Abiogenesis

[TagliatelliMonster]

So DNA first came on the scene 1 billion years after the earth formed. To me that seems like to short of a time frame.

For starters, I wonder where you got that number. A quick google seems to say it didn't took that long.
Secondly, why do you say that it "seems like to short a time frame"?
How can you make that assessment, if you don't even know through which process it originated?

So the only thing that would make sense is that the evolution of DNA started at the time of the Big Bang theory. That would make DNA's evolutionary time frame 10 billion years which seems more plausible.

How does that make any sense?
Especially knowing that DNA requires complex chemical compounds, which didn't even exist back then.

 

[setarcos]

You seem to be confusing order with design. How matter behaves according to the laws of physics causes order, and that order has design.

Why does it seem as if everyone on here thinks the other guy is confused?
I'm not at the start nor have I reached the end but I have traveled far down this path.

There are differences in the use of the terms "order" versus "design" and to confuse issues further, sometimes people consider there not to be. I am not confused and neither is the biological sciences community from which quotes such as the ones I used came from.

Now, at the risk of insulting you - I do not mean to - perhaps you should revisit those terms as regard to what is being discussed and what I actually said.
Here is what I actually said
"The argument isn't that nature suggests design...its everywhere and even scientists admit that. The argument is between
whether its simply an appearance of purpose or actually is purposeful."

There is order in the universe no doubt about it. Time orders our sentient awareness of events. Forces order the expected behaviors of matter. And that matter appears to have order which we may put into conceptual order for our benefit - however limited - via such tools as the periodic table.
None of that implies that nature designed those things to fulfill those purposes. Can nature develop order out of chaos? Certainly. But not by design, -unless you think nature was designed to do that - at least not by the design people like Mr. Dawkins was speaking about or I should say are railing against.

Yes for instance the flagellum has an order to its complexity. And yes that complexity is such that it appears to be purposefully designed for its respective components to fulfill their functions.
The argument is whether or not certain ordered complexities only appear designed - that is on purpose - or whether that apparent design is merely a natural order resulting from the interactions of totally random events utilizing forces and matter created in a completely random happenstantial event. And that argument has not been settled to date.

This doesn't mean any of it was intentional.

I never said it did. The reason why some people have any arguments that it does with enough credible consideration to warrant a response from the scientific community lies in subjects such as information theory, probability, and an analysis of the various sciences involved themselves.

If you threw a plate of spaghetti against a wall and somehow it looked like what appears to be Jesus, was that your intention? Did you throw the plate with an intention for form a picture, or was it just a pattern that looks familiar to some humans?

I understand what your saying here. Its a valid observation. So what is the difference between order being created from chaos and order found within something that has been designed or even what has apparent design being simply randomly ordered?

The difference lies in the specificity of the information being conveyed. The denser the informational specificity the closer we come to purposeful design.
In this case the pareidolia is a conscious projection of appearance onto a random placement of food upon the wall.
The specificity of the information the viewer receives is relatively low since it lies mainly in subjective interpretation. One mans Jesus is another mans uncle Joe. Now, as the specificity of the information increases from generalities like the positioning of facial features allowing for interpretations of anthropomorphism to specifics like more exacting details which deviate from artistic interpretations to objective recognition such as a clear photo might provide the closer we come to purposeful design and further from purely natural happenstance. How we determine the artificial from the purely natural is an aspect of science and involves among other disciplines, information and probability theory.

Throw that plate of spaghetti against the wall and get a mutually identifiable exacting depiction of your Aunt Tilly and we wouldn't be shocked because its an amazing natural phenomenon - nature does not produce photographic exactitude for a reason - we'd be shocked because we recognize it as a very improbable unnatural phenomenon. That improbability increases if we throw another plate and get the same exact depiction.

There is design in the order of the universe. Whether it is intended hasn't been shown to be the case.

Yes, and that is part of what the ongoing debates concerning these things are about. Part of the problem I've seen in what I've read from both points of view is what exactly it would take that both sides could agree on that proves either case.

That is the flaw in your argument, no demonstrable intention, and no actor that does the designing.

Um, I haven't made an argument concerning design here? I've simply pointed out that most scientists agree that there is apparent design throughout the universe. That isn't arguable. Its been observed and settled.

All this intelligent design nonsense has many fatal and self-defeating elelments.

And herein lies a lot of the problem I think. One needs to be careful when labeling things as nonsense. We all do this to be sure, dismissing things before they can be reliably dismissed. There's a lot of bad presentation from both sides of these issues and unfortunately its easier to take a bad presenters logical defeat as representative of the whole. I'm interested in which self-defeating elements your referring to here.

the ONLY reason people argue for ID is to smuggle in their idea of a god into the conversation.

I think you got that backwards for many scientists. It should read...the ONLY reason people argue for a designer (God) is because they see purpose to the design in nature everywhere. Does it really matter which side of that coin you see first?
I have a concept of a creator God and low and behold I see what I would expect, design in nature. Or, gee wiz, it seems like nature was designed with purpose so there must be a designer somewhere.

So the question I ask IDers is this: since your God designed everything, and with intention, what is the purpose of children being born with genetic faults that cause cancers and defects?

Now why would you think I could answer that If I can't even understand half of what Stephen Hawking's equations are saying? Your asking a question that a finite being would ask that only an infinite being could answer. Why don't you ask God since your question concerns what God did - if he exists - ? Just don't hold your breath waiting for an answer you wouldn't recognize anyway since it probably wouldn't be the one you think you deserve.
Realize that scripture tells us that this is a "fallen" world. It is corrupt, not perfected, and corruption can and does take place. Mutations and all.

Here is my stab at it though....I think the book of Job may shed some light here. Basically, God is God and we are we and poo poo that we don't understand the difference.

Seriously though, I don't mean to be flippant...okay I did, anyways, one reason that we (Christians) believe that God created this universe is for his own just glorification. A God unglorified is no God at all. So how does the glorification of God take place? Not by creating a world in which only our conception of good takes place. For in such a world no justice can exist, no true glory can take place, and no definitional meaning to the concept of good itself would be adequate. Those who think evil can't exist in a universe created by a "good" God don't understand the concept of God as good. And those well meaning but ignorant Christians who tout God as protecting us from all manner of suffering and misery really need to just shut up and reread their scriptures.

To put it succinctly - the actual arguments are somewhat varied, complex, and deeply esoteric - the purpose of evil in this world is to allow for God to exist as a glorified and just being...that is to allow justice to exist at all wherein it, by giving definition to the injustices of the world can transcend them. There is otherwise an argument for no actual justice in this universe. (Mostly my personal hypothesis).

We aren't idiots, we understand what theists are trying to do.

If my original arguments have nothing to do with "ID" then what am I trying otherwise to do? I think your militant paranoia against the possibility of "ID" is making you tilt at windmills here.
Cant we just discuss the ideas here?

 

[setarcos]

Why else would you be trying to argue for intention in nature?

I don't argue here for intention in nature. I take it as axiomatic that nature did not create DNA with intention and THAT is the basis for my claim that DNA did not evolved from the Big Bang.

If there were facts that were being followed it would be part of science already.

If you follow the debates, there are facts being introduced. Facts that are scientifically established.

Theists use subtle language to introduce semi-plausible ideas, and if there is no pushback the discussions evolve into more religious tones.

Seriously? You need to reread some of the historical developments in the evolutionary theory of life. I'd say both sides here are guilty of this.

Of course I don't expect you to do that and come back to this discussion with evidence so I'm going to research my library and do my best to give you some examples later on if we're still here.

DNA came about due to how matierials behave according to the laws of physics.

Your wrong here. DNA functions according to the laws of physics perhaps but it's development certainly wasn't a foregone conclusion according to those same laws.

Abiogenesis is highly probable explanation as to how organic chemicals formed

I think your wrong again. Calculations have shown that while Abiogenesis may very well be the explanation for life's eventual development, it would have been a highly improbable natural event. Just look at that theories development. No one has shown how the process would have naturally produced what we would consider the necessary precursors for producing viable living organisms outside of a massive amount of purposeful sentient "tweaking" in a lab.

Open a bio textbook though and the story presented seems to be quite unequivocally true. Talk about the use of tricky language.

Explain what WOULD have happened if there was no intention as you are suggesting is necessary.

?? Um....what WOULD have happened, if no intention was used, is a randomly improbable event resulting in what happened, the same as would have happened with intention excepting the random part...because I think we can all agree that DNA did happen right?

Do you not think your views aren't influenced by religion?

Of course they are. But I am perfectly capable of taking as axiomatic, given proposals, and then determining where that logically leads without involving religious factors. For instance I'm not being religious if I logically determine that because shortly after eating Aunt sally Mae's potato salad that sat out in the sun too long I projectile vomited into the bushes and thus should warn others against partaking of the same.

That's science. Your approach isn't science. You want to add "intention and purpose".

Nooo....YOU want to add intention and purpose to the discussion. I subtracted those things to see where they scientifically lead us as concerns what the original question was.

You first.

I didn't bring God into this other than to subtract intention from the logic.

Anyways, your not doing much addressing and countering my actual propositions other than getting hung up on whether or not I'm arguing for an existent God which I am not.

You aren't following facts.

OMG....the facts are presented. Those are....what the Big Bang has done. How we define evolution. How we define molecules and what they do or don't do and how we define DNA. That's all we need here to logically determine whether DNA evolved from the Big Bang or not.

You have a belief about intention (why?) and you are trying to create an argument.

My point about intention was that it is the only way to bridge the gap between DNA, its predecessors, and the Bing Bang evolutionarily speaking. There is no other way to bridge that gap with a physical evolutionary process which we take to be axiomatic here.
And yet we do have DNA and we take it as axiomatic that the Big Bang did not create anything with intention ergo DNA could not have evolved from the Big Bang event.

 

[setarcos]

That was just word salad. It would be nice if you had ideas supported by evidence.

Do just label every argument you can't follow as word salad? ...Don't answer that.
Here's the gist of the idea and evidence.
The idea....

My point about intention was that it is the only way to bridge the gap between DNA, its predecessors, and the Bing Bang evolutionarily speaking. There is no other way to bridge that gap with a physical evolutionary process which we take to be axiomatic here.
And yet we do have DNA and we take it as axiomatic that the Big Bang did not create anything with intention ergo DNA could not have evolved from the Big Bang event.

The evidence...

what the Big Bang has done. How we define evolution. How we define molecules and what they do or don't do and how we define DNA. That's all we need here to logically determine whether DNA evolved from the Big Bang or not.

 

[Jimmy]

Yeah I still think DNA would’ve taken longer than a billion years to evolve.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why does it seem as if everyone on here thinks the other guy is confused?
I'm not at the start nor have I reached the end but I have traveled far down this path.

There are differences in the use of the terms "order" versus "design" and to confuse issues further, sometimes people consider there not to be. I am not confused and neither is the biological sciences community from which quotes such as the ones I used came from.

Now, at the risk of insulting you - I do not mean to - perhaps you should revisit those terms as regard to what is being discussed and what I actually said.
Here is what I actually said
"The argument isn't that nature suggests design...its everywhere and even scientists admit that. The argument is between
whether its simply an appearance of purpose or actually is purposeful."

There is order in the universe no doubt about it. Time orders our sentient awareness of events. Forces order the expected behaviors of matter. And that matter appears to have order which we may put into conceptual order for our benefit - however limited - via such tools as the periodic table.
None of that implies that nature designed those things to fulfill those purposes. Can nature develop order out of chaos? Certainly. But not by design, -unless you think nature was designed to do that - at least not by the design people like Mr. Dawkins was speaking about or I should say are railing against.

Yes for instance the flagellum has an order to its complexity. And yes that complexity is such that it appears to be purposefully designed for its respective components to fulfill their functions.
The argument is whether or not certain ordered complexities only appear designed - that is on purpose - or whether that apparent design is merely a natural order resulting from the interactions of totally random events utilizing forces and matter created in a completely random happenstantial event. And that argument has not been settled to date.


I never said it did. The reason why some people have any arguments that it does with enough credible consideration to warrant a response from the scientific community lies in subjects such as information theory, probability, and an analysis of the various sciences involved themselves.

I understand what your saying here. Its a valid observation. So what is the difference between order being created from chaos and order found within something that has been designed or even what has apparent design being simply randomly ordered?

The difference lies in the specificity of the information being conveyed. The denser the informational specificity the closer we come to purposeful design.
In this case the pareidolia is a conscious projection of appearance onto a random placement of food upon the wall.
The specificity of the information the viewer receives is relatively low since it lies mainly in subjective interpretation. One mans Jesus is another mans uncle Joe. Now, as the specificity of the information increases from generalities like the positioning of facial features allowing for interpretations of anthropomorphism to specifics like more exacting details which deviate from artistic interpretations to objective recognition such as a clear photo might provide the closer we come to purposeful design and further from purely natural happenstance. How we determine the artificial from the purely natural is an aspect of science and involves among other disciplines, information and probability theory.

Throw that plate of spaghetti against the wall and get a mutually identifiable exacting depiction of your Aunt Tilly and we wouldn't be shocked because its an amazing natural phenomenon - nature does not produce photographic exactitude for a reason - we'd be shocked because we recognize it as a very improbable unnatural phenomenon. That improbability increases if we throw another plate and get the same exact depiction.


Yes, and that is part of what the ongoing debates concerning these things are about. Part of the problem I've seen in what I've read from both points of view is what exactly it would take that both sides could agree on that proves either case.


Um, I haven't made an argument concerning design here? I've simply pointed out that most scientists agree that there is apparent design throughout the universe. That isn't arguable. Its been observed and settled.


And herein lies a lot of the problem I think. One needs to be careful when labeling things as nonsense. We all do this to be sure, dismissing things before they can be reliably dismissed. There's a lot of bad presentation from both sides of these issues and unfortunately its easier to take a bad presenters logical defeat as representative of the whole. I'm interested in which self-defeating elements your referring to here.


I think you got that backwards for many scientists. It should read...the ONLY reason people argue for a designer (God) is because they see purpose to the design in nature everywhere. Does it really matter which side of that coin you see first?
I have a concept of a creator God and low and behold I see what I would expect, design in nature. Or, gee wiz, it seems like nature was designed with purpose so there must be a designer somewhere.


Now why would you think I could answer that If I can't even understand half of what Stephen Hawking's equations are saying? Your asking a question that a finite being would ask that only an infinite being could answer. Why don't you ask God since your question concerns what God did - if he exists - ? Just don't hold your breath waiting for an answer you wouldn't recognize anyway since it probably wouldn't be the one you think you deserve.
Realize that scripture tells us that this is a "fallen" world. It is corrupt, not perfected, and corruption can and does take place. Mutations and all.

Here is my stab at it though....I think the book of Job may shed some light here. Basically, God is God and we are we and poo poo that we don't understand the difference.

Seriously though, I don't mean to be flippant...okay I did, anyways, one reason that we (Christians) believe that God created this universe is for his own just glorification. A God unglorified is no God at all. So how does the glorification of God take place? Not by creating a world in which only our conception of good takes place. For in such a world no justice can exist, no true glory can take place, and no definitional meaning to the concept of good itself would be adequate. Those who think evil can't exist in a universe created by a "good" God don't understand the concept of God as good. And those well meaning but ignorant Christians who tout God as protecting us from all manner of suffering and misery really need to just shut up and reread their scriptures.

To put it succinctly - the actual arguments are somewhat varied, complex, and deeply esoteric - the purpose of evil in this world is to allow for God to exist as a glorified and just being...that is to allow justice to exist at all wherein it, by giving definition to the injustices of the world can transcend them. There is otherwise an argument for no actual justice in this universe. (Mostly my personal hypothesis).

If my original arguments have nothing to do with "ID" then what am I trying otherwise to do? I think your militant paranoia against the possibility of "ID" is making you tilt at windmills here.
Cant we just discuss the ideas here?

Well, I understand you. But that doesn't mean that a creator God is Christian.
So you do the typical trick.
There could be a creator God, therefore it is more than that and it is the God+ I believe in.

Now I am a deist, so I am religious, but I am also an agnostic.
So here it what you have to show. Not that there is some order and that it could be design, but that is your God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

OMG....the facts are presented. Those are....what the Big Bang has done. How we define evolution. How we define molecules and what they do or don't do and how we define DNA. That's all we need here to logically determine whether DNA evolved from the Big Bang or not.

...

I define Christian to mean a follower of Satan, so that is now a fact. Do you get the problem of treating a definition as a fact?

 

[setarcos]

DNA didn't evolve from the BB?

The OP postulated that DNA began its evolution with the advent of the Big Bang. This can't be true as I've shown.

You make it sounds as if people are claiming that there was the Big Bang that was a singularity that expanded into clouds of helium, hydrogen, and DNA.

I make it sound as if??? You skip a bunch of presumed intermediary steps between the Big Bang and DNA's eventual evolution but....isn't that what's generally been proposed here?

all these steps happened after the BB, and in a lineage of changes in a dynamic universe.

Sigh....my point has been that no...there is no uninterrupted physical evolutionary lineage from the BB to DNA by definition.

This is what you seem to be admitting in your last sentence, so I can't understand your confusion.

Again with the "your confusion" bit
I may be wrong, but I'm not confused about my own argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The OP postulated that DNA began its evolution with the advent of the Big Bang. This can't be true as I've shown.

I make it sound as if??? You skip a bunch of presumed intermediary steps between the Big Bang and DNA's eventual evolution but....isn't that what's generally been proposed here?

Sigh....my point has been that no...there is no uninterrupted physical evolutionary lineage from the BB to DNA by definition.

Again with the "your confusion" bit
I may be wrong, but I'm not confused about my own argument.

Sorry for jumping in, but can you link to you doing the bold.

 

[setarcos]

Well, I understand you.

Thank God somebody does...take that mom.

But that doesn't mean that a creator God is Christian.

Absolutely true. I do not argue that point here. I merely default to the Christian God because that is my God paradigm as far as sentient creation goes.

So here it what you have to show. Not that there is some order and that it could be design, but that is your God.

That is not the argument here. Whether or not we can evolutionarily connect the advent of DNA back to the Big Bang event in the absence of intention is what's in question. I say we cannot.

 

[setarcos]

I define Christian to mean a follower of Satan, so that is now a fact. Do you get the problem of treating a definition as a fact?

Not quite...definitions become facts when agreed upon for the purposes of the argument they are being used in. If we disagree on the definitions presented then it is not an established fact and until it is would be useless in a debate.

 

[setarcos]

Sorry for jumping in, but can you link to you doing the bold.

I'm sorry, I do not know what you mean by this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not quite...definitions become facts when agreed upon for the purposes of the argument they are being used in. If we disagree on the definitions presented then it is not an established fact and until it is would be useless in a debate.

Yeah, that is formal, but that is in brains. I doubt that there are only brains in the world, so I use another standard for that which is not brains.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yeah I still think DNA would’ve taken longer than a billion years to evolve.

But you have offered no reason for that opinion. What makes it better than the opposite opinion? How does your opinion on whether the evolution of DNA should take fewer or more than a billion years differ in information value than your opinion about Pepsi versus Coke or Ginger versus Mary Ann?

I take it as axiomatic that nature did not create DNA with intention and THAT is the basis for my claim that DNA did not evolved from the Big Bang.

How does the first clause lead to the second?

I'm still not clear what you mean "evolved from the Big Bang." Did you mean evolved after the Big Bang? I can't imagine another meaning, but if it mean that, I can't guess why you wrote or believe it. There was no DNA at T=0+ and now there is.

DNA functions according to the laws of physics perhaps but it's development certainly wasn't a foregone conclusion according to those same laws.

Why did you think that needed to be said in this discussion, and why do you think you know that? It's difficult at times to connect some of the statements we see with the discussion in which they occur.

Calculations have shown that while Abiogenesis may very well be the explanation for life's eventual development, it would have been a highly improbable natural event.

What calculations? Hoyle's junkyard tornado and 747 fallacy? It's been refuted.

There are compelling thermodynamic arguments to assert that life forms wherever conditions permit it. The original depiction of abiogenesis was that of a very unlikely combination of events - a one-off event, a lucky natural concinnity. From https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

"Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”​

​

"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.​

​

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said."​

No one has shown how the process would have naturally produced what we would consider the necessary precursors for producing viable living organisms outside of a massive amount of purposeful sentient "tweaking" in a lab.

I disagree with that (see links below), but can stipulate to it anyway. Once again, what is your purpose for making that claim in this discussion? Do you think that they need to? The Big Bang created our nebula, supernovae injected the elements into it and caused it to collapse, and asteroids and comets brought the volatiles. There's a good argument for believing that abiogenesis occurred on Mars, which was the source of the first life on earth, but it's not important where the abiogenesis occurred. Everything was in place for evolution to begin once life existed on earth whatever its origin.

All of the bases in DNA and RNA have now been found in meteorites

https://naturalsciences.org/calendar/news/extraterrestrial-amino-acids-fall-to-earth/#:~:text=First discovered in the Murchison,meteorites after crashing through our

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do just label every argument you can't follow as word salad? ...Don't answer that.
Here's the gist of the idea and evidence.
The idea....

The evidence...

Sorry but that is not evidence. And yes, your posts are nonsense.


Since you are dealing with scientific concepts you need to use scientific evidence. Are you willing to learn what is and what is not evidence? If you understand the concept of evidence properly you might be able to toss the word salad.

 

[setarcos]

Sorry but that is not evidence. And yes, your posts are nonsense.

*** Mod Edit ***
1) You've dismissed another's hypothesis and belittled their opinions as nonsense previous to presenting justification. 2) That arrogance seems to have blinded you to the fact that nobody is 100% correct 100% of the time, and everyone is subject to, on occasion, even misrepresenting their own beliefs.
That second fact is exactly why one should never make a statement which presumes ones own undeniable correctness without at least presenting ones reasoning as to why while respecting the other persons opinions.
In presenting that reasoning someone just might point out where you've made a few mistakes and thereby allow you to avoid looking foolish.
But... since you've chosen to avoid that safety net, take my virtual hand and I'll walk you through why I think what I've said is evidence and supports what I've proposed.

1) "What the big bang has Done" Created the material universe in a rapidly expanding event without purposeful intent of making that universe particularly suitable to our form of life. Evidenced through scientific study.
It is evidence in my argument because it shows a lack of intention in evolving DNA. Important as I think my argument shows.
2) "How we define evolution" as it relates to DNA. Incidentally I think a whole thread could be started on defining the word itself. For purposes here though I think we all can agree that this definition is apt....."The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. "Form" is an important word to consider here.
I use it as evidence to show how evolution is used to describe functional processes in matter as it relates to life.
3) "How we define molecules and what they do or don't do" including the aforementioned particles and forces they are made of.
Used as evidence in conjunction with #2 above.
And of course 4) How we define DNA as a functional molecule, after all that is what the threads about.

Since you are dealing with scientific concepts you need to use scientific evidence.

All those items are scientific in nature in that science has given us a somewhat uniform idea of how to define them.

Now, before you stick your foot in your mouth again by saying something like...

Sorry but that is not evidence.

and...

Are you willing to learn what is and what is not evidence? If you understand the concept of evidence properly you might be able to toss the word salad.

without arguing that point let me give you some information to ruminate on about evidence....

evidence​

Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea.
from berkelely.edu

/ˈevɪdəns/ /ˈevɪdəns/ Idioms. [uncountable] the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true.
from the Oxford learning dictionary
also....the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. ibid.

data
noun [ U ]
US
/ˈdeɪ·t̬ə, ˈdæt̬·ə, ˈdɑt̬·ə/
MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE
information collected for use:
(Cambridge Dictionary)
information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, ibid.
‖datum
1. a. A thing given or granted; something known or assumed as fact, and made the basis of reasoning or calculation; an assumption or premise from which inferences are drawn. ibid.

define​

1a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of something
definition
1a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol
dictionary definitions
b : a statement expressing the essential nature of something
c : a product of defining

Now I can lead you to water but I can't force you to drink by pointing out every little connection for you. You will have to do some of that yourself.
We need to define our terms so we know what we are talking about. Science has defined those terms for us - The Big Bang, The resulting particles and forces, Evolution, and DNA. In accordance with (definition: part b)
We use those definitions as data in accordance with (data: part 1a)
That data is used as supporting evidence in accordance with the definitions of (evidence in conjunction with data) and as noted above "Data is only evidence in the presence of an opinion or argument, otherwise, it is just data and has no meaning on its own." (from an article in oxford-review)
In conclusion, to put it together for you - Definitions are the data which is evidence used in support of my argument.

If you care to counter my reasoning I will expect you to do it with a modicum of respect. Otherwise you can go about your business of foolishly disrespecting others without providing any reasonable explanation and not involving me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can say with high confidence here that you are a fool and a rude one at that. Unfortunately the only person that can remedy that situation is yourself, through humility and charity towards others and you can begin by reading what I have to say about it below.

What makes you a fool? Two things that I can see. 1) You've dismissed another's hypothesis and belittled their opinions as nonsense previous to presenting justification. 2) That arrogance seems to have blinded you to the fact that nobody is 100% correct 100% of the time, and everyone is subject to, on occasion, even misrepresenting their own beliefs.
That second fact is exactly why one should never make a statement which presumes ones own undeniable correctness without at least presenting ones reasoning as to why while respecting the other persons opinions.
In presenting that reasoning someone just might point out where you've made a few mistakes and thereby allow you to avoid looking foolish.
But... since you've chosen to avoid that safety net, take my virtual hand and I'll walk you through why I think what I've said is evidence and supports what I've proposed.

1) "What the big bang has Done" Created the material universe in a rapidly expanding event without purposeful intent of making that universe particularly suitable to our form of life. Evidenced through scientific study.
It is evidence in my argument because it shows a lack of intention in evolving DNA. Important as I think my argument shows.
2) "How we define evolution" as it relates to DNA. Incidentally I think a whole thread could be started on defining the word itself. For purposes here though I think we all can agree that this definition is apt....."The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. "Form" is an important word to consider here.
I use it as evidence to show how evolution is used to describe functional processes in matter as it relates to life.
3) "How we define molecules and what they do or don't do" including the aforementioned particles and forces they are made of.
Used as evidence in conjunction with #2 above.
And of course 4) How we define DNA as a functional molecule, after all that is what the threads about.


All those items are scientific in nature in that science has given us a somewhat uniform idea of how to define them.

Now, before you stick your foot in your mouth again by saying something like...

and...


without arguing that point let me give you some information to ruminate on about evidence....

evidence​

Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea.
from berkelely.edu

/ˈevɪdəns/ /ˈevɪdəns/ Idioms. [uncountable] the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true.
from the Oxford learning dictionary
also....the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. ibid.

data
noun [ U ]
US
/ˈdeɪ·t̬ə, ˈdæt̬·ə, ˈdɑt̬·ə/
MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE
information collected for use:
(Cambridge Dictionary)
information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, ibid.
‖datum
1. a. A thing given or granted; something known or assumed as fact, and made the basis of reasoning or calculation; an assumption or premise from which inferences are drawn. ibid.

define​

1a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of something
definition
1a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol
dictionary definitions
b : a statement expressing the essential nature of something
c : a product of defining

Now I can lead you to water but I can't force you to drink by pointing out every little connection for you. You will have to do some of that yourself.
We need to define our terms so we know what we are talking about. Science has defined those terms for us - The Big Bang, The resulting particles and forces, Evolution, and DNA. In accordance with (definition: part b)
We use those definitions as data in accordance with (data: part 1a)
That data is used as supporting evidence in accordance with the definitions of (evidence in conjunction with data) and as noted above "Data is only evidence in the presence of an opinion or argument, otherwise, it is just data and has no meaning on its own." (from an article in oxford-review)
In conclusion, to put it together for you - Definitions are the data which is evidence used in support of my argument.

If you care to counter my reasoning I will expect you to do it with a modicum of respect. Otherwise you can go about your business of foolishly disrespecting others without providing any reasonable explanation and not involving me.

Have you ever heard of hidden assumptions?
Can you spot that in your own arguments and not just in an other person's claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can say with high confidence here that you are a fool and a rude one at that. Unfortunately the only person that can remedy that situation is yourself, through humility and charity towards others and you can begin by reading what I have to say about it below.

What makes you a fool? Two things that I can see. 1) You've dismissed another's hypothesis and belittled their opinions as nonsense previous to presenting justification. 2) That arrogance seems to have blinded you to the fact that nobody is 100% correct 100% of the time, and everyone is subject to, on occasion, even misrepresenting their own beliefs.
That second fact is exactly why one should never make a statement which presumes ones own undeniable correctness without at least presenting ones reasoning as to why while respecting the other persons opinions.
In presenting that reasoning someone just might point out where you've made a few mistakes and thereby allow you to avoid looking foolish.
But... since you've chosen to avoid that safety net, take my virtual hand and I'll walk you through why I think what I've said is evidence and supports what I've proposed.

1) "What the big bang has Done" Created the material universe in a rapidly expanding event without purposeful intent of making that universe particularly suitable to our form of life. Evidenced through scientific study.
It is evidence in my argument because it shows a lack of intention in evolving DNA. Important as I think my argument shows.
2) "How we define evolution" as it relates to DNA. Incidentally I think a whole thread could be started on defining the word itself. For purposes here though I think we all can agree that this definition is apt....."The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. "Form" is an important word to consider here.
I use it as evidence to show how evolution is used to describe functional processes in matter as it relates to life.
3) "How we define molecules and what they do or don't do" including the aforementioned particles and forces they are made of.
Used as evidence in conjunction with #2 above.
And of course 4) How we define DNA as a functional molecule, after all that is what the threads about.


All those items are scientific in nature in that science has given us a somewhat uniform idea of how to define them.

Now, before you stick your foot in your mouth again by saying something like...

and...


without arguing that point let me give you some information to ruminate on about evidence....

evidence​

Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea.
from berkelely.edu

/ˈevɪdəns/ /ˈevɪdəns/ Idioms. [uncountable] the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true.
from the Oxford learning dictionary
also....the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. ibid.

data
noun [ U ]
US
/ˈdeɪ·t̬ə, ˈdæt̬·ə, ˈdɑt̬·ə/
MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE
information collected for use:
(Cambridge Dictionary)
information, especially facts or numbers, collected to be examined and considered and used to help decision-making, ibid.
‖datum
1. a. A thing given or granted; something known or assumed as fact, and made the basis of reasoning or calculation; an assumption or premise from which inferences are drawn. ibid.

define​

1a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of something
definition
1a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol
dictionary definitions
b : a statement expressing the essential nature of something
c : a product of defining

Now I can lead you to water but I can't force you to drink by pointing out every little connection for you. You will have to do some of that yourself.
We need to define our terms so we know what we are talking about. Science has defined those terms for us - The Big Bang, The resulting particles and forces, Evolution, and DNA. In accordance with (definition: part b)
We use those definitions as data in accordance with (data: part 1a)
That data is used as supporting evidence in accordance with the definitions of (evidence in conjunction with data) and as noted above "Data is only evidence in the presence of an opinion or argument, otherwise, it is just data and has no meaning on its own." (from an article in oxford-review)
In conclusion, to put it together for you - Definitions are the data which is evidence used in support of my argument.

If you care to counter my reasoning I will expect you to do it with a modicum of respect. Otherwise you can go about your business of foolishly disrespecting others without providing any reasonable explanation and not involving me.

It is not rude to correct the uneducated. I could claim that your stubborn insistence on posting nonsense was rude. It is rude to continue to post word salad. That is where one posts what they know is nonsense, but hope to cover it up with more nonsense.

And since this is a discussion on the sciences you used the wrong definition of evidence, though even by that one it looks like you failed.

Tell us, how do you think that that definition supports you? Just in case you do not know it, you do not have a hypothesis.

And need I add that your method of response was rude. That was a rather short post. There was no excuse to break it up. Nor was a book necessary to refute it, if I was wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not rude to correct the uneducated. I could claim that your stubborn insistence on posting nonsense was rude. It is rude to continue to post word salad. That is where one posts what they know is nonsense, but hope to cover it up with more nonsense.

And since this is a discussion on the sciences you used the wrong definition of evidence, though even by that one it looks like you failed.

Tell us, how do you think that that definition supports you? Just in case you do not know it, you do not have a hypothesis.

And need I add that your method of response was rude. That was a rather short post. There was no excuse to break it up. Nor was a book necessary to refute it, if I was wrong.

What always happens, is in a sense the difference between valid and sound in deductive logic.
They make an argument that seems valid and sometimes it even is, but they don't understand that, it is only valid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What always happens, is in a sense the difference between valid and sound in deductive logic.
They make an argument that seems valid and sometimes it even is, but they don't understand that, it is only valid.

And I find that it is a pity that people refuse learn the concept of scientific evidence. Scientific evidence all but eliminates pseudo science and circular reasoning. One has to put one's money where one's mouth is, so to speak.. To have scientific evidence one needs to be willing to make a model that could be refuted if it was wrong.