 |
Actually, that is not true. The fossil evidence still is a weak link in the whole theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
As I just said to someone else, take some time and check out the mounds of assumptions upon which the theory of evolution is based.
I have and I don't have a problem with a single one of them. Evolution no matter how you slice it is the best theory to explain how life came to be so complex on this planet. If there was another theory that explained things better then we might have a debate but until then you are a just flat-earther. Trying to confuse the public in order to spread your religion.
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Do they really think the earth is flat?
Tj3,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Darwin was specifically concerned about the rate of evolution, whether it happened quickly or slowly, not whether it happened.
For Darwin, the questions were all about mechanism. In other words, what makes the refrigerator work, not whether it keeps things cold. Biologists know the refrigerator stays cold and want to know how that works. We know that evolution happened and continues to happen. We continue to study how it produces the kinds of results it does.
Today we understand vastly more about the mechanisms by which evolution occurs and we know that most of Darwin's doubts about HOW evolution occurred were unjustified. There was so much biology that hadn't been uncovered yet and so he didn't have access to the information we have today. For example, in his day, no one even knew about genes or DNA. He had no idea how information could be passed from parent to child. But he was not in doubt that evolution had happened. And, in 150 years of research in biology, no information has arisen that would cast doubt on the fact of evolution having occurred.
The fossil record is probably the single strongest piece of evidence for evolution, since it is an actual record of past events. The fossil record speaks to several issues. It tells us that evolution occurred. It tells us in what order different kinds of organisms evolved. And it tells us which animals and plants changed quickly and which ones changed hardly at all over long periods. Nothing about the fossil record is "weak." I think what you take to be "assumptions" are just things you may not have understood or accepted because you didn't have enough information.
I can recommend a good book. :)
Good article!Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I found myself wondering what flat earthers think when they fly in a jet at 35,000 or 40,000 feet and can see the curve of the Earth beneath them. Have any of them taken a polar route flight between Europe and North America? What do they think when they look down? Do they think airlines are all in on creating a customized hoax for every passenger on every flight? Talk about expensive! No wonder the airline industry is in trouble.Quote:
And while we all respect a degree of scepticism towards the authorities, says Ms Garwood, the flat-earthers show things can go too far.
"It is always good to question 'how we know what we know', but it is also good to have the ability to accept compelling evidence - such as the photographs of Earth from space."
Really? If we understand anything about the process, then how did the first cell originate?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I agree that it is the strongest piece of evidence for evolution, and yet it is full of extremely serious problems, which most who believe in evolution prefer to overlook. It is the strongest thing upon which evolutionists hang their hat, but yet what the fossil record therefore shows is how weak the theory reqally is.Quote:
The fossil record is probably the single strongest piece of evidence for evolution, since it is an actual record of past events.
In the strict sense, that is not evolution. Evolution is change from one form of life to another. So there has to be life first and life consists of living cells.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Evolution is shrew-like mammals evolving into primates, or bacteria whose DNA is just in a blob in the center of the cell evolving into eukaryotic cells that keep their DNA inside a membrane. Life is, by definition, made of cells. So until the first cells came into being you are talking about processes that are different from evolution in subtle but important ways. How those first cells came into being very likely involved processes that resemble or include evolution. But the formation of the first cells is not considered evolution, which begins with the first cells.
Some faithful people accept the evolution of one species into as another as consistent with Biblical teaching, and even the evolution of all species, families, and kingdoms of plants and animals, but they believe that God must have got the ball rolling by creating the first cells and creating the rules by which evolution occurs. Is that what you believe?
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
It is evolution. Unless a non-living substance evolves into living matter, then, according to the theory, there is no chance for life. So this is absolutely critical to your whole theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Your argument is like saying that you don't need to explain how a plane gets off the ground to explain flight. We just assuming that somehow through some unexplained magical process, it started flying.
I think you've confounded different things, Tj3. The origin of life is certainly of critical interest to biologists and there couldn't have been evolution without an origin of the first cells. But not being able to explain the origin of the first cells doesn't undermine the fact that evolution happened anymore than not knowing where the pizza delivery man was born keeps me from knowing whether he is standing in the doorway and has brought me a pizza. He has brought the pizza whether he was born in Poughkeepsie or Brighton. Evolution happened. It's recorded in the fossil record over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
In fact, you don't. It's perfectly reasonable to study flight without understanding how takeoff occurs. It's common for scientists (and engineers :)) to study the simpler part of something. First I study how the plane flies. Later, I study the specifics of takeoff and landing, which involve more complex problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You are confusing understanding something with justifying it, and you've reversed the problem too. Evolution isn't about justifying anything. On the other hand, to turn your argument around, unless you can personally prove that no cells ever originated anywhere, you cannot disprove evolution with your reasoning.
Even scientists who are straightforward about the evidence would not make such a statement. There is not and never has been a single proven case of macro-evolution. Further, the fact that there is no means whatsoever of the single cell having come into existence is fatal. Believeing that it must simply have happened because otherwise your theory falls apart is a matter of faith not of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
The evidence is there the only people who don't see it are people with a religious agenda. Which I have no problem with you pushing your religious agenda just be honest about it say "I don't care about evidence for evolution I believe god did it cause the bible says so." instead of trying to hide your agenda with faulty science specifically meant to confuse the general public.
The theory that we are all related does not fall apart just because we can't be certain about the origins of the first cell. That's like saying that you can't know who your father and grandfather were unless you know the names of all 32 of your great-, great- grandparents. Logically, you are making the same argument. We know pretty far back, just not all the way. But we don't need to know the whole way back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
We don't need to know the origin of the first cells to know that birds evolved from dinosaurs or that mammals evolved from early reptiles. We can study the process starting just about anywhere. You could wipe out the whole fossil record starting back 1 billion years ago and still be able to deduce that evolution had occurred--there's so much information in the fossil record, it's overwhelming.
The evidence in the fossil record shows the order in which life appeared, stratum by stratum, just like the pages of an immense book. If there's a book of life, the fossil record is it. It shows that it happened, and that's what is important. How it works is immensely interesting to a lot of people, but for the average person, all that matters is that evolution is the simple, mindless process that got us here. What they want to make of that is an individual choice.
For asking and michealb
I know Tom Smith (Tj3 - Toms777) now for about a decade. He will never admit that he does precisely that.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
He likes to run in religious based circular arguments, and will switch from one to another argument to support his religious views, while attacking non-religious items like evolution.
Tom knows perfectly well that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Over the years I and others have told and explained that to him more than 50 to 100 times, but he keeps using that non-argument time and time again.
Toms main intent with this method is exhausting his opponent into dropping the argument, not in to a true discussion of the matter involved.
Asking : my compliments for your stamina, firmness, and clear explanations and argumentations.
;)
That is not what we are discussing. It is not certainty - it is that there is not even a feasible guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
You know that, eh? Well we could get into some discussions around some of the steps of progression later in the so-called evolutionary cycle, if you are agreeing that the step from non-living to living is one that yopu just accept on faith as having happened even though you cannopt come up with any idea as to how it mioht have happened and have no evidence as to it happening.Quote:
We don't need to know the origin of the first cells to know that birds evolved from dinosaurs or that mammals evolved from early reptiles.
Hey John, I see that instead of sound, fact based arguments, you keep going after the person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
The research on this is so feasible now that I hesitate every time I write that we don't know how the first cells came into existence! We nearly do... which I suppose is bad news for you, since if those ideas become widely accepted as scientific dogma, it will be harder for you to make this argument. In the mean time, I am content to observe that it makes no difference to our understanding of what happened afterward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No. I don't accept it (on faith or otherwise). I neither accept it nor reject it. I simply don't know about it and I'm content to not know. Science is full of things we don't know. (I don't know whether you carry the BRCAII gene, but that doesn't prevent me from discussing evolution with you or assessing your intelligence and values. I don't have to know everything about something to know something about it.) Scientists are able to separate what they know from what they don't without just making something up to fill the gap. Filling in the gaps with faith-based assertions that have no basis in reality is a religious approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Credendovidis wrote:Thanks!Quote:
Asking : my compliments for your stamina, firmness, and clear explanations and argumentations.
Asking
No Tom ! Fortunately I am not like you. All I did was informing them who you are and how you normally operate !Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Tom : I welcome your presence here at AMHD. I also note that you were suspended from Answerway for aggressively attacking people there. Please be aware that they also suspend people here on AMHD !
By the way : when was the last time YOU provided "sound, fact based arguments" ???
Surely not when you posted that list of which you claimed it contained objective supporting evidence towards the existence of your "god".
I guess that if you ever did provide that, it must have been when you were still an atheist!!
:rolleyes:
·
Heh heh heh, John, I think that everyone knows how you operate!Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Actually, that is not true. You were, as we know, but the owner did not like me raising the question of inconsistent enforcement of the rules. Anyway, this is off-topic for this board. If you wish to discuss old times, PM would be the best way.Quote:
Tom : I welcome your presence here at AMHD. I also note that you were suspended from Answerway for aggressively attacking people there.
I know - speak to some of your old friends from AW who used to be on here ;)Quote:
Please be aware that they also suspend people here on AMHD !
You know, I have been in so many of these discussions, and the vast majority of time, the only answer that I get is that "it has been proven", or "there is a lot of evidence", but rarely does anyone actually try to provide any evidence of substance to substantiate claims such as this.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Well, I haven't discussed the origin of cells stuff, but I have discussed the evidence for evolution extensively on this forum. But I haven't got very good responses to actual science, and since this is, bafflingly, still the "religious discussions" board, I hesitate to get into it here. I'll start a separate thread sometime in Science called What is the Evidence for Evolution and we can take that up there. And maybe one for biogenesis as well. Would that be good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I trust that you will note that when we discuss the topic of evolution that, even though I am a Christian, the scientific evidence is so much ion concert with scripture that I rarely if ever find it necessary to use anything by science itself to refute evolutionists. It is evolutionists that usually retire into faith when the evidence cannot support their beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Feel free to do so. I am sure that you will get some interesting discussions!Quote:
I'll start a separate thread sometime in Science called What is the Evidence for Evolution and we can take that up there. And maybe one for biogenesis as well. Would that be good?
What you are trying to say is "I'm the most intelligent person on the planet and even though the vast majority of people who have studied this come to a different conclusion you should listen to me because I am the smartest person on the intertubes." Sounds silly saying it that way doesn't it but that is exactly what you are saying.Quote:
I trust that you will note that when we discuss the topic of evolution that, even though I am a Christian, the scientific evidence is so much ion concert with scripture that I rarely if ever find it necessary to use anything by science itself to refute evolutionists. It is evolutionists that usually retire into faith when the evidence cannot support their beliefs.
I could say I have a PHD in biology from MIT, I could even go as far as to say my name is Stephanie Capaldi who if you look you find that she currently teaches there, but if my content doesn't back it up, I just sound stupid. There are lots of ways that creation could be presented as a scientific theory and if any of them were valid they would be peer reviewed theories. Almost everything that is post from creationist is meant to confuse the public who barely has any scientific knowledge and all of it is considered drivel by anyone who has actually studied.
Your religion has come to an evolutionary dead end so to speak on this issue.
Seems we have come full circle
Now note. Rather than dealing with the scientific questions that I raise, you have brought forward the following points:Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
1) You initiate an attack against my character because I disagree with you.
2) You say that I must be wrong because I don't agree with many other people who you happen to agree with - you must believe that the majority is always right also, correct?
3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,. well, they disagree with you.
Sigh! Please let me know when you are ready to get off your high horse and deal with the issue.
Science moves closer to artificial life - Nation - Kentucky.com
Quote:
They've already accomplished some steps needed to construct a simple, single-celled organism that's capable of evolving and reproducing itself, basic requirements for life...
Other experts, however, said it might take decades or centuries before scientists would be able to ”create life from scratch,“ as the quest is colloquially known...
So far, what they're doing is more like copying nature's clever tricks than creating new life forms in the laboratory, with all the tremendous philosophical, social and religious issues that such a stunning feat would imply.
”Creating artificial life is very different from reproducing what existed already in nature,“ said Eckhard Wimmer, a microbiologist at Stony Brook University on Long Island, NY. ”That (artificial life) may be possible in the future, but this future may be hundreds of years away.“ ...
Of a plan to construct what they call a ”minimal cell“ containing only 151 genes. That's far fewer than the smallest natural microorganism, which has nearly 500.
Church said that biologists studying synthesis didn't claim to be creating living organisms by ”going from nothing to something.“ Instead, he said ”nearly all such projects are inspired by existing molecules.“
A fascinating article, don't you think?
All these intelligent scientists trying to design artificial life.
It is amazing to think that this was just "nature's clever trick," while never defining what nature is or how nature accomplished this.
1) You initiate an attack against my character because I disagree with you
I don't attack your character I'm debating whether you have the background knowledge to understand the answers given to you many times. I am also debating whether you have a bias towards one answer the prevents you from seeing the evidence fairly.
2) You say that I must be wrong because I don't agree with many other people who you happen to agree with - you must believe that the majority is always right also, correct?
I'm saying you must be wrong because of the majority of the people who are qualified to understand the evidence say you are wrong. Also there isn't a shred of credible evidence for any other theory out there. I don't believe the majority is always correct but I feel that if your in the minority is is up to you to prove your idea.
3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,. well, they disagree with you.
It has nothing to do with what I think like you, I'm just a smuck on the internet. What matters is 100 years of scientific research that has all pointed towards evolution. Not once has a fossil EVER been discovered that doesn't agree with evolution. Research that is so good that no one disagrees with it, except for people that are trying to push a religious agenda.
No, just because I disagree with you, each time you attack me. If you don't feel the need to do so, just stick to the issue at hand, and don't go after the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
So, if you don't believe that the majority is always right, why do you feel that anyone who does not agree with what you believe to be the majority view is automatically wrong?Quote:
2) You say that I must be wrong because I don't agree with many other people who you happen to agree with - you must believe that the majority is always right also, correct?
I'm saying you must be wrong because of the majority of the people who are qualified to understand the evidence say you are wrong. Also there isn't a shred of credible evidence for any other theory out there. I don't believe the majority is always correct but I feel that if your in the minority is is up to you to prove your idea.
And if you are willing to discuss a topic on the basis of its merits, why can we not get you to stay on the topic?
If you really believe that, why don't you just stop attacking the people and let the truth come to light?Quote:
3) The fact that thousands of scientists do not agree with you means that they must be wrong because,. well, they disagree with you.
It has nothing to do with what I think like you, I'm just a smuck on the internet. What matters is 100 years of scientific research that has all pointed towards evolution. Not once has a fossil EVER been discovered that doesn't agree with evolution. Research that is so good that no one disagrees with it, except for people that are trying to push a religious agenda.
The problem is that lifes occurrence had a laboratory the size of the entire universe and 14 billion years in order for everything to randomly come together perfectly in order to form. So even if it is extremely unlikely for it to occur it had some very extreme conditions to brute force the solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Imagine if you are trying to open a combination lock. Scientists are putting in numbers that are likely to be the correct combination waiting for the click and saving the right numbers as they move on to the next. The universe on the other hand has the time and equipment to randomly try every combination until it works. It got it right once in 14 billion years as far as we know, maybe in another 14 billions years the universe will give birth so some other form of life.
Okay what is the over whelming evidence that creationism fits the facts at hand?Quote:
let the truth come to light?
Where is the proof that new information can't be added by mutation? (Point to the experiment that show no new information being added)
Show proof that natural secelection can not occur?
Prove with a repeatable experiment that god exists and interacts with this world directly.
Give at least one proven case of a super natural occurrence happening.
From the article - The smallest micro-organism has 500 genes.
How many millions of base pairs to get it exactly right.
Put it in a cell
With ribosomes
With RNA
With amino acids .
Each step is a necessary ingredient.
Each ingredient takes what kind of chance to actually be formed?
In the right place,
At the right time,
Interacting with each other in precisely the right manor,
And the genetic code has to be spot on to get the right amino acids in the right sequence to form even a single protein.
Standard Biology 101 stuff;)
That is why these intelligent scientists did not know if it would take decades or centuries, to design an artificial cell. :)
HIV has just nine genes...
HIV or other viruses cannot exist as a "first" organism because without a host's nuclear machinery, they cannot reproduce.
There are not thousands of biologists who don't believe in evolutionary biology. You might just as well argue that there are thousands of physicists who don't believe in physics. I doubt you could come up with any practicing biologists who would say that. You might find someone who pretends to have studied biology but has never published a paper in a respectable journal, or you might find a handful of biochemists. But an actual biologist who has done field work on populations of plants or animals? Probably not one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Totally irrelevant as to the origin of the first cell. We have no idea how complicated that one was.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
That first cell was most probable incredibly simple by today's standards. Nobody knows how simple it was. But remember that there were no enemies, there was ample food, and the conditions were tops for it to survive and multiply. Most probably even only by means of RNA.
Crystline clay model research indicates even that early life can have existed and multiplied on an even simpler basis than RNA, and have only later introduced RNA and later again DNA into it's multiplication sequence.
It is ridiculous after 2.500.000.000 years and trillions times trilions times trillions times trillions times trilions times trillions (etc.) of generations to refer to today's cell standards and requirements and extrapolate that back to the first cells.
===
It is logical and to be expected that in view of the time in between and the lack of fossile evidence the exact actual sequence of abiogenesis will never exceed the level of hypothesis.
But however interesting this discussion on abiogenesis is, it has nothing to do with evolution.
And it has even less to do with religion and it's creation claim. For that and everything involved no valid support has been forthcoming for over several thousands of years, other than by BELIEF.
And THAT you also know, and it is precisely the reason for your aggressive and negative approach towards evolution.
:rolleyes:
·
Well now I don't believe that you have ever checked into this. Are you not aware of the books written by scientists in this field? Are you not aware of the thousands of scientists who have publicly come out against evolution? Are you not aware of the Discovery Institute?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
You start by saying nobody knows, then proceed to assume conditions at the beginning based on clay models? :confused: Talk about logic non-sequitors. ;)
Whoa, I thought evolution had all the answers? Or is that based on the "extrapolations," that you consider "ridiculous." :D
I agree with you though, it is about belief.
Okay what is the over whelming evidence that creationism fits the facts at hand?
Where is the proof that new information can't be added by mutation? (Point to the experiment that show no new information being added)
Show proof that natural secelection can not occur?
Prove with a repeatable experiment that god exists and interacts with this world directly.
Give at least one proven case of a super natural occurrence happening.
Yes. It's been argued that if the first cell appeared today, it would be gobbled up by another cell or animal in seconds or minutes, having no defenses whatever against voracious modern life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
I have checked on this. There are a bare handful of creationists with any actual training and participation in biology (and I am excluding other fields, like physics and engineering, because that does not teach you biology). Behe is a biochemist. Wells was a theologian and got a PhD at Berkeley specifically in order to find information to undermine evolution--which he has stated. He got in few potshots against poorly edited textbooks, but not against evolution itself. And he has not made any interesting points in a long, long time. In any case, despite his PhD, he is certainly not a practicing biologist. Perhaps you can dig out a few more examples. But these are not biologists in the sense of people who regularly do research, get published in main stream journals (on any topic in biology, not just evolution), get tenure, and make it into prestigious scientific organizations such as the national academy of sciences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You may plead that your guys are being discriminated against, but scientists who have been discriminated against have a rich history of finding an audience of other scientists (usually younger ones) for legitimate scientific arguments. Sooner or later someone listens and gets it. Creationists have had 150 years to persuade legitimate biologists that they have a case, with no success. You have no persuasive arguments either bolstering an alternate theory that accounts for all the evidence, nor any good arguments for why the current theory might be wrong. So far, all the arguments I've seen here in the last year have either come from ignorance or misinterpretation, at best.
Have a gander at Michael Behe's latest book, "The Edge of Evolution" and then let's discuss.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Odd that you limit it to creationists, but it does not matter because you have not said where you are looking, and your information is clearly in error.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Do you know what biochemists do? Do you also know that he is not a creationist?Quote:
Behe is a biochemist.
Who is Wells?Quote:
Wells was a theologian and got a PhD at Berkeley specifically in order to find information to undermine evolution--which he has stated. He got in few potshots against poorly edited textbooks, but not against evolution itself.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15 AM. |