Prove it or remove it challenge

[Paterfamilia]

The real question is simple. If the very first organism was created by a supernatural deity, and all life we see today evolved from that first organism, what parts of the theory of evolution would we need to change?

Did you post that in the right spot? Ha ha your question doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to my post.

To answer your question, to me it doesn't make any difference. My objection to the theory is that it's still circumstantial with regard to macro evolution, and that the mechanisms aren't robust enough to account for the quantity of diversity that we see in the allotted time.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, when someone is saying that you are playing pigeon chess he is saying that you are posting nonsense, not following the rules of debate, and calling yourself the winner. I have seen you do this more than once. And quite often your posts are just word salad. You may mean something but they were not written properly or clearly. Trying to sound "sciency" is not convincing to people that have actually worked in science.

From the original source (edited):

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, [defecates] on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."--Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you post that in the right spot? Ha ha your question doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to my post.

To answer your question, to me it doesn't make any difference. My objection to the theory is that it's still circumstantial with regard to macro evolution, and that the mechanisms aren't robust enough to account for the quantity of diversity that we see in the allotted time.

I definitely addressed it to the right person:

"The convenient cop out part is the separation between ToE and abiogenesis. For those of us who care, DNA had to come from somewhere. Leaves kind of a big hole, especially since we are finding out just how complex "simple" life really is."--Paterfamilia

So why would we need to know where the first organism came from in order to determine how life changed after the appearance of the first organism?

 

[Paterfamilia]

I definitely addressed it to the right person:

"The convenient cop out part is the separation between ToE and abiogenesis. For those of us who care, DNA had to come from somewhere. Leaves kind of a big hole, especially since we are finding out just how complex "simple" life really is."--Paterfamilia

So why would we need to know where the first organism came from in order to determine how life changed after the appearance of the first organism?

Right person, wrong spot.

Historically, abiogenesis was certainly lumped in with naturalistic evolution. Remember the primordial soup and lightning and Miller-Urey etc.?

The current science of the time supposed that life in a microscope was so simple, it could have easily happened given the right conditions.

The overwhelming magnitude of the complexity of "simple" organisms forced naturalists to erect a "wall of separation" between abiogenesis and evolution. It wasn't always there, and would absolutely not be there if there was any evidence that original life was simple and it did verify natural selection fundamentals.

 

[Paterfamilia]

From the original source (edited):

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, [defecates] on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."--Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

It's also an easy resort when you don't understand the argument, the nuance of the answer, or the English words being spoken; or you're simply getting your butt kicked in circles.

Throwing out a misplaced epithet is tantamount to running to the smallest room in the house and crying like a little girl because you don't know what else to do.

Generally speaking, and not referring to Loudmouth, of course.

 

[Loudmouth]

Historically, abiogenesis was certainly lumped in with naturalistic evolution.

No, it wasn't.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Even Darwin describes life being breathed into life, perhaps even more than one original type of life. Abiogenesis was not a part of Evolution, even at the very start.

Remember the primordial soup and lightning and Miller-Urey etc.?

I remember that it was done in the 1950's, 100 years after the beginning of the theory of evolution.

The current science of the time supposed that life in a microscope was so simple, it could have easily happened given the right conditions.

That's not what the Miller-Urey experiment was looking at.

The overwhelming magnitude of the complexity of "simple" organisms forced naturalists to erect a "wall of separation" between abiogenesis and evolution.

No, it didn't. They were different questions from the very start.

Also, your examples of "simple" organisms are organisms that are the product of 4 billion years of evolution. Of course they are complex.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's also an easy resort when you don't understand the argument, the nuance of the answer, or the English words being spoken; or you're simply getting your butt kicked in circles.

Throwing out a misplaced epithet is tantamount to running to the smallest room in the house and crying like a little girl because you don't know what else to do.

Generally speaking, and not referring to Loudmouth, of course.

What we often run into in these debates are creationists who pronounce that the consensus in the fields of chemistry, physics, geology, and biology are all wrong. We then find that these creationists don't have even a basic understanding of the science in any of those fields, don't understand how to construct a basic argument, or even understand how the scientific method works. All the while, they think they can hurl some insults at scientists and then expect accolades from their fellow creationists for throwing poo at the enemies. That's the type of "debate" we have seen all too often.

 

[Paterfamilia]

What we often run into in these debates are creationists who pronounce that the consensus in the fields of chemistry, physics, geology, and biology are all wrong. We then find that these creationists don't have even a basic understanding of the science in any of those fields, don't understand how to construct a basic argument, or even understand how the scientific method works. All the while, they think they can hurl some insults at scientists and then expect accolades from their fellow creationists for throwing poo at the enemies. That's the type of "debate" we have seen all too often.

And people who don't believe that the ToE has been substantially proven, along with the general population at large, run into evolutionists who lie. Lie repeatedly. Why would they do that? Because they aren't trying to prove anything, they are trying to sell an idea.

In my predatory, ongoing research to prepare for our debate, I came across this article on pandas thumb.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/haldanes-nondil.html#comment-panels

In this article, the author coyly asks how many mutations to get from the common ancestor of chimps and humans, to humans.

Later he gives the answer.

154

But wait, it's not 154, it's closer to 240, but it could be 480. And taking everything into consideration, it might well be closer to 1000.

In any case, it's less than 1667. For sure. We're really probably pretty sure of that.

This is an undeniable pattern of data massage that is the calling card of evolutionists. An article headline trumpets "Blah blah new discovery proves evolution and validates Darwin!" Pure bull. You read the article, and even in the article it contradicts the headline, and then you go to the study and it does nothing of the sort.

Where's the honesty entailed by the "scientific method"? Your side cries wolf too often. We don't believe you any more.

 

[Loudmouth]

And people who don't believe that the ToE has been substantially proven, along with the general population at large, run into evolutionists who lie. Lie repeatedly.

Examples?

In my predatory, ongoing research to prepare for our debate, I came across this article on pandas thumb.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/haldanes-nondil.html#comment-panels

I hope your ongoing research is preparatory. Predatory seems a bit aggressive.

In this article, the author coyly asks how many mutations to get from the common ancestor of chimps and humans, to humans.

Later he gives the answer.

154

But wait, it's not 154, it's closer to 240, but it could be 480. And taking everything into consideration, it might well be closer to 1000.

In any case, it's less than 1667. For sure. We're really probably pretty sure of that.

This is an undeniable pattern of data massage that is the calling card of evolutionists. An article headline trumpets "Blah blah new discovery proves evolution and validates Darwin!" Pure bull. You read the article, and even in the article it contradicts the headline, and then you go to the study and it does nothing of the sort.

Where's the honesty entailed by the "scientific method"? Your side cries wolf too often. We don't believe you any more.

Where is the lie? Of course, different models of neutral evolution, different population sizes, different population dynamics, and different time spans are going to require different mutation rates. That is where the disparity in those numbers are created.

But let's look at this from a different angle. If we have a generation time of 25 years, a mutation rate of 50 mutations per person per generation, a steady population of 1 million, and 5 million years, how many total mutations is that? The answer is 10 trillion mutations. Humans and chimps are only separated by 40 million mutations. Obviously, more than enough mutations occurred.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Where is the lie?

Seriously?

Ha ha!

Okay, my spidey sense is twitching a bit (it's a trick!!) but I will bite.

10,000,000,000,000 mutations at 1,000,000 to 1 deleterious/neutral to beneficial.

That's 10,000,000 possible verses 40,000,000 actual using your figures (which are not correct). And before you got there, the the trillions of negative mutations would have wiped out the population.

Is the debate over?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right person, wrong spot.

Historically, abiogenesis was certainly lumped in with naturalistic evolution. Remember the primordial soup and lightning and Miller-Urey etc.?

The current science of the time supposed that life in a microscope was so simple, it could have easily happened given the right conditions.

The overwhelming magnitude of the complexity of "simple" organisms forced naturalists to erect a "wall of separation" between abiogenesis and evolution. It wasn't always there, and would absolutely not be there if there was any evidence that original life was simple and it did verify natural selection fundamentals.

Wrong. Simply wrong. Now that may have been what the lay person thought, but that was not the purpose of that experiment. At that time creationists were claiming that it was impossible to even make the building blocks of life and Urey-Miller showed them to be wrong. The purpose of the experiment was never to "create life". The purpose of the experiment was to show that the building blocks of life could arise naturally.

You can't blame the scientists if the public got the experiment wrong. The popular press almost always gets scientific articles wrong and will print nonsense that makes the scientist involved wince.

 

[Paterfamilia]

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms...--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Even Darwin describes life being breathed into life, perhaps even more than one original type of life. Abiogenesis was not a part of Evolution, even at the very start.

This illustrates the importance of semantics and syntax.

Darwin is describing the several powers of his view of life, even to "breathing life into a few forms or many". He is talking about naturalism. Not God. Evolution, not creation.

Thus he included abiogenesis in his theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seriously?

Ha ha!

Okay, my spidey sense is twitching a bit (it's a trick!!) but I will bite.

10,000,000,000,000 mutations at 1,000,000 to 1 deleterious/neutral to beneficial.

That's 10,000,000 possible verses 40,000,000 actual using your figures (which are not correct). And before you got there, the the trillions of negative mutations would have wiped out the population.

Is the debate over?

Where did you get that rather ridiculous million to one figure? And since most mutations are going to be in junk DNA they will very rarely have an effect anyway. The proper ratio would be far more likely over 90% neutral, maybe a few percent negative, and a fraction of a percent, but larger than your one in a million positive.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Wrong. Simply wrong. Now that may have been what the lay person thought, but that was not the purpose of that experiment. At that time creationists were claiming that it was impossible to even make the building blocks of life and Urey-Miller showed them to be wrong. The purpose of the experiment was never to "create life". The purpose of the experiment was to show that the building blocks of life could arise naturally.

You can't blame the scientists if the public got the experiment wrong. The popular press almost always gets scientific articles wrong and will print nonsense that makes the scientist involved wince.

I know what the experiments were for:

The Miller-Urey Experiment
The Miller-Urey experiment was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth in order to test what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. The experiment is considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. It was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago.

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html (et al)

I completely agree with your second paragraph.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Where did you get that rather ridiculous million to one figure? And since most mutations are going to be in junk DNA they will very rarely have an effect anyway. The proper ratio would be far more likely over 90% neutral, maybe a few percent negative, and a fraction of a percent, but larger than your one in a million positive.

And where did you get any of your figures?

I'm saving it for the debate ha ha!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know what the experiments were for:

The Miller-Urey Experiment
The Miller-Urey experiment was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth in order to test what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. The experiment is considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. It was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago.

http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html (et al)

I completely agree with your second paragraph.

Yes, it was the first experiment on abiogenesis, but forming life was never its goal. It seems that you are deliberately misunderstanding your sources.

When the Wright brothers built their plane there was quite a bit of experimentation before they started. Those early experiments may have been the "classic experiment on powered flight" but they were not powered flight that enabled humans to fly themselves. You need to improve your reading comprehension.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And where did you get any of your figures?

I'm saving it for the debate ha ha!

The over 90% neutral came from the fact that most of our genome is noncoding and changing that part is extremely unlikely to have a negative effect. That is called deductive reasoning. You should try it sometime. I have read quite a few sources, and could not link one immediately, but 1 out of 10,000 was at least one positive mutation rate that I saw. It is very hard to get a good estimated of how many positive mutations there are in changing us from the common ancestor that we shared with chimpanzees.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Where did you get that rather ridiculous million to one figure? And since most mutations are going to be in junk DNA they will very rarely have an effect anyway. The proper ratio would be far more likely over 90% neutral, maybe a few percent negative, and a fraction of a percent, but larger than your one in a million positive.

Still hanging onto the "junk DNA" debacle? Talk about an argument from ignorance.

When it was first pronounced "junk", non-coding DNA fell off the map as targeted for research. Stayed off the map for many years.

No wonder scientists of all stripes and atheist interlocutors on this forum VERY STUPIDLY CLAIM that anyone who believes in ID wants all science to stop. Flat plain stupid.

But understandable, since thats what all their scientists did.

 

[Paterfamilia]

The over 90% neutral came from the fact that most of our genome is noncoding and changing that part is extremely unlikely to have a negative effect. That is called deductive reasoning. You should try it sometime. I have read quite a few sources, and could not link one immediately, but 1 out of 10,000 was at least one positive mutation rate that I saw. It is very hard to get a good estimated of how many positive mutations there are in changing us from the common ancestor that we shared with chimpanzees.

Ha ha ha this too easy.

Back to normal atheist-speak I see. Why don't you explain the parameters of deduction to us sir? I would appreciate and benefit from your help.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Historically, abiogenesis was certainly lumped in with naturalistic evolution. Remember the primordial soup and lightning and Miller-Urey etc.?

The current science of the time supposed that life in a microscope was so simple, it could have easily happened given the right conditions.

Yes, it was the first experiment on abiogenesis, but forming life was never its goal. It seems that you are deliberately misunderstanding your sources.

When the Wright brothers built their plane there was quite a bit of experimentation before they started. Those early experiments may have been the "classic experiment on powered flight" but they were not powered flight that enabled humans to fly themselves. You need to improve your reading comprehension.

I didn't say that the goal was to form life as you can see from my quote above. It was to verify conditions required.

I think my comprehension is just fine. Yours, on the other hand?

Remember something, I can be just as nasty 7th grader as you can, but why go there? WHY DO YOU KEEP TAKING US THERE?