Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

The horse evidence was a concoction with no chronological sequence, and a collection of bones from 3 continents put together to come up with this story.
Again, only a story.

Nope, seriously have you even looked into this? Please do not use lying creationist sites

If you promise to really try I will help you with your understanding, if you want to keep spewing nonsense and probably breaking the Ninth Commandment as a result then go ahead. We have all had a good laugh at your expense. If you people to not laugh at you you need a bit of education.

 

[shmogie]

Why did you bring up creationism ? You guyś seemed obsessed by it. I didn´t mention it, and very, very rarely do.

Yet it constantly comes up. Interesting.

Evidence for abiogenesis keeps on accumulating ? I think you are a little confused, or believe what you are told.

I suggest you study the nine hypotheses of abiogenesis currently in vogue. I then suggest you study the writings of OOL researchers who are critical of the state of the research.

I suggest then that you actually look up the research, determine EXACTLY what each paper says has been accomplished, then try and link it together in aid of abiogenesis.

Do your own research, but in the end you will see it means virtually nothing.

A poster here,who apparently works in the sciences in some capacity, and is quite knowledgeable , senor Jose ( the spanish) fly says it is a mystery. Though he can be quite nasty, he is certainly intellectually honest. BTW, to be clear, he is an evolutionist.

 

[shmogie]

But abiogenesis is a very active area of research. No-one's avoiding it.
No, unknown doesn't equate to magic. Unknowable, on the other hand...

Well something unknown is unknowable till you explain it. If you can´t explain it you can´t determine if it is knowable or not.

 

[Valjean]

Evidence for abiogenesis keeps on accumulating ? I think you are a little confused, or believe what you are told.

I suggest you study the nine hypotheses of abiogenesis currently in vogue. I then suggest you study the writings of OOL researchers who are critical of the state of the research.

I suggest then that you actually look up the research, determine EXACTLY what each paper says has been accomplished, then try and link it together in aid of abiogenesis.

Do your own research, but in the end you will see it means virtually nothing.

A poster here,who apparently works in the sciences in some capacity, and is quite knowledgeable , senor Jose ( the spanish) fly says it is a mystery. Though he can be quite nasty, he is certainly intellectually honest. BTW, to be clear, he is an evolutionist.

Of course it's not yet understood, but what possible alternative do you think there could be? Life either occurred by natural chemistry and physics, or it popped into existence by magic.
Which seems more plausible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence for abiogenesis keeps on accumulating ? I think you are a little confused, or believe what you are told.

I suggest you study the nine hypotheses of abiogenesis currently in vogue. I then suggest you study the writings of OOL researchers who are critical of the state of the research.

I suggest then that you actually look up the research, determine EXACTLY what each paper says has been accomplished, then try and link it together in aid of abiogenesis.

Do your own research, but in the end you will see it means virtually nothing.

A poster here,who apparently works in the sciences in some capacity, and is quite knowledgeable , senor Jose ( the spanish) fly says it is a mystery. Though he can be quite nasty, he is certainly intellectually honest. BTW, to be clear, he is an evolutionist.

I am curious as to these supposed "nine hypotheses of abiogenesis" that is something that reeks of a creationist quote mine. Perhaps someone should ask him for a link to support this claim.

I am betting that he is once again years if not decades behind the times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it's not yet understood, but what possible alternative do you think there could be? Life either occurred by natural chemistry and physics, or it popped into existence by magic.
Which seems more plausible?

Magic! Magic! Magic!

 

[Valjean]

Well something unknown is unknowable till you explain it. If you can´t explain it you can´t determine if it is knowable or not.

No, something unknowable can't be explained. Something unknown is just unknown till evidence explaining it is discovered.
Most of what we know today was unknown a thousand years ago, but none of it was unknowable.

 

[ratiocinator]

The old evolution myth of the close progression and relationships of organisms had to be abandoned,, in favor of a new approach to account for the actual wide disparity between groups, I forget the name but it begins with clad......................

I don't know what you're talking about. What "old evolution myth". Much evidence and understanding has been added since the theory was first proposed but I know of no "myth" that had to be abandoned.

evolution is not my interest, so I have no desire to debate it.

Why bring up alleged evidence against it, then?

 

[Jose Fly]

The horse evidence was a concoction with no chronological sequence, and a collection of bones from 3 continents put together to come up with this story.
Again, only a story.

Whenever I see a creationist go on about the evolution of horses, I'm reminded of Kathleen Hunt's article at TO (CLICK HERE) and the question she poses at the end...

"Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Even if creationists insist on ignoring the transitional fossils (many of which have been found), again, how can the unmistakable sequence of these fossils be explained? Did God create Hyracotherium, then kill off Hyracotherium and create some Hyracotherium-Orohippus intermediates, then kill off the intermediates and create Orohippus, then kill off Orohippus and create Epihippus, then allow Epihippus to "microevolve" into Duchesnehippus, then kill off Duchesnehippus and create Mesohippus, then create some Mesohippus-Miohippus intermediates, then create Miohippus, then kill off Mesohippus, etc.....each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?"​

 

[Jose Fly]

There is evidence against evolution, and you know it.

How in the world can you have evidence against something we see happen?

 

[Jose Fly]

A poster here,who apparently works in the sciences in some capacity, and is quite knowledgeable , senor Jose ( the spanish) fly says it is a mystery. Though he can be quite nasty, he is certainly intellectually honest. BTW, to be clear, he is an evolutionist.

To be clear, I do say that the OOL is indeed a mystery, but as I specifically described to you earlier, it is not a complete mystery where we know absolutely nothing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Youve given me the best description of people believing in Evolution ever!

What you do not wish to know, you will never learn. Enjoy that, if it makes you feel safer.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That isn´t evidence against evolution, and you know it.

There is evidence against evolution, and you know it.

I have no interest in providing it, others may if the choose.

I will stick to abiogenesis, which starts the evolution ball rolling, without it, there is no ball to roll.

Abiogenesis is a totally unknown process, wrapped up in circles, that are wrapped up in cylinders, that are wrapped up in wheels. Magic

There is no ball.

A hell of a lot more is understood about how abiogenesis might occur than is known about God, or how (or why) that missing-in-action entity might have done anything. You have chosen to accept a 100% magic explanation that, in real point of fact, has absolutely ZERO explanatory power.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That isn´t evidence against evolution, and you know it.

There is evidence against evolution, and you know it.

I have no interest in providing it, others may if the choose.

I will stick to abiogenesis, which starts the evolution ball rolling, without it, there is no ball to roll.

Abiogenesis is a totally unknown process, wrapped up in circles, that are wrapped up in cylinders, that are wrapped up in wheels. Magic

There is no ball.

Evolution does not require that life originated by a specific mechanism. It only requires that life exist and possess heritable variation. Divine creation could be the origin of life and evolution would still happen.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The bible says that life came out of the sea.

Maybe, but it also says that all terrestrial organisms originated on land when created there. Or perhaps you think that they evolved from marine life like science does.

Do you think it is a responsible thing to do? I mean producing a fraud as an alternative to the Bible?

The Christian Bible is the fraud, not science. What intellectual or moral treasure has Christianity ever offered the world? None. Science reshaped it for the better. No contest there.

Show me where do we find a cat changing into a dog

On creationist websites.

Abiogenesis is a totally unknown process

To creationists, perhaps. I see a chain connecting simple molecules to life, with many links identified and more to follow,

Evidence for abiogenesis keeps on accumulating ?

Yes. That's the nature of science. Religions stagnates apart from those religions that begin to incorporate the science into their myths, which become less religion and more science..

 

[PruePhillip]

Maybe, but it also says that all terrestrial organisms originated on land when created there. Or perhaps you think that they evolved from marine life like science does.

It's a good point.
I used to have two major concerns with this first account in Genesis - the oceans
and life on land first.
2018 the consensus emerged that life appeared on land first. This is because of
the issue of salt water inhibiting cell development, if I recall. So there's three ways
life emerged on land
1 - Darwin's "warm pond"
2 - wet clay
3 - volcanic rock

And the oceans were first realized about ten years ago. For a sizable part of
earth's history it was oceanic.

 

[PruePhillip]

Magic! Magic! Magic!

This cartoon is a parody of how the Big Bang is supposed to have happened -
it came from N.O.T.H.I.N.G and for N.O.. R.E.A.S.O.N.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This cartoon is a parody of how the Big Bang is supposed to have happened -
it came from N.O.T.H.I.N.G and for N.O.. R.E.A.S.O.N.

Nope. Not knowing why something happened does not mean that it happened for no reason. Tell my why do you hate reality? The evidence clearly supports the Big Bang theory and there are no serious contenders. That does not of course mean that the theory is correct, but you need a lot more than an argument from ignorance and incredulity to refute it.

 

[PruePhillip]

Nope. Not knowing why something happened does not mean that it happened for no reason. Tell my why do you hate reality? The evidence clearly supports the Big Bang theory and there are no serious contenders. That does not of course mean that the theory is correct, but you need a lot more than an argument from ignorance and incredulity to refute it.

Science declares plainly - there is no reason for our existence.
I have no problem with the Big Bang - it happened as far as I
can tell. And if it didn't happen then something of that nature
happened (emerged from a singularity etc..) And I am sure
there were processes going on behind the Big Bang - maybe
an infinite regression of steps, who knows.

But why? And how? Those two questions lie outside of
science. Science cannot, will not, answer them for this
reason. Don't put all your faith in science - like anything else
it has its limitations.

 

[Jose Fly]

Science declares plainly - there is no reason for our existence.

Where?