Level of Proof for Evolution

then what is behaviour? You don't know do you?

You mean , like the Sun rising is the precursor of the ground warming up?
Or you mean like the way a predator stalks prey? Which one of these activities is a precursor to behaviour?

You're grabbing at some sort of idea here, but what the hell is it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Behaviour like reading the bible is the precursor of becoming a Creationist or a believer in nonsense like ID because one lacks the intelligence to understand anything which requires a bit of thought. Such people find it easier to learn tracts of the bible by heart because it requires no great intelligence to do so. It's the sort of thing you could teach a parrot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But I bet he knows all about casting pearls before swine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Must there not be a connection between abiogenesis and evolution? A transfer if you will from one "process" to the next? If so then would that not imply there is a common engine or drive. If there is no connection then how did it transfer from one to the other? What was the catalyst?

It would seem to me that...If life self replicated, posessed a metabolism and adapts to its enviroment then some of these characteristic would need to be located in non living matter that shares carbon based traits...But I don't believe these traits -replication, metabolism and adaptation adequetly define life...I seems that live is more. Is not animation a requirement?

 

You ask some very difficult questions, so difficult , in fact, that you would not understand the answers. Can I recommend ID ? That is easy to understand. Don't let the fact that it's a lot of nonsense bother you.

 

Does that mean you don't know?
It would explain why you didn't answer.
Why do you believe in evolution when there is no direct or relation between adaptation and macro evolution?

 

Did I say I believe in evolution ?

 

Did you say you didn't believe in evolution?

 

Back on topic!

So, then: what would Saquist accept as the appropriate level of "proof" for Darwinian evolutionary theory ?

Mind: Darwinian theory itself provides the relation - and the discovery of DNA a mechanism - between adaptation and evolution (macro or otherwise). That is a major accomplishment of it. So Saquist's question above makes little sense. But the matter of what "proof" the asker of such a question would find persuasive is still of interest.

 

Theory provides the direct relation?
That's not a real tangible emperical relation...or do you believe it is and that's why my question makes no sense to you?

 

Forgive the role play. I was playing Saquist at his own game. You will find that he never answers a question. He makes statements which he expects others to accept as gospel ( pun intended ) truth without any evidence.

From my previous exposure to him, I believe he has undergone a master's program in door -knocking and bible salesmanship.

 

Intresting.
So you are admitting you are indeed playing a game and derailing threads on purpose?

 

Have you made your quota of bible sales this week ? Don't worry about angry householders. Never forget

" Knock and it shall be opened unto thee"

Crustaceans 1.11

 

As we continue I look forward to fully comprehending your apparent obssesive psychosis, compulsion for conflict, and tourettes like verbal mannerisms, Miles.
It should prove most useful in dealing with your perjorative, unavailing postings you offer as inteligent discourse.

 

You seem to be hinting at something like: where did life get the ability to replicate, or somesuch; i.e. the other Evolutionary (not Darwinian) problem of the origin of Life.

Current thinking extends from colonisation from space, to abiogenesis - the emergence of living things from a non-living background.
This is still one of the biggest questions about Life - we know a bit about how it works, or what makes it tick, but not about how it got started.

Presumably, because it can adapt and replicate, it must have arrived or emerged with these traits, or it developed them quickly. Otherwise the first 'attempts' would have been mostly failures. Given there was enough time and enough background - the chemicals and interactions, but also compartmentalisation or structure, something "happened".

All the important bits must have been, or must have gotten into place fairly quickly - early lifeforms must have had a reliable way to replicate their "building plans", along with sufficient function to maintain and transcribe it into actual structure.
Compartment "walls", membranes, co-operative and cyclic processes, coenzymes or "channels" that direct energy somewhere (like down a channel).
We know a lot about how a prokaryote is put together - which means we understand how mitochondria are built, and function. There are plenty of gaps in what we know. But do we know enough to explain its genesis? Maybe not.

 

What a wonderful vocabulary you have. Now if only those words meant anything. You will never fully " comprehend" ( understand in plain English )
evolutionary theory. Stick to ID and your biblical comfort blanket.

"Go ye forth and smite Darwin and all who hearken unto his unholy words !"

Etruscans 2.14

Here endeth the correspondence on this thread. Thou mayest reply but expect no more from me

 

Coloninzation? But how does this solve the existence's origin? I believe that is Hoyle and Francis theory?

However, the builiding plans as you put it would seem to be a necessary step. I've seenn many ...pseudo explanatioins but nothing which establishes a predicted path of progression which could be analyzed and tinkered with. What I don't expect is a full explanation I think that's unreasoanble. The DNA code is far to long for man to have any luck with understanding how was assembled but ther has to be some example worth studying closely and getting a clearer understanding.

I have to admit such a outline would be convincing but it's unlikely that such a understand would come in our lifetime.

 

Right, like we can believe that.

 

I certainlly do not...However it would be an astonishing feat if Miles was indeed capable of that level of self contol. I officialy offer my assistance of course...as he does seem to have a fondness for our verbal relationship.

 

Yep. Check it out sometime - it's one of the dramatically enlightening advances in human thought, and well worth the effort of comprehension.

Meanwhile, about that "level of proof" question - the thread topic - - - ?