Message 46 of 71 (561706) 05-22-2010 5:06 PM

Reply to: Message 45 by hotjer 05-22-2010 4:15 PM

ToE is what it is, a theory, however it is in its own since, a belief, since while widely accepted, is very controversial, and does not have any substantial proof.

Note that my whole post wasn't just about the origin of life, all I was trying to say, is that it does not give any evidence to support abiogenesis or ToE.

Message 47 of 71 (561707) 05-22-2010 5:18 PM

Reply to: Message 46 by agent_509 05-22-2010 5:06 PM

How are you with Straboism, Copernicism and Wegenerism?

Message 48 of 71 (561709) 05-22-2010 5:22 PM

Reply to: Message 46 by agent_509 05-22-2010 5:06 PM

You seem to be trying to denigrate the ToE by calling it a theory. You obviously don't understand what a scientific theory is.

It is widely accepted, you got that much right. The only reason it is controversial is because of a vocal minority of people who reject it because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. There is no controversy in science about the validity of the ToE.

It in fact has more evidence supporting it than just about any other theory you'd care to mention. An in depth discussion of this evidence would be off topic for this thread, but I will refer you to this site which contains a comprehensive discussion of 29 different types of evidence that support it.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Message 49 of 71 (561711) 05-22-2010 5:27 PM

Reply to: Message 44 by agent_509 05-22-2010 3:44 PM

Curiously, it doesn't matter at all what you think, as science is defined by the scientists, and if you are going to talk about the science then you need to use the terminology and meanings that are used in science.

Use different terminology, or try to adopt different meanings from what is used in science, and you are only deluding yourself that you are talking about the science and not some misinterpretation based on confirmation bias and preconceptions.

Evolution is the change in the types and frequencies of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.

Amazingly chemistry is not completely random.

Which just demonstrates how wrong you can be when you try to misuse terminology and attach different meanings rather than discuss the science with the proper terminology and meanings.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message): ... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.

Message 50 of 71 (561712) 05-22-2010 5:27 PM

Reply to: Message 44 by agent_509 05-22-2010 3:44 PM

I agree. It does nothing much for either "side" (and there are rather more than just two "sides" in this debate). It wasn't meant to. The experiment wasn't about providing evidence for evolution. It was about making an artificial genome.

Agreed. That's because the experiment wasn't intended to show that life arose from non-living matter. That was not even on their minds. They inserted the genome they created into a pre-existing cell; that would rather undermine it's value as an abiogenesis experiment, no? But that's fine, because this wasn't an abiogenesis experiment.

I'm not quite sure why creationist members seem so keen to talk about abiogenesis in this thread. This was not about abiogenesis.

Completely wrong. There need be nothing atheistic about what you call "Darwinism". Plenty of theists believe in evolution. Also, I am curious as to where exactly "Atheistic Darwinist theory" suggests that life should be popping up all over the place. Perhaps you could help me out; who suggests that and where?

Mutate and Survive

Message 51 of 71 (561714) 05-22-2010 5:44 PM

Reply to: Message 46 by agent_509 05-22-2010 5:06 PM

Evidence for ToE is a whole other story so I will not talk further about that in this topic.

I did note your post was not just about the origin of life, but you wrote it like it was related to ToE, at least it seemed to me, and therefore I responded in the way I did. Anyways, despite different view on life we seem to agree that this artificial life is not related to ToE (yet - it might evolve) and as it is now, it does not support neither ToE or ID or Creationism

Edited by hotjer, : No reason given.

Message 52 of 71 (561715) 05-22-2010 5:48 PM

Reply to: Message 48 by subbie 05-22-2010 5:22 PM

I'll read that site in time, but as for now I will simply place one of my own evidences against evolution. irreducible complexity. The flagellar motor is a good example of irreducible complexity. If you were to remove one piece from it, it would stop working. The odds of such genetic mutations taking place to create all those proteins at once are so high, it's impossible.

also, the Cambrian explosion is quite a problem in the fossil record...

Message 54 of 71 (561718) 05-22-2010 5:53 PM

Reply to: Message 52 by agent_509 05-22-2010 5:48 PM

take a look at this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

Edited by hotjer, : No reason given.

Message 55 of 71 (561722) 05-22-2010 6:17 PM

Reply to: Message 52 by agent_509 05-22-2010 5:48 PM

IC is bullshit. Even Behe has acknowledged that the concept is flawed. Behe defines an IC system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

The problem is that evolution very seldom proceeds by the addition of fully functioning parts. Instead, what is often seen is changes in the function of different parts (exaptation), or sometimes, elimination of useless parts. Thus, the very concept is a strawman. It has very little to do with how evolution actually occurs.

You're obviously well behind the curve on this one. This site compiles a number of different problems with the claim that the flagellar motor is IC. Among other points, it shows long list of bacteria that operate quite well in the absence of one or more of the parts that Behe guessed were necessary. It also shows numerous examples of bacteria that use the flagellum in other ways, providing evidence of exaptation.

Quite meaningless, since evolution doesn't proceed by big jumps, but small steps. Moreover, every creo discussion of odds assumes that there is a target result that evolution is trying to achieve. This assumption has no basis in reality.

{AbE

Evolution is accepted by 95% of all practicing scientists. By what definition do you term that a controversy?

{End edit}

BTW, welcome to the site. If you are interested in learning, this is the place to do it. On the other hand, if you are only here to preach ideas about evolution that you heard from some creo or other, you are going to be very frustrated and disappointed by how many misconceptions, errors and lies most creo resources contain.

Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Message 56 of 71 (561723) 05-22-2010 6:17 PM

Reply to: Message 52 by agent_509 05-22-2010 5:48 PM

No so. The controversy is between mainstream science and anti-science fundamentalists trying to drum up controversy.

Among fundamentalists maybe. Whenever a poster comes here and starts throwing the term "Darwinism" about, odds are about 10,000:1 that it is a fundamentalist rather than a scientist.

Perhaps you could tell us why you think this?

Message 57 of 71 (561730) 05-22-2010 6:36 PM

Reply to: Message 52 by agent_509 05-22-2010 5:48 PM

You need to get out more. It's only widely accepted by creationists. Everyone else has a calendar with 2010 on it.

That's your own, is it? You've got a lot of people ripping you off for the credit on that. Your plagiarizers spread it around here so often that it's been given a number: CB200. Michael Behe's book is making a bundle with your idea. Don't waste your time with us. Go after him.

Ouch! got me with ol' CC300 did ya'?

Message 58 of 71 (561733) 05-22-2010 7:40 PM

Reply to: Message 53 by agent_509 05-22-2010 5:51 PM

Denial is one of the first stages of cognitive dissonance when confronted with information that contradicts pet beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance is resolved by recognizing facts for what they are and altering you opinions to be consistent with the evidence. Until this happens, cognitive dissonance will remain, because reality is not a matter of opinion.

Which is a fact: atoms only combine with other atoms in certain very specific manners and only with certain other atoms.

As abiogenesis is not the topic of this thread, that would be innappropriate here. Note that this forum sets a lot of stock on staying on topic on each of the threads, and that if you want to discuss this you can either (a) find an existing thread on abiogenesis or (b) start one.

Is Abiogenesis a fact? and Stanley Miller debunked? are two threads that are still open, or go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

Again, this is false.

(1) there is no controversy in science that (a) evolution is an established science, (b) the process of evolution occurs, and (c) the theory of evolution has not been invalidated.

(2) Darwinism as used within the science of evolution is limited to describing Darwin's theory of descent with modification through the action of natural selection, while evolution in general, and the ToE in particular, incorporate several additional mechanisms that result in the change in type and frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunity. Mutation of genes is one that was unknown in Darwin's time. Neutral drift is another.

You don't need to take my word for it, you can see what Darwins theory is from this page
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/...election/selection.html

And you can see what the modern concept of evolution is from this page
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/...ciation/speciation.html

Note the differences, and also that neither page uses the term "Darwinism".

You can also go to this page and search for "Darwinism" on the whole site
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

Darwinism is a term that is most often misused by creationists that seem to be adverse to discussing evolution within the terminology of science, either because they don't understand it or don't want to understand it.

Now you may think that using the term "Darwinism" strengthens your argument, but it doesn't. It weakens it. Either the term is used correctly to refer only to Darwin's theory, in which case you are only discussing the effect of natural selection and not the rest of evolution, or you are misusing the term and confusing fact with fantasy. In either case the conclusions you reach are necessarily invalid, because you are not dealing with evolution.

And biological evolution is not just the change is some things over time, it is the change in hereditary traits over time by a number of specific mechanisms and processes.

Biological evolution has been observed and is a fact of life. It can be seen in life all around you.

And amusingly, your underinformed opinion is useless in being able to alter reality in any way.

It was Darwin's insight that descent from common ancestors along with the adaptation of beneficial traits in populations from generation to generation was sufficient to explain "the complexity and diversity we see today" ... and there is no evidence that has been found since then to contradict this.

Which is not what is claimed by evolution and the modern theory of evolution.

Scientific theory takes observed facts and then makes a testable hypothesis, forms predictions based on the hypothesis and tests those predictions to see it they hold up.

Today we observe that evolution - the change in type and frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunity - has occurred and is a scientifically established fact.

We also observe that the process of evolution in isolated populations of a parent species results in different evolution in these offspring populations, and that in many instances that this different evolution has resulted in reproductive isolation, where the daughter populations no longer interbreed when they have the opportunity. This process is called speciation, and while it is rare compared to general evolution, it is also a process observed to occur and is a scientifically established fact.

In simple terms the modern theory of evolution can be defined as the theory that evolution and speciation are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from prehistory, from archaeology, paleontology, geology, genetics, chemistry and other sciences.

The fossil evidence is a test of this theory: it is the evidence of what actually occurred in the past. There is no fossil evidence that contradicts this theory.

The genetic evidence is a test of this theory: it is the evidence of hereditary descent from ancestors to modern organisms. There is no genetic evidence that contradicts this theory.

Both these lines of evidence are (1) independent and (2) capable of forming patterns of descent from ancestral populations. The patterns of descent from ancestral populations that emerges from each line of evidence is a nested hierarchy of descent from common ancestor populations. The overall pattern that emerges from the fossil evidence matches the overall pattern derived from the genetic evidence, and this match is powerful validation of the pattern of descent from common ancestor populations, as there is absolutely no reason for these independently derived patterns from independent evidence to match without common ancestry being involved.

Again, this is off-topic on this thread, and if you want to discuss this further you can either (a) find an existing thread on evolution or (b) start one.

If you start one on "the controversy of evolution" it would be most fun.

And you may want to include this page in your reading so you don't keep making foolish assertions that have already been refuted:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
or
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...pic/arguments-we-dont-use

They're called PRATTs for a reason.

Enjoy.

Message 59 of 71 (561746) 05-22-2010 11:20 PM

Reply to: Message 50 by Granny Magda 05-22-2010 5:27 PM

Because it closes the gap for the god of the gaps.

Message 60 of 71 (561762) 05-23-2010 2:22 AM

Reply to: Message 36 by mike the wiz 05-22-2010 7:08 AM

The evolutionists always appeal to science, but they are never doing science as evidenced by your conversations with a few here. You look at the post history and you will see little if any science in there.

They are doing religion, their religion, and they are evangelists for their religion on a crusade.