proving evolution as just a "theory"

[PsychoSarah]

again: according to your own source:

"The influence of citrate on the structure and function of ribozymes is unclear. It is important to determine this influence, as most catalytic RNAs depend on Mg2+ ions, and the catalytic function of RNAs is fundamental for RNA world organisms. Furthermore, complete, prebiotically plausible syntheses of nucleosides are yet to be demonstrated. The ribozyme-catalyzed polymerization of activated nucleotides is far from being efficient enough for self-replication, and it is not yet clear how the products of RNA polymerization, highly stable RNA double strands, can dissociate and re-fold to form catalytically active RNAs."

again; just a belief. not a fact.

Ooo, I bet it makes it really easy to respond to my posts when you cut the bulk of them out and don't even address the fact that not everyone agrees with the idea that citrate wasn't a natural component of the ancient environment. You even cut out my source that provides at least 1 alternative chemical that could have performed the exact same function as citrate. You also cut out the fact that the protocells from which modern cells are descended could have produced citrate themselves, starting the basis for the metabolic pathway of the citric acid cycle.

Sorry, but I don't let this sort of stuff slide.

 

[xianghua]

Disagree. The theory of evolution is a theory. Contrary to your statement, that does not imply there are other possibilities out there. Any scientific theory could in principle be challenged by a new and better theory. But as I said, there is no other scientific possibility currently on offer, and no theory of any sort that actually explains the data. So there's nothing else to teach.

whats wrong with the creation possibility? since we know that complex objects like a robot are evidence for design, the best scientific explanation for the origin of a robot or a motor is design rather then natural evolution. so it's not true.

 

[PsychoSarah]

whats wrong with the creation possibility? since we know that complex objects like a robot are evidence for design, the best scientific explanation for the origin of a robot or a motor is design rather then natural evolution. so it's not true.

No, because what you just outlined is a fallacy humans are prone to, not evidence for anything. That something looks designed is a subjective assessment that doesn't mean the actual thing is designed. Same way how our brains trick us into thinking this looks like a face, yet, it isn't a face.

 

[xianghua]

Ooo, I bet it makes it really easy to respond to my posts when you cut the bulk of them out and don't even address the fact that not everyone agrees with the idea that citrate wasn't a natural component of the ancient environment. You even cut out my source that provides at least 1 alternative chemical that could have performed the exact same function as citrate. You also cut out the fact that the protocells from which modern cells are descended could have produced citrate themselves, starting the basis for the metabolic pathway of the citric acid cycle.

i just used the conclusion from you link. again: abiogenes is this is just a belief, not a fact. do you agree or disagree? he also start with an RNA molecule. when in reality there are no such molecules in nature (except for living things of course).

 

[xianghua]

No, because what you just outlined is a fallacy humans are prone to, not evidence for anything. That something looks designed is a subjective assessment that doesn't mean the actual thing is designed. Same way how our brains trick us into thinking this looks like a face, yet, it isn't a face.

so if you will find something like this:

can you conclude design or not?

Personal robot, Home robot, the latest robots and robotic developments

 

[sfs]

whats wrong with the creation possibility?

We've been through this before. There is no creation model, aside from YEC 6-day creation -- and that's inconsistent with the data.

since we know that complex objects like a robot are evidence for design

This claim of yours doesn't get any more true with endless repetition.

 

[pitabread]

Please point me to the test where we tested a common ancestor.

But first, have you read up on how hypotheses are formed and tested? I asked you this before and I don't believe you ever indicated you understand this. You appear to be under the impression that the only way to test things in science is direct replication of them. But of course that isn't the only way, which is why I pointed you to sites detailing the scientific method.

If you don't understand the scientific method and how things are tested in science, pointing you to examples of it won't mean much. Learn how science works first.

 

[pitabread]

yes there is. first: evolution is just a theory. so even by scientific terms it's just one possibility out of several others.

There currently aren't any other scientific theories which explain the biodiversity of life on Earth.

 

[pitabread]

so a dog evolving into a dog is evidence that a fish can evolve into human? ok.

You appear to be building a strawman, but completely missing the point in the process.

The process of evolution that we observe today is no different than the process in the past. You basically have evolution of diversity within populations via reproduction and genetic variation, and you have the evolution of new isolated breeding populations (i.e. speciation).

We observe all of this happening today. So when people say we can't observe evolution, I have no idea what they've been smoking, because we do observe it today.

Everything beyond that is basically the same process compounded over time, with various ebb and flow of selective pressures due to the changing environment thrown in for good measure.

 

[Astrophile]

yes there is. first: evolution is just a theory. so even by scientific terms it's just one possibility out of several others. do you agree or disagree?

Are there any other scientific theories besides evolution that explain the facts of biology?

so you have no problem to teach students about alternative views about the origin of life?

The alternative to a scientific theory is another scientific theory that gives a better explanation of the facts using natural processes; religious doctrines are not valid alternatives to scientific theories. At present, the best alternative to Newton's theory of gravitation is Einstein's general theory of relativity, not the idea that the planets are pushed around their orbits by angels appointed to that task.

 

[sfs]

Are there any other scientific theories besides evolution that explain the facts of biology?

Are there even any nonscientific theories that explain the facts of biology?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Asked and answered.

Hey bhsmte

Lets look at this conversation you initiated



Bhsmte - "How do you go about demonstrating what you believe the truth to be?"

Icon - "How do i clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. What type of proof do you expect my dear?"

Bhsmte - "Something besides your opinion,"




The type of proof you expect is something besides my opinion!

 

[xianghua]

We've been through this before. There is no creation model, aside from YEC 6-day creation -- and that's inconsistent with the data.

according to your own belief. we actually have many evidence that are consistent with creation rather then evolution.

This claim of yours doesn't get any more true with endless repetition.

as your claim above.

 

[xianghua]

The process of evolution that we observe today is no different than the process in the past.

yes it's is. there is a big different between variation and a new complex trait. for instance: if we had a self replicating car (with DNA), we may get a car with a different color or bigger wheels over time. but we will not get a gps system by this process of variations over time.

so no, a fish will not evolve into a human or a cat just by variations.

 

[xianghua]

Are there any other scientific theories besides evolution that explain the facts of biology?

sure. why not?

The alternative to a scientific theory is another scientific theory that gives a better explanation of the facts using natural processes

and the best explanation for the existence of a (self replicating) robot is design.

 

[pitabread]

yes it's is. there is a big different between variation and a new complex trait. for instance: if we had a self replicating car (with DNA), we may get a car with a different color or bigger wheels over time. but we will not get a gps system by this process of variations over time.

First of all, I don't know what your fascination is with continually invoking analogies of things that flat out don't exist. Self-replicating cars after all are not a real thing. So it seems a bit silly to discuss fictional limits on purely fictional constructs.

Second, you'd be surprised what evolutionary algorithms can come up with. In a purely artificial (electronic) example, there is a case where scientists attempting to evolve an oscillator inadvertently evolved a radio. It's a perfect example of how evolution as an algorithm which is simply 'searching' a design space may come up with completely unorthodox solutions to problems. And in this case one which was not explicitly something the scientists attempted to evolve.

Third, you seem stuck on this notion of discrete, functional limitation. But organic chemistry and bio-forms is messy. Bio-forms are not defined by their functionality; things may serve multiple functions, parts may get co-opted from one system to serve an entirely different function. Emergent properties and complexity is basically an inevitability rather than a barrier.

In fact, we see this just by examining morphological differences in species where similar basic structures demonstrate different functional uses depending on the species.

so no, a fish will not evolve into a human or a cat just by variations.

There is no reason why not.

 

[pitabread]

and the best explanation for the existence of a (self replicating) robot is design.

Except that self replicating robots don't exist. Your entire argument is moot.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Hey bhsmte

Lets look at this conversation you initiated



Bhsmte - "How do you go about demonstrating what you believe the truth to be?"

Icon - "How do i clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence. What type of proof do you expect my dear?"

Bhsmte - "Something besides your opinion,"




The type of proof you expect is something besides my opinion!

I hope you don't think opinion is evidence of any sort, do you?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I hope you don't think opinion is proof, do you?

Hey bugs.

Please excuse me. There might be something lost in translation here. Im trying to find out what form of evidence will convince him.

"The type of proof you expect is something besides my opinion!"

I was repeating his answer in context to our conversation ie he will not reveal what he considers proof.

Cheers hey im still working on your reply.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

true. so according to this criteria: if we will have a car that is able to reproduce, it can evolve into something like an airplane. agree?

Cars don't reproduce. You can't answer all the other questions required to make it a sensible scenario, so pontificating over non existing scenarios doesn't add anything to the conversation. Might as well just use the actual data that life gives us.

according to your own belief. we actually have many evidence that are consistent with creation rather then evolution.

Like what? Even your 'common designer' conjecture apparently has some kind of duplicated genome (which looks and acts exactly like having a common ancestor) to show how we have a similar genome to the other great apes without having shared a common ancestor. There is literally no difference! Occams Razor would dictate that we share a common ancestor rather than having to assume an unseen and unproven inter-dimensional deity that designs and builds things in secret...

yes it's is. there is a big different between variation and a new complex trait. for instance: if we had a self replicating car (with DNA), we may get a car with a different color or bigger wheels over time. but we will not get a gps system by this process of variations over time.

so no, a fish will not evolve into a human or a cat just by variations.

Sure it does. That you lack the imagination to see past your unfounded hypothesis doesn't make all the facts go away.

sure. why not?

Like what?

and the best explanation for the existence of a (self replicating) robot is design.

except it isnt because the process of replication is imperfect, leading to small changes that are known to accumulate over time leading to the biodiversity of life we see today. Why are you so impervious to what we know about evolution?