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?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Hold on a minute! Who here claimed that dogs would become non-dogs a hundred-million years from now?

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.

I acknowledge that continual small changes will add up to larger changes, much like how seconds add up to be minutes. So if a population of dogs were to continually have small changes, given enough time these dogs will likely not resemble the dogs that they once were, but they will still be dogs. Your question is nonsensical.

My question is about as nonsensical as the theory itself. If the dogs will not resemble the dogs that they once were, but yet, they are still dogs...then that would be MICROEVOLUTION, which is not what is in dispute.

What is in dispute is the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird, and that whales were once land dwelling mammals. Those are the kind of changes that have never been observed in nature..not now, not ever.

But microevolution, the idea that there have been many different varieties of dogs over time, have been observed, tested, and proven. That, my friend, is science.

Nice attempt at a dodge though. All because you admit small changes happen but cannot point to a mechanism that would stop small changes from adding up to larger changes.

Um, define "larger changes", first. Because if you recall, my idea of larger changes would be for humans to evolve wings...and you practically called that idea absurd...so enlighten me on what you mean by "larger changes".....and this is all ironic, considering you believe that reptiles evolved wings....so what is the difference in a reptile evolving wings and a human evolving wings??

You are the one that is going around claiming that nothing will stop small changes from adding up to larger changes...well, what is a human evolving wings anything but a "larger change".

So, you want to stop once it comes to humans evolving wings, right? Well, then you agree with me that there is a limit to the changes so you can stop all of this "small changes lead to larger changes stuff...because I will go back to humans evolving wings every single time.

This explanation is irrelevant. What would be relevant would be to point to the mechanism that stops animals from having small changes that add up to larger changes.

What is the mechanism that has stopped humans from evolving wings?

Evolution is not driven by some goal.

So why in the hell did reptiles evolve wings? What was the point?

There is no end game. A species survival, which is not a guarantee is often a result of evolution.

Then survival is the goal.

Perhaps you should stop shaking your head so much.

I will, once the discontent begins to cease.

Listen closely please. I am not aware of, nor do I claim that there is a mechanism in place that would stop a human from evolving wings. I don't claim that humans will evolve wings and I do not claim that a human cannot evolve wings. Why you keep asking about humans and wings is lost on me.

You listen closely to me. You asked me what is the mechanism in place that will keep these small changes from turning into large changes.

I then asked you what is the mechanism that is currently keeping humans from evolving wings? That is a fair question to ask, considering the fact that in your opinion, organisms in the past have evolved wings from a previous wingless state, I am simply asking what is stopping humans from evolving wings just like other organisms.

There is no mechanism in place that I am aware of that would stop these changes from occurring.

Fine. Then simply tell me what will have to occur for these changes to occur. What will be the molecular "spark" that will allow humans to begin the process of evolving wings? Any idea? I mean after all, if there is no mechanism in place to STOP it, then tell me what is the mechanism that will START it.

Isn't that what science is all about? Answering, you know, scientific questions?

Your questions however deserve to be mocked.

Sure, just like your statements allow me to shake my head.

You however, and for some reason think that small changes in a species will stop happening at some point and for some as of yet unknown reason.

Because I don't need to go beyond necessity. I don't need to go beyond what can be observed, experimented, and predicted (again, actual science). All we observe is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. We can observe this, conduct breeding experiments, and even make predictions. This is science.

Thus, I keep asking and you keep failing to point to this mechanism.

Can you point out the mechanism that allowed a reptile to evolve wings?

Instead, you ask me about humans evolving to have wings as if that has anything to do with you answering the question posed to you.

It does. If a reptile can evolve wings, then haven't humans? I'd like you to give me the mechanism as to why humans haven't evolved wings yet?

For this reason, I have been forced to start addressing the readers on behalf of your non debate.

LOL.

What is absurd about humans evolving wings? Do you think there is some mechanism in place that would stop humans from evolving wings? If so, please describe this mechanism.

We don't need to deal with hypothethicals any longer. Evolutionists make the claim that reptiles evolved into birds, so I'd like to know the mechanism that allowed such a change to take place. So, tell me. I am asking you to give a scientific explanation regarding something that you claimed happened naturally.

That is science, right?

Great! What do you know about the mechanism that would stop small changes from adding up to larger changes? I am asking over and over about this thing you must know about, and here we are after going round and round and you have continued to show that you know anything about this mechanism. And now you want to pretend like you are a victim.

You tell me. Humans don't have wings yet. So obviously, there is something preventing us from having them. Otherwise, we'd have them, wouldn't we?

I believe it because there is evidence. Why do you 'simply not believe it'?

What evidence? *thinks to myself: please dont appeal to archeopteryx*

Sin is your concept.

So is macreovolution.

Either way, I should probably be accountable for my own wrong doings.

Oh, so you don't believe in forgiveness? Gotcha.

I like this scapegoat idea you propose though, as would Hitler.

?

Sounds absurd, right? Well, it sounds just as absurd to me, the idea that a reptile evolved into a bird or that life came from nonliving material. I don't see any evidence for it, so I have no reasons to believe that it occurred.

There is one big difference here. Evidence that dino's evolved into birds is abundant.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985201/ns/t ... VFNsmjysdU

The evidence debunking it is also abundant..

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... utionists/

I don't know. What does this have to do with your continued failure to describe a mechanism that stops small changes from adding up to large changes though? Are you just trying to deflect, hoping that readers wont notice?

What does it also have to do with your continued failure to tell me what is the mechanism that allowed a reptile to evolve into a bird.

I can't, because I don't know. You however reject that continued small changes in a population can add up to large changes

I am asking what is the mechanism which will lead to these larger changes.

, so this begs the question, what stops this?

What starts it?

You don't seem to know, but you like to talk about humans getting wings.

Humans getting wings would be an example of "large changes", right?

Not true. Let us pretend for a moment that your favorite god concept created life.

Sure, lets pretend for a moment than the God of the Bible created life...

Now please explain the mechanism that is in place that stops small changes from adding up to large changes.

That is easy. My pretend God may have put limitations on the gene code, so that only a limited fixed amount of changes can occur under any given organism. Next.

I willing to grant you (for this discussion) that your favorite god created life. What more do you want?

Oh, I didn't know that this grant was extended to the language thing as well. But keep granting my pretend God, though, as maybe these small scale grants (for this discussion only) will led to larger scale grants (you becoming a permanent believer).

Now do you understand the implications about how small changes in the English language added up to be, still English, but just a form of it that barely resembles English from hundreds of years ago? In language, like in evolution, I'm not aware of a mechanism that stops these small changes from adding up over time to become something that barely resembles its previous form.

Um, no. If you want to test a theory, you conduct an experiment (again, actual science). You go to a non-English speaking country and see how far you get in society without speaking a lick of their language and vice versa.

You see how long it will take you to "catch on" to their language, and vice versa. See how that will work for ya. It aint happening.

And if it aint happening in 2017, it aint happening in 1517, 517AD, 517BC, or any other distant year that you can think of.

False. I have addressed this. I don't know and I'm not aware of anyone that knows. Yet you keep asking for some reason. Do you know the definition of insanity? Do you honestly expect someone to solve the mystery of how life started on this planet on this debate forum?

Well, mother nature solved it, so why can't human beings?

Study what we do know, like for example, how languages change over time.

I am talking about origins...you are doing here the same thing you do with evolution...I am talking about how language originated, and you are talking about how it changes over time...just like abiogenesis is about how life originated, but the only thing naturalists want to talk about is how it changes over time.

Cart before the horse.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 537 by For_The_Kingdom]

The term macroevolution is a pretty big distinction thrown in there, and no, we CAN'T watch macroevolution in the lab, and that is precisely my point; it is unobserved and to believe in it is to speculate, thus, have faith.

You should spend some time reading information on the numerous links that exist similar to this one:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There are plenty of observed examples of what you call "macroevolution", which has no relationship whatsoever to abiogenesis or any other hypothesis for the origin of life.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 539 by For_The_Kingdom]

What does it also have to do with your continued failure to tell me what is the mechanism that allowed a reptile to evolve into a bird.

The benefit provided by the ability to fly is the reason birds evolved the many body changes necessary for flight (hollow bones, wings, etc.). There are also mammals that developed this capability (bats) for the same reason. The mechanism that allowed a reptile to evolve into a bird is called evolution by natural selection. Small changes accumulated over long periods of time that eventually resulted in the body changes necessary for flight, but the reason this happened is because there was a benefit in being able to fly in terms of survivability in the environment at the time, and evolution drove the necessary genetic changes that resulted in a body structure capable of flight.

If conditions on Earth change such that humans get overtaken by another dominant animal creature of some sort, humans may well obtain the ability to fly (in which case wings are needed ... there would be no reason to develop wings if there was no reason to be able to fly). But to get to that point we'd most likely have to become smaller and much lighter, and probably end up looking much like bats or birds because those are efficient body forms for flight. And it would take a very long time. But there is no reason it couldn't happen if the ability to fly was the most efficient way to survive against the change in environment that squeezed us humans out as the current rulers of the animal world.

Below is a real bat skeleton. Look familiar?

[For_The_Kingdom]

FtK, I'd like to ask you something. Several times in our discussions on evolution, you say something like evolution is too complex a process for a mindless blind nature to do it

It is. If a mindless/blind process can't paint you the Mona Lisa, then what makes you think a mind/blind process can create the physical body of Mona Lisa and also give her life?

, and you also challenge scientists to show you evolution in the lab.

What? You mean I am challenging scientists to go in the lab and actually conduct scientific experiments to corroborate their naturalistic claims? Nooo.

I want to question this line of thinking. There are many things that occur in nature that are at present beyond our (as in us, manmade) ability to replicate.

Yeah, but most things that are beyond our scope, we can still conduct experiments that would corroborate whatever the claim is...even if it isn't a direct simulation. We can't do this with macroevolution OR abiogensis. In fact, I challenge anyone to come up with a 3D simulation of abiogenesis.

Just give me something to go on that will lead me to believe that it could have happened. Right now, I have nothing.

The fusion that occurs at the heart of a star is something that does not require a mind to accomplish, is incredibly complex and beyond our ability to replicate (at least for now).
Are there ANY processes that occur in nature that are presently beyond our grasp to replicate that you acknowledge are complex and yet do not have a mind behind them?

But we are not talking about stuff that happened outside of Earth realm, we are talking about something that happened ON EARTH. All of the physical material happened on Earth, and it is still here. So why can't we take that physical matter and replicate what a mindless/blind process was able to do?

[For_The_Kingdom]

There is your problem right there. It is not called "The scientific theory of macroevolution" so you are arguing against a strawman.

No strawman here. There are many different types of evolution and I am merely arguing AGAINST the type that I see no evidence for, which is macroevolution...or the idea that a reptile can/did evolve into a bird.

It is simply called evolution.

And blackjack is simply called a "card game". But there are many different types of cards games, so you make the distinction between blackjack, spades, poker, etc.

Macroevolution is a "type" of evolution...and of course, since evolutionists believe that micro/macro evolution are before-and-after offshoots of each other, they link both concepts in together.

And that is why you have someone like me who is here saying "No, one can be scientifically proven (micro) and the other one can't (macro)."

Your trying to put extra labels on it to somehow make if fit both reality and your belief system is where things go wrong.

No extra labels, just defining terminologies as it relates to the subject. That's all.

You are basically trying to tell us that evolution happens, but at some unknown point it stops happening because you can't watch millions/billions of years worth of it happen in front of you.

And you are basically trying to tell me that long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it, the animals of yesterday were doing things that the animals of today have never been observed to do...and you are also telling me that hundreds of millions of years from now when no one living today will CONVENIENTLY not be around to witness it, the animals of that day will do things that the animals of today have never been observed to do.

Far too convenient.

"No one living yesterday ever saw it happen, no one living today will ever see it happen, and no one living tomorrow will ever see it happen....but...........it happens".

That is about as a text book of a con/scam as one can ever give.

I think you meant 'observed' not 'unobserved'?

I think I meant that, too.

Are you already forgetting the lab experiments with bacteria where you can watch them evolve?

Wake me up when that bacteria evolves consciousness. Might as well be dead, then.

If you are keen, you can go get your DNA compared to your parents. Are you trying to tell us it will be exactly the same?

What?

Wrong. While I don't believe the Christian portrayal of a god exists, I don't rule out god/gods entirely because I have no evidence to make such a claim. At this point I've seen no evidence to show that they exist either. Essentially, I'm agnostic.

Then you are not included in that "most" then, are you?

Except I don't claim any god not to exist, therefore I cannot rule out any hypothesis as to the origins of life. So, wrong again.

Sure you can rule out certain hypothesis'...you can rule out the ones that doesn't make any logical sense and thereby defies logic/reasoning.

Do you have evidence one way or the other?

Sure, I have evidence for Christian theism, and against naturalism.

And now you are just arguing with yourself and your own strawman. I'm saying I have no idea how life started. It may have been a god. We don't know. Thus, I make no claims as to what happened.

*It must have been God.

Or are we gonna keep entertaining the idea that sentient life came a nonliving, unconscious, blind process?

Correct, abiogenesis may not be what happened.

Ok then...so on naturalism, evolution isn't a brute fact. That is all I am saying. People are entitled to believe what they want...just don't call yourself an atheist while also maintaining the idea that evolution is a brute fact.

Now, if that doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you.

Evolution, however, still has nothing to do with how life started

I never said nor implied that evolution has anything to do with abiogenesis. I just said that it can't be a brute fact on naturalism.

, so claiming your stawman (macroevolution, whatever that is exactly in your mind) is somehow related and also false has no meaning.

On naturalism, it IS related to abiogenesis. You can't have life evolving if you don't have life originating. That is the relationship.

Do you mean your meaning of evolution or the actual scientific one we observe?

What we observe is animals producing a wide variety of different breeds/species within the "kind". There are many different varieties of dogs, but they are all DOGS. This is what we call microevolution, changes within the kind. We see it, we can experiment on it, and may even predict what will come next with selective breeding. This is science.

There is a different between that, and macroevolution, which is the reptile-to-bird stuff that has no observation element, no experimental element, nor prediction element.

So it basically ain't science...no matter how much you want to link it in with science, it aint science.

Now you are mixing your strawman of evolution (macroevolution) with the existence of your favorite god with a side of apologetics.

Didn't you agree with me that God could have done it?

We are not trying to defeat Christianity here, we are trying to explain what the scientific theory of evolution actually is and make it clear it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

On naturalism, it does.

I don't know what your "macroevolution" really is, so no, I likely don't believe in it. I do believe the actual scientific theory of evolution to be correct.

SMH. See above.

Now you are getting it. Correct, reproduction has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Okkk.

You agree, then give an example that doesn't involve reproduction.

Did your jeep wrangler appear as the result of two other vehicles mating?
I fail to see your analogy

I was only demonstrating that you can make a change to something without the thing becoming a different kind of "thing".

So yes you agree, but are simply baffled how scientists have decided to name species? As has been explained countless times, whatever 'thing/name/label' something starts as, it continues to belong to that 'thing/name/label' after reproduction regardless of the number of generations (evolution). Thus you seem simply confused why we choose to eventually label things a certain way.

How does this answer the question of "what does this have to do with a reptile evolving into a bird?"

Let's try an example. You agree there are dogs yes?

LOL. Yeah.

Do you know how many names there are for the various kinds of dogs now?

More than one, correct?

Your question about reptiles from millions of years ago evolving into what we now label as birds is basically the same as asking how can labradoodles have evolved from labradors and poodles.

But the labradoodles would still be dogs, right? Unless you are saying that birds are reptiles...and of course, that is what evolution teaches. I just simply disagree with that.

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.

Regardless of what you decide to call it, I don't see any evidence for it either way.

Only in the context of explaining how the are different. That some choose to lump them under the same concept is the whole reason we are having the current discussion. If only those that actually understood the scientific theory of evolution where taking part in this thread, the topic would have never come up.

Just because I don't believe in it doesn't mean that I don't understand it. In fact, it is because of what I do understand that allows me to reject the theory.

We would simply be discussing the various abiogenesis hypotheses and why each one may have some merit. If you dig back in the thread, maybe it will be interesting to see who first brought up evolution and why they brought it up. Was it to explain they are not related or was it to somehow cast doubt on abiogenenis because they are related?

I don't know...but it is obvious that one can point out the problems with abiogenesis (for the naturalist) without even mentioning evolution.

Excellent. Please elaborate on these limits that you speak of.

The limits that I speak of are exactly what you claim happened. I don't believe a reptile will ever get to the point where it will grow wings/beaks. I don't believe that an animal will ever get to the point of being a land dwelling animal and eventually evolving the internal anatomy that will allow it to become a water dwelling animal.

Of course, with divine intervention, it can happen...but not on naturalism.

Essentially, you agree that evolution takes place

Of course, microevolution, as I distinguished above.

, you just have trouble when the time frame exceeds what you can see with your own eyes.

No, my position is even bolder than that. To hell with the time aspect, I don't believe it happened suddenly or gradually. They are both equally absurd to me, and I don't see evidence for it anyway.

The idea of a human baby being born with wings (suddenly) is just as absurd as a wingless organism gradually over the course of a million years evolving wings.

Evolving wings for what? Flight? Flight is something that a cartoonist will draw on a bird (wings) in order to make it fly in the cartoon. It isn't something that a mindless and blind process will orchestrate. It takes a mind.

This leaves you kind of stuck if you are only going to believe the changes you can see happen before you. That's one of the reasons we keep pointing you to the bacteria experiments. Those things can reproduce many more times than a dog can in your lifetime. Thus the changes you can observe give you a glimpse of what could happen if you could watch a dog reproduce millions/billions of times.

You want to impress me? Go fishing and reel in a fish stick.

You want to impress me? Show me a bacteria that evolves consciousness.

[For_The_Kingdom]

The benefit provided by the ability to fly is the reason birds evolved the many body changes necessary for flight (hollow bones, wings, etc.).

"The benefit provided by the ability to fly" <----LOL

Ok, so me evolving wings will benefit me, because I will get to work faster. So I guess when I wake up tomorrow morning I will show signs of a gradual evolving of features.

And besides, there are birds that can't fly...like penguins, ostriches, emu's..and formerly the dodo birds. I guess they couldn't have used that "benefit", huh?

Or what about the animals that are at the bottom of the food chain, couldn't they benefit by evolving wings to fly away from predators?

Mannn please.

There are also mammals that developed this capability (bats) for the same reason.

Sure, and many that didn't develop that ability. So what was so special about the birds that can, and the bats?

The mechanism that allowed a reptile to evolve into a bird is called evolution by natural selection.

Natural selection selects...no new "thing" is being created. If you worked in quality control at a car manufacturing plant and your job is to check all of the cars to make sure they are configured and running properly...and if you caught every single mistake, how long, with that process, will it take for that car to change into an airplane??

That is the same concept of a reptile changing into a bird via natural selection.

Small changes accumulated over long periods of time that eventually resulted in the body changes necessary for flight

Small changes? What kind of small changes? A feather here, a feather there? What? Notice that the evolutionist never explains what the small changes are. Just the words "small changes over time" mixed in with a bunch of other bio babble and viola!, a reptile to a bird!!!

Nothing to it, eh?

, but the reason this happened is because there was a benefit in being able to fly in terms of survivability in the environment at the time, and evolution drove the necessary genetic changes that resulted in a body structure capable of flight.

That is nonsense. There are plenty of animals out there that can use the benefit of flight, but they aint flying, are they? This is just bio babble.

If conditions on Earth change such that humans get overtaken by another dominant animal creature of some sort, humans may well obtain the ability to fly (in which case wings are needed ... there would be no reason to develop wings if there was no reason to be able to fly).

Zebras and gazelles are being overtaken by dominant creatures (lions, tigers, hyenas, etc)...and they aint obtaining any ability to fly. So birds (and bats) are the only creatures who were lucky enough to get blessed with all of this wing stuff?

Nonsense.

But to get to that point we'd most likely have to become smaller and much lighter, and probably end up looking much like bats or birds because those are efficient body forms for flight. And it would take a very long time. But there is no reason it couldn't happen if the ability to fly was the most efficient way to survive against the change in environment that squeezed us humans out as the current rulers of the animal world.

Sure, and Jesus is coming soon, too. You told me your religion, and I told you mines.

Below is a real bat skeleton. Look familiar?

That could be the original specimen of a bat. You don't know what it originated from. Or, more speculation?

[benchwarmer]

I will reply to each point, but I wanted to begin with the last one because it basically sums up what I was trying to say:

You want to impress me? Go fishing and reel in a fish stick.

You want to impress me? Show me a bacteria that evolves consciousness.

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.

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. 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?

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

There is your problem right there. It is not called "The scientific theory of macroevolution" so you are arguing against a strawman.

No strawman here. There are many different types of evolution and I am merely arguing AGAINST the type that I see no evidence for, which is macroevolution...or the idea that a reptile can/did evolve into a bird.

And I'm trying to tell you there is only one scientific theory of evolution. When scientists speak of micro/macro evolution they would only be using those terms to define the time span, not different mechanisms. Feel free to point us to the scientific definition that you claim to be using.

It is simply called evolution.

And blackjack is simply called a "card game". But there are many different types of cards games, so you make the distinction between blackjack, spades, poker, etc.

Macroevolution is a "type" of evolution...and of course, since evolutionists believe that micro/macro evolution are before-and-after offshoots of each other, they link both concepts in together.

And that is why you have someone like me who is here saying "No, one can be scientifically proven (micro) and the other one can't (macro)."

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.

Your trying to put extra labels on it to somehow make if fit both reality and your belief system is where things go wrong.

No extra labels, just defining terminologies as it relates to the subject. That's all.

Incorrect. Your extra labels are micro/macro because you are assuming they describe different mechanisms. If you want to use the meaning of those as scientists might then fine, but that will defeat your argument.

You are basically trying to tell us that evolution happens, but at some unknown point it stops happening because you can't watch millions/billions of years worth of it happen in front of you.

And you are basically trying to tell me that long ago, when no one was conveniently around to witness it, the animals of yesterday were doing things that the animals of today have never been observed to do...and you are also telling me that hundreds of millions of years from now when no one living today will CONVENIENTLY not be around to witness it, the animals of that day will do things that the animals of today have never been observed to do.

Far too convenient.

"No one living yesterday ever saw it happen, no one living today will ever see it happen, and no one living tomorrow will ever see it happen....but...........it happens".

That is about as a text book of a con/scam as one can ever give.

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.

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

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

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?

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'. We could keep calling everything that descended from that 'reptile' a 'reptile', but we sure would be confused trying to have everyday conversations.

"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."

Are you already forgetting the lab experiments with bacteria where you can watch them evolve?

Wake me up when that bacteria evolves consciousness. Might as well be dead, then.

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

If you are keen, you can go get your DNA compared to your parents. Are you trying to tell us it will be exactly the same?

What?

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.

Wrong. While I don't believe the Christian portrayal of a god exists, I don't rule out god/gods entirely because I have no evidence to make such a claim. At this point I've seen no evidence to show that they exist either. Essentially, I'm agnostic.

Then you are not included in that "most" then, are you?

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.

Except I don't claim any god not to exist, therefore I cannot rule out any hypothesis as to the origins of life. So, wrong again.

Sure you can rule out certain hypothesis'...you can rule out the ones that doesn't make any logical sense and thereby defies logic/reasoning.

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!

Do you have evidence one way or the other?

Sure, I have evidence for Christian theism, and against naturalism.

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.

And now you are just arguing with yourself and your own strawman. I'm saying I have no idea how life started. It may have been a god. We don't know. Thus, I make no claims as to what happened.

*It must have been God.

Or are we gonna keep entertaining the idea that sentient life came a nonliving, unconscious, blind process?

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.

Correct, abiogenesis may not be what happened.

Ok then...so on naturalism, evolution isn't a brute fact. That is all I am saying. People are entitled to believe what they want...just don't call yourself an atheist while also maintaining the idea that evolution is a brute fact.

Now, if that doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you.

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

I still don't know how to parse "on naturalism, evolution isn't a brute fact". 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. When you find something that falsifies the theory of evolution, I say run out and publish that right away. There's a nobel prize waiting for you if you can do that I'm sure.

Evolution, however, still has nothing to do with how life started

I never said nor implied that evolution has anything to do with abiogenesis. I just said that it can't be a brute fact on naturalism.

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?

Thus (I added the bold):

, so claiming your stawman (macroevolution, whatever that is exactly in your mind) is somehow related and also false has no meaning.

On naturalism, it IS related to abiogenesis. You can't have life evolving if you don't have life originating. That is the relationship.

Can I SMH too? Please?

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. You can continue believing in whatever you like. You can misconstrue whatever you like. It doesn't change the actual theory and what it covers or what it is related to.

Do you mean your meaning of evolution or the actual scientific one we observe?

What we observe is animals producing a wide variety of different breeds/species within the "kind". There are many different varieties of dogs, but they are all DOGS. This is what we call microevolution, changes within the kind. We see it, we can experiment on it, and may even predict what will come next with selective breeding. This is science.

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.

There is a different between that, and macroevolution, which is the reptile-to-bird stuff that has no observation element, no experimental element, nor prediction element.

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).

So it basically ain't science...no matter how much you want to link it in with science, it aint science.

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. All you have presented is an example and your failure to understand how it could happen.

Now you are mixing your strawman of evolution (macroevolution) with the existence of your favorite god with a side of apologetics.

Didn't you agree with me that God could have done it?

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?

We are not trying to defeat Christianity here, we are trying to explain what the scientific theory of evolution actually is and make it clear it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

On naturalism, it does.

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?

I don't know what your "macroevolution" really is, so no, I likely don't believe in it. I do believe the actual scientific theory of evolution to be correct.

SMH. See above.

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.

Now you are getting it. Correct, reproduction has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Okkk.

Well finally, agreement. Has to happen at least once in a post right

You agree, then give an example that doesn't involve reproduction.

Did your jeep wrangler appear as the result of two other vehicles mating?
I fail to see your analogy

I was only demonstrating that you can make a change to something without the thing becoming a different kind of "thing".

And I have never said that making a change to something will make it a different "thing". We might choose to label it differently, but that doesn't change the underlying facts.

Back to your favorite example: reptile -> bird

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.

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.

So yes you agree, but are simply baffled how scientists have decided to name species? As has been explained countless times, whatever 'thing/name/label' something starts as, it continues to belong to that 'thing/name/label' after reproduction regardless of the number of generations (evolution). Thus you seem simply confused why we choose to eventually label things a certain way.

How does this answer the question of "what does this have to do with a reptile evolving into a bird?"

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.

Let's try an example. You agree there are dogs yes?

LOL. Yeah.

Woohoo! 2 agreements!! We're on a roll!

Do you know how many names there are for the various kinds of dogs now?

More than one, correct?

Correct.

Your question about reptiles from millions of years ago evolving into what we now label as birds is basically the same as asking how can labradoodles have evolved from labradors and poodles.

But the labradoodles would still be dogs, right? Unless you are saying that birds are reptiles...and of course, that is what evolution teaches. I just simply disagree with that.

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. We see this through the fossil record, and more precisely through the genetic data.

You are free to believe whatever you like. We are simply trying to explain how the theory of evolution works and the fact we've arbitrarily named things different names because they look different. We are also trying to point out that the OP of this thread has nothing to do with this entire tangent.

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.

Regardless of what you decide to call it, I don't see any evidence for it either way.

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.

Only in the context of explaining how the are different. That some choose to lump them under the same concept is the whole reason we are having the current discussion. If only those that actually understood the scientific theory of evolution where taking part in this thread, the topic would have never come up.

Just because I don't believe in it doesn't mean that I don't understand it. In fact, it is because of what I do understand that allows me to reject the theory.

We are trying to point out that in fact you don't appear to understand it. Your use of micro/macro is a huge red flag you don't actually understand 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. I would like to believe you wouldn't do that kind of thing, so I can only hope you really don't understand it.

We would simply be discussing the various abiogenesis hypotheses and why each one may have some merit. If you dig back in the thread, maybe it will be interesting to see who first brought up evolution and why they brought it up. Was it to explain they are not related or was it to somehow cast doubt on abiogenenis because they are related?

I don't know...but it is obvious that one can point out the problems with abiogenesis (for the naturalist) without even mentioning evolution.

Great! How did we get on evolution then?

Excellent. Please elaborate on these limits that you speak of.

The limits that I speak of are exactly what you claim happened. I don't believe a reptile will ever get to the point where it will grow wings/beaks. I don't believe that an animal will ever get to the point of being a land dwelling animal and eventually evolving the internal anatomy that will allow it to become a water dwelling animal.

Of course, with divine intervention, it can happen...but not on naturalism.

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.

Essentially, you agree that evolution takes place

Of course, microevolution, as I distinguished above.

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

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

, you just have trouble when the time frame exceeds what you can see with your own eyes.

No, my position is even bolder than that. To hell with the time aspect, I don't believe it happened suddenly or gradually. They are both equally absurd to me, and I don't see evidence for it anyway.

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.

The idea of a human baby being born with wings (suddenly) is just as absurd as a wingless organism gradually over the course of a million years evolving wings.

Agreed, spontaneously being born with wings would be absurd and not covered by evolution. Perhaps a god concept would have to be invoked if that ever happened.

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. 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?

Evolving wings for what? Flight? Flight is something that a cartoonist will draw on a bird (wings) in order to make it fly in the cartoon. It isn't something that a mindless and blind process will orchestrate. It takes a mind.

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

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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 544 by For_The_Kingdom]

"The benefit provided by the ability to fly" <----LOL

Why does that get an "LOL"? Evolution allows beneficial mutations to propagate and deleterious ones to eventually vanish. So if there was survival benefit in being able to fly then evolution would favor developments in that direction (ie. the development of wings and hollow bones). You getting to work faster is nothing evolution cares about ... unless that would increase your chances of survival and reproduction.

Or what about the animals that are at the bottom of the food chain, couldn't they benefit by evolving wings to fly away from predators?

Now you are getting it! This may well be the very reason birds, bats, insects, etc. did develop the ability to fly, along with other reasons flight benefits that species (eg. bees transporting pollen helps the plants reproduce, and the nectar provides food for the bee who can quickly get from plant to plant by flying).

Sure, and many that didn't develop that ability. So what was so special about the birds that can, and the bats?

Who knows (I expect some biologist does)? But something occurred in their evolutionary development that favored the ability for flight, and the necessary body changes happened over a very long period of time to allow this to happen. If you really want to read about the evolution of bats, read this link and the 2nd and 3rd parts of it that are linked from the first page:

https://pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com ... n-of-bats/

Natural selection selects...no new "thing" is being created. If you worked in quality control at a car manufacturing plant and your job is to check all of the cars to make sure they are configured and running properly...and if you caught every single mistake, how long, with that process, will it take for that car to change into an airplane??

That is the same concept of a reptile changing into a bird via natural selection.

No ... that is an analogy to the old Fred Hoyle comment about a tornado passing through a junkyard and building a 747. This has been shot down too many times to dredge up here again. Birds evolved from reptiles due to genetic mutations accumulating over many millions of years that led to a different body structure, and as benchwarmer has pointed out repeatedly, the different body form has been given a new name by humans for convenience ... birds.

Small changes? What kind of small changes? A feather here, a feather there? What? Notice that the evolutionist never explains what the small changes are. Just the words "small changes over time" mixed in with a bunch of other bio babble and viola!, a reptile to a bird!!!

Now that does deserve an LOL after so many attempts to explain this process to you. Read this paper for an example on eye evolution:

Nilsson D-E, Pelger S (1994) A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc R Soc Lond B 256: 53-58)

Here's a PDF link for you:

http://www.rpgroup.caltech.edu/courses/ ... on1994.pdf

They show how a fully functioning eye could develop from a simple eye patch in just a few hundred thousand years time. The small changes occurring in the evolution of reptile to bird would be a similar process ... but with obviously different body parts involved. Each small change may be completely indiscernible in a generation, but add up to a major change that developed progressively over time. That is how it works.

That is nonsense. There are plenty of animals out there that can use the benefit of flight, but they aint flying, are they? This is just bio babble.

No ... you have to weigh the benefit flight may provide against the effort to develop it in that specific animal and its environment, competition, etc. There may be an advantage to flight that is outweighed by the disadvantages in developing it for that animal. An elephant would have monstrous body plan changes to be able to fly, while a small insect would require less drastic change.

Zebras and gazelles are being overtaken by dominant creatures (lions, tigers, hyenas, etc)...and they aint obtaining any ability to fly. So birds (and bats) are the only creatures who were lucky enough to get blessed with all of this wing stuff?

Nonsense.

See above ... it happened so it can't be nonsense.

That could be the original specimen of a bat. You don't know what it originated from. Or, more speculation?

The bat skeleton image came from here:

https://www.dkfindout.com/us/animals-an ... nside-bat/

But Google bat skeleton images and there are plenty more out there. Notice that this is a flying mammal, and the basic tetrapod body plan is clearly evident in this flying mammal. Shorten the fingers, arms and tail bone, lengthen the legs, cover it with a different muscle pattern and skin, drop in a big, complex brain, and you'd have a (small) human body form. Since humans are mammals, and bats developed many millions of years before humans, we share a common ancestor with bats and we evolved from the descendents of this common ancestor. So here you have the reverse example .... instead of reptile to bird you have humans from bats (or, more correctly, the common ancestor we share with bats, which may well have not flown).

[McCulloch]

Evolution allows beneficial mutations to propagate and deleterious ones to eventually vanish. So if there was survival benefit in being able to fly then evolution would favor developments in that direction

Actually, evolution does not work that way. Evolution is blind. It doesn't know that hollow bones would lead in the direction of flight. A species does not develop hollow bones and feathers because that would lead to flight. They develop lighter bones because that increases survival rate.

Or what about the animals that are at the bottom of the food chain, couldn't they benefit by evolving wings to fly away from predators?

Some do. Some find other ways to adapt.

That is the same concept of a reptile changing into a bird via natural selection. Small changes? What kind of small changes? A feather here, a feather there? What? Notice that the evolutionist never explains what the small changes are. Just the words "small changes over time" mixed in with a bunch of other bio babble and viola!, a reptile to a bird!!!

Scales --> Bigger Scales --> Really Big Scales with rough edges --> Featherlike scales --> Scaley feathers --> more refined feathers.

Cold blooded --> cold blooded with improved ability to retain heat --> ability to produce small amounts of internal heat --> ability to produce more internal heat --> warm blooded.

Egg laying --> egg laying.

There are plenty of animals out there that can use the benefit of flight, but they aint flying, are they? This is just bio babble.

But would they benefit from taking the next step towards flight. If not, it's not going to happen. If so, it will. That's how evolution works.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 547 by McCulloch]

Actually, evolution does not work that way. Evolution is blind. It doesn't know that hollow bones would lead in the direction of flight. A species does not develop hollow bones and feathers because that would lead to flight. They develop lighter bones because that increases survival rate.

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.