Probability of Origin of Life by Chance just went way UP.

[The Cadet]

Can you scientifically demonstrate that knowledge must be demonstrable?

I know it sounds ridiculous but my point is that we take demonstrable to extremes when we claim that the only knowledge is that which can be demonstrated, even the premise is not possible to demonstrate.

If you want to have a discussion on epistemology, it should probably be held before getting 11 pages into a thread about science. Because getting this far into a discussion on a scientific issue, then turning around and saying, "Yes, but must knowledge be demonstrable?" is ludicrous. Because if you weren't on board with those premises, what are you even doing in this thread?

 

[Loudmouth]

Now why would a deity produce life in a lab? How foolish. Is that your argument? God produced all life during a six day period and now you say "how many times have we observed a deity producing life in the lab?"

No one has observed a deity creating life. That means you reject supernatural creation for the same reasons that you reject abiogenesis, right? Or are you using a double standard?

God operates by His plan. He will always operate on His plan. There will be no life on this new planet. The chances are not better. It's like a loto ticket. One person could buy a ticket and the odds are the same for that one person if they are the only one or if a billion people bought a ticket.

Any evidence to back these claims?

 

[bhsmte]

If you want to have a discussion on epistemology, it should probably be held before getting 11 pages into a thread about science. Because getting this far into a discussion on a scientific issue, then turning around and saying, "Yes, but must knowledge be demonstrable?" is ludicrous. Because if you weren't on board with those premises, what are you even doing in this thread?

Normal operating procedure if you are familiar with this particular poster.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here is where you go wrong with evolution. At best, this only staves off degeneration of the species. It introduces nothing new. This also tends to weed out anything that might be construed as evolution. Over time, the trend is always downward toward sterility, death and extinction.

How would sterile individuals produce more offspring than fertile individuals? How would less fit individuals out compete more fit individuals?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, once. What is ridiculous is how you are arguing about words.

Words have meaning.
"Knowledge" and "beliefs" and "delusions" don't mean the same thing.
The word "knowledge" has a certain definition.

Things you believe on faith, like religious things, do not meet the criteria to be labeled as "knowledge".

At the end of the day, some type of demonstrability (depending on subject) is a criteria for the label "knowledge".

One of the definitions listed in the dictionary is this: the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time

Facts/truths are demonstrable. That's what distinguishes them from mere claims and beliefs.

If taken as truth, demonstrate how the first reproducing life form was simpler and less complex than the cell within the most simple form on earth today.

 

[JacksBratt]

Really?
So, those that are the least likely to survive and reproduce are those that actually do?

How does one defend such nonsense?



Tibetans, who have unique gene sequences that aren't found in any other human (unless that human has tibetan ancestry) and which allows them to live safely at high altitudes without becoming ill, would disagree.

People that evolve an immunity to certain deseases would disagree.

Turtles on the galapagos who can life their heads slightly higher then their peers, and thus can reach more food, would disagree.

Bacteria that exlusively feed on Nylon, a fabric that is only recently created, disagree.

Insects that evolved immunity to certain pestecides, disagree.

Bacteria now immune to anti-biotics, disagree.



I dare to say that you believe that, not because you have evidence, but rather because you happen to believe in a specific interpretation of the bible that says that everything is going to break down and stuff. Right?

The Tibetans are still human, the people with immunities are still human, the turtles are still turtles the bacteria still bacteria, insects still insects.

No new species or kind's.

Breeding for new strengths like milk with more cream or better tasting beef, stronger frames for work or faster frames for racing....No different than the Tibetans, turtles or bacteria.... these are not news, these are not evolution......

 

[Oncedeceived]

Normal operating procedure if you are familiar with this particular poster.

Ad hominem is the best you ever do in any thread on any topic, so who are you to pronounce judgement on any poster?

 

[Loudmouth]

The Tibetans are still human, the people with immunities are still human, the turtles are still turtles the bacteria still bacteria, insects still insects.

We are also still primates, still mammals, and still vertebrates. I take it that you have no problem with us sharing common ancestors with other primates, mammals, and vertebrates?

No new species or kind's.

Evolution doesn't need to produce new kinds in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. We are still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes.

 

[JacksBratt]

No one has observed a deity creating life. That means you reject supernatural creation for the same reasons that you reject abiogenesis, right? Or are you using a double standard?

Your logic always confuses me.... Evolutionists can't and don't even go near the whole "where did life come from in the first place"? question. Why would you try to discredit a creationist who's belief is founded on the fact that the very beginning of the belief starts with the six days of creation, life included.

No one has observed how life started, evolutionists flee from the very talk of it.

Any evidence to back these claims?

You should put this as your signature. Save the typing of it as it is your mantra....

It is an empty request as the Bible is my evidence and truth of it is taken by faith.

Carry on in your search for evidence that would ever satisfy your impossible criteria.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your logic always confuses me.... Evolutionists can't and don't even go near the whole "where did life come from in the first place"? question.

You claimed that abiogenesis is false because no one has seen it occur.

Do you apply the same criteria to your own beliefs? If not, why not? Why the double standard?

No one has observed how life started, evolutionists flee from the very talk of it.

Now you are projecting. We have consistently said that they are different questions, and that we don't need to know how life started in order to determine that it evolved. I don't know how life started, and I will gladly answer the same every time it is asked. I don't ever flee from the question.

You, on the other hand, claim that abiogenesis has been disproven because no one has ever seen it happen. Do you apply the same criteria to your own beliefs?

It is an empty request as the Bible is my evidence and truth of it is taken by faith.

How many times have you tried to vilify evolution because it is supposedly based on faith?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This sounds reasonable, but complexity and design are in evidence when something has the ability to evolve at all. You have this scenario in your head that discounts that even to be capable of evolution the necessary requirements themselves must be already complex and ordered. Natural selection presupposes a vast amount of order and some kind of life before it can do anything at all. The a priori of order and life are not just aside issues but of absolute necessity. Imagining that small increments that are advantageous to the organisms and long periods of time allow us to imagine great feats in outcomes that might have come about through the ages is poetic but not demonstrable anymore than the first reproducing life which is not in evidence. It reasonably has had an affect on all life but to conclude that the design apparent in the very first forms of life we have fossil evidence for does not lend itself to this step-to-step gradual development of order from disorder or simple to complexity. If one relies on evidence as the required element to determine something is true or in this case evolution did it, it is sorely missing from the equation.


Yes, you have asserted over and over that natural selection is a natural optimization module without giving any evidence for how this order and optimizing "module" started it all. For evolution to happen at all the complexity was necessary, the order was necessary. Evolution didn't evolve. What set that process up?


You point your finger at me and claim I have nothing but assertion, but what do you have? Sure life adapts and evolution happens but this is after the fact that life was present and order was already present before it did happen. You have no evidence that you can bring forward as to how this complex and apparent design that is present even working within one cell arose from anything simpler; and that cell is packed full of design features that we recognize as design of intelligent agency because we are the only intelligent agents that design with purpose and planning just as each molecular machine shows inside the cell. You hold your own cognitive bias, subjective opinion and whether or not you believe it dogmatic beliefs.

Biology can't be correct about what? What are you claiming I am claiming that says Biology can't be correct?


Who are you to tell me that evolution explains design when you have given only assertions and opinion. You have no evidence that shows the design within even one cell is produced by evolution. You have given no evidence that supports that evolution came out of disorder and simpler forms. You are the one pretending and making assertions that you can't support.


You are indoctrinated into beliefs about the basics of the natural sciences. You are indoctrinated into the belief that evolution is all there is working in life forms. Yet, you can't show scientifically how design is seen in even one cell's molecular machines within it.



I am not misrepresenting anything. YOU and no one else including Richard Dawkins have shown how design is evident in living forms. You and Dawkins both spin stories on how it might have or could have happened, but no evidence is in existence that shows how even one cell in the most simple life on earth has the ear marks of design. Those who actually know what goes on in a cell...one tiny little cell can recognize the immense complexity and design present. It is only those who hold a dogmatic naturalistic materialistic view who claim this design is an illusion. An illusion that mimics deliberate actual design. It is only their a priori views of only naturalistic explanations are worthy of consideration that won't allow them to admit to actual design.



They assert how design in nature comes about but they neglect that the design and complexity had to be present "before" evolution could even start. They neglect to give evidence that shows how this design actually is produced by evolutionary processes. They spin stories, how it could have happened, how it might have happened but no evidence is given ever showing it did happen.

It is obvious you don't, you believe hook line and sinker that evolution happens so it must have created the design in living organisms but you don't have evidence of that or how the order and complexity for it to happen is not explained by evolution as evolution did not evolve.




No Evolution is the best explanation that goes with your materialistic view of the world. It doesn't explain how the process of evolution got started, it doesn't explain the order and complexity required for it to start nor is it shown by any evidence that it did.

1. the origins of life are not within the scope of evolution theory
2. you don't know what first life looked like
3. your subjective opinions are irrelevant

This is not a natural process and is produced by intelligent design. The parts are already there within the program to use to make the finished product.

It's a shame you don't value "intelligent honesty" as much as you value "intelligent design" shenannigans.

Try understanding what it is that you are looking at on that site.
When you leave it open for a few hours, you will see cars driving the track.

These cars are all instances (phenotypes) based on a "blueprint" which is a string of numbers interpreted as coordinates and materials (genotypes). This chromosome, as it is called, is analogous to DNA.

None of the designs of cars you see are "intelligently designed". They were not programmed. They are evolved through the principles of evolution.

And it does that by first generating a random chromosome for generation 0.
It then mutates, does a fitness test, forms breeding pairs, produces a new generation and repeat.

Evolution. Creating designs from non-designs.
No "intelligent" intervention required.

You really believe that don't you?

I know that.
And yes, knowledge is demonstrable: over 200.000 peer reviewed papers dealing with evidence in support of evolution. Pick anyone of them.

There is evidence for evolution there is no evidence of how the order and complexity necessary for it to begin...in even one cell of the most simple life form known on earth appears designed.

Origins of life =/= evolution.

No it is called materialism and evolution is used to promote that view.

I've already explained to you why I don't do labels like "materialism".
I don't know why you continue to bring it up when talking to me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Tibetans are still human, the people with immunities are still human, the turtles are still turtles the bacteria still bacteria, insects still insects.

No new species or kind's.

You should perhaps first go back and read what the subject of discussion is, before coming in and changing goalposts.

I was responding to a claim that "new genes" don't happen. That mutation only makes things worse etc.

Tibetans, and all the other examples I gave, clearly disagree.
I wasn't responding to a claim saying "speciation is impossible" - which I could certainly address. It was just not the point of the post I was replying to.

Breeding for new strengths like milk with more cream or better tasting beef, stronger frames for work or faster frames for racing....No different than the Tibetans, turtles or bacteria.... these are not news, these are not evolution......

Actually, that is exactly evolution.

Speciation is nothing but an accumulation of those changes among genetically isolated populations. Which has been observed plenty of times. In the wild and the lab.

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. the origins of life are not within the scope of evolution theory
2. you don't know what first life looked like
3. your subjective opinions are irrelevant

1. Origins of life may not be within the scope of evolution but it is a necessary requirement.
Even taking life as a given, the order and complexity for evolution requires an explanation. Evolution did not evolve.
2. You don't know what first life looked life. The problem is the evidence we do have for the first life we do know is complex and already shows apparent design.
3. Your subjective opinions are what you are expecting me to accept.

It's a shame you don't value "intelligent honesty" as much as you value "intelligent design" shenannigans.

When no evidence can be presented it always helps to point fingers to others honesty.

Try understanding what it is that you are looking at on that site.
When you leave it open for a few hours, you will see cars driving the track.

These cars are all instances (phenotypes) based on a "blueprint" which is a string of numbers interpreted as coordinates and materials (genotypes). This chromosome, as it is called, is analogous to DNA.

Exactly. A blueprint is not included in evolution according to materialists.

None of the designs of cars you see are "intelligently designed". They were not programmed. They are evolved through the principles of evolution.

These programs are "programmed".

And it does that by first generating a random chromosome for generation 0.
It then mutates, does a fitness test, forms breeding pairs, produces a new generation and repeat.

Evolution. Creating designs from non-designs.
No "intelligent" intervention required.

1. If we know from experience that "intelligent human" intervention in plants and animals leaves no trace in their genetic makeup how do you propose to claim that there was no intelligent agent needed to create the design that is evident in even the most simple cell?
2. Where is the evidence of the non-design?
3. Where is the evidence of the non-design becoming designed?

Read and learn: http://boxcar2d.com/about.html

I know that.
And yes, knowledge is demonstrable: over 200.000 peer reviewed papers dealing with evidence in support of evolution. Pick anyone of them.

What paper in those 200.000 peer reviewed papers deal with the order needed for evolution the process to occur? What in the 200.000 shows evidence for non-design becoming design? Please provide them.

Origins of life =/= evolution.

Life is needed for evolution, so is the order from which evolution starts.
no life...no evolution
no order...no evolution
Evolution did not evolve.

I've already explained to you why I don't do labels like "materialism".
I don't know why you continue to bring it up when talking to me.

You don't have to apply the label to yourself, but the majority of scientists today come under that label.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. Origins of life may not be within the scope of evolution but it is a necessary requirement.

A necessary requirement, for what?

For evolution to start? Yes. Life must exist for evolution to pick up. That's kind of stating the obvious.

Even taking life as a given, the order and complexity for evolution requires an explanation. Evolution did not evolve.

Evolution as a process is the only possible outcome of systems that compete for limited resources and reproduce with variation.

This process is not something that needs any "creating".
It's what automatically happens to such systems.

2. You don't know what first life looked life.

I'm not the one making claims about first life...

The problem is the evidence we do have for the first life we do know is complex and already shows apparent design.

We don't know what first life looked like, so you can't possible know what it "appears" like. Not that it matters what it "appears" like though...

3. Your subjective opinions are what you are expecting me to accept.

Which opinions would that be?

When no evidence can be presented it always helps to point fingers to others honesty.

I presented you with a simplistic example of a practical application of evolutionary principles, wich demonstrates how this process is capable of producing designs from non-designs.

Failing to recognise this is due to either unwillingness to understand or sheer dishonesty.

Exactly. A blueprint is not included in evolution according to materialists.

Yes, there is. Generation 0. First life.

These programs are "programmed".

Do you understand what "controlled conditions" are?

The programming is merely setting up the environment and the fitness test.
Things that are analogous to the planet earth and other real things that actually exist.
The programming is done to simulate an environment that can host an evolutionary process.

The point of the example is the evolutionary process and the designs it produces. Not the world it simulates which plays host to the process.

Your argument against this, is frankly as silly as saying that the North Pole isn't natural because freezers are created in factories.

1. If we know from experience that "intelligent human" intervention in plants and animals leaves no trace in their genetic makeup how do you propose to claim that there was no intelligent agent needed to create the design that is evident in even the most simple cell?

Because nothing in the genome consists of things that can't be accomplished by evolutionary means. The entire nested hierarchical structure is an illustration of that fact.

Can we know that no intervention took place if it left no evidence? Nope.
But, obviously, it would be upto those that claim intervention took place to come up with evidence in support of that.

So good luck with that.

2. Where is the evidence of the non-design?

In the program?
In the source code. It starts with a random chromosome. A random amount of polygons with a random amount of wheels attached to random vector.

When that first generation is then run through the loop of the evolutionary process, designs of cars eventually emerge. Without intervention. Just random mutation followed by selection.

3. Where is the evidence of the non-design becoming designed?

On your screen. When the object start to resemble cars and perform better and better on the track....... derp.

What paper in those 200.000 peer reviewed papers deal with the order needed for evolution the process to occur?

None, because the origins of life are out of scope for evolution. Derp again.

What in the 200.000 shows evidence for non-design becoming design? Please provide them.

You don't need those technical papers to have evidence of that. Just leave the boxcar website open for a few hours.

The evolutionary process. Producing designs of cars through evolution. By itself. Without "intelligent" help.

Life is needed for evolution, so is the order from which evolution starts.
no life...no evolution
no order...no evolution
Evolution did not evolve.

Nobody claims it did.
Try staying on topic.

You don't have to apply the label to yourself, but the majority of scientists today come under that label.

If you say so. I don't really care what scientists believe any more then what you or Captain Kirk believes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A necessary requirement, for what?

For evolution to start? Yes. Life must exist for evolution to pick up. That's kind of stating the obvious.



Evolution as a process is the only possible outcome of systems that compete for limited resources and reproduce with variation.

This process is not something that needs any "creating".
It's what automatically happens to such systems.


I'm not the one making claims about first life...



We don't know what first life looked like, so you can't possible know what it "appears" like. Not that it matters what it "appears" like though...



Which opinions would that be?



I presented you with a simplistic example of a practical application of evolutionary principles, wich demonstrates how this process is capable of producing designs from non-designs.

Failing to recognise this is due to either unwillingness to understand or sheer dishonesty.



Yes, there is. Generation 0. First life.



Do you understand what "controlled conditions" are?

The programming is merely setting up the environment and the fitness test.
Things that are analogous to the planet earth and other real things that actually exist.
The programming is done to simulate an environment that can host an evolutionary process.

The point of the example is the evolutionary process and the designs it produces. Not the world it simulates which plays host to the process.

Your argument against this, is frankly as silly as saying that the North Pole isn't natural because freezers are created in factories.



Because nothing in the genome consists of things that can't be accomplished by evolutionary means. The entire nested hierarchical structure is an illustration of that fact.

Can we know that no intervention took place if it left no evidence? Nope.
But, obviously, it would be upto those that claim intervention took place to come up with evidence in support of that.

So good luck with that.



In the program?
In the source code. It starts with a random chromosome. A random amount of polygons with a random amount of wheels attached to random vector.

When that first generation is then run through the loop of the evolutionary process, designs of cars eventually emerge. Without intervention. Just random mutation followed by selection.



On your screen. When the object start to resemble cars and perform better and better on the track....... derp.



None, because the origins of life are out of scope for evolution. Derp again.



You don't need those technical papers to have evidence of that. Just leave the boxcar website open for a few hours.

The evolutionary process. Producing designs of cars through evolution. By itself. Without "intelligent" help.



Nobody claims it did.
Try staying on topic.



If you say so. I don't really care what scientists believe any more then what you or Captain Kirk believes.

I am going out to lunch right now but If you could please define information. I will return later. Thanks

 

[Davian]

Can you scientifically demonstrate that knowledge must be demonstrable?

lol. I do not have to demonstrate what is axiomatic.

This appears to me simply as special pleading for that "knowledge" of "God" that you claim to have.

I know it sounds ridiculous <snip>

Indeed, and longer you stand your ground on this the more ridiculous your position appears.

 

[pat34lee]

I dare to say that you believe that, not because you have evidence, but rather because you happen to believe in a specific interpretation of the bible that says that everything is going to break down and stuff. Right?

Humans are humans, turtles are turtles, etc. Everywhere you look. Tibetans are no more different than anyone else than a white curly haired poodle is from a grey pelted German Shepherd.

What do you see in nature, and what are evolutionists always telling us? 99.9% of all species ever to live have gone extinct.
The rest are fast heading that direction.

 

[pat34lee]

How would sterile individuals produce more offspring than fertile individuals? How would less fit individuals out compete more fit individuals?

Every generation, you have two chances, that the next generation will be the same as the current, or they will be worse off genetically. They do not get better unless the previous generation had been malnourished or something similar. There is only a downward spiral as I said, toward extinction.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am going out to lunch right now but If you could please define information. I will return later. Thanks

Why?

I didn't even mention the word...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Humans are humans, turtles are turtles, etc. Everywhere you look

Yes, what else would you expect?
Do you have a point?

Tibetans are no more different than anyone else than a white curly haired poodle is from a grey pelted German Shepherd.

Good job on missing the point.
That point being that they have a unique gene sequence which isn't found in other populations which is beneficial to people living at high altitudes.

This directly contradicts your claim that mutations is all about "degeneration".

Clearly, it's not.

What do you see in nature, and what are evolutionists always telling us? 99.9% of all species ever to live have gone extinct. The rest are fast heading that direction.

What I see in nature corresponds to evolution theory like a glove.

Evolution doesn't state that no species should go extinct.

I have no idea why you think extinction is a problem for evolution.