Prove it or remove it challenge

[The Barbarian]

There are some studies that dispute that.

I asked once to show us some numbers (or whatever evidence you have) for the claim that evolutionary mechanisms can't account for observed variation. I'll ask again. Don't tell us there is evidence; show us.

 

[Gene2memE]

Bull.

Not bull.

The original paper is titled 'A production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions'. It states:

"The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life were formed when the earth had an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and water was suggested by Oparin and has been given emphasis recently by Urey and Bernal. In order to test this hypothesis, an apparatus was built...."

"In this apparatus an attempt was made to duplicate a primitive atmosphere of the earth, and not to obtain the optimum conditions for the formation of amino acids".​

It is clear, if you read the original experiment, that Miller and Urey were testing IF their simulated ancient earth conditions could produce precursors to lift, NOT what kind of conditions were necessary to produce them.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Not bull.

The original paper is titled 'A production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions'. It states:

"The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life were formed when the earth had an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and water was suggested by Oparin and has been given emphasis recently by Urey and Bernal. In order to test this hypothesis, an apparatus was built...."

"In this apparatus an attempt was made to duplicate a primitive atmosphere of the earth, and not to obtain the optimum conditions for the formation of amino acids".​

It is clear, if you read the original experiment, that Miller and Urey were testing IF their simulated ancient earth conditions could produce precursors to lift, NOT what kind of conditions were necessary to produce them.

Ummm yeah, that's what I said too.



Loudmouth said:
"That's wrong. The experiment was meant to test the conditions needed to form organic biomolecules from simple inorganic molecules."

I said "Bull" in response.

1. Paterfamilia, Today at 1:57

 

[Gene2memE]

Ummm yeah, that's what I said too.

Loudmouth said:
"That's wrong. The experiment was meant to test the conditions needed to form organic biomolecules from simple inorganic molecules."

I said "Bull" in response.

1. Paterfamilia, Today at 1:57

Testing "the conditions needed to form organic biomolecules from simple inorganic molecules" is not the same as testing if a duplicate a primitive atmosphere of the earth produces organic compounds.

The test is whether the compounds formed from that particular atmosphere, not which conditions were needed to form compounds. Those are two very different experimental objectives.

Can't you see this?

 

[029b10]

PROVE IT, OR REMOVE IT CHALLENGE

My son has just started his first year of primary school, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that he will be learning how to read, count all those good things. Bad in the fact that for the next 13 years he will be indoctrinated into the theory of evolution. A choice over which I have no power. So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

While I am not advocating your remain silent nor what you should or shouldn't teach your child, rather than challenge the government to prove evolution as either true or false,I would humbly suggest you consider the Word written in Deuteronomy 6.

However, regarding the great debate, seeing that evolution and creationism are both formed upon the same principle that modern man originated from a single set of procreators, one can't help but notice the evolution groupies will not respond to the specific question regarding how many humans originally evolved, 1 a 1000 or how many were responsible for the human race and the DNA of modern man.

Basically they don't have a clue and while those that do realize genetics clearly demonstrates that the cell fusion necessary for modern man's reproduction only occurs between the gametes of a particular species, such as with man [male and female].

Thus, that genetic held precept severs any provable link to any other living creature since human and non-human gametes can not produce the required cell fusion for reproduction. Therefore, it reverts back to the proverbial Adam and Eve scenario which they refute based upon the fact the know scientific facts clearly demonstrate it is not possible that the human race originated from a single set of procreators.

So the leading evolutionists now acknowledged there never was a first human being but rather claim that the original set of procreators was comprised of three individuals, not two. Moreover they basically they that these three individuals who modern man is descended from were; a mitochondrial Eve, from which all human beings receive their genetic form; a Y chromosome Adam; and our most common ancestor. The explanation of the three individuals is referenced in the linked source @ 1:00. [Source]

 

[DogmaHunter]

Still hanging onto the "junk DNA" debacle?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7011/full/nature03022.html

Removing a substantial amount of junk DNA still produced perfectly fine mice.
Stop repeating your PRATT.

That DNA that was removed had no effect on the mice at all.

Talk about an argument from ignorance.

Talk about being in denial...

 

[Subduction Zone]

While I am not advocating your remain silent nor what you should or shouldn't teach your child, rather than challenge the government to prove evolution as either true or false,I would humbly suggest you consider the Word written in Deuteronomy 6.

However, regarding the great debate, seeing that evolution and creationism are both formed upon the same principle that modern man originated from a single set of procreators, one can't help but notice the evolution groupies will not respond to the specific question regarding how many humans originally evolved, 1 a 1000 or how many were responsible for the human race and the DNA of modern man.

Where did you get the idea that science says that we are descended from a single set of "proceators"? During all of man's existence the fewest number of people that existed would have beenon the order of 3,000. It seems that you do not understand the populations evolve, not individuals. There was no more a single "first human" in our descent from a common ancestor that we shared with other apes (and when we cay "common ancestor" that is a species we share as an ancestor, not an individual). Just as no descendant of Rome was the first to speak Spanish in the Iberian peninsula.

Basically they don't have a clue and while those that do realize genetics clearly demonstrates that the cell fusion necessary for modern man's reproduction only occurs between the gametes of a particular species, such as with man [male and female].

Actually you are the one that is sadly without a clue. You can't argue against the theory of evolution if you don't know how biology works.

Thus, that genetic held precept severs any provable link to any other living creature since human and non-human gametes can not produce the required cell fusion for reproduction. Therefore, it reverts back to the proverbial Adam and Eve scenario which they refute based upon the fact the know scientific facts clearly demonstrate it is not possible that the human race originated from a single set of procreators.

As I said, you have no clue. You need to study up on the concept of speciation. That is when a species splits into different species.

So the leading evolutionists now acknowledged there never was a first human being but rather claim that the original set of procreators was comprised of three individuals, not two. Moreover they basically they that these three individuals who modern man is descended from were; a mitochondrial Eve, from which all human beings receive their genetic form; a Y chromosome Adam; and our most common ancestor. The explanation of the three individuals is referenced in the linked source @ 1:00. [Source]

They never claimed that there was a "first human being" so how can they just now be acknowledging that? And no, they never ever said that we started with three and not two. Where do you get this nonsense from? I seriously recommend that rather than attacking an idea that you have no understanding of that you learn first. I see that you have no understanding of Mitochondrial Eve. Let me try to explain to you, when Mitochondrial Eve was alive there were still thousands of humans at the very least, the same applies to Y Chromosome Adam, and our last human common ancestor. You need to ask questions when you do not understand. And it abundantly clear that you do not understand.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Testing "the conditions needed to form organic biomolecules from simple inorganic molecules" is not the same as testing if a duplicate a primitive atmosphere of the earth produces organic compounds.

The test is whether the compounds formed from that particular atmosphere, not which conditions were needed to form compounds. Those are two very different experimental objectives.

Can't you see this?

Okay, the experiments were intended to find out if organic compounds could form in the conditions that we thought were on earth at the time.

Right? Isn't that the same that you said here:

"The test is whether the compounds formed from that particular atmosphere, not which conditions were needed to form compounds."

So they duplicated the chemistry as well as they knew how to and sent lightning through it. The purpose was to see if anything would form. Conditions are set; did anything form?

Loudmouth said:
"That's wrong. The experiment was meant to test the conditions needed to form organic biomolecules from simple inorganic molecules."

He is saying that they are going to keep varying the conditions until something forms. But that's not what it was about. Conditions are set. No variance on the conditions. Will anything form?

So I said "Bull".

So that's about the best I can do without investing another hour on this. I hope that cleared it up.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Sorry I misread you, Pater. OK, so tell me about these studies you believe dispute my line of reasoning or that generally found in science. What is your case?

The case is long, deep, and strong. From a methodical, logical progression out of nothing into something, we infer to the best explanation, according to science and philosophy.

Naturalists look at the evidence that they are very adept at revealing, and come to a conclusion. Theists look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

On ID, we believe that the systems and processes that give life to organisms are too complex to have happened by accident. That's where the naturalists object on the basis of ignorance and they have a point. Never mind the the basis of their worldview relies on every bit as much ignorance.

We don't stop there. We propose that based on empirical evidence, DNA is a coded information bearing system of specified complexity (only one of several such systems in the human body), and additionally that there are no natural explanations for it. No fundamental forces that coordinate to generate the specified intelligent information.

We propose that in our uniform and repeated experience, any example of coded information based on specified complexity has an intelligent source. No exceptions.

Therefore it follows that DNA is a product of intelligent activity.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Where did you get the idea that science says that we are descended from a single set of "proceators"? During all of man's existence the fewest number of people that existed would have beenon the order of 3,000. It seems that you do not understand the populations evolve, not individuals. There was no more a single "first human" in our descent from a common ancestor that we shared with other apes (and when we cay "common ancestor" that is a species we share as an ancestor, not an individual). Just as no descendant of Rome was the first to speak Spanish in the Iberian peninsula.



Actually you are the one that is sadly without a clue. You can't argue against the theory of evolution if you don't know how biology works.



As I said, you have no clue. You need to study up on the concept of speciation. That is when a species splits into different species.




They never claimed that there was a "first human being" so how can they just now be acknowledging that? And no, they never ever said that we started with three and not two. Where do you get this nonsense from? I seriously recommend that rather than attacking an idea that you have no understanding of that you learn first. I see that you have no understanding of Mitochondrial Eve. Let me try to explain to you, when Mitochondrial Eve was alive there were still thousands of humans at the very least, the same applies to Y Chromosome Adam, and our last human common ancestor. You need to ask questions when you do not understand. And it abundantly clear that you do not understand.

SZ I have a question. As an atheist, upon what do you ground your moral ontology?

Give me the ist or the ism if you don't mind.

Not a trick question - just curious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Naturalists look at the evidence that they are very adept at revealing, and come to a conclusion. Theists look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

That's because those theists have a priori beliefs, not supported by the evidence, which they dogmatically cling to.

On ID, we believe that the systems and processes that give life to organisms are too complex to have happened by accident.

"too complex" = argument from incredulity.

That's where the naturalists object on the basis of ignorance and they have a point. Never mind the the basis of their worldview relies on every bit as much ignorance.

Such as?

We don't stop there. We propose that based on empirical evidence, DNA is a coded information bearing system of specified complexity (only one of several such systems in the human body)

And how do you support that proposition? What test could be conducted that could potentially falsify this proposition?

, and additionally that there are no natural explanations for it

Argument from ignorance.

Also a false statement, because evolution is exactly that: a natural explanation.

No fundamental forces that coordinate to generate the specified intelligent information.

That's demonstrably false, as the processes of biological evolution do exactly that.

(I'll let it slide that you are using unjustified and loaded terminology here...)

We propose that in our uniform and repeated experience, any example of coded information based on specified complexity has an intelligent source. No exceptions.

You skipped a step... that step being: demonstrating that DNA qualifies as such a thing.

Therefore it follows that DNA is a product of intelligent activity.

Only because you arbitrarily defined it as such as a faulty premise.
It's called an assumed conclusion.

That's it in a nutshell.

Please expand and explain that nutshell. Merely claiming DNA to be such a thing, doesn't make it such a thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

SZ I have a question. As an atheist, upon what do you ground your moral ontology?

Give me the ist or the ism if you don't mind.

Not a trick question - just curious.

1. this thread is not about moral frameworks

2. as an atheist myself, I base my morality on an understanding of reality (as opposed to an assertion of authority) and an acknowledgement that my actions and decisions impact other people and / or society at large.

 

[Paterfamilia]

That's because those theists have a priori beliefs, not supported by the evidence, which they dogmatically cling to.



"too complex" = argument from incredulity.



Such as?



And how do you support that proposition? What test could be conducted that could potentially falsify this proposition?




Argument from ignorance.

Also a false statement, because evolution is exactly that: a natural explanation.




That's demonstrably false, as the processes of biological evolution do exactly that.

(I'll let it slide that you are using unjustified and loaded terminology here...)



You skipped a step... that step being: demonstrating that DNA qualifies as such a thing.



Only because you arbitrarily defined it as such as a faulty premise.
It's called an assumed conclusion.



Please expand and explain that nutshell. Merely claiming DNA to be such a thing, doesn't make it such a thing.

We already had parts of this discussion. You proved what you are.

It seems to me that any further discussion would only prove again what you have already shown.

So, I respectfully decline discussing it with you.

 

[Nithavela]

Paterfamilia, you seem to like to change the topic of a discussion when you can't deflect anymore. Is that by accident or do you want to do that?

 

[Paterfamilia]

re: Nithavela

No I was in idle, reading some of the responses from atheists, which are nearly invariably loaded with rude invective (just like your question here) intended to show scorn or disrespect.

I gave an outrageously brilliant and hilarious example a few pages back of "atheist speak".

This is an undeniable pattern to the dispassionate observer. So I'm trying to connect a common atheist moral philosophy that would justify such rude behavior.

 

[bhsmte]

The case is long, deep, and strong. From a methodical, logical progression out of nothing into something, we infer to the best explanation, according to science and philosophy.

Naturalists look at the evidence that they are very adept at revealing, and come to a conclusion. Theists look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

On ID, we believe that the systems and processes that give life to organisms are too complex to have happened by accident. That's where the naturalists object on the basis of ignorance and they have a point. Never mind the the basis of their worldview relies on every bit as much ignorance.

We don't stop there. We propose that based on empirical evidence, DNA is a coded information bearing system of specified complexity (only one of several such systems in the human body), and additionally that there are no natural explanations for it. No fundamental forces that coordinate to generate the specified intelligent information.

We propose that in our uniform and repeated experience, any example of coded information based on specified complexity has an intelligent source. No exceptions.

Therefore it follows that DNA is a product of intelligent activity.

That's it in a nutshell.

Theists come to a different conclusion???

Why is it then, that most christians agree with evolution?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Theists come to a different conclusion???

Why is it then, that most christians agree with evolution?

Theists come to a different conclusion than naturalists.

Naturalists conclude that evolution is a purely natural process, as Darwin theorized.

Theists typically believe that either evolution is limited to adaptation, or that evolution is guided by an intelligent agent.

It's very exceedingly rare to find a theist who believes that God was completely uninvolved in evolution. Ken Miller seems to be one of them but what he believes seems to shift considerably depending on his audience. Perhaps he is more concerned about expanding his audience than having integrity to his beliefs.

I would not agree with the statement that "most" Christians agree with evolution, but I don't think that was your point so it doesn't matter.

 

[Nithavela]

re: Nithavela

No I was in idle, reading some of the responses from atheists, which are nearly invariably loaded with rude invective (just like your question here) intended to show scorn or disrespect.

I gave an outrageously brilliant and hilarious example a few pages back of "atheist speak".

This is an undeniable pattern to the dispassionate observer. So I'm trying to connect a common atheist moral philosophy that would justify such rude behavior.

Yeah, you got nothing.

For all that blustering, you may well be one of the most disappointing creationists I have yet seen on this site.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Yeah I understand.

It's pretty disappointing to get so easily and repeatedly schooled by someone you so thoroughly disrespect.

Get used to it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay, the experiments were intended to find out if organic compounds could form in the conditions that we thought were on earth at the time.

Right? Isn't that the same that you said here:

"The test is whether the compounds formed from that particular atmosphere, not which conditions were needed to form compounds."

So they duplicated the chemistry as well as they knew how to and sent lightning through it. The purpose was to see if anything would form. Conditions are set; did anything form?

Loudmouth said:
"That's wrong. The experiment was meant to test the conditions needed to form organic biomolecules from simple inorganic molecules."

He is saying that they are going to keep varying the conditions until something forms. But that's not what it was about. Conditions are set. No variance on the conditions. Will anything form?

So I said "Bull".

So that's about the best I can do without investing another hour on this. I hope that cleared it up.

That is a complete rewrite of history. Here is what was really said.

Pater:
Historically, abiogenesis was certainly lumped in with naturalistic evolution. Remember the primordial soup and lightning and Miller-Urey etc.? post 944

Subduction Zone: 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. post 951

Pater: 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. post 954

Loudmouth: That's wrong. The experiment was meant to test the conditions needed to form organic biomolecules from simple inorganic molecules. post 963

Pater: Bull. post 969
​

I think it is plain to see that you have tried to argue that Miller and Urey were trying to create life, not just biomolecules. Time to own up to this fact.