views on evolution

[Aqueous Id]

the arguement i presented wasn't about aboigenesis but a quote made by dr. ayala.
but . .

But the statement purporting to be made by Francisco Ayala is actually made by Roger Lewin.

the demonstration that it actually happened that way, that's what.

That is happened which way? That the fossils were laid down in order of increasing complexity? That much is proven, isn't it?

There are pieces of the puzzle demonstrated. Here's one:

The prebiotic evolutionary advantage of transferring genetic information from RNA to DNA.

explaining something with words or pictures is not proof in this regard.

The illustration I gave was to ask if you propose to alter the science curriculum. As I'm sure you know, some US school board officials, representing Creationists, still resist some of these materials.

Also, do you say there is no proof of evolution, or of abiogenesis, or both?

I guess that depends on the standard of proof. As a starter, I would offer the observations of microbes evolving in vitro and the synthesis of amino acids under the simulated primordial conditions. It's something more than just pictures. And some of this can practically be done at home.

you mean pasteur?
the law in question wasn't formulated by one man.
countless thousands of scientists have confirmed it by countless thousands of experiments.
an observation does not become a scientific law for shits and giggles.

Pasteur was late in the game, as he himself began to realize the existence of microbes, and the cause for what ancient Greeks might have assumed was "spontaneous generation". Pasteur is one of many who contributed to the obsolescence of the Law of Biogenesis.

But it has nothing to do with evolution, or abiogenesis.

Or do you say that it does?

they apparently fall from grace that way though, and in regards to evolution.

Theories fall out of evidence. Evidence up on the shelf is not sacrosanct. It's only the best evidence. Tomorrow some jar is coming down and a better one is going back up. I think that the people who bring innovation will often be qualifying, if not discrediting, an older study. Cross checking is an essential feature of the sciences. It can take monumental effort, a lot more than just "for shit and giggles".

 

[Aqueous Id]

actually the scientific law of biogenesis says:
"life comes from life and that of its own kind"

this has NEVER been disproved, not one single time.

but, let's not let facts deter you.

I think it was disproved when a bacterium was synthesized.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The Universe is much older than the Earth. From that picture you get the idea that the whole abiogenesis occurred on the Earth.
Much more time is available if there is the possibility of molecules crossing the distances of space.
I favour the idea of an incubator planet.

Yeah, that's a syllabus for a course in evolution, which only considers our neck of the woods.

Several hundred million years per phase isn't enough time? Seems like things were percolating and incubating right here pretty well. Imagine what it took to lay down all these deposits. Imagine the earth covered in a mat of cyanobacteria, for what you might think was an eternity. Yet it finally crashed, and in a relatively short time, adaptation was running fast and hard.

 

[leopold]

The illustration I gave was to ask if you propose to alter the science curriculum.

i am not proposing anything.
i simply pointed out the facts as i know them.
like i told trippy, make of them as you will.

 

[leopold]

There are pieces of the puzzle demonstrated. Here's one:

The prebiotic evolutionary advantage of transferring genetic information from RNA to DNA.

bits and pieces?
add this to the bin:
http://www.genetics.org/content/175/1/267.full.pdf

 

[Robittybob1]

Yeah, that's a syllabus for a course in evolution, which only considers our neck of the woods.

Several hundred million years per phase isn't enough time? Seems like things were percolating and incubating right here pretty well. Imagine what it took to lay down all these deposits. Imagine the earth covered in a mat of cyanobacteria, for what you might think was an eternity. Yet it finally crashed, and in a relatively short time, adaptation was running fast and hard.

Why I go for an incubator planet is that I believe the Earth has never been suitable for abiogenesis here. OK it was suitable for sustaining cyanobacteria but not to produce the cyanobacteria.

Look at the conditions in the laboratory experiments where touches of the abiogenesis theory are tested. Do you think Earth ever provided similar conditions for the millennia required? I don't therefore introduce an incubator planet. Panspermia is just about proven as a viable possibility. Therefore rather than one common ancestor there could well be multiple common ancestors each tending to its own resulting species.
The thought of multiple common ancestors keeps popping up. Is that a possibility? Maybe viruses which were able to infect a range of cells kept swapping sections of DNA so we all end up looking similar DNA wise but really different throughout the entire time.

 

[Trippy]

i am not proposing anything.
i simply pointed out the facts as i know them.
like i told trippy, make of them as you will.

And as has been pointed out, repeatedly, your understanding of said facts is inherently flawed.

 

[leopold]

And as has been pointed out, repeatedly, your understanding of said facts is inherently flawed.

along with evolutionists interpretation of the fossil record it seems.

 

[leopold]

All of leopold’s posts from this thread (and associated replies) have been moved to a split thread: leopold's views on evolution. This has been done to isolate his contributions away from the background noise and demonstrate leopold’s utterly disingenuous, wilfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest debating tactics.

i want you to prove these allegations against me by posting the article in question in it's entirety.

 

[origin]

i want you to prove these allegations against me by posting the article in question in it's entirety.

All you have to do is look up stephen gould fossil record poor evidence. You will be directed to sites that show how he is taken out of context to to use a propeganda for the evolution deniers, which is exactly what you did.

You should take responsibility for your dishonesty. I suppose it is possible that you just lifted that information from a fundy christian site, assuming that a christian site would be honest and have integrity... BBBWWWAaaaaaaaaa

 

[Arioch]

Of course, even if we didn't have any fossils at all there would still be more than enough evidence to validate evolution by natural selection. The genetic record is really all we need, but having the other evidence really is a boon.