New Questions--moral perspective

So is gravity. Care to jump off a bridge? Wrong again. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observation, experimentation, and physical evidence, which is falsifiable and makes testable, accurate predictions.Creationism is superstition, on the other hand. It's been done. Why don't you pick up Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory? Of course, it's 1200 pages long.In the meantime you can explain why the genetic evidence and the fossil evidence correspond so accurately if the evolutionary account isn't in fact true.

There's not, though. The vast majority of biologists and paleontologists agree that the evolutionary model is an accurate picture of thehistory of life on earth. Done so. All you have to do is convince me with evidence and I'll become a creationist. I promise.

Yeah, I love these guys who come on and think that "hey, consider the alternatives!" is all it will take to get us to abandon evolutionism; as though we're going to do over years of research and consideration just because they told us to.Well, ok. Here I am, folks, looking at the alternatives. I'm looking.... I'm looking.. yup. Evolution is still the best explanation.

Based on what training, exactly? Forgive me, but from where I'm from, you actually have to be knowledgable in a subject before your criticisms of it are to be taken seriously.I'm not expecting you to just bow before a book. What I'm expecting you to do is have some knowledge about the theory you think is wrong. After all I didn't come to the conclusion that creationism was bogus until I knew creationism inside and out. Did you try reading it? Just curious. After all it wasn't the page length that I had hoped would convince you but rather the copious scientific evidence within. Instead of looking at quotes about the fossil record, why don't you look at the record? The entire record is evidence for evolution. In fact, just like you, I can prove it with a quote:

quote:

---

The entire record is evidence for evolution. - Crashfrog, 2004

---

Hrm, maybe quotes aren't a good way to prove what's real and what's not, eh?How about you look at the copious examples of transitional vertebrate fossils in the fossil record? Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQAgain, quotes don't constitute evidence. The truth is there's great concordinance between patterns of descent inferred from the genetics of organisms and the patterns inferred from the fossil record.

What are you talking about? There's a vast amount of known transitional vertebrate fossils. Didn't you read the link? Pardon me but I'm inclined to accept the evidence right in front of my face over the words of folks telling me that what I'm looking at isn't really there.

They're not evidence. Any person can say anything they want. In fact you could concievably write anything you please and attribute it to whatever source you cared to.Quotes aren't an argument. Just because somebody says a think is so, doesn't mean that it is. You need to quote from primary sources - published, peer-reviewed scientific journals. What do you think the credibility of the World Book Encyclopedia from 1966 is in regards to advanced biological science? Not high, because it's not a primary source. Yes, but that's not what supports it for me. It's supported by peer-reviewed, primary sources. You didn't present a credible argument. You presented a fallacious argument from authority.

Oh, I won't, trust me. You'd know that I wouldn't do that if you'd actually present an argument. No, I expect you to believe it because they've supported their arguments from primary, peer-reviewed research. Do the same and I'll pay attention to your arguments, too. You mean the one that showed that simple, inorganic chemistry can, under specific conditions, create molecules that previously, were known only to come from living organic chemistry?Yes, very interesting, but it neither proves nor disproves any model of abiogenesis. So I don't see the relevance, here. Also, the experiment was performed in what, the 50's? Don't you have anything more recent to talk about? How about this article from PubMed?

quote:

---

Deterministic hypotheses on the origin of life and of its reproduction.

​

Berger G.

​

14 Impasse des Carpeaux, Perigny Sur Yerres, France.

​

The current theory of the origin of life by random polymerisation and selection of nucleic acids is challenged by the hypothesis that the primitive enzymatic sites would have been formed by abiotic polymerisation of aminoacids, specifically gathered (by saline, hydrogen, or hydrophobic interactions), around the different substrates. The information contained in these proteinoids would have been transferred to messenger-like RNAs by a mechanism reverse of that of the present protein synthesis, and then to DNA. The interactions between aminoacids and nucleotidic sequences would have been at the origin of the genetic code, as hypothesized by several authors. We propose that the specificity of the bindings would have been enhanced and 'frozen' by ternary associations with specific proteinoids (future aminoacyl tRNA synthetases). The role of chance would have been limited to the supply of the products and to the determination of the conditions of reaction. Thermodynamic considerations (dissipation of the free enthalpy through enzymatic activities) may explain the emergence of the biological systems.

---

How come you act like the Miller Experiment was the last thing to happen in the Origin of Life research? Hardly. Darwinian Evolution is simply the position that the current diversity of organisms on Earth is best explained through a model of common descent and modification via natural selection and random mutation.Gosh, for a guy who claimed that he used to be an evolutionist, how come you know so little about the theory?

So you keep saying, but then why did you mistate it so completely? You may very well have been an evolutionist, but you show no signs of any kind of authentic biological instruction. No, my argument is that you're making the Miller Experiment out to be the be-all-end-all of abiogenesis research, and it's not. There's been over 50 subsequent years of research into the subject, none of which you appear familiar with. You can try to discredit the experiment all you like but within the limits of what it set out to prove - that organic molecules can come from inorganic processes - the experiment was successful, groundbreaking, and unassailiable.Did you have a comment on the abstract I cited? I thought it was very interesting. Not at all. Evolution works regardless of where that first life comes from. The theory doesn't change if the first living thing came from Earth, or from Mars, or from God. It's still the same theory no matter what.If you want to disprove evolution then you have to prove that the mechanisms of evolution can't give rise to the diversity of species on Earth. You're just using abiogenesis as a smokescreen. Since oxygen on Earth is the result of living photosynthesis, what makes you think oxygen would be present at the formation of life? This appears to be a poorly-concieved objection.

Wait, which is it? Do they rarely occur or do they never occur?Well, the answer is that they do occur: Are Mutations Harmful?so I don't understand your objection. Perhaps you're misinformed? There's more than enough evidence of mutations leading to greater complexity. Of course, no single mutation can lead to a new species. It takes reproductive isolation and an accumulation of mutations to result in speciation.

Except that it's very likely that the first living thing came into existence near the bottom of the sea.So, so much for your UV light. It simply doesn't penetrate at that depth. I would hardly call 55% a "vast majority". And that's just looking at the biologists. It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion based on data. Specifically, the data of the repeated mistakes and inaccuracies you promulgate in regards to the theory. No, of course not. It's a contest to see who can support their position with evidence. And what's becoming increasingly clear is that you're pretty unaware of the evidence for evolution, yet you feel totally comfortable criticising the theory. Personally that bespeaks of a level of personal arrogance that I simply find unbelievable. We've said nothing about your intellect. Simply your education. It's possible that you're smarter than all of us put together. But it's obvious that we're considerably better informed on these scientific issues than you. Observed Instances of SpeciationComplexity? What's that? How would you measure it in an organism? Yet, the very same increase in "complexity" - additional copies of chromosomes - in plants lead to bigger, stronger plants with larger, jucier fruit. So clearly some "increases in complexity" are beneficial.

Humble?You've taken a position against a theory that you've made very clear that you don't understand. How is that humble? That's the very height of arrogance!

You must have missed the FAQ I pointed you to: Observed Instances of SpeciationShort of that, would you accept Answers In Genesis on the subject?

quote:

---

Other examples of rapid adaptation, even to the extent of producing ‘new species’speciationabound...

​

Not long ago, evolutionists were astonished to find that bird-biting mosquitoes, which moved into the London Underground train network (and are now biting humans and rats instead), have already become a separate species...

​

Such variation can even be sufficient to prevent two groups from interbreeding with each other any more, thus forming new ‘species’ by definition...

---

from Missing Link | Answers in Genesis So you see, the evidence that speciation occurs is so compelling that even a leading Creationist organization is forced to agree that it occurs. So then you admit there's no evidence we could give you that would convince you of natural abiogenesis? If we can't do it in the lab, that proves it can't happen? And if we can do it in the lab, that proves that it can't happen either?How convinient for you. You've adopted a position that can't be falsified by any data. Now, can you give us a reason why we should bother to talk to you if you've set yourself impervious to sense?

It's as proven as any other theory, including the Theory of Relativity, the Kinetic Theory of Gases, and the Germ Theory of Disease. Do you object to teaching those in school, too?

Whew, good thing. I was about to respond to your mish-mash of half-truths, lies, insults, and flat-out errors with well-reasoned, well-supported arguments delivered in the height of civility.But now I'm glad I don't have to, because that would have been a lot of work. I guess it's a lot easier for you to cut and run before your arguements are torn to ribbons, right? No shit.