Where is the evidence for evolution?

Compmage said:"abiogenisis has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution"Wrong.Er, peer reviewed reference please or shut your illogical piehole.However, I did enjoy your fairy tale on the origin of life. Care to back up (another ) unfounded assertion with legitimate peer reviewed literature or are we to assume you are citing yourself on this one?

quote:

---

When a Creationist says, "Evolution is impossible because life couldn't come from non-life," then it must be explained that evolution and abiogenesis are separate theories

---

Why? That's a non-answer Percy, which clearly indicates a concession from the evolutionist that the creationist is correct on this point. The explanation of how non-life (a molten rock) creates life by itself is the logical imperative of evolution. Thus, it would be more profitable to scientifically explain, with the requisite peer-reviewed references of course, the possibility of non-life creating life naturally. Until then, the whole theory is suspect and the true skeptic will continue to wonder if such an event is even scientifically plausable under the circumstances of the naturalistic philosophy of evolution. Holding a belief in the clearly unnatural event of abiogenesis is as scientifically unreasonable as special creation. Science allows neither.Meanwhile, SLPx's lottery example is as spurious an analogy one will ever come across. Comparing the mutations of populations with the non-populations of abiogenesis which have no mutations doesn't work. Even so, the alleged result of abiogenesis is a single self-reproducing organism yet to be defined (it has been said that later on it will turn into a fish, then a reptile, a mammal, a dinosaur, a bird, a banana, then a human). As such, there wouldn't be "millions of chances" each second on this one organism which randomly created itself from a molten rock; rather, the probability of evolutionary success would be defined in part by its reproductive cycle, which no one is saying occurs millions of times a second. Getting back to abiogenesis:Where is the line of demarcation between abiogenesis and evolution?Consider that 100 million chances a second for [precicely what to occur?]the infinite probability of abiogenesis even occurring is still a goose egg. Perhaps "millions of chances each second" (er, reference here please? or are we to assume this is a closely held non-scientific belief like the creationist?) referred to another phenomenon besides abiogenesis? Anyway, add that we don't have millions of seconds to work with since abiogenesis was apparently the most opportunistic of all events in the universe; re: without undue delay, taking advantage of the very earliest time possible to create itself from a rapidly cooling molten rock. In short, abiogenesis didn't have very much time to be such a huge success.Most important, the bastard child of abiogenesis couldn't survive anyway, much less reproduce itself to create a population.It is indeed a Thorn in the Side for the evolutionist.Ouch! However, I do admire the tenacious faith of the evolutionist in this area in light of the voluminous lack of evidence for abiogenesis.

Karl,So you agree that abiogenesis is as viable as special creation?Are you now willing to embrace Intelligent Design and teach the same alongside abiogenesis?Until you are, the only permissible logical imperative of evolution will continue to be abiogenesis.It is nice to see an evolutionist open his/her mind to the possibility however. If only the olive branch was sincerely offered....

You people are the ones saying that abiogenesis and evolution are different.I guess with no line of demarcation, they are the same. My point was to help you see the issue clearer since you failed to provide peer reviewed literature to back up your unsupported beliefs.Meanwhile, archaic languages are the foundations for the study of linguistics, and the theories for how languages developed to their present state.Which unwittingly proves my point about abiogenesis being an imperative of evolution.

Dr. Borger,A new book just came out you may be interested in, it's called "Acquiring Genomes" (Margulis and Sagan, 2002). The book is written by evolutionists, includes a forward by Ernst Mayr, and makes the tacit admission that the NeoDarwinist Mechanism (NRM + NS) is bunk. More "dissent" within the ToE I guess, but don't look for these guys posting here to jump ship just yet. They must wait until the majority of scientists start believing in another theory before announcing their defectorship. Too difficult to think about it yourself you know.Anyway, I thought you'd be interested. Here's some text lifted from the book everyone can flame over:

quote:

---

Random mutation is wildly overemphasized as a source of hereditary variation. Mutations are inducible...none lead to new organisms. Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues ... 99.9 percent of mutations are deleterious. Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally introduced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change.

​

The major source of evolutionary change is not random mutation. Random mutation, a small part of the evolutionary saga, has been dogmatically overemphasized...

​

The terminology of most modern evolutionists is not only fallacious but dangerously so, because it leads people to think they know about the evolution of life when in fact they are confused and baffled

---

I guess it could be said that the Theory of Evolution is itself defined as "Dissent, with Modification"...The heresy![This message has been edited by Zephan, 03-13-2003]

quote:

---

Did the evidence they provided meet your standards? And if so, how was it different from any other scientific evidence?

---

Read again. Those were conclusions, not evidence. I just happen to agree with those conclusions based on the evidence and lack thereof.You people never did provide a peer-reviewed definition of evidence, "scientific" or otherwise. We were looking for an objective definition of evidence, which you failed to provide at any time. Thus, you are incorrect again to imply that evidence must meet my personal subjective standards. Recall that real evidence is objective. We went over that before.

quote:

---

You never did explain what criteria you feel are valid for considering something as 'evidence' - you abandoned the thread when 1. your old identity was reveraled and 2. nobody was buying your piffle.

---

My intent was to expose your utter lack of understanding of the concept of real evidence. I did so quite effectively. In fact, it caused at least one of you to have an imaginary conversation with himself. That was funny!"What is evidence?" was of course my question FIRST, and turning it around (shifting the burden of proof - a tactic impermissible to the dictates of the establishment of real evidence, but how would you know?) and asking me something I already know the answer to does little to establish you have a working knowledge of the concept.Therefore, I and the other enlightened beings who are keenly aware of what real evidence is (i.e. the experts in evidence), continue to laugh whenever people like Schraffy, SLPx, et al rely on a concept they are simply unable to satisfactorily define or demonstrate their understanding of the concept.Accordingly, I was merely suggesting that you shouldn't use a word like "evidence" if you are unable to satisfactorily articulate its meaning.And, btw, my "real" identity has never been revealed, just like you never defined "real" evidence. Keep using the word "evidence" though. It's been entertaining to observe you people struggle with the concept.In short, you have no argument unless and until you can provide a working definition of evidence OR until you can put forth an argument without relying on the word "evidence".

quote:

---

Care to try again?

---

That's up to you. You are the one ignorant of what evidence is, not me tough guy.

quote:

---

or will you just flame and run away as is your usual game?

---

I'll continue to be around to demolish any self-serving subjective definition of evidence you care to put forth for the express purpose of exposing just how ignorant you are of the concept. You have just been too embarassed yourself to even attempt to define the word. Silence is tantamount to acquiescing to my point.Props to Percy though. He at least tried to define the word, although he did become a bit hysterical when it was clearly demonstrated his definition fell far short of anything remotely usable as an objective framework for analyzing facts not in dispute.Run along now.

I still agree with that fine evolutionist, Margulis, and Ernst Mayr's opinion that Margulis is brilliantly forging ahead with ground-breaking material:

quote:

---

Random mutation is wildly overemphasized as a source of hereditary variation. Mutations are inducible...none lead to new organisms. Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues ... 99.9 percent of mutations are deleterious. Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally introduced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change.

​

The major source of evolutionary change is not random mutation. Random mutation, a small part of the evolutionary saga, has been dogmatically overemphasized...

​

The terminology of most modern evolutionists is not only fallacious but dangerously so, because it leads people to think they know about the evolution of life when in fact they are confused and baffled

---

Quetzel, nor anyone else on this board disseminating the similar evo-piffle Margulis is referring to above, never addressed these points in his quite irrelevant analysis of her book.What is more telling, however, is that Quetzel claims to have read the book last year, but remained suspiciously silent as to the damning revelations contained in Margulis' Book, supra.Guess Q was just embarrassed to reveal the fact that Evo-Scientists far more qualified than himself or any other poster on this board agrees with the patently obvious that Neo Darwinism is DEAD, i.e. bunk. And that the superb evolutionist, Margulis, finds the arguments supporting Neo-Darwinism's alleged and vehemently defended mechanism of mutation quite contradictory to the evidence or lack thereof.See above quote from qualified evolutionist who knows better the landscape of evolutionary science than anyone here.And, according to SLPx, Margulis' statement is evidence we should all believe since SLPx seems to believe that evidence is whatever evo-scientists say it is!!!