Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #77]

While it's certainly true that the Theory of Evolution does not make any claims about abiogenesis, I did come across this article which discusses areas of overlap between the two subjects:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

Not a particularly long or overly-technical paper. Well supplied with reputable references.

From the last section:

By studying the dynamics of simple replicating molecular systems and the networks they establish, studies in system chemistry are beginning to offer insights into that process of replicative complexification.

Far from the natural origin of life being impossible, it seems ever more likely to eventually be established as fact, be well understood, and in turn, offer yet more fascinating and detailed insights into evolution.

[brunumb]

"Sure, give it a hundred million years, and this featherless/wingless rabbit will evolve wings so that it can better escape from predators. You may not see it now, but I guarantee if you lived to be a hundred million years, you will see. No doubt about it".

Why is it that only creationists make statements like that and not actual scientists? Because it is a straw man argument. Anyone arguing against natural selection needs to understand how it works and then attempt to dismantle it by pointing out where it actually breaks down. Merely making nonsense statements about rabbits evolving wings might work on the indoctrinated when proclaimed mockingly from the pulpit, but they are totally devoid of any credibility with people able to make an informed assessment of them.

Please demonstrate your understanding of natural selection and then explain where it fails to account for the variation in life forms we see on this planet.

[DavidLeon]

"Sure, give it a hundred million years, and this featherless/wingless rabbit will evolve wings so that it can better escape from predators. You may not see it now, but I guarantee if you lived to be a hundred million years, you will see. No doubt about it".

Why is it that only creationists make statements like that and not actual scientists? Because it is a straw man argument. Anyone arguing against natural selection needs to understand how it works and then attempt to dismantle it by pointing out where it actually breaks down. Merely making nonsense statements about rabbits evolving wings might work on the indoctrinated when proclaimed mockingly from the pulpit, but they are totally devoid of any credibility with people able to make an informed assessment of them.

Please demonstrate your understanding of natural selection and then explain where it fails to account for the variation in life forms we see on this planet.

I love it! [laughing] This almost sounds like a perfect parody of me complaining on this very forum about the dumb atheist platitudes.

Wah! Brunumb. Wah! I could start doing this back at you for fun. I wouldn't care about your protests any more than you care about mine. You get that? The table has turned. Your complaint, though valid, means absolutely nothing. The mocking is devoid of any credibility because to express any such thing would be granting your beliefs the respect they do not deserve.

How does it feel? Imagine it continuing, without pause, for 27 years and not by just one but by dozens of people ... wherever you go.

[brunumb]

Ok, so using natural selection, explain to me how a reptile evolved into a bird. Explain it to me first, and then lets go to a lab and and conduct some experiments so we can see how it works (you know, actual science).

A reptile did not evolve into a bird. If you want to argue against evolution find out what is involved before you start.

You don't need to go into a lab to practice the scientific method.

If something takes millions of years to occur, then it is illogical to expect to achieve the same outcome in days, or weeks, or years. That aside, evolution is driven by environmental change.

Your request is like a builder telling you it will take 6 months to build your house and you demanding to see it finished tomorrow.

So, what is actual science in your mind?

[brunumb]

So, if you are open-minded enough to posit God in the whole "evolution" business, just know that you cannot remain true to your atheism when you do so.

Perhaps the following clip will enlighten you on the correct meaning of being open-minded or closed-minded:

[otseng]

I love it! [laughing] This almost sounds like a perfect parody of me complaining on this very forum about the dumb atheist platitudes.

Wah! Brunumb. Wah! I could start doing this back at you for fun. I wouldn't care about your protests any more than you care about mine. You get that? The table has turned. Your complaint, though valid, means absolutely nothing. The mocking is devoid of any credibility because to express any such thing would be granting your beliefs the respect they do not deserve.

How does it feel? Imagine it continuing, without pause, for 27 years and not by just one but by dozens of people ... wherever you go.

Moderator Final Warning

Please cease the mocking and uncivil comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So, if you are open-minded enough to posit God in the whole "evolution" business, just know that you cannot remain true to your atheism when you do so.

Perhaps the following clip will enlighten you on the correct meaning of being open-minded or closed-minded:

No thank you. Are we gonna pretend that there aren't closed-minded atheists out there who won't even consider the possibility of a god existing?

Ever heard of Peter Atkins? Madalyn Murray O'Hair? Richard Dawkins? Members of this very forum?

[We_Are_VENOM]

A reptile did not evolve into a bird. If you want to argue against evolution find out what is involved before you start.

Well, write a letter to these guys..

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... 20modified.

And tell them that you disagree with their assessments.

So, if you want to advocate the theory of evolution, how about you "find out what is involved before you start".

The whole "you don't understand evolution" quip is so commonly touted from evolutionists, that even when evolution-skeptic gets something right about the theory, they STILL get accused of not understanding the theory.

The fact that a reptile evolved into a bird is one of the most well known facts of evolution (according to the theory), so why would you have the nerve to say "a reptile didn't evolve into a bird" is beyond me.

But as I said, take it up with those guys and the countless of other sources which makes the claim.

You don't need to go into a lab to practice the scientific method.

If something takes millions of years to occur, then it is illogical to expect to achieve the same outcome in days, or weeks, or years. That aside, evolution is driven by environmental change.

I don't believe evolution (macroevolution) can happen at ALL. So if I don't believe it happened at all, then the time-frame at which it allegedly occurs becomes irrelevant.

If it didn't happen at all, then it didn't happen in millions of years.

Your request is like a builder telling you it will take 6 months to build your house and you demanding to see it finished tomorrow.

So, what is actual science in your mind?

I will expect to see the house built in 6 months, not a hundred million years.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #77]

While it's certainly true that the Theory of Evolution does not make any claims about abiogenesis, I did come across this article which discusses areas of overlap between the two subjects:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/

Not a particularly long or overly-technical paper. Well supplied with reputable references.

Of course the two overlaps, and anyone who doesn't have an axe to grind can see this.

For the evolutionists (who are usually hardcore science-loving atheists), evolution is the only game in town...they don't believe in God, so evolution is the only thing that they can appeal to in order to account for the origin of species...which is why, like religious folks, they defend their "faith" so vigorously, at all costs...even willing to defy all logic and reasoning, just to hold true to their faith.

So basically, the idea is; "Any belief, no matter how irrational, is still better than the "G" word".

Far from the natural origin of life being impossible, it seems ever more likely to eventually be established as fact, be well understood, and in turn, offer yet more fascinating and detailed insights into evolution.

It strikes me as amazing, that, human beings with our vast knowledge, intellect, and resources...are taking it so long to figure this stuff out.

Mother nature doesn't have a mind, and can't see...yet she was able to..

1. Create a universe from nothing.
2. Create life from nonliving material
3. Create consciousness in this life created life, and also giving it all sort of cool stuff such as eyeballs, skin, bones, blood, etc.

Now, I am certainly not expecting human beings to create universes...but at least we should be able to create life/consciousness with the scraps that we have.

After all, Mother Nature pulled it off, and she is mindless and can't even see!! Give me a break. Yes, God did it.

[Bust Nak]

So basically, the idea is; "Any belief, no matter how irrational, is still better than the "G" word".

That's not faith, that's science. As so eloquently stated by Richard Lewontin:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."