Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Miles]

If you're saying that the concepts of evolution depend on abiogenesis then it's obvious you don't know the first thing about evolution.

It is fine if you didn't understand what I meant when I said "on atheism", but I said much more than that...and I explained my position as to why the truth value of abiogenesis is fundamental to any belief in evolution (on atheism).

So, please address my explanation as to why it is fundamental, instead of dismissing it and using the typical "you just don't understand evolution" quip that seems to be the evolutionist "go to" line when it comes to discussing this subject.

Why should I bother when you refuse to accept one of the basic precepts in the investigation of evolution: First cause is of no concern.
.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #70]

If God doesn't exist, then evolution is false.

If your position is "God does not exist", then please explain how life originated naturally from nonliving material.

If you can't do that, then you don't have a viable theory for evolution.

This wasn't directed at me, but why are you repeating this logically flawed idea and then trying to use it to support a position? Evolution can exist whether or not a god of any kind exists. It only describes how life diversifies and has nothing to do with gods or how life originated to begin with. As long as you keep clinging to this demonstrably fasle premise you won't get anywhere with trying to support your argument because you are basing it on an incorrect definition of evolution that you have just made up willy nilly (although many theists try this same argument for some strange reason ... despite there being no ambiguity on this issue).

There are several hypotheses concerning how life may have originated on this planet naturally without any god interventions (eg. the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, the RNA World hypothesis, other abiogenesis schemes, panspermia, etc.). None of them have been shown to be correct yet, but they also cannot be ruled out. This is an unsolved scientific problem and there are many others (dark matter, dark energy to name just two). Just because a problem has not been solved yet does not mean that the default answer is therefore "god did it." The correct description of the origin of life question is that is an open scientific problem, and that fact does not negate evolution or have anything to do with evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

You'd be more convincing if you accept evolution for what it can genuinely explain and not try to create arbitrary definitions for what you think it should explain. Mechanism for the origin of life is not the job of evolution to explain, and whatever that mechanism is has no bearing on the validity of evolution as a theory for how life diversifies on this planet.

[brunumb]

Sure, and nothing is superstitious about a reptile evolving into a bird (voodoo), a once land dwelling mammal migrating to the sea and evolving into a aquatic animal (voodoo), and dead, inanimate matter suddenly and/or gradually coming to life and beginning to talk, think, and have sex (voodoo).

But none of that is superstitious, though. Nothing at all.

You're right, there is nothing superstitious about it at all. All you need to do is investigate the mechanism of natural selection and you should be able to understand how it can occur without the need for any God-magic. If you want voodoo, check out the Bible for how to cure a leprous house.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You're right, there is nothing superstitious about it at all. All you need to do is investigate the mechanism of natural selection and you should be able to understand how it can occur without the need for any God-magic. If you want voodoo, check out the Bible for how to cure a leprous house.

Ok, so using natural selection, explain to me how a reptile evolved into a bird. Explain it to me first, and then lets go to a lab and and conduct some experiments so we can see how it works (you know, actual science).

Oh, I forgot. "It doesn't work like that". Of course it doesn't. It doesn't work at all.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to Miles in post #71]

Since you refuse to address the entirety of my post (which is a direct response to your contention), you can have the last word, as I refuse to discuss this with you any further.

[We_Are_VENOM]

This wasn't directed at me

No, but I am glad you responded. Because based on your username, I can safely assume that you take the position "There is no gods", which is exactly what I needed

, but why are you repeating this logically flawed idea and then trying to use it to support a position? Evolution can exist whether or not a god of any kind exists.

Ok, so we can nip this in the bud easily with one question..

The question is; is abiogenesis a brute fact of nature, that life can arise from nonliving material. Is this contention/idea/concept a fact?

Yes or no?

It only describes how life diversifies and has nothing to do with gods or how life originated to begin with. As long as you keep clinging to this demonstrably fasle premise you won't get anywhere with trying to support your argument because you are basing it on an incorrect definition of evolution that you have just made up willy nilly (although many theists try this same argument for some strange reason ... despite there being no ambiguity on this issue).

There are several hypotheses concerning how life may have originated on this planet naturally without any god interventions (eg. the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, the RNA World hypothesis, other abiogenesis schemes, panspermia, etc.). None of them have been shown to be correct yet, but they also cannot be ruled out. This is an unsolved scientific problem and there are many others (dark matter, dark energy to name just two). Just because a problem has not been solved yet does not mean that the default answer is therefore "god did it." The correct description of the origin of life question is that is an open scientific problem, and that fact does not negate evolution or have anything to do with evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

You'd be more convincing if you accept evolution for what it can genuinely explain and not try to create arbitrary definitions for what you think it should explain. Mechanism for the origin of life is not the job of evolution to explain, and whatever that mechanism is has no bearing on the validity of evolution as a theory for how life diversifies on this planet.

I am not ignoring the rest of your post, but we are going to nip this in the bud if you can please answer my simple yes/no question above.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #76]

The question is; is abiogenesis a brute fact of nature, that life can arise from nonliving material. Is this contention/idea/concept a fact?

Yes or no?

As I stated in my earlier post, abiogenesis is one of several hypotheses on how life may have arisen on this planet, and there are several different mechanisms under the abiogenesis umbrella. Since these are all hypotheses they are open scientific problems that are being investigated. There is no conclusion yet, so they are no more a "fact" than the idea that a god being of some sort simply "created" things from nothing via magic and miracles. There is zero evidence for that mechanism, despite many religions having similar creation myths.

This is the nature of all open scientific problems. One or more hypotheses are presented, and they are investigated via observations, measurements, experiments, analysis, etc. until there is either confirmation of the hypothesis, rejection because it has been shown to be incorrect, or it remains an open problem and work continues. This is where abiogenesis is at the moment, because a specific mechanism has yet to be confirmed. But there is no reason to believe that simple life forms could not arise from nonliving material in the presence of air, water, UV light, chemicals of all types and their reactions in the environment they find themselves, etc. That is, abiogenesis has NOT been shown to be impossible. Therefore, it is still on the table as is panspermia.

But again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution since evolution makes no statements on HOW life originated, and it does not depend in any way on that mechanism. Abiogenesis can be debated as a separate issue, but it has nothing to do with evolution being viable or not.

[Diagoras]

Ok, so using natural selection, explain to me how a reptile evolved into a bird. Explain it to me first, and then lets go to a lab and and conduct some experiments so we can see how it works (you know, actual science).

Oh, I forgot. "It doesn't work like that". Of course it doesn't. It doesn't work at all.

I've shared this link before - a simple introduction to the topic of evolution:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... cle/evo_02

You'd learn a lot more from exploring that site than by simply shouting "it doesn't work". I can't tell if you're aware that evolutionary change takes place over incredibly long timescales, but the link should clear that up for you reasonably easily if you are willing to follow it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #76]

The question is; is abiogenesis a brute fact of nature, that life can arise from nonliving material. Is this contention/idea/concept a fact?

Yes or no?

As I stated in my earlier post, abiogenesis is one of several hypotheses on how life may have arisen on this planet, and there are several different mechanisms under the abiogenesis umbrella. Since these are all hypotheses they are open scientific problems that are being investigated. There is no conclusion yet, so they are no more a "fact" than the idea that a god being of some sort simply "created" things from nothing via magic and miracles. There is zero evidence for that mechanism, despite many religions having similar creation myths.

This is the nature of all open scientific problems. One or more hypotheses are presented, and they are investigated via observations, measurements, experiments, analysis, etc. until there is either confirmation of the hypothesis, rejection because it has been shown to be incorrect, or it remains an open problem and work continues. This is where abiogenesis is at the moment, because a specific mechanism has yet to be confirmed. But there is no reason to believe that simple life forms could not arise from nonliving material in the presence of air, water, UV light, chemicals of all types and their reactions in the environment they find themselves, etc. That is, abiogenesis has NOT been shown to be impossible. Therefore, it is still on the table as is panspermia.

But again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution since evolution makes no statements on HOW life originated, and it does not depend in any way on that mechanism. Abiogenesis can be debated as a separate issue, but it has nothing to do with evolution being viable or not.

Ok, so after reading through what was SUPPOSED to be a yes/no answer, it looks as if your answer is "NO", abiogenesis is NOT a brute fact. And that is all I needed, because with that answer, you've placed yourself in a difficult corner to get out of.

But before we get to that, you are completely missing the point. Obviously, if God exists, then he could have used evolution as a means of creation...and if that is the case, then evolution is true.

However, your position is that God does NOT exist...and since that is your position, then there is no positing God as a means of creation, because GOD DOES NOT EXIST, according to you.

So, if the God hypothesis is off the table (according to you), then life could have only originated NATURALLY...but wait a minute, you just admitted that abiogenesis is not a brute fact...and since God does not exist (according to you), then your theory of evolution is solely dependent upon abiogenesis being true...and stop with all of the panspermia stuff, because panspermia is nothing but abiogenesis after it went to the gym, pumped some weights, and swallowed a bottle of steroids.

It is still defined by natural law...and panspermia itself is just as unproven as abiogenesis is, so appealing to it doesn't help if both are under the same unproven scenario.

Not to mention the fact that the microorganisms are ORGANISMS, and the organisms are what? LIVING.

So how on earth are we trying to explain the origins of natural life, all while presupposing natural life, is beyond me. Sounds like begging the question to me.

Your reasoning is fallacious, is what I am trying to say.

But back to your position, which is that "there is no God"; on such a position, you can ONLY appeal to the natural origin of life, which may in fact be impossible.

So if the natural origin of life may be impossible, then the evolution of life is also impossible, since the evolution of life depends on the origin of life.

Or, to ask an even more simple/basic question...

If abiogenesis is false, how can life evolve?

Just answer the question, if life can't originate, then how can it evolve?

You have no choice put to posit God at this point, because we still can't deny that life originated somehow...and if you take abiogenesis out of the equation, what do you have? God.

All I'd like for you to do is simply admit that, despite your belief, God might exist and used evolution as a means of creation. Just admit that God COULD have done it.

Can you do that much?

But there is no reason to believe that simple life forms could not arise from nonliving material in the presence of air, water, UV light, chemicals of all types and their reactions in the environment they find themselves, etc

Ok, so you have all of the ingredients, right? You have your air, water, UV light, chemicals...and you can get it to create all kinds of reactions in their environments...now, where is that sentient life at?

Where is it? Enough talk..I want to see action.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I can't tell if you're aware that evolutionary change takes place over incredibly long timescales, but the link should clear that up for you reasonably easily if you are willing to follow it.

Stop right there!!! Stop!! Halt!! Did you see what just happened? Did you catch it? I doubt you did, because it happened so fast, you didn't even see it. Do you realize what just happened? Here is what happened..

When you said "...evolutionary change takes place over incredibly long timescales"


When you said that^, you IMMEDIATELY left science. When you typed those words, you were immediately teleported from science (I will give the benefit of the doubt), to religion.

Science doesn't tell you that evolution changes takes place over a long time, that is your presuppositions that is telling you that. Your faith is telling you that. That is not what science said.

You see, for the evolutionists, "time" is just their version of "God".

Like, how they accuse theists of using god of the gaps reasoning, which is when they accuse theists of using god to plug in their gaps of knowledge.

Well, they are using "time" of the gaps...because they obviously can't go to a lab and show you real-time results...so they plug in that gap with "hundreds of millions of years", and ta da!!! Now the theory becomes viable, because all you have to do is plug in the gap with some astronomical time frame, and then the theory becomes viable.

Because "given enough time, anything can happen".

"Sure, give it a hundred million years, and this featherless/wingless rabbit will evolve wings so that it can better escape from predators. You may not see it now, but I guarantee if you lived to be a hundred million years, you will see. No doubt about it".

You are operating under faith, my friend. FAITH.