Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

[Aqueous Id]

My whole point I was making here has less to do with irreducible complexity, and more to do with shining a light on the impossibility of winning an argument against an evolutionist. I was attempting to show that an evolutionist is only required to tell a good story... such as invoking environmental change(an open office window for example).

Evolution is a topic of science, not metaphysics. So there is no "shining a light" here. It's all about studying dry facts, accumulating evidence, and walking away with the inference which is logically correct.

The first place to go to see how that is done is Darwin's Origin of the Species. To date there does not exist any piece of work which refutes it. (Other than some updates that came with new discoveries).

It seems to me that if Fundamentalists want to attack the teaching of evolution, then they need only refute Darwin. And that's not going to happen. The only way you can hope to do that is by claiming that God came back and did a second creation on Galapagos, and designed it like a trick, with just enough species having the false appearance of having evolved from mainland animals, and this, only to mislead Darwin into propounding his theory.

How absurd is that?

 

[davewhite04]

When something becomes a dogma, people forget what it really means. The blind start to lead the blind against those with sight.

As you have proven with your knowledge of the subject. A trailblazer rather than a donkey you are.

 

[davewhite04]

What?

This makes no sense.


I have to hand it to you. You are outdoing yourself with this level of gibberish.


It is a science book.


Pretty sure it is available in paperback.

Do you know what that is? Or is your tribe still stuck in the stone age?


Does your water speak to you often?


So now the water is writing regulations in journal stones?


Is this your water or your stone that you are leaving organic?

You are a flamer, and a hypocrite. This site has some awesome members shame the people who run it are offensive and argumentative, and in your case, well, the less I read from you the better.

 

[davewhite04]

Agreed. It is a common rhetorical trick of creationists to conflate evolution with the origin of life.

Maybe it's not a trick, maybe some people simply can't comprehend it through no fault of their own.

 

[Aqueous Id]

As you have proven with your knowledge of the subject. A trailblazer rather than a donkey you are.

Not sure what you mean. I have read Origin and studied Biology. Darwin was forced to conclude that the endemic species of the Galapagos evolved there, since the alternative -- that God launched a special creation there long after S. America was inhabited by similar animals -- was absurd.

My point is that this issue is the main barrier to all Creationist claims. Evolution -- as an argument -- is grounded in the rejection of the absurdity of special creation at Galapagos. We need go no further into the evidence for evolution than this to reject Creationism.

Edit: I suspect this is the reason the Popes began to retreat from Creationism and adopt Evolution. They were not willing to deny science and logic.

 

[exchemist]

Maybe it's not a trick, maybe some people simply can't comprehend it through no fault of their own.

Fair enough. There may indeed be many ordinary churchgoing creationists who know little in the way of science and who can't in fairness be expected to make the distinction. The people I suppose I had in mind are those who preach to these ordinary folk, write articles on the web for them to read and carry on public advocacy of creationism, while blurring the distinction. We've all come across (with depressing frequency) this sort of thing: "Evolution is not a proper scientific theory because scientists have not been able to make life artificially in the laboratory."

 

[davewhite04]

: "Evolution is not a proper scientific theory because scientists have not been able to make life artificially in the laboratory."

If this is getting taught to kids then the people responsible should be at the very least fined.

 

[exchemist]

If this is getting taught to kids then the people responsible should be at the very least fined.

Here is one example of an indiscriminate mixing up of the two, found after a couple of minutes with a search engine: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

This sort of thing seems fairly widespread among the creationist community, regrettably. It's not teaching material for children, but people who take this on board will repeat it at Sunday school, I've no doubt.

 

[davewhite04]

Here is one example of an indiscriminate mixing up of the two, found after a couple of minutes with a search engine: http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

This sort of thing seems fairly widespread among the creationist community, regrettably. It's not teaching material for children, but people who take this on board will repeat it at Sunday school, I've no doubt.

Most of that article makes a clear distinction between evolution and creation of life as far as I can see, correct me if I'm wrong with the relevant paragraph.

This however, is either badly worded, or is intentional to plant a seed to associate how life begun with evolution thus causing stupidity:
"

• There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life"

 

[exchemist]

Most of that article makes a clear distinction between evolution and creation of life as far as I can see, correct me if I'm wrong with the relevant paragraph.

This however, is either badly worded, or is intentional to plant a seed to associate how life begun with evolution thus causing stupidity:
"

• There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life"

Well from the start it talks about "evolutionism" and then straight away launches into abiogenesis! Evolutionism and evolutionists are periodically referred to throughout and yet the topic they are discussing is not evolution at all.

 

[GeoffP]

That experiment shows that some organic chemicals are produced naturally, including amino acids.
It doesn't show those chemicals competing with each other, and trying to replicate.

It shows that they form naturally. From there it is not so far to RNA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19801553

I think that about rounds it up.

 

[davewhite04]

Well from the start it talks about "evolutionism" and then straight away launches into abiogenesis!

That looks like 2 different questions to me.

 

[GeoffP]

Darwin's logic for the progression of life is called natural selection. Nature sets conditions; such as environmental; desert or rain forest. It also sets instinctive conditions within a species.

What does the latter mean?

Based on these potentials, there is an optimization that he calls natural selection. In his book, he limited the analysis to macro scale life; origin of species. This is life one can observe with the eye. Does the process of natural selection stop at Darwin's data set that he uses as the basis for his book?

Actually, as I recall, he also mentions alteration via artificial selection.

Say we extrapolate Darwin's theory of natural selection into smaller scales. I take his theory to the limit. Does Darwin's theory also apply at the nanoscale? In particular, does his theory apply to organic selection within a liquid water environment. Instead of reptiles were have amino acids. Or is the theory of natural selection limited to large scale such as species? I appear to be the only one giving Darwin the benefit of the doubt that it applies at all scales.

There is no doubt to benefit: one might extrapolate Darwin's argument in such a manner, and I believe some have done this. This does not render microselection theory invalid, as you imply above.

I am extrapolating Darwin to the limiting scales of chemistry. He did not even go that far with his theory. You don't seem to think his theory works at that scale. You have made a 150+ year old book a dogma cast in stone; loop back wall.

That is a senseless analogy; no one has proposed any such limits. The problem is your reliance on obfuscatory language: if you would simply say as you mean instead of "leaving it organic" one could begin to evaluate your proposition. I assume you are trying to say that you think a kind of selective mathematics applies to molecular species, as chemists used to call them, I think. It is possible though I think it is not precisely as Darwin envisaged. Neither does it render microselection and descent with modification invalid.

The consensus seems to prefer randomness at the nanoscale instead of the Darwinian logic of natural selection. Science has proven that protein folds, once thought to be subject to randomness, are not random at all. The folds are selected based on potential so they are always the same.

Your latter conflicts with your former here.

Say we start with the consensus assumption of randomness during the pre-life stage this is called abiogenesis, and not the logic of natural selection. This implies Darwin's theory has a cut off below a certain scale. Does it only works with the mystery of life; religion.

What are you attempting to imply with the last sentence? As for the mathematics of molecular specie selection, I expect it looks like the Darwinian at least, though I couldn't say how the scale and dynamics change at the nano level.

And by the by, water is not thereby magic. It is a solvent.

When something becomes a dogma, people forget what it really means. The blind start to lead the blind against those with sight.

And vultures circle whether there is a corpse or not.

 

[GeoffP]

Evolution does not explain the creation of life. We simply do not know.

It is, given the chemical evidence, exceedingly likely that abiogenesis proceeded from natural phenomena. I cite some of this above.

 

[davewhite04]

It is, given the chemical evidence, exceedingly likely that abiogenesis proceeded from natural phenomena. I cite some of this above.

You're getting a bit too keen to suggest that abiogenesis did create life. No scientist would put their neck on the line by making the statement you've just made.

 

[Enoc]

The only link I could find regarding abiogenesis is this one:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html#notes

Perhaps someone more well-versed in chemistry and physics than me could comment.

 

[origin]

You're getting a bit too keen to suggest that abiogenesis did create life. No scientist would put their neck on the line by making the statement you've just made.

Why not, the only other explanation is a deity.

 

[davewhite04]

Why not, the only other explanation is a deity.

Panspermia is a possibility, but that isn't even coming up on my spell checker, same problem with abiogenesis.

 

[Billy T]

The only link I could find regarding abiogenesis is this one:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/origins/abiogenesis.html#notes

Perhaps someone more well-versed in chemistry and physics than me could comment.

You must have searched anti-natural creation of life sites to find one so biased. I stopped reading in firat paragraph when read this biased non-sense:
"Evolutionists justify the use of this atmosphere on the basis of their claim that the "early earth" had a reducing atmosphere (one lacking oxygen or other oxidising agents). Yet, the sole reason that this reducing atmosphere is proposed is so that they can then use it to justify their theories! Instead of searching for evidence and then revising their theories to the data, they were (and are) engineering the (proposed) conditions to yield the data they desired. The "reducing atmosphere" of the early earth is completely an evolutionist construct."

Oxygen, unlike methane, is quite reactive so found bound in chemical compounds, like H2O or oxidized minerals. It is constantly being removed from the air and replenished by green plants I a dynamic equilibrium of abut 20% O2.. Before the green plants existed there was essentially no O2 in the atmosphere. It was CERATINLY reducing - mainly methane.

 

[davewhite04]

You must have searched anti-natural creation of life sites to find one so biased. I stopped reading in firat paragraph when read this biased non-sense:
"Evolutionists justify the use of this atmosphere on the basis of their claim that the "early earth" had a reducing atmosphere (one lacking oxygen or other oxidising agents). Yet, the sole reason that this reducing atmosphere is proposed is so that they can then use it to justify their theories! Instead of searching for evidence and then revising their theories to the data, they were (and are) engineering the (proposed) conditions to yield the data they desired. The "reducing atmosphere" of the early earth is completely an evolutionist construct."

Oxygen, unlike methane, is quite reactive. It is constantly being removed from the air and replenished by green plants I a dynamic equilibrium of abut 20% O2.. Before the green plants existed there was essentially no O2 in the atmosphere. It was CERATINLY reducing - mainly methane.

Maybe you should do the experiment?