What you aren't being told about astronomy

[JonFromMinnesota]

Darwinism co-opted adaptation because it looked like evolution, and it
is actually scientifically true. The problem is that it has limits.

What are those limits? What is the mechanism that drives these limits? How do you test for it? Explain your experiment in detail.

By saying genetic mutations and natural selection have limits is like saying you are capable of walking to the end of your driveway but it is impossible for you to walk 3 miles to the store.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You realise of course that you have just demonstrated that you have not even read the opening paragraph properly and also confirmed what I predicted. Here are the relevant words again: "and before anyone says anything about his use of the term "evolution" in astronomy, as Spike explains, he's just using the term in the same way that many secular media have done:"

In other words, incorrectly.

Your source is more interested in popularity than in accuracy. It shows.

Did you stop to think that perhaps your source has sacrificed accuracy for popularity in other areas as well?

 

[florida2]

This goes back to an argument from another thread. Gases in space
cannot be made to compress to the point of becoming stars. If the
hydrogen atoms were water molecules, you could not cause them
to become dense enough tocause rain.

Which is precisely not what I was talking about. Well done.

I'm not talking about the formation of stars. I'm talking about nuclear fusion - the process that goes on within stars where atoms are fused to make elements further along the periodic table. The exact process going on in the Sun and every other star. If you think that 'chemical evolution' (to use your term) is false, does that not mean that you think nuclear fusion is false? If you do - please go and collect your Nobel prize.

 

[The Barbarian]

For any creationists, confused about the term "evolution" meaning different things in different disciplines, you could always use Darwin's term "descent with modification." Could save a lot of embarrassment.

 

[majj27]

If abiogenesis happened, it was not one step, but the end of a long series of events.

I agree 100%

Evolution.

Only in a colloquial fashion. Nothing to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution

Rocks to goo to molecules toproteins to rna to life.
The only problem is that like every evolution tale, it's impossible.

Why? Besides the fact that it may sound weird, what actually prevents it?

Darwinism co-opted adaptation because it looked like evolution, and it is actually scientifically true. The problem is that it has limits.

I keep seeing this "Darwinism" word. I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be a shorthand for "Darwin's original work on Evolution and Natural Selection" or a backhanded swipe at the ToE by making it sound like a some sort of religion.

This goes back to an argument from another thread. Gases in space
cannot be made to compress to the point of becoming stars.

Sure they can. Happening all the time. Right now, even. More to the point, what would keep gasses in space from compressing to that level? I mean, gravity works just fine on gasses. We know this. Get enough gas in one spot, it draws more gas there. Then more. Then more. What would keep it from compressing, assuming there's enough there to start with and you've got a long, long LONG time to wait?

-J

 

[AV1611VET]

For any creationists, confused about the term "evolution" meaning different things in different disciplines, you could always use Darwin's term "descent with modification." Could save a lot of embarrassment.

Creationists confused!?

We're the ones bringing it to evolutionists' attention.

I've had some tell me that the formation of planets has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[pat34lee]

What are those limits? What is the mechanism that drives these limits? How do you test for it? Explain your experiment in detail.

By saying genetic mutations and natural selection have limits is like saying you are capable of walking to the end of your driveway but it is impossible for you to walk 3 miles to the store.

More like there is a fence around your property that
you cannot pass. You can walk any direction, but only
about the same distance from the center.

Why do you think GMO's are the big thing now? Because
you have to directly change the genes to get past the
natural limits of heredity.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't know who told you that, AV1611, but it is way, way off. The planets did not just appear fully formed, they evolved over time. Part of the problem here is that an argument started over how to use the term "evolution." Basically, it is used to denote a change in the "essence" of the thing. Since the universe is qualitatively changing moment to moment, it is in a continual state of flux or evolution. And so are we. No thinker thinks twice.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know who told you that, AV1611, but it is way, way off. The planets did not just appear fully formed, they evolved over time. Part of the problem here is that an argument started over how to use the term "evolution." Basically, it is used to denote a change in the "essence" of the thing. Since the universe is qualitatively changing moment to moment, it is in a continual state of flux or evolution. And so are we. No thinker thinks twice.

Question: is abiogenesis a part of evolution?

I say YES.

What say you?

And if you answer by having to qualify it first ...

Like saying:

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with [qualifier] biological [/qualifier] evolution.

... I'm going to assume you're trying to evade answering honestly.

Like most scientists do.

Just YES or NO.

Does abiogenesis have anything to do with evolution?

 

[pat34lee]

Only in a colloquial fashion. Nothing to do with the Scientific Theory of Evolution

there is no scientific theory of evolution. only philosophic

Why? Besides the fact that it may sound weird, what actually prevents it?

left handed proteins, protein folding. the fact that proteins break down
too fast.

I keep seeing this "Darwinism" word. I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be a shorthand for "Darwin's original work on Evolution and Natural Selection" or a backhanded swipe at the ToE by making it sound like a some sort of religion.

nothing so sinister. Can't confuse it with the other evolution theories.
the only problem is they have even less credibility.

Sure they can. Happening all the time. Right now, even. More to the point, what would keep gasses in space from compressing to that level? I mean, gravity works just fine on gasses. We know this. Get enough gas in one spot, it draws more gas there. Then more. Then more. What would keep it from compressing, assuming there's enough there to start with and you've got a long, long LONG time to wait?

-J

If gases could attract other gases strongly enough to become suns, then
every planet should have done so long ago. Anything with a dense core
should have sucked up all the gases.

 

[Shemjaza]

If gases could attract other gases strongly enough to become suns, then
every planet should have done so long ago. Anything with a dense core
should have sucked up all the gases.

It requires a lot more gravity then any planet can muster.

The gas clouds are more massive then our entire solar system.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

More like there is a fence around your property that
you cannot pass. You can walk any direction, but only
about the same distance from the center

Except that this doesn't apply to nature as can be demonstrated in a lab setting. A first year biology student could show you this.

Why do you think GMO's are the big thing now? Because
you have to directly change the genes to get past the
natural limits of heredity.

GMOs are not threat to evolution. In fact, it's a demonstration that evolution is true.
You decided to go to creationists lies about GMOs when you could have done a simple google search and read actual research.
Are you going to quote mine the links below?

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2...ion-how-gmos-can-influence-genetic-diversity/
http://agsci.psu.edu/magazine/articles/2015/spring-summer/the-science-of-gmos

 

[lasthero]

More like there is a fence around your property that
you cannot pass. You can walk any direction, but only
about the same distance from the center.

Why do you think GMO's are the big thing now? Because
you have to directly change the genes to get past the
natural limits of heredity.

What, exactly, is this fence? I keep hearing creationists talk about some boundary that keeps evolution from only going so far, but I don't think I've heard any explanation on what exactly it is. What is this limit?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Any problem with the title of this textbook?

Biology does not have a monopoly on the word "evolution", just like science doesn't have a monopoly on the word "theory".

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do not demand that. I agree with you. We do not see these things happen. That is all I am saying.
In faith, this is OK. In science, this is fatal. What I am saying is that biological evolution is far far far from being a scientific theory.
So, biology should be the last one to be qualified in using the term: evolution.
I can see a rock evolves outside. Can anyone see a dog evolves in a zoo?

Funny how you first say that you don't demand eons of evolution to be condensed into a lab experiment and then in the next breath ask if anyone has seen dogs evolve in a zoo.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do not want to push this. But I want you to learn: If not monkey, what is it? Spell out the species name and explicitly say that it evolved into human.

Primates.

We share ancestors with monkeys. We didn't evolve from monkeys.

Not that you care though. I predict that within 2 months (if it even takes that long) you will be repeating that biologists claim that "humans evolved from monkeys".

 

[juvenissun]

Funny how you first say that you don't demand eons of evolution to be condensed into a lab experiment and then in the next breath ask if anyone has seen dogs evolve in a zoo.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

My message is simple: we do not see it happen.

 

[juvenissun]

Primates.

We share ancestors with monkeys. We didn't evolve from monkeys.

Not that you care though. I predict that within 2 months (if it even takes that long) you will be repeating that biologists claim that "humans evolved from monkeys".

No need for two month. I would say it again right now. If you don't get the meaning of it, that is your problem.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why is it logical?

For the same reason that we can take a DNA sample from the one you call "dad" and see if he is your biological dad.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Gases in space
cannot be made to compress to the point of becoming stars.

It's called gravity.