Evolution - True Or False

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by darksidZz, Feb 10, 2007.

?

It's

Poll closed Feb 25, 2007.
  1. False

    2.3%
  2. True

    88.4%
  3. Other; Comment

    9.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    No it wouldn't. It would show that *in this case* a creator was involved.

    Making any other claim without knowing more about the process used requires HUGE debilitating assumptions. What if a lab creates life by setting up a Urey-Miller system, and then not touching it for 15 years? We would not have "created" the life (in a micro-management sense), but the life certainly wouldn't have been formed in a purely natural setting, either.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,271
    And I'm sure it wasn't because I read some of it, and found major flaws in its logic and assumptions.

    The "irreducible complexity" joke, for example, he took completely seriously, as if it were a real argument gainst Darwinian evolution.

    Which is one difference between thinking reality depends on authority, and understanding that authority depends on reality, in honest investigation.

    How many times have you argued from authority on a scientific point? Fred Hoyle speaks on Darwinian evolution - no argument, just an astronomer's assertions; and even these taken out of context and misinterpreted by you. Do you not realize who your audience is, or do you just not know the difference?
    So this is your idea of a "great point": Darwinian evolution is not proven unless it has been replicated in the lab, and replication in the lab disproves Darwinian evolution.

    You need a couple more steps in that circle, to conceal its logic.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    YES! These are some of the many problems I have with the path scientist apparently have taken to give substaniate evolution. While I consider that I don't have the inside scoupe on what scientist do...what they do does usually get drawn out in some fashion or form.

    I have many questions.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    So then attack that. Weaknesses in the modern state of scientific inquiry are not the same thing as faults in evolutionary theory.

    When people have asked for examples of the problems you have with Evolution, don't just re-iterate the same 'problems' that have been repeatedly determined to be non-issues. Certainly science is not perfect; go find the actual problems and lets discuss them - see if they create a cohesive counter-arguement to the theory.

    But saying that evolution only explains 8/10 situations, and not the other 2, is ignoring the 8 sucesses; a very high accuracy!

    Gravitational theory is being revised, evolutionary theory is being revised; but both are accurate enough in thier current forms to provide significant usefullness every day!
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2007
  8. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    People who dont believe that evolution is even possible are in denial.
     
  9. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    Accurate because it's not being contested. Thus far the lack a firm foundation for the theory is a major weakness...the structural difficulties of the theory are revealed when long terms studies like that Lonnig illistrated that fail to show any diveristy of mutation and with out mutation diversity the very back bone of the theory become the consistence of wet paste.

    This lack of research on Scientist far is further evidence of improper procedure. But there is SO much more.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2007
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,271
    But you are deaf to all answers, and full of assumptions that would require answers first.

    Why do you ask, if answers are not what you seek? And why do you assume, after rejecting answers and thus leaving the questions hanging ? This, for example:
    You asked how Darwinian theory dealt with that study, received the answer that the study was of no particular significance for several specified reasons, rejected that answer, and now simply assume that such studies have "revealed" structural difficulaties in the basic theory which are being ignored by the theorists.

    The same theorists whose careful considerations and conclusions regarding such studies provided the answers you refused to accept.

    This is simply error, on your part. That's no problem, errors are easily correctible. But your clinging to them is not as easily correctible. You ask questions apparently for other reasons than any desire to have them answered. That is a waste of time.
     
  11. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    riverwind acknowledges further failed attempts.

    Miller assumed that earth's primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because he later said, "The synthesis of compounds of biological intrest takes place only under reducing conditions."-The origins of Life on Earth by Stanley Miller & Lesile E. Orgel p.33

    But apperently there is a dilemma for evolution.

    "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays"Francis Hitching

    It's guesswork or assumption. No one knows for sure what it was like. pseudo science indeed. No way to test the theory and no way to know if our experiments match. Nonetheless the experiments have failed.
     
  12. NDS NDS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    Give it up Saquist:

    YOU'RE WRONG
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,271
    Argument from authority. One must choose one's authorities carefully in making such arguments, avoiding in particular the ones who are wrong - or whose assertions don't apply.

    The quote there does not establish a "dilemma" for "evolution". Why did you think it would ?
     
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Magical thinking and science are two different things in which an exchange of ideas isn't possible, unless you're watching TV.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    a simple implicit contradiction. I suggest that you turn away from this thread so you won't have to shout your response next time. The problematic details on evolution are expansive.

    Fallacy arguements and reading comprehension conversation stoppers: I'm sorry icueara fallacies arguments don't remove eye witness testimony. If you don't like quotes I suggest you turn the thread.
     
  16. Saquist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,256
    So there is no working theory on the state of the atmosphere at the time of this spontaneous generation of life, What about the "organic soup" it formed from under theory.

    How likelyy is it that the amino acids though to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an "organic soup" in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. In Millers experiment of passing an electric spark through an "atmosphere," Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

    I think it's assumed that the amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmopshere. That's another GAP, but what then? Hitching explained...

    "Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules."

    So this gets into the claim that life emerged from the oceans.
    Chemist Ricard Dickerson and biochemist George Wald made statements on this premise.
     
  17. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    That's very unfortunate, I'm sorry you have reading comprehension problems.
     
  18. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    haha...

    still haven't figured out the difference between evolution and abiogenesis?

    Still haven't figured out that science doesn't need to have all the answers.

    gosh...they really fuck up some people.
     
  19. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    its all witchcraft, burn them all.

    ofcourse evolution is not true,

    peace.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    This thread is going nowhere fast
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page