does evolution exsist

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by sifreak21, Jan 19, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dbnp48 Q.E.D. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    312
    What sources would you consider "legit"? Give me a list if you can so I can give you references you'll accept.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the actual lifeform created from the elements and the process used to create it. even with that you would have to prove it could occur naturally.

    as far as one lifeform into another i have no clue since it has never been done.
    yes, yes, yes, science can mutate fruitflies and other lifeforms but that is not one lifeform into another.

    ever hear of the scientific law of biogenesis?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. dbnp48 Q.E.D. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    312
    So, there are no sources you would consider "legit"?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    there are legit sources.
    any source that includes the process and the lifeform created by that process.
    i've yet to see any evidence that scientists have recreated life or changed one lifeform into another.
     
  8. dbnp48 Q.E.D. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    312
    Tell me what the "legit" sources (by source, I mean a scientific journal) are so I can search there for references that will satisfy you.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    please, i am tired of reading through material only to discover "it isn't actually life".

    i'm not really sure why science hasn't recreated life yet, it's either a matter of semantics or technology or it's impossible altogether.

    getting back to the scientific law of biogenesis:
    i am wondering whether life was "created" or "began" at all.
    this law states that life comes from life, everything science has to say on the subject points to that fact.
    life could very well be a timeless entity, it has always been here and by implication so has the universe.
    this subject always breaks down into some sort of "god" which inhibits any real discussion on the matter.
     
  10. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    funny..my daughter is studying and she said the instructions said wiki wasn't a valid reference..
     
  11. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,768
    Evolution is not about the origins of life.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i disagree.
    what else explains the total excise of the scientific law of biogenesis?
    evolution states life arose naturally, now if that isn't about origins i don't know what is.
     
  13. dbnp48 Q.E.D. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    312
    Here's a relevant sentence:
    "Biogenesis is the theory that living things come only from other living things, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders."

    from this link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis
     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,948
    There are clues, there just isn't proof. As long as there are any plausible naturalistic explanations, they must prevail against any religious or supernatural one.
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    wiki is practically useless as a reference.
    the law of biogenesis states:
    life comes from life and that of its own kind.
    nowhere, at any time has science proven biogenesis false.
    biogenesis is a scientific law that has never been refuted, not one single time.
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    why?
    why must cause "B" be ruled out when there is no proof of cause "A"?
     
  17. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You know, this is absolute nonsense. Someone started some crap years ago about how you can create a bullshit entry that will remain there for an extended period time thus leading the entire world into a nightmare of hellish misinformation and now it's become like an urban myth that the ignorant masses love to tell. But try pulling that kind of crap with subject matter that people actually consider academically significant and it wont last 5 seconds.

    Wikipedia is one of the most useful tools on the internet. Ignore it at the expense of your own education (and by education I mean separate and apart from what get you at school/university).
     
  18. dbnp48 Q.E.D. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    312
    See my thread "Wikipedia as a source" in Computer Science & Culture.
     
  19. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    homework assignment for those willing to check..

    find Wiki references that are clearly wrong.
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    raving for wiki does exactly nothing at disproving anything i've posted.
     
  21. dbnp48 Q.E.D. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    312
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    there is nothing in the above link that disproves biogenesis.
    in fact there is nothing in the above link that deals with the topic.
     
  23. dbnp48 Q.E.D. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    312
    The post wasn't addressed at biogenesis, it was about Wikipedia's reliability. Look at post #35.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page