Creation vs. Evolution

[Gawaher]

[Citation Needed]

Also, it's evolution, not darwinism.

Can this help ?
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/what_darwin_got_wrong_jerry_fodor/

 

[Gawaher]

Everything anybody knows about life on the planet points to species developing from other species over immense amounts of time, all the way back to the first "organic" chemicals. The body of "proof" is basically everything around you, and DNA leaves a trail that's marked more clearly than any road signs ever could have done.

The insistence so many people have that "No, that just can't possibly happen" is beyond absurd.

Evolution is a Theory (remember, the highest level of acceptance you can give a scientific concept) because all of the known evidence fits, and it explains all of the known evidence.

All anyone has to do to debunk Evolution as we understand it is to produce one single solitary piece of evidence, like a fossil or a DNA sequence, that couldn't possibly be interpreted to belong in the map of species that we have. Just one! Where is it? Why is it so hard to find? Just one organism whose DNA has nothing shared with any other plant or animal. Perhaps an organism that doesn't even have DNA.

All of the stuff we have found supports Evolution, and not a single solitary piece of anything shows Evolution to be "pseudoscience."

I find it vaguely amusing that the term "pseudoscience" was probably coined by someone who had not the faintest notion what science actually is. Without understanding science, who is this person to tell us that our science is false???!?!?!

Can you enlighten me more, Having DNA= I came from a microbe-like organism ?

 

[Gawaher]

[Citation Needed]

Also, it's evolution, not darwinism.

something was given but post count may require moderator approval.

 

[Scaff]

Can this help ?
http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/what_darwin_got_wrong_jerry_fodor/

Approved for posting.


Oh and rebuted:

http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2010/02/23/jerry-fodor-still-getting-it-w/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/What_Darwin_Got_Wrong

Evolution is not pseudoscience and I do love that your attempt to prove it is is not from a biologist or scientist from within the field its self, but rather from a source that has been widely and roundly disproved by those who are in the field.


In addition please don't double post and I also strongly suggest you read the entire thread before asking questions that have been covered a number of times already, particularly as your desperate enough to try and use Jerry Fodor to attempt to illustrate Evolution as a pseudoscience.

 

[Spoil-t]

*puts flame suit on & braces* Sorry but people who don't believe in evolution are idiots. Man wasn't dropped onto this planet. Science proves this 110%. There's no debate in the matter.

 

[DK]

*puts flame suit on & braces* Sorry but people who don't believe in evolution are idiots. Man wasn't dropped onto this planet. Science proves this 110%. There's no debate in the matter.

Reminds me of this quote that popped up on my Twitter feed:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>You can't have a "view" on the age of the universe - it's like having a "view" on the distance between London and Manchester</p>&mdash; Brian Cox (@ProfBrianCox) <a href="https://twitter.com/ProfBrianCox/status/314737047518732288">March 21, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

EDIT: Can't embed Tweets, this will have to do:

You can't have a "view" on the age of the universe - it's like having a "view" on the distance between London and Manchester

 

[Scaff]

*puts flame suit on & braces* Sorry but people who don't believe in evolution are idiots. Man wasn't dropped onto this planet. Science proves this 110%. There's no debate in the matter.

From the AUP:

You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

Please ensure all your future posts follow it.

 

[arora]

Science proves this 110%. There's no debate in the matter.

That sounds very scientific.

EDIT: oops I did not read Scaff's post, I frequently skip over them lol. Anyway not trying to fuel any fire, just thought the 110 part was funny.

 

[Gawaher]

Approved for posting.


Oh and rebuted:

http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2010/02/23/jerry-fodor-still-getting-it-w/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/What_Darwin_Got_Wrong

Evolution is not pseudoscience and I do love that your attempt to prove it is is not from a biologist or scientist from within the field its self, but rather from a source that has been widely and roundly disproved by those who are in the field.


In addition please don't double post and I also strongly suggest you read the entire thread before asking questions that have been covered a number of times already, particularly as your desperate enough to try and use Jerry Fodor to attempt to illustrate Evolution as a pseudoscience.

Can you tell me your criteria for scientists who can be accepted in your opinion ?
What about this one ?

& Please don't try to convince me that abiogenesis is not a pre-requisite for darwinism.
Thank you

 

[DK]

Please don't try to convince me that abiogenesis is not a pre-requisite for darwinism.

It isn't. Darwin simply outlined how evolution occurs, strictly speaking evolution doesn't cover, nor does it try to cover, the origin of life itself.

Also, speaking of Fred Hoyle...

 

[photonrider]

Life was first brought to Earth in the form of bacterial cells by comets nearly four billion years ago. The subsequent evolution from single-celled microbes to the marvellous tapestry of life we see today was dictated by later additions of bacterial and viral genes from comets. This is the essence of the theory of cometary panspermia first developed by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe over 30 years ago, and published in a long series of articles in Astrophysics and Space Science and in several monographs.

Isn't cometary panspermia kind of old news by now?

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/research/bcab/news

Keep digging, Curiosity.

 

[Gawaher]

It isn't. Darwin simply outlined how evolution occurs, strictly speaking evolution doesn't cover, nor does it try to cover, the origin of life itself.

Also, speaking of Fred Hoyle...

Are you trying to convince me
Abiogenesis is a must.Otherwise the whole theory is speculation upon another. Do you smell slippery slope here ?
Thanks for the link.

 

[DK]

Are you trying to convince me
Abiogenesis is a must. Otherwise the whole theory is speculation upon another. Do you smell slippery slope here ?
Thanks for the link.

RationalWiki explains the difference between abiogenesis and evolution better than I can:

Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life". Depending, of course, on the definition of life. This is something that Ben Stein [note: Ben Stein is a creationist filmmaker] is apparently willfully ignorant of.
An objection to the distinction is that it is goalpost moving but this would only be true if evolution at some point did try to explain the origin of life and then people moved away from it. This is not the case at all. Evolutionary theory started with the observation of the mutability of species - a property that only exists once life has begun, indeed later definitions of "life" have often used the ability to evolve as a key component. This, of course, has been known for some time as animals and crops have been selectively bred for thousands of years. Later, the idea was refined by Charles Darwin in the form of natural selection, where nature provides the selection criteria to drive evolution. At no point was evolution, nor natural selection, about explaining the origin of life.
One objection is that explaining the origin of life is a natural extension to what evolution has to explain. In fairness this is true, and theories surrounding abiogenesis often use natural selection as a jumping point for how organised molecules could themselves develop further (thus making such molecule groups "alive" by the definition discussed above). But whether evolution and natural selection can explain this stage in the development of life is absolutely irrelevant to its validity to living creatures post abiogenesis. A common analogy to the fallacy of rejecting evolution due to it not explaining the origin of life is that gravity doesn't explain the origin of life. Another might be that it is akin to confusing a university's admission process with grading, advancement, and graduation once students are admitted.

 

[Gawaher]

Thanks, but i am aware of the difference. One is a must for the other.

 

[dylansan]

The theory of evolution allows for the possibility that life was created by an omnipotent being and then evolved afterwards. How life began is not covered by the theory, it only makes observations about what happens to life that already exists.

 

[Gawaher]

The theory of evolution allows for the possibility that life was created by an omnipotent being and then evolved afterwards. How life began is not covered by the theory, it only makes observations about what happens to life that already exists.

So, Let's assume that life was created by an omnipotent being , Do you have a proof that the "created cell" evolved to create you ?

 

[Azuremen]

So, Let's assume that life was created by an omnipotent being , Do you have a proof that the "created cell" evolved to create you ?

Well, if the only life this being created was that "cell" then we'd have to come from it. Or magical clay.

But I mean, do you have any proof of what you've been saying anyhow, since you seem to want to play that game.

 

[Scaff]

Are you trying to convince me
Abiogenesis is a must.Otherwise the whole theory is speculation upon another. Do you smell slippery slope here ?
Thanks for the link.

No slippery slope at all, rather a poor attempt to link two different theories and the use of some of the most readily dismissed sources this thread has seen in quite a while.

Thanks, but i am aware of the difference. One is a must for the other.

Yes life must exist for it to evolve, however its a logical fallacy to then claim that Evolution must cover how the life came into existence in the first case.

The cause of life and how life evolved are two separate theories and how one operates is not interdependent on the other, if you actually understand the difference between the two then you would be aware of this. That you are making a claim otherwise means you either don't understand it or you are deliberatly misrepresenting it to try and further a position that can't stand on its own. Given the nature and quality fo your sources so far I'm leaning towards the latter.

 

[VRracingfan]

Can you tell me your criteria for scientists who can be accepted in your opinion ?
What about this one ?

& Please don't try to convince me that abiogenesis is not a pre-requisite for darwinism.
Thank you

But what about the creator? Who created the creator? This creator sounds far more complex than an early life form because of the intelligence required to form earth, life and the rest of the universe so who created him must have been even more complicated.

 

[Gawaher]

Is there anyone here who knows biology basics to explain why he think he came from a microbe-like creature ?

 

[niky]

There are a whole lot of people here who know basic biology. And a few who know more than that.

I didn't come from a microbe. I was born to my mother. Who was born to her mother. Who was born to her mother. Who was born to her mother. Repeat that recursion around 300,000 times or so and you get to a great (x300,000) grandmother who was not Homo Sapiens. Then keep going back, perhaps another million times and you get back to a great (times something something million) grandmother who wasn't what we'd consider intelligent. Keep going back... a few million more generations... then a billion or so more? Eventually, we end up at microbes... though you wouldn't call that one your great (times huge number) grandmother, since single-celled organisms don't have genders.

Can you say a billion (+++) degrees of separation?

Or, if you want it as a purely biological exercise:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

Enjoy.

 

[Gawaher]

Thanks nicky but my question was

Is there anyone here who knows biology basics to explain why he think he came from a microbe-like creature ?

I know what neo-darwinism is.

 

[niky]

Well, I just explained how I descended from something that is non-human, and provided further proof. If you want me to go into my touchy-feely emotions about the subject, that's another story.

I studied biology and anatomy in College, and took courses in Human Development, and there's a whole lot of human anatomy, structures, embryological development, physical development, reflexes, motor arcs, neural pathways and such that don't make sense from a strictly mechanistic standpoint.

Nobody who's studied human anatomy and development extensively could come to the conclusion (independent of pre-conceived notions) that the human body is perfectly designed.

 

[Gawaher]

what is the proof you provided ?!!

 

[dylansan]

I think he wants to know why we think we descended from microbes as apposed to other forms of life. In which case most of the proof is the fossil record and our information about which life forms existed when.

 

[Exorcet]

Can you tell me your criteria for scientists who can be accepted in your opinion ?
What about this one ?

& Please don't try to convince me that abiogenesis is not a pre-requisite for darwinism.
Thank you

Abiogensis is unrelated to evolution, so no need to discuss. As for the quote, well that's more than enough probability for it to happen given an infinite sample space.

 

[Famine]

Is there anyone here who knows biology basics to explain why he think he came from a microbe-like creature ?

I've got a BSc. in Molecular Biology and an MSc. in Human Genetics. Do I count?

Fossil record, ribosomal RNA sequencing and then every coding sequence of DNA.

 

[Gawaher]

I've got a BSc. in Molecular Biology and an MSc. in Human Genetics. Do I count?

Fossil record, ribosomal RNA sequencing and then every coding sequence of DNA.

That's great

You are welcome 👍
Let's begin with your first proof that you came from came from a microbe-like creature: The fossil record. What exactly about it ?

 

[Bye Ya]

Gawasher, I'm sure this video has popped up in here in the past, but I'm interested to hear your reaction.

 

[Famine]

Let's begin with your first proof that you came from came from a microbe-like creature: The fossil record. What exactly about it ?

Let's just turn this on its head briefly. Given that the fossil record shows myriad intermediate species dating back hundreds of millions of years and no present day species save for a handful which found their niche a few eons back and stuck to it (which should answer your query), what exactly about the fossil record would cause you to doubt the evolutionary processes behind it?