Not really politics, but Evolution... (cont. a thread)

[CDB]

Oddly enough it seems to function intelligently, so it can also lend credence to the ID theory.

While I'm not sure about that statement it does illustrate one of the key points about evolution claims that gets on my nerves. Evidence consistent with a theory doesn't prove a theory. For example, suppose an asteroid with some weird radiation is orbiting the sun. It comes around here at regular intervals, causes a mass extinction of most like, and radiation mutates DNA and gives rise to a boatload of mutants, many of which shortlived but some of which survive over time and adapt.

A 'theory' like that, or slightly modified, could be just as consistent with the evidence presented in favor of evolution, and it could conceivably make macro evolution unecessary, or make it clear that it's dependent on an outside influence and doesn't arise from the mere nature of life.

I just don't know what's wrong with saying there's a great empirical case for macro evolution and that research is proceeding apace to discover how it happens. Or in more layman terms saying based on the evidence we're very certain some process of evolution takes place, and right now the details are being discovered and worked out.

That would seem to be a hell of a lot more honest and accurate than stating evolution is proven as close to 100% as anything can be. Then when pressed you uncover the fact that no one knows how it happens. Proven, but no idea how it works... Sounds so solid. And I've yet to see any possible way to falsify the theory presented.

People have become way too invested with this issue to make an objective look at it possible. Creationists think everyone who believes evolution also believes in a Godless, mechanistic and reducable world. Darwinists attack anyone who expresses doubt about their pet theory as a religious lunatic intent on keeping the world in the dark ages.

[anabolicrhino]

People have become way too invested with this issue to make an objective look at it possible. Creationists think everyone who believes evolution also believes in a Godless, mechanistic and reducable world. Darwinists attack anyone who expresses doubt about their pet theory as a religious lunatic intent on keeping the world in the dark ages.[/quote]

Well, Thems the choices right?, gotta pick one right? It is a two sided argument right? I can't remember a third view point. The darwinist have a theory. The theory does not claim to know the begining of life. or the end of life. the evolutionary theory just shows a logical progression from point "A" in the past to point "B" in the present. The creationist claim both a knowledge of the beginning of life and also lay claim to the end( heaven or hell ). While claiming that all in between is just a test. This seems a little presumptuous to me.

[CDB]

Well, Thems the choices right?, gotta pick one right? It is a two sided argument right?

No. It's been framed as such, but it isn't. For one, a belief in God doesn't preclude accepting evolution. To say otherwise is to deny God the power to design evolution. Likewise, accepting evolution doesn't necessarily mean someone has to accept a reductionist view of the universe. But, because the debate has been framed as being the rational against the lunatic, or the devout against the heathen depending on the fanatic you talk to, those are often the only two choices that are seen or presented.

[TheCrownedOne]

The problem of DNA will never be overcome by evolutionists.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm

Moreover, not one reasonable assertion has been proffered to explain the origins of life from non-life. The very first step in the theory of evolution is a leap of faith.

[kwyckemynd00]

The problem of DNA will never be overcome by evolutionists.

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm

Moreover, not one reasonable assertion has been proffered to explain the origins of life from non-life. The very first step in the theory of evolution is a leap of faith.

Bud, don't tell me you're going to take anything that guy says seriously. Did you read his "summary" of evolution?

"
All the complicated DNA in each life form, and all the DNA in every other life form—all made itself out of nothing way back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirt and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.
Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that cells can and must do (see the chapter The Cell for a glimpse into those many functions).
That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair, and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they in turn more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc."

Absolutely laughable and obviously designed to sway the uninformed reader away from believing that evolution takes place.


There was no lightning, nothing was instant, lol.

That description sounds as ridiculous as the Adam and Eve theory.

[anabolicrhino]

Bud, don't tell me you're going to take anything that guy says seriously. Did you read his "summary" of evolution?




Absolutely laughable and obviously designed to sway the uninformed reader away from believing that evolution takes place.


There was no lightning, nothing was instant, lol.

That description sounds as ridiculous as the Adam and Eve theory.

Look out its a smart bomb!!! Obfusification of the facts is one of the favored strategies of the anti-evolutionists. The art of confusing your opponent with more facts. The facts are deliberately vague with multiple ending scenarios. Kind of like a maze for your mind, It is a trap for you free will. confuse and conquer! Yikes, I just scared myseilf.( hahaha)

[TheCrownedOne]

You sure lightning doesn't play a part in your theory?

And you're evading anyway.

[kwyckemynd00]

Evading what?

There was no good rebuttal to evolution in the entire article.

Proteins developed on top of the sea. During that time the atmosphere was 20% CO2, therefore much heavier, and the ocean was 300degrees centigrade. This is where the random mixing of molecules took place for billion of years before there was any sort of abundance of important molecules, like proteins, etc.

Nothing about lightning and during that time, there wasn't land anyway. So, the author is either a liar or uneducated.

[CDB]

There was no lightning, nothing was instant, lol.

I do remember hearing of an experiment a long time ago where a couple scientists blasted an imitation of primordial soup with an electric charge. Supposedly little spheres of protein formed and, even though they weren't cells, started dividing into smaller versions of themselves. Don't quote me on that, it was a long time ago I heard that claim.

And however ridiculous the author's explanation, once again the point comes up that it may just be impossible for something as complex and varied as current life on this planet to merely be the product of random mutation and chance. Saying it happened therefore it must be possible assumes the answer and begs the question. Once again, the lack of a mechanism is apparent. And that missing piece, at least in my personal opinion, puts evolution significantly further from the 99.999999...% certainty you claim.

[TheCrownedOne]

The lightning comes in when scientists attempt to conjure the initial energy that started the spark of life. You should go back and give your theory another look because you're missing some fundamental information.

And I said you're evading because you're evading every other point I've made this entire thread, along with the remaining bulk of that one article.

[kwyckemynd00]

When I was referencing the lightning it was in regards to this:

There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirt and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.
Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that cells can and must do (see the chapter The Cell for a glimpse into those many functions).

There was no lightning instantly creating what the author describes.

The process was long and drawn out, nothing was instant.

[bpmartyr]

Hey kwyck, off topic but I am cutting now. Can you take the burger off the avatar, LOL.

[kwyckemynd00]

I'm not bulking, I just like the pic hahaha Its so classic

[CDB]

Hey kwyck, off topic but I am cutting now. Can you take the burger off the avatar, LOL.

Christ, I just noticed that. I'm getting constipated just looking at that thing.

[TheCrownedOne]

When I was referencing the lightning it was in regards to this:

There was no lightning instantly creating what the author describes.

The process was long and drawn out, nothing was instant.

That's what I mean by evading. You're skirting the crux of this debate by displaying your disapproval of his humorous definition of your theory rather than addressing the numerous problems he pinpoints. In a sense, you're argumentum ad hominem.

Moreover, many crucial points in the process of evolution indeed must have occurred instantly. Irreducible Complexity addresses many of these fatal flaws.

[spatch]

Christ, I just noticed that. I'm getting constipated just looking at that thing.

Whats with the helmit in that pic?

[CDB]

Whats with the helmit in that pic?

If you were going to attack a burger that big, you'd need one. And a cup, and a big ass dose of a good **** pill.

[bpmartyr]

[kwyckemynd00]

That's what I mean by evading. You're skirting the crux of this debate by displaying your disapproval of his humorous definition of your theory rather than addressing the numerous problems he pinpoints. In a sense, you're argumentum ad hominem.

Moreover, many crucial points in the process of evolution indeed must have occurred instantly. Irreducible Complexity addresses many of these fatal flaws.

Dude, I'm not even sure what freggin' point you're trying to make. And irreducible complexity has a lot more to do with the formation of a first cell that it does with evolution.

Argumentum ad hominem, eh? No, that would be saying something like english classes aren't a good replacement for biology classes when you get into a debate regarding biology and evolution. I doubt you even knew what irreducible complexity, as an anti-spontaneous life theory, was before a few google searches ago.

You posted a link saying that evolutionists have a problem trying to prove evolution because of DNA and you take the information from a creationist website that has obviously misleading material on it.

I'm not evading anything because you're not making a point regarding evolution.

And, I've addressed this "leap of faith" required for buying into the beginnings of life, but the thing is, there is a 99.9..9% chance that evolution is taking place in the sense that we were randomly birthed and that we've evolved from simple bacteria, so I'll take the 0.0...1% leap of faith. But again, not a whole lot to do with evolution.

I've also said that its entirely possible that there is some sort of creator out there and that I personally do believe there is something out there, but he sure as hell didn't make the earth in 7 days nor did he put adam and eve here.

Go back and read my posts, I made an educational thread but the refusal to accept what all science indicates is the truth of our origins as far as 4billion years back isn't worth arguing over. Pretty much back to the first chemotrophic organism we can generate a consistent line of evolution...a 4 billion year line of evolution!

If you want to read about all plausible theories of the origins of the first cell and of life, knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

But, that's not what the thread was about.

This thread is a thread of evolution, not abiogenesis. So, nothing is being evaded, you're running off the topic trying to invalidate evolution because of something that is really unrelated to it. The first cell isn't what we're talking about here and it wasn't the point of the thread is and the fact that we don't know how the first cells came to be, doesn't invalidate the fact that we've got a darn good idea of how we evolved from them and from our more recent ancestors.

The point of the thread is that we've got a common ancestor with all life. And yes, we really are primates...sorry bud.

[bpmartyr]

I personally have not seen a single thread of evidence in any of these posts that support macro evolution let alone anything that would be considered 99.9% proof. All I have heard is circular reasoning begging the question. "We evolved so it must have happened and since we evolved we will interpret all data that is collected based upon that fact".

Don't get me wrong, I am guilty of some of the same. I believe the guy who showed dominion over life and death by raising himself from the dead, witnessed by men who died for their beliefs and as posted earlier, very unlikely (or 99.9% proven) that a man would willingly die a terrible death for something he knew to be false let alone hundreds. He (Christ) believed in the literal interpretation of the scriptures. He believed in Adam & Eve and a 7 day creation. This belief does give me a bias and I can't help but following a certain path of reasoning while examining the facts.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

I think kwyck was thinkin of:

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.