What is the case against Evolution?

globali said:
what does this even mean? that C is C?
Click to expand...
Right, you are beginning to see the meaning of "necessity and sufficiency". It is a self referential equation, one creates the other.
In logic, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between statements. For example, in the conditional statement "If P then Q", we say that "Q is necessary for P" because P cannot be true unless Q is true. Similarly, we say that "P is sufficient for Q" because P being true always implies that Q is true, but P not being true does not always imply that Q is not true.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
200px-Solar_eclipse_1999_4_NR.jpg

The sun being above the horizon is a necessary condition for direct sunlight; but it is not a sufficient condition, as something else may be casting a shadow, e.g., the moon in the case of an eclipse.

Chemistry doesn't work that way. It relies on direct physical contact. Each pattern being necessary and sufficient for the next pattern. Its a deterministic concept, subject to evolution and natural selection.....:)
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Right, you are beginning to see the meaning of "necessity and sufficiency". It is a self referential equation, one creates the other.
The sun being above the horizon is a necessary condition for direct sunlight; but it is not a sufficient condition, as something else may be casting a shadow, e.g., the moon in the case of an eclipse.

Chemistry doesn't work that way. It relies on direct physical contact. Each pattern being necessary and sufficient for the next pattern. Its a deterministic concept, subject to evolution and natural selection.....:)
Click to expand...
Then you admit you were wrong about the 3 elements being necessary and sufficient.

Anyways, you still don't seem to realize the elephant n the room, which is the nonsensical unscientific leap of logic you are making.
Just read some colloege level biology textbooks and you will easily figure out your misunderstandings.

thats all i have to say
 
Write4U said:
Thank you , apparently I was correct in my example of a molecular pattern where H, O, and C are the only necessary and sufficient ingredients.
H, O, and C are "necessary and sufficient" for the role they play in evolutionary abiogenesis.
Click to expand...
What a stubbornly halfwitted reply. I think you said you were of Dutch ancestry: perhaps that explains the stubbornness at least.
 
Q-reeus said:
Not biting.
Click to expand...
So no transcript, or anything written.
Not surprising. Those guys have nothing to gain by being accountable for their schtick - and neither do you.

Point being: we do have a sufficient and plausible theory of abiogenesis: Darwinian evolution of prebiotic chemical complexes. It's not secure, it's only marginally supported by our scant evidence, but it's a decent guide for research and the way to bet if one must.
 
globali said:
Then you admit you were wrong about the 3 elements being necessary and sufficient.

Anyways, you still don't seem to realize the elephant n the room, which is the nonsensical unscientific leap of logic you are making.
Just read some colloege level biology textbooks and you will easily figure out your misunderstandings.

thats all i have to say
Click to expand...
I understand the misunderstanding. You don't.
 
iceaura said:
So no transcript, or anything written.
Not surprising. Those guys have nothing to gain by being accountable for their schtick - and neither do you.

Point being: we do have a sufficient and plausible theory of abiogenesis: Darwinian evolution of prebiotic chemical complexes. It's not secure, it's only marginally supported by our scant evidence, but it's a decent guide for research and the way to bet if one must.
Click to expand...
Believe what you want. If there's one decent thing you and some others here have reminded me - it's the virtue of lurking. I should have stayed out of here. Now go flame over in the usual place.
 
Darwinian evolution does not include abiogenesis.

Google the reference of your choice.

Here's an easy one, but there are plenty of others.

"Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes that take place once life has started."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
 
Yeah, exchemist, what's up with your lack of any intestinal fortitude. Couldn't you at least manage some intestinal fortitude?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Darwinian evolution does not include abiogenesis.

"Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes that take place once life has started."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Click to expand...
Is abiogenesis not an evolutionary step? After the BB, did the universe not evolve to what we see today, including life? If not what would you call it?
SPECIAL REPORT: Our universe is both ancient and vast, and expanding out farther and faster every day. This accelerating universe, the dark energy that seems to be behind it, and other puzzles like the exact nature of the Big Bang and the early evolution of the universe are among the great puzzles of cosmology.
Click to expand...
https://www.space.com/13352-universe-history-future-cosmos-special-report.html

I always thought that evolution was a natural mathematical honing process, applicable to all things undergoing growth or change, including chemistry, minerology, biology, and the universe itself. (Hazen)
 
Last edited:
paddoboy said:
And what a totally insulting and racist retort from someone who entirely lacks any intestinal fortitude.
Click to expand...
Seattle said:
Yeah, exchemist, what's up with your lack of any intestinal fortitude. Couldn't you at least manage some intestinal fortitude?
Click to expand...
billvon said:
My intestines can beat up his intestines.
Click to expand...
Seattle said:
That's because you have fortitude (word is, he doesn't).
Click to expand...

intestinal fortitude
intestinal fortitude noun
Intestinal fortitude is defined as courage and endurance to go on.
A marathon runner is an example of someone with intestinal fortitude.




-_O Is everyone here really shitting their pants so often?
 
Last edited:
Beer w/Straw said:
intestinal fortitude
intestinal fortitude noun
Intestinal fortitude is defined as courage and endurance to go on.
A marathon runner is an example of someone with intestinal fortitude.




-_O Is everyone here really shitting their pants so often?
Click to expand...
Just exchemist, according to the word on the street.
 
Seattle said:
Yeah, exchemist, what's up with your lack of any intestinal fortitude. Couldn't you at least manage some intestinal fortitude?
Click to expand...
In my part of the world we normally speak of testicular fortitude. Cultural differences I suppose. :biggrin:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top