Abiogenesis

[liamconnor]

Again, I rarely wander over to the sciences and more rarely set up an argument. Not my forte.

But I recall reading that a famous atheist became a theist (not a Christian) because of the problem of abiogenesis.

Now, as I understand the term, it refers to the theory that life can come from non-life.

In simplistic terms, a rock can, over time, produce (on its own, nothing added to it; the development happens "within") cells.


Question:

Do I understand the term "abiogenesis"?


Based on my (or your corrected version's) definition, has it been reproduced by scientists?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 548 by DrNoGods]

Oof, that's still not quite right. Thing is, this is something that Creationists point out: If an organism doesn't have a trait that is 100% developed into something recognizable (such as flight), there's nothing in nature that says, "Well, you can't fly, but you have genes that'd be real good for flying in a zillion generations, so sure, you can pass on your genes!"

In reality, flight isn't an "end goal," but is actually just a continuation in a long line of useful mutations, getting steadily more specialized or well-adapted. We wouldn't say that penguins "reached the end goal" and then fell away. No, their ability to fly was useful for every generation, and gradually gave way to other useful adaptations such as flippers.

Every step of the way isn't some kind of blueprint for something later. Every organism is a microcosm of inherited (and slightly randomized) traits in a struggle against a harsh environment. Whether the organism can use those characteristics to ensure its own reproduction (or, I wryly add, the reproduction of its population's average gene quality), or not determines if any trait is passed on, which is then utilized in the next generation in another struggle, with no guarantee that the trait passed down will be useful. But the probability that a trait will be more useful if the parent generation's allele frequency has been selected for is very high.

This is all just a means of pointing out misconceptions about evolution, but it doesn't address how flight evolved. And that's fine, we've got lots of evidence for different variations of flight. Which should we address? Bat evolution? Or just birds in general? Insects? There are any number of incredible species to examine, but something in particular we see as we look at these flying/gliding species is a series of characteristics that could independently evolve, each with inherent benefits to the organism.

To get flight, every step of the way doesn't have to lean toward flight. Every step of the way has to lean toward survival and reproduction of the organism. This is something Creationists fail to grasp despite having the concept explained to them repeatedly, but it isn't some kind of wordplay or apologia (like defending a flood myth, for example). It's a basic, logical recognition of how reality works by applying the principle of competition, genetic expression, and reproduction.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 549 by Neatras]

In reality, flight isn't an "end goal," but is actually just a continuation in a long line of useful mutations, getting steadily more specialized or well-adapted. We wouldn't say that penguins "reached the end goal" and then fell away. No, their ability to fly was useful for every generation, and gradually gave way to other useful adaptations such as flippers.

Not sure what I said that indicated I thought evolution had some end goal in mind (I don't think I even implied that). I said:

"So if there was survival benefit in being able to fly then evolution would favor developments in that direction."

The intent was to explain to FTK that mutations that benefit survival are more likely to persist in subsequent populations than those that don't. If flight was beneficial to survival and reproduction, then any mutations that contrbuted to the ability to fly would likely persist for that reason, ultimately with the possibility of evolving wings, hollow bones, etc. and the actual ability to fly.

Or were you referring to some other comment in another post? I must have worded the above sentence very badly to have it interpreted by two different people as suggesting evolution had some end goal in mind. That was not intended at all.

[Neatras]

I didn't say that evolution "knew" that flight was a benefit and started implementing changes that led to that ability as some end goal, but that if there was a survival benefit in being able to fly evolution would favor changes towards that end result because it increases the chance of survival. Those mutations would become more prevalent in the population.

This is what prompted my response. Your wording was chosen in a manner that would, ultimately, be unable to pierce the average creationist's stubborn ignorance.

[Clownboat]

Who? That was just an example. If a reptile can evolve into a bird, then it isn't to far fetched to say that a dog can become a non-dog in, you know, a couple hundred million years.

You are just getting confused by how humans have named things.

Consider that birds are still reptiles.

Are birds reptiles?
Answer 1:
Technically, birds are indeed reptiles.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1292

[H.sapiens]

Who? That was just an example. If a reptile can evolve into a bird, then it isn't to far fetched to say that a dog can become a non-dog in, you know, a couple hundred million years.

You are just getting confused by how humans have named things.

Consider that birds are still reptiles.

Are birds reptiles?
Answer 1:
Technically, birds are indeed reptiles.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1292

Yes, it is in the same sense that we are humans and mammals

[liamconnor]

[Replying to Neatras]

Thank you for your thorough response.

I will pose my next question in two different ways:

Ex-atheist anthony flew abandoned atheism and adopted theism (not Christianity) because of the problem of abiogenesis: that is, he could not account for the origins of life within a naturalistic framework. How would you respond to such a change?

In other words, could organic life survive the conditions within which the expanse of the universe occurred (i.e., can life survive the big bang)?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Who? That was just an example. If a reptile can evolve into a bird, then it isn't to far fetched to say that a dog can become a non-dog in, you know, a couple hundred million years.

You are just getting confused by how humans have named things.

Consider that birds are still reptiles.

Are birds reptiles?
Answer 1:
Technically, birds are indeed reptiles.
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1292

Sorry, but that is one of the few things in science that I can't rock with. Those who think that birds are reptiles because of some evolutionary process are those that already presuppose the theory...a theory which has yet to be proven, in my opinion.

[For_The_Kingdom]

First off, a fish stick does not evolve from fish. A fish stick is a processed fish. I'm not sure how reeling in a fish stick would help you.

You will have a better chance of fishing and getting a fish stick than seeing macroevolution occur in real-time or gradually.

For your second example, this is exactly what I was trying to explain to you. You are only willing to believe what you can see with your own eyes (which is a great start to being a sceptic, bravo), but this limits you when trying to explain things beyond your lifespan.

It isn't just a matter of seeing it with my own eyes. It is a matter of not having convincing evidence for the theory either way.

In order for the bacteria to 'evolve conciousness' will not only require more time than you have to watch it happen, it will also require the correct conditions. Since we don't know what those exact conditions are, it would take even more time to run the experiments. How many millions of years do you have to wait for this to happen?

Nice try. The whole "it takes millions of years" thing might work for a mindless/blind process that didn't know what it was doing...but for intelligent human beings, it should take far less time than that.

And besides, there is no "correct" conditions. You can't get consciousness from inanimate material. Where is the source that you are pulling from to get the consciousness? It isn't a physical thing that you can get from other physical things. Sorry, charlie. Ain't happening.

If you bothered to check out the links provided long ago (or just google for them) you will see the vast differences that are achieved in a relatively short time frame.

Sure, I reckon there are vast differences between a chihuahua and a great dane, but those vast differences ain't allowing one to become a different "kind" of animal. Same animal, different variety.

I guess you will just label it 'microevolution' and move on. Even though you still haven't provided the exact definition for micro vs macro evolution.

I did, actually.

All you have provided is your incredulity that things can change so much that we humans decide to label things differently.

?

And I'm trying to tell you there is only one scientific theory of evolution.

And I am trying to tell you that within that one scientific theory, there are two things taking place: one thing is something we can observe and test (micro), and the other thing we can't observe and test (macro).

And based on that, it is only right that we distinguish between the two.

When scientists speak of micro/macro evolution they would only be using those terms to define the time span

And when someone like me speak of micro/macro evolution, we would only be using those terms to distinguish one proven scientific fact from the other unproven scientific assumption.

Feel free to point us to the scientific definition that you claim to be using.

I told you.

See above. Evolution is a single concept. It describes change over time due to reproduction and the small changes that can happen at each generation. That's it. Nowhere is there special mention of micro/macro evolution or different mechanisms to explain these terms. Those terms are only used in a scientific context to loosely categorize different time spans. They are meaningless for describing different mechanisms.

It doesn't matter how you describe it because the concept is what it is...I am saying I don't see evidence for it either way...regardless of how it is described, defined, classified, or any mechanism involved.

Incorrect. Your extra labels are micro/macro because you are assuming they describe different mechanisms.

But it has nothing to do with mechanisms. I am saying that macroevolution (the concept of a reptile evolving into a bird) cannot /did not occur under any situation, circumstance, or in any of your wildest dreams.

And I feel double that way about abiogenesis.

There is your strawman being erected again. Where did I claim that animals from long ago where doing different things? I thought we went over this and you agreed with my every point.

Wait a minute, are you saying that long ago a reptile didn't evolve into a bird? Because that is all I was alluding to, that those animals of yesterday were doing things that the animals of today have never been observed to do.

Animals reproduce. Are you claiming that they didn't used to reproduce or will stop reproducing at some point?

They will keep reproducing, just what comes out of the placenta is what we disagree with. I am saying that the first bird natural born bird came from a bird. You are saying that the first natural featured bird came from a non-bird.

That is a fundamental disagreement there.

Small mutations/changes can happen during reproduction. Are you claiming this didn't happen long ago or will stop happening in the future?

It happens...I am just saying that there are limitations. From all of the evidence I see, all changes are limited to the kind of animal.

Only animals that live long enough to reproduce, are the ones that reproduce. Are you claiming this didn't happen long ago or will stop happening in the future?

It isn't about reproduction, it is the offspring of the parents...that is the area of contention.

So what is your argument again? Oh ya, you can't comprehend that we label this particular animal from millions of years ago a 'reptile' and now we label one of its ancestors a 'bird'.

What I can't comprehend is how a non-featured, non-winged animal will ever get to the point of having features, and wings. I can't imagine how this can occur on naturalism.

All of this "survival" and "correct condition" stuff is bullsh#t. How did the wings get there, and why? And then, what was the trial and error process of learning to fly with these newly evolved wings?

Just a bunch of nonsense, quite frankly. My goodness, it is almost insulting my intelligence to even try to get me to believe that nonsense.

"Hey Bob, did you see that reptile in my back yard yesterday?"

"Sure, I saw one walking across your lawn, I saw one flying through your trees, and I saw one climbing on your roof. Which one?"

"No, no, the one with pink collar and the name tag with 'tigger' on it. It's my new reptile. The wife kept harping to get us one."

"Oh sure, I saw your wife walking that reptile yesterday. Darn thing pooped on my lawn."

LOL. Or how about this..if you are doing a biology report on reptiles and you go to a pet store and you ask one of the clerks to take you to the reptile section, and all most of the reptiles just happen to be at the vet that day, but there are about 10 different kinds of birds there, and the clerk takes you to the bird section....that wouldn't be a problem, because after all, birds are reptiles, right?

Or better yet, you go to the pet store and you ask the clerk what is the biggest reptile they have in stock...and the clerk brings you out an ostrich..that would work, right? LOL.

So you agree it could happen, but you will be dead when it does. I'll call that progress.

LOL.

I'm giving you a way to prove beyond a doubt that during reproduction, small changes can occur. You already seem to agree with this, but you also claimed there was no proof. You can choose to get the proof or not bother. Up to you.

First off, I need to know what "small changes" mean. What does it entail. Like I asked the other guy, what is it? A feather here, a feature there? Toes replacing talons? What is a "small change"?

I'm also pointing out that the "most" you speak of is likely not the most. When you come across someone who is in this "most", let us know. I haven't seen anyone here claim there are no gods and successfully use that to refute anything.

I find it hilarious that agnostics try to make it seem as if they take the middle ground, acting as if they are so modest and open-minded...yet they spend the bulk of their time on here attempting to debunk theistic claims, and spend absolutely no time whatsoever debunking naturalistic claims.

For example, when the naturalist make claims and give reasons why the universe is eternal/finite, the agnostic is silent, on mute. But when the theist makes claims and gives reasons why the universe is finite, the agnostic is on full blast, ready to debunk every theistic claim at the drop of a hat.

So much for impartiality and standing on middle ground. That being said, from what I believe, most people on here are atheists, and if that isn't the case, then I was fooled by how many different people on here that has tried to debunk every thing that I say regarding theistic claims, when they don't do the same for naturalistic claims.

And you can purposefully miss my point just to disagree, but that's fine. You can also seem to read my mind, which I assure you, you can't. I have not been able to rule out any hypothesis about the origins of life because we have no data to confirm or deny anything in that regard. I can certainly not give much weight to many (unicorn farts for example), but I can't rule it out. If you believe you can, then perhaps you should be writing papers, providing evidence, and having them peer reviewed. You might become famous!

If you were a betting man, and you had to place your bet on theism or naturalism, based on all of the evidence that you've been presented, and based on your human and common sense intuition, where would you place your bet?

Great, looking forward to this evidence in this thread or another. I'm hoping it's verifiable evidence or it won't do anyone much good.

Been there, done that.

Those of use that operate in the scientific realm require evidence before making such claims. Thus, we are open to all ideas and await confirmation. If you have confirmation of your god creature, we are all ears/eyes.

I am waiting for evidence, too...for you know, things like abiogenesis, macroevolution, etc.

You know, things that we've been discussing thus far.

I'm not an atheist, so that part doesn't apply.

Which is fine, because the truth value of my contention stands, regardless of what you label yourself as.

I still don't know how to parse "on naturalism, evolution isn't a brute fact".

It is simple. If God doesn't exist, evolution isn't a "brute fact". Obviously, because of course the theory of evolution (ToE) is like the holy grail of naturalism, similar to the cross/Resurrection being the core of Christianity...so evolutionists pass off the ToE as a brute fact that can't be falsified.

I am just merely saying that if God doesn't exist, this is not the case. Plain and simple.

Given we have mountains of evidence that line up with the scientific theory of evolution, it seems the once hypothesis, now theory, is indeed "brute fact" whatever that means exactly.

These "mountains" of evidence cannot necessarily be accurate if abiogenesis has yet to be proven true, on naturalism.

When you find something that falsifies the theory of evolution

Evolution is easily falsifiable, on naturalism. I keep emphasizing on naturalism, because obviously I am not gonna sit here and say that it is beyond the scope of God's power to use evolution as a mechanism for creation...even though I don't believe that he did.

But even if he did, that would obviously be a defeater of naturalism AND agnosticism, so I am not sure how that helps your side of things.

That being said, if God is taken OUT of the equation, then it is painfully obvious that evolution cannot be necessarily true unless you can explain abiogenesis.

I don't know how many more times I can explain this.

I was going to go digging for the multiple times you've either said or implied this, but then I just had to read one more sentence. Surely that entitles me to LOL no? So, is it related or not? You say no, then yes under certain conditions.

We are trying to tell you it's simply "NO". No conditions.

Well obviously, if you believe that God created life and used evolution as means of creation, then no, abiogenesis doesn't have ANYTHING to do with evolution.

But if you don't believe God exists, then obviously abiogenesis has EVERYTHING to do with evolution. It just depends on your viewpoint, and remember, I am the one who keeps making that distinction, not you.

And I am making the distinction for good reason, because there are things to consider and it isn't as black/white as you are making it seem.

Please explain to us what a 'kind' is. In scientific detail please, not "Well obviously a dog is a kind". I think if you can do that, you will find your problem with this line of argument.

Dog.
Wolf.
Coyote.
Ostrich.

If I gave you a million dollars to tell me which animal is different from above, without getting into any technical or bio babble, you will pick the ostrich. However, since there is no such reward and we are on a debate forum, it is time to be technical, time to question.

If you can't clearly see that a dog, wolf, and coyote are the same "kind" of animal, then I don't know what to tell ya. I can't help you.

Actually there is no difference. Both involve reproduction, change during reproduction, and selective pressures that direct what gets to reproduce (in short, what survives to reproduce are the only things that can reproduce).

"Selective pressures" lol.

I agree, what you present is not science. Your micro/macro argument is definitely not science since you can't explain what they actually mean.

I thought I made it very clear what they mean.

Sure, I have already conceded multiple times that a god could have done it. What's that got to do with your tangent attached to my reply?

Memory faded.

Oh look, there you are doing again. Twice in one post something you said you haven't done.

?

Surely I can both LOL and SMH?

Sure, they are both great tools to express how you feel.

Ok, cool, we're both doing it now. I didn't realize what a great debate tactic this was until I started doing it too. I admit I'm getting dizzy though and may fall over.

My responses have been at length many times over for me to be able to shake my head every now then.

And I have never said that making a change to something will make it a different "thing".

See, that's where I disagree. I believe that a reptile is a different "thing" than a bird. When you go to a pet store and ask them for their "reptile" section, you will not find any birds there. Or better yet, if you ran a pet store and someone asked for your reptile section, you will show them birds, too? Because after all, birds are reptiles.

I just can't rock with that. But hey, whatever rattles your chain.

Ignoring the lack of actual scientific nomenclature here, we have been repeatedly trying to tell you that the bird is still in fact a reptile, we have simply added another label to keep our sanity in the real world.

Sure, an ostrich is classified as the same "kind" of animal as a boa constrictor. I mean, why not, the similarities are undeniable.

Just like your Jeep example. You can add Ford body panels, Ford seats, and even a Ford logo on the hood, but it's still really a Jeep. You might start calling it a Ford, but that's just for convenience. I'd probably call it a Feep, but that's just me.

If you make enough changes, eventually it will become "a jeep that was transformed into an X."

You can't make an infinite amount of changes and claim it is the same thing it was before. At some point it will cross the threshold of the former and become the latter.

You are saying that despite the painfully, blistering, obvious differences between birds and reptiles, that they are the same kind of animal. I beg to differ.

Everything. See above. What has really happened is that a reptile has reproduced millions/billions of times and is still in fact a reptile. These particular reptiles look so different now we call them birds. We could have called them glorps, blingblongs, doodads, whatever.

First of all, you are presupposing the events at which they reproduced and changed (macroevolution) to that magnitude, which, in my opinion, has YET to be scientifically proven.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Modern day birds are in fact 'reptiles'. i.e. their great, great, great, [insert millions/billions greats], great grandparents were reptiles.

You are looking in your rear-view mirror at science, because you just passed it..and now you are looking out of your front windshield at religion...because you just passed science and you are now in the city of religion. You are relying on the unseen..on faith.

Science does not tell you that reptiles evolved into birds..that is your religion (evolution).

We see this through the fossil record

If you see a fossil and you determine anything other than "this once living thing has been dead a long time", then you are speculating. You don't know if that fossil had any children, and you certainly don't know if that fossil and different children.

And there certainly isn't a fossil record. You don't have a complete fossil record of any single organism, despite the millions of animals that died and was fossilized.

, and more precisely through the genetic data.

Common designer. DNA is a code, and the same genetic engineer used the same blueprint for all of his creation.

Simple, we just put some artificial labels on things to better explain the differences we see. That dog doesn't look like a labrador or a poodle anymore, so we call it a labradoodle. That reptile doesn't look like it used to, so we call it a bird now.

It is more than just not looking like it used to, it is a completely different kind of animal altogether (reptile-bird). I can't even begin to imagine how/why such drastic changes will take place.

As a matter of fact, I want you to sit there and tell me what survival/environmental conditions will allow a reptile to evolve into a featured/wing creature.

Or a 3D animation. Give me something.

Well, I suggest some university level biology courses with some genetics lab work then. Your failure to believe scientific literature and your unwillingness to go check it our for yourself are hardly issues we can solve by debating. The material is there for you to read and the biology is there for you to test. You just have to do your own homework or continue in your disbelief. Choice is yours.

First, I will ask the instructor whether or not he/she is a naturalist. If yes, I will politely ask the instructor to scientifically confirm abiogenesis. If he can't, case closed.

We are trying to point out that in fact you don't appear to understand it.

What is so hard to understand? You believe a reptile evolved into a bird, I don't. You believe there is evidence supporting it. I don't. It's not about understanding, it is about accepting.

Your use of micro/macro is a huge red flag you don't actually understand it.

I can reject evolution based off of the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird, alone. I don't need the micro/macro labels. I understand that YOU believe that a reptile eventually became a bird, and I simply reject such a premise.

There, no micro/macro stuff and that didn't get me any closer to believing it nor does it help shape my understand of anything. It just isn't needed because as far as I'm concerned, the core principal of such changes in nature is unfounded and unscientific and there is no reason whatsoever to believe it.

Now, you may actually understand it and are simply trying to muddy the waters by throwing in some made up terms to try and confuse others from really understanding it.

Nope. I just don't believe it.

I would like to believe you wouldn't do that kind of thing, so I can only hope you really don't understand it.

I understand it, I just don't believe it.

Great! How did we get on evolution then?

Because one conversation led to another one. That's just life, I guess.

You are still being extremely vague. Your limits are nothing but a vague "I don't believe that". Please explain the mechanism that stops billions of small changes adding up to very large changes over time. Until you do that, your disbelief is all you have.

What is the mechanism that allows a reptile to grow features and wings? You talk about being vague, when all I am given is "selective pressures allow for X to happen"...as if that isn't vague.

SMH.

So, what I can see with my own eyes, I believe. Excellent skepticism!

Observation is part of science, correct?

If you could define what exactly is microevolution that would be great.

I did.

Now you don't see evidence for any evolution. I'm having a hard time following you. It's like you are having an internal struggle here. First you agree with the basic concepts, then you go off and create your own theory and argue against that. Every time I pin you down on agreeing with the basic concepts again, you find some reason to dismiss it. It's like you agree, but can't agree because that would ruin everything. Tough spot to be in.

First off, I spent a lot of time in numerous posts explaining to you what I believe about evolution, and what I don't believe about evolution. Now, how many times have I explicitly stated or otherwise implied something along the lines of "I believe in microevolution, the idea that there are many different varieties within the "dog" kind, but they are still all DOGS. What I don't believe is macroevolution, which is the idea that a reptile became a bird".

As you can see, one is a small-scale change (different varieties of dogs) compared to the larger scale change (reptile to bird). And as I stated, one we can test, demonstrate, and predict (micro), and the other one we can't (macro)

My distinctions between micro/macro have been accurate, and they have been consistent, throughout my entire discourse with you. I've said this time and time again. So for you to sit there and act like I never clarified my position and/or is refusing to define concepts and terminologies is disingenuous.

There is no internal struggle, no lack of understanding, no failure to clarify. We just simply disagree as to what can/cant happen in nature, and what is adequate evidence and what isn't. Those are fair debates.

But all of this "you don't understand" stuff or this "you didn't clarify" stuff is bullsh#t, especially when the exact opposite is true.

Agreed, spontaneously being born with wings would be absurd and not covered by evolution.

Yeah but who is to say it can't happen. You are the one implying that there is limitation to the amount of time it takes...and that should be whether or not it takes a long time or a short amount of time. Unless you are saying there is a law of nature which states it should take a long time...but if so, what law?

Perhaps a god concept would have to be invoked if that ever happened.

Or an unidentified nature concept.

Your thinking that it couldn't happen over millions of years brings you back to disagreeing with your earlier self. You reluctantly agreed that small changes can take place every time something reproduces.

Yup, micro.

You really fought on this one and tried to bring Jeeps into it. However, you agree it can happen. You are now disagreeing that those small changes can look like the beginnings of wings. Would Jeep parts be ok? What small changes are you ok with? Is there a list?

The small changes are limited to the kind of animal that is undergoing the change. It won't be extended to the (or into the) transformation of a new/different kind of animal.

I have no evidence to suggest otherwise...and all you can do for evidence is present to me bones in the ground and saying "Look, here is evidence that this turned into this"...and I say nonsense.

Now you are back to assuming agency of some kind. Why does there have to be a mind involved?

Because I am not in the game of thinking that a mindless/blind process is smart enough to give eyes, ears, wings, stomachs, brains, teeth, and not to mention life itself, to organisms.

That would be similar to a hanging Mona Lisa painting at your home and me asking "Who painted that", and you saying "Oh, I spilled some paint on the canvas, and this painting was the result".

No, that is not how nature works. If nature can't give you the painting, then it also can't give you the physical human being of whom the painting is of.

And again, I find it amazing that you are asking the question of "why does there have to be a mind involved", but you are not asking "why can't there be a mind involved"....I mean, it would seem as if both questions would be equally pondered and therefore asked by you, because after all, you are agnostic in your approach to these things, right? Yet, the question seemed more one-sided...almost like a question an atheism and/or naturalist would ask.

If whatever change you acquire after reproduction gives you an advantage to survive, do you think maybe you might have a better chance to reproduce?

Yeah, but does that come before or after the survival tool was implemented. So for example, if wings made it better for me to survive, do I get the wings before the need for them, or after the need for them?

If reptiles evolved wings because of the need for survival, then why aren't other animals evolving wings? As if they need to survive any less than the animals that actually evolved the wings for survival.

It goes both ways you know. Some things acquire disadvantageous changes. If that change makes surviving and/or reproducing more difficult, that means that change probably won't continue in the gene pool. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp.

What disadvantageous changes? And it isn't difficult to grasp. The rabbit that somehow developed the "fast running" (or hop) gene would be able to out-run predators more so than slower rabbits. So, that gene is passed to offspring, and pretty soon you have a generation of fast hopping rabbits. Cool. That is one thing. No new animal is being created. Now, when the rabbit starts to grow features, wings, talons, beaks...that is crossing the line.

That isn't science. That is religion.

[benchwarmer]

You will have a better chance of fishing and getting a fish stick than seeing macroevolution occur in real-time or gradually.

Scientifically speaking, 'macro' evolution refers to an extremely long time span, so yes, one would not "see" it happening regardless of the probability of reeling in fish sticks.

It isn't just a matter of seeing it with my own eyes. It is a matter of not having convincing evidence for the theory either way.

Yes, you've been abundantly clear you do not believe the veritable mountain of scientific evidence that exists and continues to accumulate.

Nice try. The whole "it takes millions of years" thing might work for a mindless/blind process that didn't know what it was doing...but for intelligent human beings, it should take far less time than that.

You've just accidentally agreed with evolution without even realizing it.

Yes, evolution is a 'mindless' process. Even in the lab, all we can do is change the conditions the organisms are reproducing in.

Why do you suppose just because human beings are involved it should take far less time? Are you claiming human beings know how to create the conditions for evolving consciousness? If they did, we would not be having this debate. We've explained to you that we don't currently understand what conditions are necessary, otherwise we would be creating consciousness in the lab.

And besides, there is no "correct" conditions. You can't get consciousness from inanimate material. Where is the source that you are pulling from to get the consciousness? It isn't a physical thing that you can get from other physical things. Sorry, charlie. Ain't happening.

You can call me charlie all you like. Are you or are you not composed of inanimate materials? Therein lies your own refutation. Unless of course you believe you are composed of some magical material the rest of us are not.

Sure, I reckon there are vast differences between a chihuahua and a great dane, but those vast differences ain't allowing one to become a different "kind" of animal. Same animal, different variety.

You are arguing our case for us. You still never defined "kind" by the way. Readers will notice this lack of willingness to do so.

I did, actually.

Great, please provide the URL to your definition of micro/macro evolution, I haven't seen it. All I've seen is vague 'hand waving' and incredulity.

All you have provided is your incredulity that things can change so much that we humans decide to label things differently.

?

Exactly. The irony is amazing. You are confused about taxonomy and your only reply to that assertion is "?". Fitting.

And I am trying to tell you that within that one scientific theory, there are two things taking place: one thing is something we can observe and test (micro), and the other thing we can't observe and test (macro).

Great, please provide a URL to a scientific source that claims what you are saying. At this point all we have is your confusion and your unwillingness to believe the actual theory.

And based on that, it is only right that we distinguish between the two.

Based on what? Your confusion about the actual theory?

And when someone like me speak of micro/macro evolution, we would only be using those terms to distinguish one proven scientific fact from the other unproven scientific assumption.

So you are still in disbelief that lots of small changes adds up to big changes? That's really where you seem to be stuck. You are unwilling to define when changes will stop and you are unwilling to list what changes are ok. It just seems you are flabbergasted by the magnitude of changes that are possible and then draw some imaginary line in the sand based on some loose terminology you won't define.

Feel free to point us to the scientific definition that you claim to be using.

I told you.

Great, a quick URL should put me in my place and I will concede you have done so.

It doesn't matter how you describe it because the concept is what it is...I am saying I don't see evidence for it either way...regardless of how it is described, defined, classified, or any mechanism involved.

Let me get this straight. It doesn't matter how I I describe it, you are basically just going to plug your ears and stick to your own definition even if it's wrong? Interesting. I'm willing to be proven wrong by links to scientific sources, yet you are unwilling to be swayed regardless of anything.

Very interesting indeed.

But it has nothing to do with mechanisms. I am saying that macroevolution (the concept of a reptile evolving into a bird) cannot /did not occur under any situation, circumstance, or in any of your wildest dreams.

So now you are defining macroevolution as "a reptile evolving into a bird". Great, if this is going to be your definition, can you at least be more precise? Which reptile? Which bird? In other words, what do you mean by 'reptile'. It's just a label after all, so hopefully you have something more specific in mind here. Otherwise we're just back to your confusion about taxonomy.

And I feel double that way about abiogenesis.

Well, I have no feelings one way or the other since I don't claim any particular abiogenesis theory actually happened. I'm open until evidence shows one way or the other. You seemed to have discarded theories because of your feelings. Not very scientific.

Wait a minute, are you saying that long ago a reptile didn't evolve into a bird? Because that is all I was alluding to, that those animals of yesterday were doing things that the animals of today have never been observed to do.

Correct, long ago, reptiles did not magically become what we call birds today. They simply did what they do today. Reproduce and have small mutations/changes during each reproductive cycle. Eventually humans came along, pulled out the label maker, and started assigning names to things.

Where did you get the idea that I thought reptiles from a long time ago reproduced and instantly popped out what we call a bird today? Is this the whole crocoduck fiasco?

They will keep reproducing, just what comes out of the placenta is what we disagree with. I am saying that the first bird natural born bird came from a bird. You are saying that the first natural featured bird came from a non-bird.

No, I'm not saying that. You are stuck on this instantaneous transformation gig. I've repeatedly emphasized SMALL changes/mutations at each reproduction. I've also emphasized that HUMANS decided where to draw the line and apply EXTRA labels and start calling particular organisms something different. This has been explained. Birds are still reptiles because we decided to label the earliest ancestors of birds reptiles.

That is a fundamental disagreement there.

I prefer fundamental misunderstanding.

It happens...I am just saying that there are limitations. From all of the evidence I see, all changes are limited to the kind of animal.

There you go again. You say there are limitations, but won't provide any details other than going back to labels.

Just for the record, I completely agree there are limitations at each reproductive cycle, that's why humans aren't born sporting a fresh set of wings. That would be a massive change to the genome in one reproductive cycle. I've never said this would happen. Are you back to agreeing with me again? My head is spinning from all the back and forth.

It isn't about reproduction, it is the offspring of the parents...that is the area of contention.

Well there we have it in black in white. You are claiming evolution is not about reproduction. Thus providing the evidence you don't understand the theory. Not much else to say after you make that claim.

How do offspring come about? Yes, reproduction. Thus unless things reproduce, there will be no offspring. Surely that is clear.

The area of contention is that while you agree some changes can happen every time reproduction happens, you are unwilling to concede that after millions/billions of reproductive cycles, these small changes can add up to really large changes. So much so that we poor humans have to start calling things different names to avoid confusion.

What I can't comprehend is how a non-featured, non-winged animal will ever get to the point of having features, and wings. I can't imagine how this can occur on naturalism.

Well, this is exactly what we've been trying to explain.

All of this "survival" and "correct condition" stuff is bullsh#t. How did the wings get there, and why? And then, what was the trial and error process of learning to fly with these newly evolved wings?

So now you are back to instantaneous wings? That's a strawman. You are arguing against yourself again.

Just a bunch of nonsense, quite frankly. My goodness, it is almost insulting my intelligence to even try to get me to believe that nonsense.

No one here is saying that wings magically appeared suddenly. You're right, that is nonsense. The only one talking about that is you.

Look, I'll try to break it all down one last time. For the sake of argument, let's start with an animal that exists today. There's no point talking about animals of the past because you keep getting stuck there. You want to know how something that doesn't have wings today, may eventually evolve to have wings.

Now, I'll concede right away that I don't know all the paths that will lead to wings, but let's see if we can see what might be possible. Also keep in mind, this is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. It is for illustrative purposes to try and explain how things could work.

We'll start with a dog. Let's be somewhat specific and say a domesticated beagle named Bob.

Right away you are LOLing because you've never seen a dog sprout wings and are just waiting to pounce on my example when I give some conditions where Bob has a son/daughter with wings. However, you will have to hold off on pouncing.

So, in order for Bob the beagle to contribute to the gene pool, he has to reproduce or Bob the beagle will never have any progeny at all.

You keep harping on the so called nonsense of "selective pressure" or other driving forces of evolution. We'll cut to the chase right here.

If Bob is to reproduce, he has to live long enough to do so and also find a mate. We want Bob's progeny to eventually fly, so we better think of some pressures that may start heading in that direction. Let's try to be somewhat aggressive but not completely ridiculous (I know, you're LOLing already). Let's place Bob and a bunch of prospective mates on a large island so that we can more easily control the environment. Let's also place all the food sources high up and all the really good food sources across a creek.

Now, the only beagles that will survive long enough to reproduce have to eat right? So if the food is high up, only the beagles that manage to get food will keep living. What's that you say? What if none of the beagles can eat? Well nature's not forgiving so they would all die and experiment over. However, hopefully we were smart enough to place the food so that some would be able to get it.

So, some of the beagles, the ones that somehow managed to get food are the only ones left to reproduce. Whatever specialties those beagles have (genetic encoding) is available for passing down. Maybe some are good jumpers. Maybe some are lighter and reasonable jumpers. Maybe some are good climbers. Whatever the case, only those who somehow manage to get food can live long enough to have puppies. Let's just assume our friend Bob has one of these qualities.

Ok, Bob has lived long enough and found a mate who has also lived long enough. Let's assume the mating is successful (only because we want Bob to be one of the original ancestors). Let's say the litter is 10 puppies. Anyone sprouted wings yet? Let's all LOL at that one, of course not. What can we say about the puppies? Well, both of their parents either had really good luck or they also had some qualities that allowed them to gather food, even though it is high enough that not all beagles could get to it. Hopefully it was genetic or Bob's line will die and experiment over (for Bob's progeny).

Wow, that was a lot of words and we've only had one round of reproduction. And no wings. What gives benchwarmer, I was promised wings on dogs? LOL, SMH.

Ok, now to the puppies. Bob is out of the equation now for simplicity (no cross breeding with his puppies or other litters with other mates). At this point if none of the puppies truly gained the advantages their parents had, it's game over for Bob's line. However, let's say they inherited the good genes like general body weight and similar muscles as Bob and his mate. This means that all the puppies should do similarly when it comes to gathering food and surviving. If any of them had a mutation that caused extra weight, a bad leg, bad vision, any slow down, etc. they likely won't make it. The only ones that will live long enough to reproduce are the ones that get the food, survive, find a mate, and have puppies.

Now, since we are controlling this island we will crank the pressure up a little and move the food ever so slightly higher. Who's going to get the food? Only the lightest, strongest jumpers perhaps? Maybe some good climbers?

In the next round of reproduction we'll have Bob II, son of Bob, who was lucky to only inherit good genes and no bad mutations. Luckily he is fit enough to get food. He lives long enough to find a mate and have puppies. His mate was also obviously fit enough to get food. Yea, more puppies! Boo, no wings yet! Come on benchwarmer, I'm getting bored reading all this puppy reproduction!

Is benchwarmer actually going to type out millions of reproductive cycles? Is anyone even still reading this? LOL, SMH, of course not. Oh well, carrying on...

Let's skip a few generations (I promise, I'm not inserting any wings here) and slowly the food has been getting harder and harder to get. Only the strongest, lightest, best climbing progeny of Bob and the other beagles are left on the island.

Some of these progeny have even started jumping across the creek to get at the other sources of food. The problem is, this darn creek is actually pretty dangerous and only some beagles are making the leap. Some are falling in and swept away, no longer part of the gene pool on the island.

Many more generations later, we notice that the beagles have changed ever so slightly. They are leaner, and better at jumping. Both from reaching the food close by and from reaching the food across the creek. Any wings yet? Nope. Oh come on benchwarmer, when the heck are the wings going to show up? LOL!

As the experiment progresses (by the progeny of the original experimenters) they continue to raise the food ever so slightly higher and make the creek ever so slightly wider. Any large changes would wipe out all the beagles. Yup, they are still beagles.

Let's jump ahead a bunch more generations. Things haven't changed too much, but we notice one beagle is having a slightly better time at jumping the creek. We also notice this is one of Bob's progeny. Lucky guy! We do a few measurements and notice this beagle is a bit lighter than the average weight of the already fairly light crowd that's left. He's having an easy time getting food across the creek. Lucky guy also manages to find a mate and have puppies. 5 of his puppies also exhibit this extra lightness. Must have been some genetic mutation in the father as some of the puppies have it too.

Good grief benchwarmer, where the heck are the wings!!

Jump ahead more generations. Continuing very slightly making food higher and creek wider.

Beagles are now so lean and jumping so high they look a little different from old Bob of long ago. Some smartie pants experimenter wants to label them bigles intead of beagles because these particular beagles are exhibiting some different traits than ole Bob. The rest of the experimenters put an ixnay on that because they don't want to confuse those following along.

Jump ahead more generations. Some of the beagles legs, along with being very muscular also seem a little more aerodynamic. AHA! Finally some wings!! LOL! Those aren't wings! No, it just seems that over hundreds, thousands of generations, those beagles that happen to inherit slightly more aerodynamic features are better jumpers.

More generations. The beagles are able to jump twice as far as ole Bob now and though still looking like beagles, are definitely not the same. Still no wings. Darn you benchwarmer!!

More generations. One of the puppies has a mutation that created a half inch flap of skin between his front legs and his chest. Finally! OMG! It's wings! No, still not wings. However, these small flaps seem to ever so slightly help jumping distance.

More generations. Now about 50% of the beagles have this gene for a tiny armpit flap. Still no wings.

More generations. One of the puppies skin flaps is almost an inch. Wings? LOL. No.

More generations. About 25% of the beagles have inch long flaps. Experiments are still cranking food and creek to make it ever so slightly harder to eat.

More generations. One of the puppies skin flaps is 2 inches. By now all the beagles have some sort of skin flap.

Repeat for another 1000 generations.

By now, we have the beginnings of what some might call wings. That is how it could START. Still not at fully developed wings.

After all that effort, we may have just as easily evolved beagles that climb trees really well. No way to know for sure. However, that shows one possible path.

Commence LOLing and SMHing and please also explain the exact place where this went wrong.

LOL. Or how about this..if you are doing a biology report on reptiles and you go to a pet store and you ask one of the clerks to take you to the reptile section, and all most of the reptiles just happen to be at the vet that day, but there are about 10 different kinds of birds there, and the clerk takes you to the bird section....that wouldn't be a problem, because after all, birds are reptiles, right?

Oh good, we're back to the ridiculous pet store analogy and your confusion about labels regarding ancient and modern organisms.

LOL!

Or better yet, you go to the pet store and you ask the clerk what is the biggest reptile they have in stock...and the clerk brings you out an ostrich..that would work, right? LOL.

LOL indeed. I would find that humorous and get the joke. You would just look at the clerk puzzled.

So you agree it could happen, but you will be dead when it does. I'll call that progress.

LOL.

SMH

First off, I need to know what "small changes" mean. What does it entail. Like I asked the other guy, what is it? A feather here, a feature there? Toes replacing talons? What is a "small change"?

A genetic mutation during reproduction. The physical manifestation may not even be visible.

I find it hilarious that agnostics try to make it seem as if they take the middle ground, acting as if they are so modest and open-minded...yet they spend the bulk of their time on here attempting to debunk theistic claims, and spend absolutely no time whatsoever debunking naturalistic claims.

So now we are forgetting the debate topic and shifting to debate opponents. I'm not going to follow suit because that is usually the first sign of a lost debate. Glad you went there first.

The rest of your replies were tangents into religion and off topic as far as I could tell. I'm also tired after typing out Bob's attempt to grow wings.

Happy LOLing and SMHing. I need a drink.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 554 by liamconnor]

Ex-atheist anthony flew abandoned atheism and adopted theism (not Christianity) because of the problem of abiogenesis: that is, he could not account for the origins of life within a naturalistic framework. How would you respond to such a change?

I'll answer this. I'd ask him
"What prompted a positive belief in theism, when all you've told me is you for some reason cannot figure out the origin of life naturally?"

To give a quick and crude counter-example to show the flaw in your thinking, I can't account for how my next door neighbour pays for his mortgage and car. So I'm going to have a positive belief he's a criminal of some sort, (not going to pick a specific enterprise).

In other words, could organic life survive the conditions within which the expanse of the universe occurred (i.e., can life survive the big bang)?

I'd like to know why you asked this question. Given that naturally speaking, the Big Bang happened about roughly 10 billion years before the earliest life forms arose (by whatever method) on Earth, this question is kinda poorly thought out in my opinion. I mean...has anyone ever suggested to you there was life in the initial moments of the universe, just after the BB?
Also strictly speaking, the universe is still expanding, and your question doesn't mention a specific time frame. So I could be technical and say yes, since the universe is expanding, and we have life on Earth, then yes, life can survive the conditions within which the expanse of the universe occurs (present tense, not past tense).