DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1

Can evolution explain the orign of life. NO!
Then the theories foundations are not solid.Can it explain how a single cell began to evolve and become more complex. How information was increased?

It doesn't even DEAL with the origins of life. How does attacking something it never even mentioned mean it doesn't have solid foundations?

Why would it? Since that's a question of chemistry, and evolution is a theory of biology.That's like asking if the germ theory of disease explains how computers work. Of course not; those are two different fields. The foundations of the theory are observation, hypothesis, and experimentation; these foundations are the rock-solid bed upon which all science and all of science's fruit rest. Natural selection and random mutation. Natural selection and random mutation, two processes that have been proven to increase information.

You are absolutely correct. Evolution does NOT try to explain the origin of life, therefore the fact that is does NOT explain the origin of life say NOTHING about the solidity of its foundations...Try finding out what the theory is before you try to discredit it - seriously.

Guys, I suspect very much that Nasa is a troll. When she first signed up, she began to start about 5 threads per day in the coffee house regarding topics that really belonged to other forums that required for her to propose the topics. She has shown little to no evidence of coherent thoughts. In fact, she's been violating just about every logical fallicy that I can think of.I must conclude that she is either a very bad case of creationist dogma gone wild or she is just pushing our buttons.As the old saying goes, don't feed the troll!

---

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

Message 14 has nothing to do with the topic - And I wish others wouldn't respond to such things, other than (perhaps) with the simple statement "off-topic".Nasa's posting priviledges have been set to (if everthing works correctly) restricting him/her to posting only in the "Suggestions and Questions" forum. This forum just happens to be the home of the complaints about moderation topic, which is titled "Change in Moderation?". The link to it is in my "signature", below.This topic is toast. Closing it.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

Perhaps I should have left it closed for longer, for stronger effect.Anyway, by request, the topic has been reopened. Please confine your messages to material relating to message 1, and not the later off-topic digressions.AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-10-2004 02:48 AM

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
Thread Reopen Requests

quote:

---

Judging by the responses thus far, I think it can be conceded that Darwin not only believed in the process of macroevolution, but that he saw it as the best explanation for the origin of species.

---

Thank you for noticing the error of your ways. Now, what makes you think that the quotes you are using now are more trustworthy than your first. Secondly, are the people you are actually quoting involved in biological or evolutionary research? Or, are they electrical engineers and non-biologists who are making these statements because of their religious convictions.What it comes down to is why should we listen to people who don't even understand the basis of the theory of evolution? Why should we listen to creationists who have a track record of lying, misrepresenting data, and misquoting well meaning and upstanding scientists? How about we do something different. You show us the objective evidence that falsifies evolution. Objective evidence is how the theory is supported in the first place. Evolution is NOT falsified by soundbites from misquoted scientists.Secondly, you must show how the belief in fairies is the same as the belief in the theory of gravity. You must show us how fairytales and scientific theories (such as gravity, germ theory, quantum theory) differ and then show how evolution is more like fairytales than these other scientific theories.

quote:

---

I have no doubt that as we progress through the thousands of available quotes exposing macroevolution for what it is, a myth of gigantic proportions, that the truth will be made known and the occasional truly openminded individual who passes through EVC will go their way having been made more aware of the enormous fallacies so inherent in the theory of evolution, at least where the myth of macroevolution is concerned.

---

What does the evidence say, DarkStar? Why are you afraid to tackle the evidence and instead rely upon quotes?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-10-2004 12:36 PM

Message 12, please, DarkStar.

Not only is evolution a medieval belief, it is an ancient one. http://library.thinkquest.org/18757/historyofevolution.htm What is the difference between the first living entity, or the origin of life as you put it, and the origin of species? Was not the first living thing the very first of it's own species? How narrowly do you define the term species?I have never understood how the two, origins of life and origins of species, can be separated. Even if one insists upon ignoring the initial move from a non-living entity to a living entity, once life emerged, the theory of evolution must acknowledge that moment as it's own beginning point or it is a useless theory. That simply is not true. Darwins own little piece of the pie may date back to that point but to claim that Darwin suddenly came up with this idea out of the blue, and that nothing that he claimed had ever been claimed before is to simply attempt to rewrite history.Even since Darwins time, evolutionary thinking has evolved, just as it had been evolving for over two millenia and just as it will continual to evolve. Evolutionary thinking must continually evolve or the theory risks collapse under the weight of it's own fallacies.Now when I speak so negatively about the theory of evolution, it must be understood that I am only referring to the myth of macroevolution and not the well established fact of microevolution.Living entities either learn to adapt to their environment or they die out, sometimes becoming totally extinct as a species, genus, family, kind, etc., never to rise again. However, they never become anything they have not always been, and the fossil record confirms this fact.

---

Ok crash, let's stick to the first quote. Please, if you are able, supply for us the entire text of the letter in question so that we can more appropriately address exactly what Darwins point was throughout the letter. I would supply it myself but I have still been unable to find it. My intention is not to mislead anyone, I hope your intentions are the same. My intention is to discover why so many scientists make condemnatory statements about the theory of evolution, meaning of course the myth of macroevolution.

---

It wasn't difficult to find an online copy of the Darwin/Gray letter of Sept 5, 1857.Best Paytm Cash Earning Games in India | Free Apps to Win Cash onlineHere is the home page to the Darwin Correspondence ProjectPage not found | Cambridge University Library

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

How about, instead of attempting to change the subject, you defend your own assertion that the letter refers to Darwin's theory of evolution and not speculations in regards to the extinction of certain species. Then why did you claim that Darwin was speaking of evolution, when you knew that he was not?

Darkstar,Please respond to my previous post when you get a chance:
http://EvC Forum: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1 -->EvC Forum: DarkStar's Collection of Quotations - Number 1Thanks.

There are at least a couple major problems with this argument. First, the Medieval period didn't begin until at least 500 AD. One of the reasons this period is also referred to as the Dark Ages is because it wasn't informed by ancient Greek learning. There was no theory of evolution in the Medieval period. It wasn't until the Enlightenment, around 1500 AD, that Greek learning was rediscovered.The second major problem is that the Greeks didn't have a theory of evolution. What your passage is probably referring to is Aristotle's Chain of Being, but he believed in the fixity of species. The problem of transitions is not unique to biology. When do hills become mountains? When do harbors become seas? When do boys become men? There's rarely a clear line of demarcation.For abiogenesis and evolution the question is when does non-life become life? The answer is, "We don't know." Since we don't know the details of the process of how life arose, we can't examine the transitional stages and make a judgment, because we have no idea what those transitional stages were.We also separate abiogenesis and evolution because the modern synthetic theory of evolution (meaning the synthesis in the 1920's between evolution and genetics) is based upon DNA, and though we can't know for sure, it's generally believed the first life did not use DNA. Certainly it was much more chemical than biological.There's also a class of Creationist who believes God created the first life, but then evolution produced the sequence of species that came after. This view requires a separation of the origin of life, a divine work, from the origin of species, a natural process. The concept of evolution is not attributed to Darwin. Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, embraced the concept, as did Lamarck. Darwin's unique contribution were the concepts of natural selection and descent with modification. Once again you've encountered the issues of transitions and boundaries. How does an organism's genome "know" when it has experienced as much microevolution as is permitted, so that it is unable to evolve any further from the central core "kind"?--Percy