Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Evolution is a topic of science, not metaphysics. So there is no "shining a light" here. It's all about studying dry facts, accumulating evidence, and walking away with the inference which is logically correct.

    The first place to go to see how that is done is Darwin's Origin of the Species. To date there does not exist any piece of work which refutes it. (Other than some updates that came with new discoveries).

    It seems to me that if Fundamentalists want to attack the teaching of evolution, then they need only refute Darwin. And that's not going to happen. The only way you can hope to do that is by claiming that God came back and did a second creation on Galapagos, and designed it like a trick, with just enough species having the false appearance of having evolved from mainland animals, and this, only to mislead Darwin into propounding his theory.

    How absurd is that?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    As you have proven with your knowledge of the subject. A trailblazer rather than a donkey you are.
     
    Jason.Marshall likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    You are a flamer, and a hypocrite. This site has some awesome members shame the people who run it are offensive and argumentative, and in your case, well, the less I read from you the better.
     
    Jason.Marshall likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    Maybe it's not a trick, maybe some people simply can't comprehend it through no fault of their own.
     
  8. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Not sure what you mean. I have read Origin and studied Biology. Darwin was forced to conclude that the endemic species of the Galapagos evolved there, since the alternative -- that God launched a special creation there long after S. America was inhabited by similar animals -- was absurd.

    My point is that this issue is the main barrier to all Creationist claims. Evolution -- as an argument -- is grounded in the rejection of the absurdity of special creation at Galapagos. We need go no further into the evidence for evolution than this to reject Creationism.

    Edit: I suspect this is the reason the Popes began to retreat from Creationism and adopt Evolution. They were not willing to deny science and logic.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,414
    Fair enough. There may indeed be many ordinary churchgoing creationists who know little in the way of science and who can't in fairness be expected to make the distinction. The people I suppose I had in mind are those who preach to these ordinary folk, write articles on the web for them to read and carry on public advocacy of creationism, while blurring the distinction. We've all come across (with depressing frequency) this sort of thing: "Evolution is not a proper scientific theory because scientists have not been able to make life artificially in the laboratory."
     
  10. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    If this is getting taught to kids then the people responsible should be at the very least fined.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,414
    Here is one example of an indiscriminate mixing up of the two, found after a couple of minutes with a search engine: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

    This sort of thing seems fairly widespread among the creationist community, regrettably. It's not teaching material for children, but people who take this on board will repeat it at Sunday school, I've no doubt.
     
  12. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    Most of that article makes a clear distinction between evolution and creation of life as far as I can see, correct me if I'm wrong with the relevant paragraph.

    This however, is either badly worded, or is intentional to plant a seed to associate how life begun with evolution thus causing stupidity:
    "
    • There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life"
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,414
    Well from the start it talks about "evolutionism" and then straight away launches into abiogenesis! Evolutionism and evolutionists are periodically referred to throughout and yet the topic they are discussing is not evolution at all.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2015
  14. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    It shows that they form naturally. From there it is not so far to RNA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801553

    I think that about rounds it up.
     
  15. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    That looks like 2 different questions to me.
     
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    What does the latter mean?

    Actually, as I recall, he also mentions alteration via artificial selection.

    There is no doubt to benefit: one might extrapolate Darwin's argument in such a manner, and I believe some have done this. This does not render microselection theory invalid, as you imply above.

    That is a senseless analogy; no one has proposed any such limits. The problem is your reliance on obfuscatory language: if you would simply say as you mean instead of "leaving it organic" one could begin to evaluate your proposition. I assume you are trying to say that you think a kind of selective mathematics applies to molecular species, as chemists used to call them, I think. It is possible though I think it is not precisely as Darwin envisaged. Neither does it render microselection and descent with modification invalid.

    Your latter conflicts with your former here.

    What are you attempting to imply with the last sentence? As for the mathematics of molecular specie selection, I expect it looks like the Darwinian at least, though I couldn't say how the scale and dynamics change at the nano level.

    And by the by, water is not thereby magic. It is a solvent.

    And vultures circle whether there is a corpse or not.
     
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    It is, given the chemical evidence, exceedingly likely that abiogenesis proceeded from natural phenomena. I cite some of this above.
     
  18. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    You're getting a bit too keen to suggest that abiogenesis did create life. No scientist would put their neck on the line by making the statement you've just made.
     
  19. Enoc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
  20. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,049
    Why not, the only other explanation is a deity.
     
  21. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    Panspermia is a possibility, but that isn't even coming up on my spell checker, same problem with abiogenesis.
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    You must have searched anti-natural creation of life sites to find one so biased. I stopped reading in firat paragraph when read this biased non-sense:
    "Evolutionists justify the use of this atmosphere on the basis of their claim that the "early earth" had a reducing atmosphere (one lacking oxygen or other oxidising agents). Yet, the sole reason that this reducing atmosphere is proposed is so that they can then use it to justify their theories! Instead of searching for evidence and then revising their theories to the data, they were (and are) engineering the (proposed) conditions to yield the data they desired. The "reducing atmosphere" of the early earth is completely an evolutionist construct."

    Oxygen, unlike methane, is quite reactive so found bound in chemical compounds, like H2O or oxidized minerals. It is constantly being removed from the air and replenished by green plants I a dynamic equilibrium of abut 20% O2.. Before the green plants existed there was essentially no O2 in the atmosphere. It was CERATINLY reducing - mainly methane.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2015
  23. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,801
    Maybe you should do the experiment?
     

Share This Page