proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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.

Okay, I've missed that in conversation then...

Cheers hey im still working on your reply.

Cool!

 

[sfs]

according to your own belief.

According to the failure of any creationist anywhere to ever offer an actual model of creation. That's kind of an important point.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

A robot's not a living thing. You are aware of that, are you not?

 

[HiEv]

The vestigial centromere and telomeres were not known when the fusion was proposed, so yes, they really were a prediction.

why it was proposed at all? the simple answer is because this is the only logical conclusion. so the creation model predict it too, as i said.

But why is it the "only logical conclusion" within the creation model? Within the common creationist model anything is possible, since God poofed it all into existence as-is. There would be no need to make it appear that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two other chromosomes (unless you were a deliberately deceptive trickster god of some sort, I guess).

So, rather than merely claiming the appearance of fusion is a "logical conclusion" within the creationist framework, please explain the how and why it is a logical prediction (and yes, we were talking about predictions here, not merely conclusions) one could reach, before it was already known, from within the creationist framework.

but you said before that motors arent evidence for design. so now you agree with me that a motor is evidence for design?

The fact that a man-made motor is evidence of design for that particular motor is not evidence that all motors are man-made. This is a logical fallacy known as a hasty generalization, where you assume a generalization based on insufficient evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary. Often this occurs by ignoring other possible explanations.

You can't merely assume design in biological motors, due to the fact that non-biological motors were designed. We can make lightning too, does that mean that lightning is also only made by intelligent processes? Of course not, but that's the kind of argument you're making.

If you want to prove that biological motors are the product of intelligence, then you need to demonstrate that they actually were, more likely than any other explanation, the product of an actual intelligence creating it. You haven't even provided independent objective evidence for such a creator, so you can't make that argument yet. Because of this, the evolutionary model remains the most plausible, possible, and parsimonious explanation.

so you are claiming that if something that is identical to a robot evolved by a natural process, then it's not a robot anymore by definition?

Yes. Show me a literal robot which evolved by natural processes. You can't.

but humans also produce flagellum:

Microscopic artificial swimmers : Abstract : Nature

So what? The fact that humans can produce a flagellum is not evidence that all flagellum are are the product of design.

This point should not be news to you, so why do you keep repeating that invalid argument?

so again; if we will find a self replicating robot\car (without seeing any human around)- we cant conclude design?

No. One cannot simply assume things, conclusions should require sufficient evidence. Also, this is a nonsense scenario, so it's not really going to tell us anything about the real world.

More importantly, you dodged my question, so here it is again:

The question should be: if we find a self-replicating organism on another planet that we're able to reproduce, can we conclude that it's the product of design?

Please don't dodge this time, actually answer the question.

i dont know why. there could be many reasons, but since it doesn't have any connection to design detection, i realy dont care.

It's a question that could tell you something about your supposed designer, which is your God, and you don't really care to find out about your designer? ...LOL. OK.

no. i have showed to you that no one can detect bad design. therefore your claim about bad design is meaningless. and i linked to wiki only for the image source and not for the definition of a spare tire.

No, you have not shown that no one can detect bad design. As I explained before, this is not a blanket conclusion that it's possible for anyone to reach. The fact that you can partially attack one example, doesn't mean there are similar arguments for all other examples of bad design. You'd have to shoot down every individual example of purported bad design, and even then, there could be further examples we're not yet aware of.

Again, this is a case of you overgeneralizing from a single example. This seems to be a common type of error that you make.

it's exist only because the "backward retina". so dawkins is claiming that the retina has a bad design. but again: he simply wrong because this structure improve vision. and even in this case the designer add an "'automatic photoshop software" (dawkins words). in other words: another evidence for design rather then evolution, even in this suppose example of a "bad design".

No, the backwards retina doesn't only improve vision, it also creates blind spots in our vision, which is a deficit to vision.

Furthermore, the fact that something has some value in the way it's structured is not evidence for design rather than evolution, since evolution adequately explains how good bottom-up designs can evolve without intelligent intervention. Evolution also explains how poor designs can creep in, designs which would appear to be evidence against intelligent design/creationism.

So both evolution and creationism can explain good design, thus good design isn't evidence for one over the other. But of the two, only evolution can explain poor design. Since we see plenty of examples of poor design (such as autoimmune diseases), despite your protestations, this makes evolution a model which is far more plausible than a model which can't explain these things and relies upon an unproven and untestable "intelligent designer".

i actually found this quote and never read the whole part(just for clarification).

Yeah, quote mining and cherry picking among creationists are common. I recommend looking up the source of any quotes you plan on using, since you'll find the actual text/context will often bite you on the butt if you don't.

Heck, I'd recommend you check the source of any supposed scientific claims creationists make, since they're often the opposite of what the source actually says. Troubles in Paradise (TIP) is a great resource for all sorts of examples of this, while providing the actual scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

so your other example is basically about disease.

Glaucoma is a disease, but the other two aren't. For example, I mentioned presbyopia, which isn't a disease. Presbyopia is a product of the "design" of the eye, where the lens of the eye gradually hardens, so that at around 40 years old it becomes very difficult or even impossible to focus on close objects. It's the reason why, after a lifetime of 20/20 vision, at age 42 I had to get reading glasses.

Now, evolution can adequately explain why such a condition would evolve in humans. This is because natural selection is less able to do anything to prevent traits which only appear after most childbearing and raising have occurred. If this is a product of "intelligent" design, then the designer is just a jerk to old people.

I also mentioned detached retinas, which is also a problem which is made more likely due to the backwards retina, since the retinal pigment epithelium is what connects the retina to the back of the eye. This encourages tearing of the structures which produce vision.

But regardless of whether I was talking about disease or not, the problems I listed are the product of how the eye is structured, and you've simply ignored these problems of poor design by writing them off as disease, even though two out of the three things I listed aren't diseases.

but you said that this nerve doesnt has other functions. so this claim is incorrect.

Again, I wasn't claiming that it didn't have multiple functions at each end, I was disputing that it had any other functions which would explain the circuitous route that the nerve took. Please stop attacking an argument I wasn't actually making.

If you have to use straw man arguments that just makes your side of the argument look weak.

Please show an explanation for this poorly "designed" route that this nerve takes which isn't better explained by the evolutionary model.

and again: if you were wrong about the backward retina, how you can be sure that you aren't wrong about this trait too?

Dude. I was not wrong about the retina. I knew exactly where you were going, which is why I gave you multiple examples of the poor design of the eye, examples which you've merely ignored since they destroy your narrative. All you did was say one part of it wasn't as bad as once thought, which did nothing to dispute all of my examples, some of which still show problems caused by the backwards layout of the retina, as I hope I've adequately demonstrated above.

if a mammal evolved once, it can evolve twice. so a 600my mammal will not disprove evolution theory. we can also claim for contamination (the fossil age isnt correct). so evolution isnt a scientific theory.

Yes, convergent evolution could occur, however it could not occur out of the blue within the evolutionary model, which is what we're talking about here. And one could claim contamination, but we're talking about an example where that has been ruled out. So yes, species appearing without evolution being involved, would be evidence against evolution, at least for those specific species.

Nothing you've said there makes evolution not a scientific theory. You merely insisting that it isn't, isn't an argument.

I've shown you exactly how the theory of evolution makes testable and verified predictions. You can't merely ignore all of that and claim that it isn't a scientific theory.

One family doesn't evolve into another one, that's not how evolution works. A species evolves into another one.

true. but you asked me to show you how to disprove creation. so i gave you such an example.

So your argument about how to disprove creation requires showing that something which evolution says won't happen, happens. ...WHAT?!?!

If that happened, it would shoot down evolution, but I fail to see how that would disprove creation as well. You're really going to have to explain this one to me, because that makes no sense as far as I can see.

That being said, we have plenty of examples of evolution of the sort that I believe you're trying to ask for. For example, I recommend looking up the evolution of whales some time. If you think that doesn't qualify, I'd love to hear you explain why.

one reason is this: there is no stepwise from one creature into another. in the same way that there is no (functional) stepwise from say a gps into a cell-phone. even by an intelligent designer.

Uh... Yes, there is a "stepwise" from one creature to another. That's what both the fossil record and DNA evidence both show. Do you literally need every single skeleton from every single generation over a period of 15 million years before you could connect the dots?

We have evidence of species which fit in a linear sequence, where they appear in the fossil record one after another, showing gradual changes into the whales we know today. And it isn't just physical similarity we find in the fossils, but also the geographic relations, where they are found where you would expect if one fossil was an ancestor or descendant of the other, and not randomly scattered around the world. Also, we have a mechanism by which this could naturally occur: evolution via. natural selection. So isn't the most parsimonious explanation for this progression in the fossil record the evolutionary model?

Also, cell-phones preceded GPS (so you got that backwards), one didn't come from the other (outside of both using radio waves, they're largely separate technologies), and there's no analogy between man-made devices and self-reproducing life here. Thus your attempt at an analogy utterly fails, because what you're talking about is basically wrong in almost every possible way.

according to berkeley site this definition including common descent:

"Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance. The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother."

so are you agree or disagree with that definition?

An introduction to evolution

That isn't a definition. That's a description. And none of that disputes anything I said.

Also, that's describing the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution. You will note that it went on to say:

"Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."

Thus this is a description of the theory of evolution.

So, yet again, you've confused the theory of evolution for the fact of evolution. When you see the word "evolution" you usually need to look at the context to determine which is being talked about, which is sometimes made worse when people conflate the two. However, in this case, where they're clearly talking about it as an explanatory model, then it should be obvious that it's the theory that is being talked about.

In any case, I'm not sure why you bothered to bring that up, since none of that supports your argument. All you've shown is that Berkley disagrees with you.

Now, I return to the essential question: What would disprove ID/creationism to you?

Your first answer was "see if evolution is testable". It is, but whether evolution is testable is totally irrelevant to what would disprove creationism. So that's not a valid answer.

Your second answer was "show me evidence of one family evolving into another." But that isn't something evolution claims happens, and is just as irrelevant to disproving creationism.

Thus, your two main answers are founded upon a false dichotomy, where you assume evolution being true means that creationism can't be true at all. But it could be that evolution is true, while a creator merely started the process. This is something most Christians around the world believe. The evidence doesn't support that position, but I give it merely to point out that what you're arguing is merely a false dichotomy, the positions aren't actually mutually exclusive.

So, I ask once again, what would disprove ID/creationism to you? And this time don't pretend that one has to prove evolution to do that, since that's a false dichotomy. What evidences would count as evidence against the creationist model?

If you can't answer that question, then all you have is an untestable unscientific claim, which is utterly unworthy of belief.

 

[gaara4158]

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?

Possibly. If it produced viable offspring with the possibility of mutations, it could be subject to natural selection. There’s no predicting exactly what changes would take place, but it is possible to conceive of environmental pressures that would drive the cars’ evolution into something like an airplane.

 

[pitabread]

A robot's not a living thing. You are aware of that, are you not?

Considering how much he continues to equivocate with robots and living things, I'm not so sure that he is.

 

[HiEv]

I deny common ancestry not only based upon my faith but by the lack of evidence of such. Just because scientists are hard working doesn't mean they are not wrong. So far for all the so called evidence I have been subjected to I haven't seen anything but conjecture, supposition and assumption.

This is like looking at this picture:

and then saying that you don't see any evidence that this car wasn't created wrapped around that pole. Or evidence that those skid marks weren't created by other processes. Or evidence that the airbag wasn't created in the exploded state.

It requires discounting our ability to look at past data, to form the best models which explain all of the evidence, and to come to the most plausible, probable, and parsimonious explanation for all of that data.

Not one single piece of evidence has been actually observed of one thing changing into another,

But evolution doesn't say one "thing" changes into another "thing". It says that group of related organisms can, over many generations, change the frequency of traits within that group.

And we don't have one single piece of evidence for that, we instead have mountains of evidence for that.

nor has any testing shown one thing changing into another and there has been zero reproduction of the theory.

This is completely false. We have bacteria which have evolved to eat chemicals which do not exist in nature, such as the so-called nylon-eating bacteria. We have numerous examples of speciation in plants. And there are even some examples of speciation in animals, though examples are less common in animals since they tend to reproduce less frequently.

Please don't confuse your unawareness of these examples for their nonexistence.

Until all those hard working scientists can actually show something changing into something else I'm not buying it.

What you're demanding demonstrates that you don't actually understand what the theory of evolution is actually saying.

All so called fossil evidence for such remains supposition and assumption. All Gene evidence is the same.

You can shout this from the rooftop all you want, that doesn't make it true.

You fail to explain away all of the evidence which converges on the same conclusion, that evolution is real and that we all come from a common ancestor.

If all of these species aren't related, then why does it look exactly the way that it would if they were related? Why do we see the progression of species we see in the fossil record? Why do we find species that show close genetic relations also appear close geographically? Why do we find the same remnants of the DNA of viruses in the DNA across related species? Why does human chromosome 2 look like the merger of two chromosomes, just like the evolutionary model predicts, since other apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while humans have 23?

Your argument is basically the same as looking at the skid marks, leading up to the car wrapped around the telephone poll, with the exploded airbags, and stating that we can't conclude what happened from this information, and therefore the car and all the rest was created that way. That is not a plausible explanation, neither for the car crash nor for the evolutionary record.

You and others interpret it as so, but none of you can show it to be so.

OK, what exactly would evidence like that look like to you? (And please, make sure what you're asking for is something that evolution actually predicts would occur.)

You may continue to believe if you wish, but all your evidence shows is similarities which is evidence of common design just as much as it is evidence of evolution from a common ancestor.

No, it's not equally evidence for both. Common design utterly fails to explain the progression of fossils in the fossil record, the progression of geographic distribution, the inclusion of poor "designs", or the repetition of non-coding DNA markers across related species, all of which are consistent with the theory of evolution.

The only designer which would be consistent with the evidence we have, is a designer that deliberately wants us to think that evolution is true, and has arranged the evidence to support evolution and not conflict with evolution.

Can you think of any natural process by which humans and chimps (and other apes) could have acquired almost identical DNA (or coding sequences) without being descended from common ancestors?

Yes they were created that way. It was perfectly natural process because God created nature and it's laws. He created each creature individually from others. Humans were created completely unique from all others. Hence the reason why we are having this discussion instead of chimps.

But humans aren't "completely unique from all others". Humans share most of their traits with the other apes. Also, humans aren't even the only members of the Homo genus in the fossil record.

More importantly, where is your objective scientific evidence that God "created each creature individually from others." Heck, why would He need to do that? Gradually? Across billions of years? In a way completely consistent with evolution? That doesn't make sense to me.

Your claim seems to be an explanation which is not supported by objective evidence, is not testable, and relies upon the existence of something which hasn't been objectively demonstrated to exist. Evolution, on the other hand, is a far more parsimonious explanation which has withstood rigorous scientific testing, is based upon known processes which we've observed, and has made countless well-verified predictions.

I see no reason to choose your non-scientific explanation, over the far more scientifically established explanation from the theory of evolution.

(Edit: Holy cow! I just realized that there were 40+ pages of new replies since I was last here. So much for replying to all of them. )

 

[rjs330]

Evolution is not a "world belief system" any more than heliocentrism, germs causing diseases and plate tectonics causing earthquakes are "world belief systems".

When what the world tells you contradicts what the Bible tells you then the world is wrong. We need to conform our theology to what the Bible says and not what the world says. Plain and simple. If the world tells you we all evolved from a common ancestor and the bible says we did not then the world is wrong and we should conform our theology to scripture rather than the world.

 

[rjs330]

This is like looking at this picture:

and then saying that you don't see any evidence that this car wasn't created wrapped around that pole. Or evidence that those skid marks weren't created by other processes. Or evidence that the airbag wasn't created in the exploded state.

It requires discounting our ability to look at past data, to form the best models which explain all of the evidence, and to come to the most plausible, probable, and parsimonious explanation for all of that data.



But evolution doesn't say one "thing" changes into another "thing". It says that group of related organisms can, over many generations, change the frequency of traits within that group.

And we don't have one single piece of evidence for that, we instead have mountains of evidence for that.



This is completely false. We have bacteria which have evolved to eat chemicals which do not exist in nature, such as the so-called nylon-eating bacteria. We have numerous examples of speciation in plants. And there are even some examples of speciation in animals, though examples are less common in animals since they tend to reproduce less frequently.

Please don't confuse your unawareness of these examples for their nonexistence.



What you're demanding demonstrates that you don't actually understand what the theory of evolution is actually saying.



You can shout this from the rooftop all you want, that doesn't make it true.

You fail to explain away all of the evidence which converges on the same conclusion, that evolution is real and that we all come from a common ancestor.

If all of these species aren't related, then why does it look exactly the way that it would if they were related? Why do we see the progression of species we see in the fossil record? Why do we find species that show close genetic relations also appear close geographically? Why do we find the same remnants of the DNA of viruses in the DNA across related species? Why does human chromosome 2 look like the merger of two chromosomes, just like the evolutionary model predicts, since other apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while humans have 23?

Your argument is basically the same as looking at the skid marks, leading up to the car wrapped around the telephone poll, with the exploded airbags, and stating that we can't conclude what happened from this information, and that maybe the car and all the rest was created that way. That is not a plausible explanation, neither for the car crash nor for the evolutionary record.



OK, what exactly would evidence like that look like to you? (And please, make sure what you're asking for is something that evolution actually predicts would occur.)



No, it's not equally evidence for both. Common design utterly fails to explain the progression of fossils in the fossil record, the progression of geographic distribution, the inclusion of poor "designs", or the repetition of non-coding DNA markers across related species, all of which are consistent with the theory of evolution.

The only designer which would be consistent with the evidence we have, is a designer that deliberately wants us to think that evolution is true, and has arranged the evidence to support evolution and not conflict with evolution.



But humans aren't "completely unique from all others". Humans share most of their traits with the other apes. Also, humans aren't even the only members of the Homo genus in the fossil record.

More importantly, where is your objective scientific evidence that God "created each creature individually from others." Heck, why would He need to do that? Gradually? Across billions of years? In a way completely consistent with evolution? That doesn't make sense to me.

Your claim seems to be an explanation which is not supported by evidence, is not testable, and relies upon the existence of something which hasn't been objectively demonstrated to exist. Evolution, on the other hand, is a far more parsimonious explanation which has withstood rigorous scientific testing, is based upon known processes which we've observed, and has made countless well-verified predictions.

I see no reason to choose your non-scientific explanation, over the far more scientifically established explanation from the theory of evolution.

(Edit: Holy cow! I just realized that there were 40+ pages of new replies since I was last here. So much for replying to all of them. )

You do what evolutionists always do. Make the claim that one thing did not evolve into another. That just nonsense. You make the claim we all came from one thing. One single thing and yet all things from the work to the spider to the bird to the lizard to humans are not the same. So we did evolve from one thing into another. We were not always human the spider was not always a spider and the bird was not always a bird. It evolved from something it wasn't. You have and never have had evidence of that ever happening. No matter how hard you try.

And that picture is such nonsense as far as trying to show how evidence works when it comes to stuff like that. It's apples and oranges.

 

[pitabread]

When what the world tells you contradicts what the Bible tells you then the world is wrong. We need to conform our theology to what the Bible says and not what the world says. Plain and simple. If the world tells you we all evolved from a common ancestor and the bible says we did not then the world is wrong and we should conform our theology to scripture rather than the world.

But what if your interpretation of the Bible is wrong?

 

[rjs330]

So do you have an answer?

I think it's because it is a belief system. In the beginning someone did not believe the biblical account of creation. There had to be another explanation for life on this planet and they began to look for it. It started out as a belief. They did not believe in scripture and believed something else. Once they came upon the theory all the rest is history as they say. It became an established assumption.

 

[HiEv]

You do what evolutionists always do. Make the claim that one thing did not evolve into another. That just nonsense.

Gee, you ever think that if evolutionists always tell you the same thing, that maybe you're just wrong about what they're claiming?

A species isn't "one thing", it's a category which describes a group of organisms.

What you're describing sounds more like alchemy than evolution, and that's the problem. If you can't even frame your complaint in a way that matches what you're supposedly complaining about, then the problem isn't with what you're complaining about, the problem is with your understanding of what you're complaining about.

You make the claim we all came from one thing.

All of the evidence points to common ancestry, if that's what you mean. But "one thing" really isn't a particularly accurate description of that.

One single thing and yet all things from the work to the spider to the bird to the lizard to humans are not the same.

So what? They do have numerous things in common which point to them all being related.

So we did evolve from one thing into another.

"We" are not a single thing. So, even by basic grammar, you're wrong.

And while we have a common ancestor, we actually evolved from a far more recent group of organisms. Our group of many organisms evolved from another group of many organisms.

You're conflating having a common ancestor with evolving directly from that common ancestor.

We were not always human

No, "we", being "humans", were always humans. If something wasn't a human, then it's not a part of "we", now is it?

the spider was not always a spider and the bird was not always a bird. It evolved from something it wasn't.

That is among the least accurate descriptions of evolution I've ever seen. It doesn't even make sense.

How could a spider have ever been anything other than a spider, when, by the law of identity, A must equal A? A spider is, by definition, a spider.

Your argument relies on gibberish, and when you do that, of course anything you say about it will sound silly. But that's not what evolution actually says. If you have to distort evolution to disprove it, then you haven't demonstrated anything, other that that you're OK with dishonestly making straw man arguments.

What evolution actually says is that, most likely, a species which was similar to spiders, but was not actually a spider species itself, over many generations evolved into spiders and other arachnids. And when we look at the fossil record and the genes of spiders, what we find matches that prediction. Thus, this verifiable prediction is evidence for evolution.

Here is a simple animation based on fossils we've found, shown in the order in which they appeared in the fossil record, over a period of about 100 million years:

Why is it unreasonable to look at this sequence and come to the conclusion that these are likely related fossils, which demonstrate an evolution from fish to land animals? Especially when the genes of existing species of fish and reptiles supports this conclusion?

Creationists have never adequately explained this evidence.

You have and never have had evidence of that ever happening. No matter how hard you try.

I gave you numerous examples of evidence. I have yet to see you refute any of it.

If you want to act like you have an actual argument, then "nuh-uh" isn't going to cut it.

And that picture is such nonsense as far as trying to show how evidence works when it comes to stuff like that. It's apples and oranges.

Don't merely claim something. That isn't an argument. Why exactly is it supposedly apples and oranges? Why isn't looking at all of the convergent data which points to the most probable explanation a reasonable thing to do in both cases, and yet you're only OK with doing that in one of those cases?

Also, you totally dodged my question to you: What exactly would evidence of evolution look like to you? (And please, make sure what you're asking for is something that evolution actually predicts would occur.)

Please don't dodge this question again, as it cuts to the heart of whether you care about what is likely to be true or not.

 

[Astrophile]

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

Probably not, but you know much more about biology than I do.

 

[Astrophile]

sure. why not?
and the best explanation for the existence of a (self replicating) robot is design.

First, what are these theories, and how do they explain the biological facts? Second, there are no self-replicating robots, so the question is probably irrelevant.

 

[PsychoSarah]

i just used the conclusion from you link.

And ignored the other link I provided entirely, which provided an ALTERNATIVE chemical for the function of citrate. My original source also was talking about looking for an alternative chemical for this function, so why ignore it?

again: abiogenes is this is just a belief, not a fact. do you agree or disagree?

A fact that it did happen, or a fact that it can happen? Because evidence is really starting to build up that the latter is definitely true. As for asserting that it did, well, as long as that remains the conclusion with the most evidence, I'll state that it is the conclusion with the most evidence. No more, and no less.

he also start with an RNA molecule. when in reality there are no such molecules in nature (except for living things of course).

-_- what are you talking about? Abiogenesis experiments have already shown that the presence of various gasses in the air, combined with a range of environmental conditions, will produce nucleotides, which chemically link together to form RNA. It is a naturally occurring molecule.

 

[Astrophile]

Yes they were created that way. It was perfectly natural process because God created nature and it's laws. He created each creature individually from others. Humans were created completely unique from all others. Hence the reason why we are having this discussion instead of chimps.

But that would be a supernatural process, since God is a supernatural being. Also, the creation of complex living things from non-living matter and without ancestors is not a natural process.

 

[xianghua]

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.

so a self replicating car can evolve a gps system by variation or not? its seems that you dont have a clear answer.

 

[HiEv]

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

Probably not, but you know much more about biology than I do.

Well, there are nonscientific theories which tried to explain the facts of biology, such as Lysenkoism and Lamarckism. They were falsifiable scientific hypotheses, at least, but utterly failed as science because the evidence did not support them.

Does that count?

 

[HiEv]

so a self replicating car can evolve a gps system by vavriation or not? its seems that you dont have a clear answer.

So can a dragon evolve the ability to shoot X-rays instead of fire breath or not? It seems that you don't have a clear answer.



The problem doesn't lie within the person you're questioning, the problem lies within your question.

 

[TLK Valentine]

so a self replicating car can evolve a gps system by vavriation or not? its seems that you dont have a clear answer.

Yes -- every self-replicating car in existence can evolve a gps system by variation.