Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 198 by arian]

What is your definition of faith, in your own words?

Faith is a holding cognitive content as true knowing there is no evidence for it (the truth claim).

How is that rational?


Rationality is based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith generally refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason or evidence.

[10CC]

How do YOU determine the difference between designed and not-designed?

Like so: You take a big box of Star Wars Legos called Death Star, pour it all out on the floor - Not designed

Take the book of instructions and meticulously follow it as it was designed by the engineers - Designed

So you mean like a sandy beach=not designed
A sand sculpture=designed

.. well it's a start, and to understand the Creator you have to start somewhere.

Now take that next step friend, .. someone had to create the rocks that make the sand, right?
Someone had to create the earth, then the moon, and, .. oh yea, the moon. The moon was created by a meteor that hit earth and blew a huge chunk off it into space. But before this huge rock could escape earths gravity, a bunch of smaller meteors came and kept hitting the moon to keep it from flying into the abyss of space, or be sucked in by the suns gravity.
Once it was just the perfect distance from earth, millions of other meteors came from the other side and kept tapping the moon into a perfect orbit around the earth. Millions of years of fine adjustments, .. a tap here and a tap there and wha-la, .. we had a perfectly orbiting moon just right for a night-lite, tides, and everything else the moon does to maintain life, .. you know, in case in some distant future life would evolve on earth.

Oh yea, I forgot, life would have evolved anyways because of evolution, and we can see this as evidenced in the trillions of planets around us, .. right?

Come on, let's be scientific about this.

So you are in fact not capable of recognising design? Because according to you everything is designed and you know this by comparing everything designed with all that is designed.

[Star]

So now where do you think the universe at its Planck Epoch, or Gravitational singularity expanded in? Remember that the pin sized universe is believed to have sat in a point in space, before it even created space?

No, it didnt sit nor did it exist at a certain point in space. It was space. The Big Bang happened everywhere.

But before this huge rock could escape earths gravity, a bunch of smaller meteors came and kept hitting the moon to keep it from flying into the abyss of space, or be sucked in by the suns gravity.

It didnt require meteors hitting it to keep it from leaving Earths atmosphere. Im not sure where you got such a silly idea. Nothing flies in space, either. And why would the moon be sucked in by the sun? Its moving fast enough to, in the very least, orbit the sun. Being close to the Earth, it orbited the Earth. Orbits occur all over the universe. They have huge fault tolerances and need not be tweaked. They figured out how this all works long ago. You may have heard of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.

Once it was just the perfect distance from earth, millions of other meteors came from the other side and kept tapping the moon into a perfect orbit around the earth.

Huh? Tapping? You have no idea what youre talking about. This is just getting weird.

I have listened to quantum activist and I tell you these guys have some awesome imaginations and I doubt they ever seen another universe, or been through a black hole.

Whats a quantum activist? We dont know what happens outside of the universe and we dont pretend to. Quantum physicists study quantum physics inside the universe. We cant go through black holes, either. Again, this just demonstrates a very poor understanding of science.

My mind tells me that since man creates, everything we see must have been created.

This is an obvious fallacy. Cant you see it? If apples are red, that tells me all fruit is red.

They just can't seem to understand the existence of 'nothing', so they make themselves accept silly ideas and stories like Big bang and Evolution where the universe is evolving and expanding in 'nothing'.
If even a quantum string appears into nothing, it was never nothing to begin with. It is an impossibility to have something in nothing .. right? But I KNOW that nothing exists, and I have proven it., and there is absolutely nothing in nothing.

You think youre so clever. Look up A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

I mean just because you are stuck in a religion doesn't mean everyone else should too?

I would normally agree, but the bizarre thing is, youre a religious person saying this to non-religious people. This makes about as much sense as meteors tapping the moon.

Like so: You take a big box of Star Wars Legos called Death Star, pour it all out on the floor - Not designed
Take the book of instructions and meticulously follow it as it was designed by the engineers " Designed

So sand on a beach is designed, but Star Wars Lego isnt because its not assembled? If you say so.

Hey, I mean we highly intellectual humans need the light more than that little bug, why didn't we evolve it? Or at least cats eyes so we can work in the dark when we have no light, .. or just turn it on when we need it?

Its ironic you criticize evolution for not being well-designed enough for your liking as a part of an argument in favor intelligent design. Evolution doesnt produce perfection. Thats allegedly your gods domain. Why dont you ask him why he didnt intelligently-design you to glow like a firefly?

Evidence not seen would be like atoms, gravity and such, ..

Here are images of an atom. See?

So when someone says that "God don't exist", it is funny because in most cases (not all) it is out of ignorance.

Strawman. We dont say that.

Well a Creator is the most logical, reasonable and rational answer with, or without the Bible.

Who created the Creator? You cant claim that natural forces cant always have existed yet claim your god has. Thats special pleading.

Come on, let's be scientific about this.

Do you actually know what being scientific means? It's a fair question.

[Clownboat]

In essence, Clownboat was stating that he doesn't know if God is necessary for evolution to take place. And neither do you. And neither do I.

You are either lying or misunderstood, I'm just not sure.
I very specifically said that a god is un-needed for evolution to happen!

In no way can stating a god is un-needed mean that I don't know if a god is necessary. All it means is that one is not needed, full stop.

A god causing it is just as likely and just as un-needed as fairy farts causing it. If you want to take that to mean that I'm not sure if fairy farts caused evolution, that is on you.

Fairy farts and a god are both un-needed for evolution to happen. Give me a reason to believe that fairy farts or a god causes it and I am all ears, because it seems that evolution will happen without either of them being involved.

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

[Sonofason]

In essence, Clownboat was stating that he doesn't know if God is necessary for evolution to take place. And neither do you. And neither do I.

You are either lying or misunderstood, I'm just not sure.
I very specifically said that a god is un-needed for evolution to happen!

In no way can stating a god is un-needed mean that I don't know if a god is necessary. All it means is that one is not needed, full stop.

A god causing it is just as likely and just as un-needed as fairy farts causing it. If you want to take that to mean that I'm not sure if fairy farts caused evolution, that is on you.

Fairy farts and a god are both un-needed for evolution to happen. Give me a reason to believe that fairy farts or a god causes it and I am all ears, because it seems that evolution will happen without either of them being involved.

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

[JohnA]

In essence, Clownboat was stating that he doesn't know if God is necessary for evolution to take place. And neither do you. And neither do I.

You are either lying or misunderstood, I'm just not sure.
I very specifically said that a god is un-needed for evolution to happen!

In no way can stating a god is un-needed mean that I don't know if a god is necessary. All it means is that one is not needed, full stop.

A god causing it is just as likely and just as un-needed as fairy farts causing it. If you want to take that to mean that I'm not sure if fairy farts caused evolution, that is on you.

Fairy farts and a god are both un-needed for evolution to happen. Give me a reason to believe that fairy farts or a god causes it and I am all ears, because it seems that evolution will happen without either of them being involved.

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

[Star]

Duplicate post.

[Star]

Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch.

This is a well-known creationist claim.

There is no reason to think that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. All of the simplest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms.

Self-replicators can be incredibly simple, as simple as a strand of six DNA nucleotides (Sievers and von Kiedrowski 1994). This is simple enough to form via prebiotic chemistry. Self-replication sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules "life."

Nobody claims the first life arose by chance. To jump from the fact that the origin is unknown to the conclusion that it could not have happened naturally is the argument from incredulity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html

[Sonofason]

In essence, Clownboat was stating that he doesn't know if God is necessary for evolution to take place. And neither do you. And neither do I.

You are either lying or misunderstood, I'm just not sure.
I very specifically said that a god is un-needed for evolution to happen!

In no way can stating a god is un-needed mean that I don't know if a god is necessary. All it means is that one is not needed, full stop.

A god causing it is just as likely and just as un-needed as fairy farts causing it. If you want to take that to mean that I'm not sure if fairy farts caused evolution, that is on you.

Fairy farts and a god are both un-needed for evolution to happen. Give me a reason to believe that fairy farts or a god causes it and I am all ears, because it seems that evolution will happen without either of them being involved.

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

No, I have not offered any such fallacy. What I've said is reasonable and true.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God. No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment. Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

[JohnA]

In essence, Clownboat was stating that he doesn't know if God is necessary for evolution to take place. And neither do you. And neither do I.

You are either lying or misunderstood, I'm just not sure.
I very specifically said that a god is un-needed for evolution to happen!

In no way can stating a god is un-needed mean that I don't know if a god is necessary. All it means is that one is not needed, full stop.

A god causing it is just as likely and just as un-needed as fairy farts causing it. If you want to take that to mean that I'm not sure if fairy farts caused evolution, that is on you.

Fairy farts and a god are both un-needed for evolution to happen. Give me a reason to believe that fairy farts or a god causes it and I am all ears, because it seems that evolution will happen without either of them being involved.

If you are going to make a positive claim, it is only reasonable for me to ask for the evidence of your claim. Please provide evidence that a God is not needed for evolution to take place. Either provide the evidence or stop making the unsupported claim. This is my final offer. On the other hand, you could simply admit the truth, which is that you don't know if a god is needed for evolution to take place. That is the only honest answer one could put forth. So what's it gonna be?

You ready?

- Humans are complex.
- Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.
Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we exist.

Please point out if you can how this is not logical and then explain why you add a god concept to the mix.

Well, this is not entirely true.
Your first premise seems true enough to me. Humans are complex.
Your second premise is somewhat flawed. Even single celled organisms are highly complex. They are so complex that we have not so far been able to create one from scratch. Cloning would not be an example of creating living cells from scratch. Growing organs from stem cells would not be an example of creating cells from scratch. You see, even the simplest life forms, like prokaryotic bacteria are extraordinarily complex. And so one could argue that we have not become complex at all. We've always been complex. While it may be true that we have become more complex, we've always been complex.

How is it that a complex living cell came to exist in the first place? Well, you don't have to answer that, because I know that you can't. Evolution doesn't explain it. Science so far can't explain it. Yet they exist.

But this is not the reason I object to your argument. The reason I object to your argument is that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you provided.

If it is true that;
A. Humans are complex.
and
B. Evolution is a good explanation for how we became complex.

The only reasonable conclusion we can draw from these two premises is:

Therefore, evolution is a good reason for accepting why we are complex.

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

You do agree, don't you, that evolution can cause a species to become less complex over time?

Evolution does not explain existence. It only explains how organisms might become more or less complex.

Abiogenesis deals with how life formed from simple organic compounds. You are the evidence for this.
Evolution explains how this life evolved to become other species. This idea of "progression" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions. You are the evidence for this. Humans are complex, more complex than many other species that live today or have existed before, but probably not the most complex (now or compared to the past). Our sweat glans alone makes us complex.
Therefore, evolution does indeed explain how these other species came to be; explain their existence, it does explain how animals evolved to become humans. It just does not explain the very first life (the process of how the last universal ancestor formed), but it does explain human complexity.

In conclusion, your responds to Clownboat fails. You are merely offering a fallacy of ignorance here due to your biased. You already decided your god did it, that you reject evolution, and now you try and justify it my misrepresenting Evolution / Abiogenesis and projection.

Can you tell us why you think you god is needed for this Evolution or for Abiogenesis?
Do you even accept that Evolution or for Abiogenesis is real, Abiogenesis happened ~3.5 billion years ago, Evolution started then and is still happening today?

No, I have not offered any such fallacy. What I've said is reasonable and true.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God. No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment. Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

Please show evidence that life can be started without God.

YOU.
My tomato plant.
Want more evidence?

No life form has ever been created by any scientific experiment.

Therefore your god did not create Adam from dust as per Genesis 2:7. Your god is not sceintific at all, he can not do anything sceintific, he is useless. Therefore YOU are the evidence that life can be started without God, you just stated it and I agree!

Please explain why you have so much faith in abiogenesis. What evidence can you show? What evidence can you even declare? Stating that abiogenisis is real does not make it real. Believing that abiogenesis is real does not make it real, oh ye of great faith.

We have been over this Sonofason. We concluded that you do not understand what is faith, or what is evidence.

All you are now doing is you are rejecting Genesis 2:7, saying faith is a bad thing. Or are you saying that you accept Genesis 2:7 based on faith (no evidence) and faith is a good thing?

You see, you can not even decide if faith is a good thing or a bad thing. That is besides not even understanding what faith is. And here you come and try formulate an argument around it. Hu?


You are the evidence for 'how life formed from non-life'.
We both accept that, we differ on the process (the mechanisms).
You say some god did it, and can offer zero evidence, only faith. You seem to reject Gen 2:7 and can not decide if faith is good or bad thing.
I say it was natural processes, and can offer evidence (you & all of the components of life, and a tract record of solving problems showing that natural processes exist / explain things). All known life forms share fundamental molecular mechanisms, reflecting their common descent; based on these observations, hypotheses on the origin of life attempt to find a mechanism explaining the formation of a universal common ancestor, from simple organic molecules via pre-cellular life to protocells and metabolism. Models have been divided into "genes-first" and "metabolism-first" categories, but a recent trend is the emergence of hybrid models that combine both categories -
Coveney, Peter V.; Fowler, Philip W. (2005). "Modelling biological complexity: a physical scientist's perspective". Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2 (4): 267"280. doi:10.1098/rsif.2005.0045

You can not formulate a hypothesis in science if you have no evidence. Also, do you really think that all of these scientists working on Abiogenesis are doing this work without any evidence? You are now demonstrating that you do not understand science.


Do you accept evolution?
Do you accept Abiogenesis?

My guess would be NO.
And the reason is that you do not understand science, faith, or evidence.

You can not even formulate a logical explanation to argue why you would think your god was involved in Abiogenesis, or Evolution. Why is that?