out of the picture.

No, they want an explanation that is supported by evidence and that is verifiable/testable.

Science can't help it that your deity of choice is defined in such a way that it is unfalsifiable and thus untestable.

Religions set themselves outside of the realm of scientific discourse.

Its not just about truth but its also about belief. If an atheists doesn't believe in God in the first place then they are going to be motivated to find all the possible reasons why God couldn't have done it.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

To people who don't believe that X exists, X is a complete non-issue.
It's like saying that people who don't believe in pink graviton fairies are going to be motivated to find all the possible reasons why pink graviton fairies aren't responsible for gravity.

 

[stevevw]

Another nail in the creationist coffin.

Comet yields 'rich array' of organics.

The ultra religious may claim god sent a comet, or it isn't proven, or whatever. What's becoming clearer is how life is in the Universe, how the claim of life from non life is obsolete. And a step closer to finding why there's only a tiny % of planets with some form of real life.

If these pictures are showing a rich amount of organic material then that makes a case even more so that there should be a lot of life throughout the universe. If we can find it on some random rock out of billions floating in space then chances are it is on many. If its on many then chances are there's a lot of organic material throughout the universe. If there's a lot of organic material then chances are there's a lot of life because evolution says that it can happen by chance. Unless we happen to get very lucky and picked the right rock to look by chance.

 

[paulm50]

Some abiogenesis event necessarily happened.

At one point there was no life. Then there was life.

However it happened, at some point life came into existance where there was no life before.

Abiogenesis necessarily happened. How it happened exactly remains to be figured out. But it is a fact that it happened.

It's another step to finding out why.

Another step away from the god theory, in the conventional form.

 

[paulm50]

If these pictures are showing a rich amount of organic material then that makes a case even more so that there should be a lot of life throughout the universe. If we can find it on some random rock out of billions floating in space then chances are it is on many. If its on many then chances are there's a lot of organic material throughout the universe. If there's a lot of organic material then chances are there's a lot of life because evolution says that it can happen by chance. Unless we happen to get very lucky and picked the right rock to look by chance.

It's another step away from the religious god theories.

Having the right elements is only part of the process. They have found other asteroids with elements, this one has new ones. The problem is hitting the right planet that can start the process. And that we're pretty clear on is the hard part. Going back to the one in a billion odds, or one in a million.

 

[loveofourlord]

The thing is mutations that give a beneficial function or feature that gives a gain in complexity with animals is very very rare if not at all happening. Mutations will either have little effect and there will be no selection or they will have a deleterious effect. Most changes are a loss of function which may give a variation of existing genes to allow an organism or creature to take on a new environment or condition. But there is no evidence that evolution can grow and create new functions that add complexity say from a fish to a frog or an ape to a human.

When you consider that from a fish to a mammal is a fantastic amount of complexity that is impossible. Evolution likes to minimize the effect by saying it happens in tint steps so it doesn't sound as amazing. But the fact is it is still adding a great amount of stuff that wasn't there to begin with. Tests have shown that this cannot happen and if they could would take more time than the earth has been in existence just to evolve small steps.This is not even considering how life could come into existence from non life. Thats why scientists are looking beyond our planet for life because its just to impossible to explain how it could start here on earth.

But scientists can always come up with an explanation about evolution and give a reason for this or that when it seems impossible or when the theory contradicts itself. There is always a way out and more and more explanation has been added with time to explain the contradictions and stuff that doesn't add up with things like convergent or punctuated evolution or ghost linage's. The evidence is subject to interpretation and there is no direct observable and testable evidence to prove it. In fact the evidence is showing that the chances of Darwin's theory of evolution is unlikely and that creatures gain their variety from existing genes or other methods like HGT or epigentics.

Actually alot of the suff that makes a fish different from a human is already in the DNA it's not like when humans evolved from ape there were 600 new genes, there were just changes to existing genes, wich we know happens as you have like 150 changes from your mother. When fish evolved to land animals majority of changes were to existing genes, maybe some gene duplication and such but majority of it is just changing how genes were expressed. Making a land limb out of fins isn't making 300 new genes again, it's jsut changing how the genes that make a fin get expressed.

as it's been shown fish use many of the same genes we do to form their body plan, it's not some drasticly new changes.

I think your over analzing HGT and epigenetics, you take, "A few small genes are HGT." and then extrapelate that all changse are from there, fungi bacteria and such genes don't explain what we see, they don't explain the differences as much as the simularities and so on, they don't explain the nested heiarchy that fits as neatly as it does I don't think you understand the subject enough, and are just using creationist site arguments who don't understand them either.

 

[stevevw]

If that is the case, how can you pretend to know anything about this god

If you read the rest of my post or the one after that you will see that I qualified how as a believer we can come to know God through faith. That faith gives us the evidence like it was right in front of us. We come to know God personally and have a relationship with Him. But you can only do this by faith. If everyone could see God now then we would be here on earth and in this reality anymore. We would have gone onto life beyond this material world. That time hasn't come yet but will some day pretty soon by the way things are going.

Why should we need to?

I dont know. Why do non believers keep asking for proof of God then. They both go hand in hand. Its like a merry go round. You ask for evidence and we say we cant give it because God in beyond out reality. You say this proves God is not real and then we say you cant disprove God either so you cant really take that position. So it only comes up because non believers set the scenario for it. As a believer I am happy to go along as I am. I believe and know within myself that God is real. I dont need to prove Him to anyone.

The difference is that scientists don't usually posit things they can't prove as "truth", like theists tend to do.

That is what some say. But as we have gone on and are now looking into things that have qualities that seem to go beyond the normal physics and reality even scientists are now coming up with ideas that are pretty far fetched and out of this world like hologram worlds and multiverses and worm holes. If you read the descriptions of these things you will think you are in some science fiction movie. Some scientists are even wanting to loosen up the criteria for what makes falsifiable evidence in proving a theory. Thats because the things they are trying to explain like the fine tuned universe, the ever increasing and expanding universe, uniting relativity and quantum physics and trying to come up with the theory of everything are forcing them to look beyond the normal parameters of the known physics.

They say that some of these things can never be proven with the existing standards of testing so they want to allow more flexibility with falsifying things. So this shows that they are starting to appeal to things beyond our reality and to indirect evidence beyond our world just like believers in God do. If anything this is pointing to there being a God because these are the qualities of God that believers have been pointing to for a long time. Science is only now getting to this point because the maths doesn't work anymore and they cant find an explanation with the existing formulas that fits.

And no scientist claims they can at this point, what is the problem?

You must be kidding. Ive lost count of the number of times I have read how a scientists has shown how life evolved with their experiments. f its not how they have discovered some chemicals that may have started it all or done some experiment that has solved the riddle its how they have found some evidence of life on another planet or meteor as in the case of the comet they have recently been observing. There is a lot of debate and attention going on in this area as it is something that they want to prove.
Chemists claim to have solved riddle of how life began on Earth
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-chemists-riddle-life-began-earth.html

That is just blatantly false

You will have to post the evidence then.

Really?

I'ld certainly would like to see your testable, falsifiable idea that rivals evolution but accounts for all the data.

This is the kind of stuff people say when they only have very superficial knowledge on how science works.

So I guess you havnt been following the debate. I have posted tons of evidence. You only have to go back a few pages.

Such as?

The finely tuned universe for life. The complex code of DNA which is being found to have even more layers of sophisticated codes within codes that speak a language just like a written text would. But thats right I forgot as Dawkins says evolution has the illusion that it looks and acts like design but its not really designed. The more time that goes by the more complex things become. The more complex it becomes the more explaining has to be done as to how chance mutations which are mostly harmful and deleterious can build more complex things with more function.
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399]
The Coherence Of An Engineered World
The synthesis of this knowledge that provides the most satisfying answers regarding human experience is one that admits the recognition of purpose and the existence of an (as yet, not-well understood) engineering influence.
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/114/19279
In fact the evidence shows that mutations do the opposite of evolution and take away from the genetics of creatures or deteriorate them. At the very best there may be some rare change which can give some benefit but this is usually by deleting a part of the existing genes which will still come at some cost to the overall fitness of a creature in the long run. There is not upward evolution into better and more genetically complex creatures.
Diminishing returns epistasis among beneficial mutations decelerates adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636771
Deleterious mutation accumulation and the regeneration of genetic resources
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18235/

What were these tests? Where are the publications of the results?
In which peer-reviewed journal were these published?
What methodology was used? How are these results tested?

Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283600939974
The probability of preservation of a newly arisen gene duplicate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11779815
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
These are just some of them. But I have posted many more if you go back and look.

You mean, it is another example of the argument of incredulity/ignorance.

NO its not and even many scientists acknowledge that its a hard thing to explain away. If there are over 200 constants that are so finely tuned that a tiny change will cause there to be no universe or life then that adds up to more than a chance event. To deny that is being dishonest. It may not point to God but it points to design and it points against a chance naturalistic event causing our existence.

No... that's what YOU do by "explaining" them through "well, god-dun-it".

I think if you notice that I dont bring God into it that often. The position I take is to try and see things for what they are. I think I dont need to bring God into it. Just let the evidence speak for itself and I am confident that this will point in the direction of God or at the very least show 1) how a naturalistic process cannot be responsible for some of the things we see. 2) that there is some design in things that has to have something that is making that design. Whether its God or an alien or some other strange cause I am not to concerned about at this stage.

You see, science actually looks for proper answers by using objective methodologies instead of subjective opinions influenced by a priori faith based beliefs...

I agree but now scientists re starting to appeal to almost faith based ideas to try and explain some of the things they see. Like I said what they are finding in astrophysics and quantum physics and the contradictions the quantum world is having with relativity they cant find the maths to work it out. So they begin to step beyond the normal ways of explaining things with the logic and cause and effect we use in our world and reality. Thats why they talk about strange worlds where all sorts of things can happen. By allowing this to come into the explanation they are also turning to faith based ideas because none of this can be directly verified.

No, they want an explanation that is supported by evidence and that is verifiable/testable.

And they will never get that with what they are looking at with trying to unite relativity and the quantum world. How do you test a multiverse or a worm hole. How do you test and verify a hologram world.

Science can't help it that your deity of choice is defined in such a way that it is unfalsifiable and thus untestable.

Its the same with many of the scientific ideas that scientists propose to be true.
Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ain-why-theres-something-rather-than-nothing/

Religions set themselves outside of the realm of scientific discourse.

So has some aspects of what scientists propose.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

It's like saying that people who don't believe in pink graviton fairies are going to be motivated to find all the possible reasons why pink graviton fairies aren't responsible for gravity.

To people who don't believe that X exists, X is a complete non-issue.

Thats right because its not about the individual supernatural causes. Its about the supernatural in general. Plus we are talking about the cause and effect of how things like life and our universe comes into existence which will cause us to look for the reason why it can happen. If someone believes that pink fairies are responsible for creating everything then of course they will also look for the evidence for them actually doing it. If a person doesn't believe in God then they will be guided and motivated by this and they wont be looking to God for any answers. Their parameters for evidence will be restricted to certain boundaries that stay within the scientific criteria for verification.

 

[stevevw]

Actually alot of the suff that makes a fish different from a human is already in the DNA it's not like when humans evolved from ape there were 600 new genes, there were just changes to existing genes, wich we know happens as you have like 150 changes from your mother. When fish evolved to land animals majority of changes were to existing genes, maybe some gene duplication and such but majority of it is just changing how genes were expressed. Making a land limb out of fins isn't making 300 new genes again, it's jsut changing how the genes that make a fin get expressed.

That doesn't make sense. A fish which is completely different to a human has less changes to their genetics then an ape which already very similar to a human. Both humans and apes have similar limbs and fish have fins. Humans and apes have lungs and fish have gills ect ect. But I agree with you that animals use existing genetics to make changes and thats what the evidence shows in tests. But there are limits to how far those changes can happen.

But this is almost saying that any changes come from existing genes which is more or less what creation says. The difference is is that the fish kinds were created and many variations of these have come about from the vast existing genetics in their gene pools. This is the same for all the animal kinds and they all could draw upon a vast amount of genetic info that is already there to allow changes and variations. But there are limits and boundaries and the further a creature moves away from its natural state the more it becomes a cost to fitness. So any change through mutations which is basically an error in copying the original state of genes will incur harm more than anything.

So evolution is taking the ability of each creatures genetics to have great variation of existing genes and saying that this can also be used to make new creatures with new genetic info. But the evidence shows that any mutational change is very small and on its own has no selective advantage. Its more likely to be seen as a setback without any further mutations adding to it. Because the mutations are chance by the time another comes along to build it into something of use its been seen as useless, harmful or of no benefit and then not selected. So even a small function requires several chance mutations and the chances of them being kept and lining up in succession is impossible and would take more time than the history of the earth.
The probability of preservation of a newly arisen gene duplicate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11779815
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzymes Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

as it's been shown fish use many of the same genes we do to form their body plan, it's not some drastically new changes.

This could also be that it comes from the same blue print design. Fin and feet are similar to begin with. The bone structures are similar so the genes will be similar. But that doesn't mean that they were evolved from each other and thats where evolution assumes this because they already believe that this is how all life was created. But they are just interpreting the same evidence in a different way. They are taking the ability of our genetics to vary within a kind and then expanding that to say that it can also make one kind into another. But anything the changes can do they can also undo.

So the beaks on Darwin's finches changed according to the changing conditions but then changed back when the conditions went back to the way they were. They didn't keep changing to become something else like a mouse. A Dino didn't keep changing to become a bird. A Dino had great variation within its own kind. That variation may have had some similarities with other kinds like birds such as feathers. But that was it. To change into a bird requires a multitude of complex changes that require multi mutations working together. That cannot happen and there is no evidence for it.

I think your over analzing HGT and epigenetics, you take, "A few small genes are HGT." and then extrapelate that all changse are from there, fungi bacteria and such genes don't explain what we see, they don't explain the differences as much as the simularities and so on, they don't explain the nested heiarchy that fits as neatly as it does I don't think you understand the subject enough, and are just using creationist site arguments who don't understand them either.

HGT is still being researched. They have found evidence for it happening with more complex life more than they thought. It can also be from viruses transferring genetic info into the genomes of animals. But there are other mechanisms which have been discovered which can add genetic changes. There is also evidence that changes can be made by the type of life an animal lives which is not determined by natural selection but by lifestyle. I have read that modern society is developing a fat gene and other genes from our modern lives. So in this sense its not the creature changing by adapting to the environment. But the environmental conditions changing the creature.

There is also evidence that life conforms to a natural law that has always been there just like the laws of physics. Animals are not subject to a random process of natural selection but that there are laws that govern how and when animals make changes. That may explain how unrelated animals have very similar genes and can have similar features like eyes or hearing. Rather than evolution explaining this as a coincident through convergent evolution happening thousands of times that it seems to go beyond a coincident. It may be that the patterns are inherent in the natural way animals change and their genetic info is vast and accessible by sharing with each other and the environment.

Then there is evidence from developmental evolution which looks at developmental processes of different organisms to determine the ancestral relationship between them, and to discover how developmental processes evolved. It also shows contradictions with what Darwinian evolution says. All these fields and the contradictions they brought up use to be seen by traditional evolutionists as just small issue on the fringe of evolution theory. But now studies are showing they may be the driving forces for biological changes and that Darwinian evolution is not as prominent if not at all as thought.

If you take plants for example they say there is great scope for HGT. There is evidence that plants can even take up genetic info from the roots and bacteria around the plant. There is evidence for the same thing with more complex creatures. Common decent is a construct of evolutionary interpretation. All life has similarities anyway even if they were designed. A hand is similar to a fin which is similar to a paw ect. The same with eyes, feet, hoofs and just about every feature. creatures that live in similar environments are going to have similar features because they need to for the similar environment. But thats just how it is with design. Everything is designed including the environment so they all are a living organism and work together.

Because evolution is geared towards making ideas that the environment created living things and living things created each other it is easy to see how you can make an explanation that can fit the theory of nature being the creative force. But all they are doing is making one of the things that was created being nature a creative force. They are using one of Gods creations and giving that the power to create. They are taking a link out of the picture which is God because the idea is to make a naturalistic process a God itself. It really comes down to belief. If you dont believe in God then you will have a world view that is self reliant and sufficient. It believes that everything was self created and self evident. There is no divine creative powers. But when we look at nature we see plenty of creative powers from God but many have to deny this because they deny a personal God.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
Widespread impact of horizontal gene transfer on plant colonization of land
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n10/full/ncomms2148.html
http://archives.huntingtonnews.net/columns/090427-mann-columnsmanntalk.html

Extreme Genetic Convergent Similarity: Common Design or Common Descent?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_2020161.html

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's clear that steve hasn't taken my advice.

 

[pshun2404]

Another nail in the creationist coffin.

Comet yields 'rich array' of organics.

The ultra religious may claim god sent a comet, or it isn't proven, or whatever. What's becoming clearer is how life is in the Universe, how the claim of life from non life is obsolete. And a step closer to finding why there's only a tiny % of planets with some form of real life.

And why would "organics" found elsewhere in the universe put a nail in out coffin? That is the most ridiculous assumption based conclusion yet. Whoever said these building blocks that life can vitalize do not exist elsewhere? Only if one defines life as the material that lends to its many forms can one reach such an erroneous conclusion.

 

[pshun2404]

Some abiogenesis event necessarily happened.

At one point there was no life. Then there was life.

However it happened, at some point life came into existance where there was no life before.

Abiogenesis necessarily happened. How it happened exactly remains to be figured out. But it is a fact that it happened.

Total assumption there DH...one of the products of living systems is not only other living systems but non-living matter/energy...the products of inanimate matter/energy are transformed expressions of this matter/energy and de-evolution into oblivion...life cannot be said to come from non-living processes (can not and has not been observed, demonstrated, and all tests show otherwise) but non-living matter/energy IS shown to be one of the products of living processes...

It is equally as plausible that "life" is an energizing quality of this Universe that works on Matter/Energy to bring about forms it can work through, or even plausible that it preceded the non-living matter/energy maybe even being responsible for producing it in the first place...

 

[bhsmte]

It's clear that steve hasn't taken my advice.

I'm betting your advice doesn't align with his faith beliefs and his desire to protect the same.

 

[stevevw]

I'm betting your advice doesn't align with his faith beliefs and his desire to protect the same.

Archaeopteryx advice is to sit on the side lines and call foul play without participating in the game. Anyone can do that. At least I have some input and then back that up with support rather than keep stating its all wrong without any evidence. If you think somethings wrong then by all means show us. But dont just say it , you need some backup as well.

But its funny how I am told to go and do some uni course because I dont know what I'm talking about and that all the evidence I post is also all wrong from the experts and those telling me havnt bothered to do get qualified themselves. It seems we are all wrong when we disagree with what evolution says rather than consider that ah it may be wrong God forbid that we challenge the great theory. You would rather attack the person than deal with the evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Archaeopteryx advice is to sit on the side lines and call foul play without participating in the game.

You don't know how to play the game. I'm advising you to learn the rules so that you don't embarrass yourself on the field.

At least I have some input and then back that up with support rather than keep stating its all wrong without any evidence. If you think somethings wrong then by all means show us. But dont just say it , you need some backup as well.

All you're showing us is how badly you don't understand the subject you are pontificating on.

But its funny how I am told to go and do some uni course because I dont know what I'm talking about and that all the evidence I post is also all wrong from the experts and those telling me havnt bothered to do get qualified themselves. It seems we are all wrong when we disagree with what evolution says rather than consider that ah it may be wrong God forbid that we challenge the great theory. You would rather attack the man than deal with the evidence. Thats called playing the man rather than the game.

Yes, that's right: You think you are hitting goals when you aren't even missing. You haven't even touched the ball! That's how badly you've misjudged the situation.

 

[stevevw]

It's clear that steve hasn't taken my advice.

Its funny here I am responding to something who supports evolution has said about evolution without them posting any support. You never utter the slightest objection to what they say or tell them they are wrong or should go and learn about what they are talking about. Yet when I or someone else who disagrees with evolution objects to what is said its us who are wrong and need education. Thats very biased and one sided. Why dont you tell them the same unless you think that whatever they say is correct no matter what. Could it be that those who say supportive things about evolution are always right in your eyes and those who dont are wrong no matter what. You have deemed yourself the expert judge on all things evolution. Funny that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Total assumption there DH...

Wut?

How is it an assumption??

At one point there was no life, then there was life.
How is it an "assumption" to say that this means that life came into existance at some point, in some way?????

one of the products of living systems is not only other living systems but non-living matter/energy...the products of inanimate matter/energy are transformed expressions of this matter/energy and de-evolution into oblivion...
life cannot be said to come from non-living processes (can not and has not been observed, demonstrated, and all tests show otherwise) but non-living matter/energy IS shown to be one of the products of living processes...

You're not making any sense at all.

Once, there was no life.
Then, there was life.

Apparantly, that doesn't mean that life came into existance at some point.

Mmmkay.

It is equally as plausible that "life" is an energizing quality of this Universe that works on Matter/Energy to bring about forms it can work through, or even plausible that it preceded the non-living matter/energy maybe even being responsible for producing it in the first place...

Please present your evidence that warrants the use of the world "plausible" here.

 

[stevevw]

You don't know how to play the game. I'm advising you to learn the rules so that you don't embarrass yourself on the field.

And you are an expert who has played the game and learned the rules. Ummm. You make them up as you go as you stand afar and add a little jibe in here and there without qualification. When I ask if you have learned the subject of biology and evolution at Uni you tell me you havnt but try to say that you have a background in it whatever that means. To me that means you havnt studied it directly enough as a qualification on its own at Uni to be an expert like most of us. Thats the level you are saying we should be at to be able to know and make comments isn't it. Or is it only for those who disagree with what you believe about evolution. Yet you still think this gives you the qualifications to know more than most others and even those who have studied it.

Then in the next breath you are saying that a brain surgeon who covers biology and chemistry as part of their course cant give any qualified comment because they didn't study biology directly. So it seems good for you to stand in judgement without any direct qualification but not for someone who has a greater degree of qualification by studying biology and chemistry as part of the brain surgeons course. I would think that gives them as much qualification as you if not more. I would have thought you would have given them as much leeway as yourself.

Instead you discount everything they say because you say they are not directly qualified in biology and at the same time say its OK for you to judged without direct qualifications. You make it up to suit what you want. Like I said anyone who disagrees with you is wrong irregardless of their qualification. You judge them wrong simply because they disagree with what evolution says and nothing else which is biased.

All you're showing us is how badly you don't understand the subject you are pontificating on.

You keep saying that but never qualify what you say. Its easy to say that. I can say the same thing If I wanted to without having to justify my comments. They mean nothing without support. At least I give support. At least loveofourlord was good enough to give some feed back even if we disagreed and explain why he disagreed which shows some respect and makes it a two way conversation rather than be dismissive all the time.

Even if you were to disagree and actually prove me wrong and I had to accept it from your evidence I would rather that than having this guessing game as to what it is that I am wrong on. Am I wrong on everything or somethings are a little bit. Are the links I posted from the experts wrong a little or a lot. Who knows because you never qualify yourself.

Yes, that's right: You think you are hitting goals when you aren't even missing. You haven't even touched the ball! That's how badly you've misjudged the situation.

Yes and your the expert standing on the sidelines.

 

[pshun2404]

When I said “Why be so bent on evidence scientifically attained and then believe in abiogenesis? All that science has continually proved is biogenesis...why suddenly not trust the evidence you all so adamantly demand?”

Frumious replied….

I don't really follow your point here, but

a) the evidence points to there being a time at which the simplest replicating bundles of chemicals appeared (proto-life by modern standards) and

b) prior to which these replicators were absent, but their constituent chemicals were present either directly or as precursor molecules.

No it doesn’t! The only evidence observed, demonstrated, and that tests in fact have verified is biogenesis. You saying you cannot follow my point demonstrates the kind of logic block that usually is indicative of indoctrination or possibly even brainwashing (and I am not saying YOU are brainwashed). The point is YOUR SIDE demands only scientific materialistic evidence (and within that ONLY that which must have already been said by a number of CURRENT evolutionary biologist articles in alleged objective journals which only post materials that agree with YOUR side of the debate…its called “stacking the deck”) and after nearly 200 years of research all the actual evidence, ONLY points to biogenesis and refutes abiogenesis’s spontaneous generation model.


At no time has ANY evidence demonstrated or pointed to a long past TIME WHEN any such thing happened. These molecular models are occurring right now…so what…these so-called
proto-life by MODERN Standards are a watering down re-definition of life necessitated because the actual definition of what life is if held to would show their conclusions to be false and assumption based.

There is ZERO EVIDENCE that shows there was a time when such normal chemical reactions were not happening. The Laws and principles guiding chemical reactions have always existed since the beginning and will continue to exist until the end of this Universe.


Given that we know that in suitable environments such organic molecules can interact, polymerize, and self-organize into more complex structures (bi-lipid menbranes, micelles, liposomes, etc),


Again you know that is not true but perhaps you are convinced. The fact is we do NOT KNOW and the alleged possible environments hypothesized when applied in the lab have ALWAYS had to be tweaked and adjusted until the preconceived conclusion could be somewhat (never perfectly) derived. AND NO NOT EVER have we EVER witnessed or demonstrated these organic molecules (which are but the building blocks for life not the cause) self organize into bi-lipid membranes (which require functional proteins to act as such a membrane acts), or micelles (which are nothing more than an aggregate of molecules dispersed in an aqueous environment and have always and only been observed to form inside an already living system), and certainly NOT Liposomes which themselves are PREPARED by disrupting already formed bi-lipid layers.

Perhaps you said this to confuse the less educated or perhaps some alleged authority has used this faulty logic to convince you of evidence for abiogenesis but it is nothing of the sort.


and that the evidence also suggests there were energetically suitable environments for this kind of interaction and self-assembly at that time,


Of course there were and are energetically suitable environments for lawful chemical interactions to take place….”self-assembly” however is an interpretation of the data contrived to fit the preconceived conclusion that life must have risen from inanimate matter by a slow gradual process over billions of years (which has NEVER, no not EVER, been shown to be true). They rarely but occasionally assemble in this way but do not show assimilation, elimination, respiration, reproduction, will, intent, choice, and so on…Yes Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules in the presence of each other will bond and form water molecules and do so readily and often….who or what governs that this should happen? Chemical laws and guiding principles exist that govern these things…


A lot of research has demonstrated that all the component molecules and structures of the earliest cells can be generated in plausible simulations of these early environments (the best candidates currently are the volcanic sea vents called 'smokers'


OF COURSE the component molecules and structures can be produced in intelligently designed experiments in labs…and after adjustments, and creation of intelligent designed apparatus like Miller’s cold trap devise, it can be made to appear such things are possible….


the research is an attempt to falsify claims that exotic hypotheses are necessary


That certainly is NOT the purpose of research….well maybe yours but that is not a fair assessment of science or testing….

 

[stevevw]

Wut?

How is it an assumption??

At one point there was no life, then there was life.
How is it an "assumption" to say that this means that life came into existance at some point, in some way?????



You're not making any sense at all.

Once, there was no life.
Then, there was life.

Apparantly, that doesn't mean that life came into existance at some point.

Mmmkay.



Please present your evidence that warrants the use of the world "plausible" here.

I think pshun2404 was meaning that because you believe that life came from non life which is impossible then you are assuming that it happened purely because you believe it had to happen without a God or supernatural force somehow and someway. Because we have life now your only conclusion is that it had to happen through a naturalistic process even though there is no evidence for this. IN fact in some ways its not only an assumption but it is faith based. You believe it happened that way despite having absolutely no direct evidence it did or could.