Evolution has been Disproven

I don't think the moderators are here to protect the easily offended, but each moderator runs his own show. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to say to someone, "You're a fucking good egg!" then that's fine by me, but if they instead say, "You're demonstrating once again that you're an idiot" then I would probably step in.Moderator actions begin as warnings, either general to a thread or specific to an individual as circumstances direct, and escalate to temporary suspensions of posting privileges and ultimately permanent suspensions. Permanent suspensions have been primarily due to violations of rules 2 and 4 of the Forum Guidelines:

2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without further elaboration.

​

4. Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

There are some serious limitations on how much detail can be gone into in a high school level class. I wish more could be discussed. It is important to allow students to understand the real process of science.However, with the limitations what should be taught is the current best consensus ideas. The level of confidence in those ideas would be nice to discuss and support but it is simply too much at the greade school level.In fact, my daughter was taught about right I think. The origin of life was given about 3 paragraphs making it clear that it is unknown right now and one paragraph saying some people believe that a creator did it. The rest of the time was spent on a too light overview of evolution but a not bad attempt in limited time. The origin of life stuff was sandwiched in between geology and biology about where it should be.

off topic I know If that is all you want then you are in good company. The majority of believers are happy with this and even the athiests might be convinced to say "ok, if you want to believe that I don't think anyone can prove you wrong -- yet"That of course, has nothing to do with biology (including the ToE), geology (including the age of the earth), phyics or cosmology. It simple says "An intelligence set up the laws of nature such that the rest followed on." If that is all you want to say then it doesn't seem worth discussing. There ain't going to be any hard evidence one way or the other for a few years yet. If is, as they say, on open question.

quote:

---

I also recall those rules including something about not judging others,

---

A small correction:Actually, the Bible doesn't say that we shouldn't judge others at all.It says that we shouldn't judge others unless we are prepared to be judged ourselves.Carry on.

I haven't had the time to contibute for ages, but Juhrahnimo's post is a shocker....!Juhrahnimo wrote: The originators of your religion knew that it was totally unconvincing and so they gave you guys a heads-up for the flak you would cop. Pretty sensible "prophecy". Most religions have an explaination for the why many people will reject them.... such rejection is never admitted to be a failing of that religion You actually got pretty well demolished. As Questzal said, you've just moved the goalposts. You were rebutted on the issue of chirality, so you've gone for the "but what about, but what about" approach in the hope of hitting some fringe area of scientific knowledge (like abiogenesis) where your frightened God of the Gaps resides. Hmm, big lie? Evolution is entirely open to scrutiny. The claims, facts and data are available for you to test and scrutiny and if your up to it, you could try to write a peer reviewed article that rebutts it. Your have all the motivation in the world to try: money, fame and the furtherance of your religious beliefs. That you guys never use the avenues of science to further your objectives is somewhat telling!On the other hand your are encouraged to take religion on faith and strictly prohibited from testing it's tenets. Well I have tested it anyway: and it fails from the born-again baptismal process, glossolalia, faith healing, and the power of prayer. In return why don't you test science: try aircraft travel, modern telecommunications, or just use your computer and you may also wish to avail yourself of a significantly greater life expectancy thanks to modern medicine. Hmmm, which one is the lie: the one providing demonstrable knowledge or the one merely providing an emotionally satisfying response to the fear of death? Again, science is open to scrutiny and testing, religion is not. When religion is tested anyway, it repeatedly fails. Which one is likely to be true then? Hmmm. Jar's argument is compelling sound.Where exactly is your God of the Gaps sitting now? Does this God make these sodium cubes or did he just set everything (the laws of the universe) so that these things can happen without his input?If you God still makes everything happen (and nothing happens without him) then God can simply be redefined as "Nature" or naturalistic processes or the laws of the universe.If your God set everything up (intelligent design), then when did he set things up and how much now continues without his input? If sodium forms a cube now in compliance with the laws of the universe without his input, then why is not life the same? Maybe God merely started the ball of evolution rolling.Your God of the Gaps can happily reside in abiogenesis or other fringe areas of scientific knowledge... for the time being. Just be prepared to hide him away again when we solve this puzzle.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 02-09-2005 22:13 AM

What`s with this fascination with using the word ‘random’, like atoms/molecules/amino acids are wandering around like lost sheep in a neutral world waiting to bump into something reactive and start things happening. Consider the human body today. Not only is it under assault from gravity, electro-magnetic fields, heat, pressure, radiation, weather effects (wind, rain, snow), and earth processes like `quakes, but internally from dehydration, lack (or surplus for some) of fuel, variation in air quality, radon gas, dust particulates, injury, viral and bacterial effects, encounters with reactive elements and compounds to name a range.
While we are still trying to assemble the natural factors at work in a primeval world, I sure they were influential in setting the first cells in motion, and preclude the vision of random chemicals blowing in the wind, unaffected by natural forces.
I think we have done a damn fine job with a posteriori reasoning with limited evidence and time-spans of millions of years to assemble a coherent theory (Evolution) to fit the facts. Creationists often lob on the scene with 'You can`t explain this' as if scientific theories are iron-clad and complete, instead of a work in progress compiled in a relatively short period of time compared with mainstream religion. Give science another hundred years and come back with questions about abiogenesis.

Since your response to me is by FAR the most pathetic, I'll respond to you.First: YOU guys moved the goalposts by admitting that L-amino acids can't form by themselves as life would require. To solve this little difficulty, you came up with a mechanism that MADE the amino acids; RNA. So, since that was the ball you tossed me, I ran with that (so as not to insult anyone). So "where did the RNA come from, along with it's amazing capabilities?" was basically my next question. Your problem hasn't changed; you just keep drawing more "dots" and then connecting lines. Sort of like telling a lie, then having to tell another one to cover the first one. And then another to cover the previous one, and so forth. Your problem though, hasn't changed; you can't get this stuff by accident! So what if they can make RNA in a lab? They can build a Chrysler in a factory, but that doesn't mean you can expect to find Chryslers popping up out of the ground like mushrooms in some forest.Your quote: Your just going over the same thing. I'M not moving goal posts; YOU're coming up with sillier ideas to cover silly ones. Words like "premise" are dead giveaways that your heros have absolutely NO CLUE as to what really happened; they just HAVE to come up with at lease SOMETHING that sounds scientific so they don't lose their government research grants.And: Totally ludicrous, don't you see? I'm starting to think that you're not even READING what you cut and paste. You may even just be a sensationalist who enjoys complex ideas, even if there's no other reason for it. But simply posting the above quote (cut and paste) in hopes of supporting your argument shows that YOU DIDN'T READ it. The mechanisms that you describe requires INFORMATION and CODING (see your own post). So WHERE did this "information" COME FROM, and HOW was it ENCODED? And how was the CODE determined? And, once you have THAT problem solved, I'll let you explain where the DE-CODING system came from and HOW did they chemically evolve simultaneously and so conveniently. If you develop a code and start transmitting a "happy birthday" message across the country, WHO will know what your message is if nobody knows HOW to DE-CODE? You're chasing your own tail.And: Again, HOW did the RNA "machine" develop its amazing capabilities? The chocolate ice-cream from elephant tusks sounds much more plausible than what you're trying to tell me. Actually, maybe not. The elephant tusk thing isn't weird enough to qualify for a government grant. I might have to re-think that theory a little. Same thing. Do you see a pattern here? For this guy's crazy ideas to work, it REQUIRES a mechanism that can ENCODE GENETIC INFORMATION and, obviously another mechanism to DECODE. Where do these capabilities come from, and how does this mechanism decide WHAT INFORMATION TO ENCODE? Keep'em coming; I've got one of these for every one of yours. Or, on second thought, nevermind. You're already proven my point. I thought you knew that, since you seemed so knowledgable about this subject. But simply because you brought that question up, I can now only presume that you have no idea what you're talking about in this area. Sorry I wasted my time with you. Please learn your subject matter next time before you start cutting and pasting.

You are ranting a bit. You need to read what is posted and be sure you understand it. It looks silly when you demonstrate that you haven't.

So, you're saying that we don't have a clue, at the moment? That our current theories are a joke (even humorous)? If you're not saying that, then consider me as having said it. But if you DO say it, then I'll give you the credit for having said it, no problem.Oh, and thank you for saying that.

Ned, puhleez. How is it that you always notice that I'm ranting, but don't notice when the folks from your camp rant? Your favoritism is showing again. I would appreciate a little more consistency, please. If we're ranting, tell us. Don't single out those who don't support your views.

Have you been reading? There are, in fact, clues. It appears you don't understand them but they are clues none-the-less.As noted:
1) amino acids from naturally, they even occur in space.
2) a surprisingly simple RNA chain is capable of self catalyzation.These are two of the jig saw puzzle pieces that have to be assembled into a complete picture. We are saying, and have said a bunch of times, that we don't have that picture right now. That is not the same as saying we don't have a clue.I take it that when a mechanism for abiogenesis is demonstrated you will renounce your faith. That is the logical conclusion that one would draw from your ranting on this topic.Those with a strong, truely spiritual faith do not need to have science supply the foundations for it. Those with a weak, magic and mumbo-jumbo kind of faith seem to need all the help they can get.

I'm sure others will be ranting soon too. I'm getting there since you seem to have a problem following the information presented to you.

I'm sure Quetzal read it, I'm just not sure that you understand it. A ribozyme is RNA. Some ribozymes can catalyze the replication of RNA, and the production of RNA building blocks from smaller molecules.In other words, RNA produces RNA building blocks that are put together to replicate RNA. It's all RNA. There is no need for a complex coding and decoding machinery for what Quetzal is referring to.A single, self-replicating strand of RNA is the code and the catalyst.The way scientists first produced, and continue to explore, the catalytic activity of such RNAs is by synthesizing millions of short RNA strands of random sequence, and then selecting the ones with activity.But you ask: The argument that scientists intelligently designed these RNAs is not valid, since they did not predict or produce the sequence. That is, scientists were NOT able to design catalytic RNAs, but random production and selection were able to produce them. Again, self-replicating RNAs do not need encoding/decoding machinery. There is no "decision" for "what information to encode", it is merely chemical reactions. Short RNA strands capable of catalyzing their own replication do so. No higher information, no complex cellular machinery.Hopefully that clears up your misconceptions a bit.

Would you like to find a thread to define this?Someone has been asked for their definition today IIRC. Was that you?If you want to use terms then you need to be able to define them.

And: I think the topics that are being confused are "Evolution" and "Evolution". The two terms are being used interchangeably by your camp. One means (contextually) micro/macro evolution, and the other means (contextually) chemical evolution. Your camp usually is quick to point out that MME has nothing to do with the origin of life (without mentioning CE), but then that's where the discussion always ends up somehow. Maybe evolution DOES have something to do with evolution after all, despite evolutionists shying away from the orgin of life (CE). I mean, read the posts from the folks in your camp; its as if they don't read each other's stuff. Not according to Quetzal. He acts like creationists are stupid for not understanding his fantasy fiction ideas of how life could have begun. Of COURSE they haven't a clue. So who are these guys who think they have it figured out? Of course, no one SAYS verbatim that they have it figured out; but they act like it. Remember THE CORE: "....just say it together with me; I DON'T KNOW....". Yes, your humor (like your Woody Allen picture) never ceases to amaze me. Or are you just testing me to see if I would catch that? That's exactly the kind stuff Brad McFall pulls on people (and he is BRILLIANT, I might add) for a living. Sayyyy.... maybe you're... Yes, it's starting to add up now. Nawwwww... it COULDN'T be! Could it? C'MONNNNNN!