Evidence For And Against Evolution

[SkepticThinker]

The different religions do not offer the same thing as far as future life goes. Interestingly, the first scrolls kept are said to have been penned by Moses and kept and treasured for well over 1500 years with additions. They do center in on God's relationship with certain particular men, then branching off to basically the 12 tribes of Israel, and then, of course, Jesus. And beyond. But the books recognized as true (or canonical) began with Moses and ended with John's Revelation.

Other religions offer all kinds of different versions of future life (or lives) after death.

What evidence do we have that Moses ever existed?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not reading everything (my fault for lack of time). I do not confuse abiogenesis with evolution, although evolution is virtually impossible without abiogenesis, isn't it? You really can't have evolution, can you, without abiogenesis. And yes, while evolution circumvents and can't explain or prove the idea of God, it also exemplifies mindless happenstance in that some things just got together and continued on their evolutionary way without a purpose more or less. I say more or less because someone may start philosophizing about that. So -- in essence, it just -- happened. Starting with life. It just -- happened by virtue of starting with a few chemicals by chance meeting producing life. And now scientists are trying to figure out how to escape the disaster the latest link on the scale (humans "homo sapiens") may wreak on the earth.
While many religious concepts have not been helpful, in fact, have been hurtful, the concept of mindless evolution certainly is not helping mankind to turn around on a more beneficial course. That's how I see it.

Oh, and how about "mindless" photosynthesis or "mindless" decomposition? Are those detrimental to mankind or is it only the explanation we use for the natural processes involved in evolution that are so terrible? And why do you think a description of how life evolves on earth is detrimental to human development?

 

[SkepticThinker]

While evolution doesn’t depend on abiogenesis, evolution does depend on some assumptions,

1 that abiogenesis happened billions of years ago

2 that abiogenesis only happened once (or at least that only one line survived to this date)

3 that the first living thing was simple, much simpler than modern unicellular organisms.

Not at all.

Evolution just needs life, regardless of how that life came to be in the first place.

You've basically just said here that evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis, but evolution depends on abiogenesis.

 

[leroy]

The natural and biological process through which the allele frequency of living populations changes over time.

This is the standard definition of evolution in science, which is always what we are talking about when we talk about evolution in the context of science.

Granted, using that definition of evolution, then evolution and abiogenesis would be completely independent things.

 

[leroy]

i gave you a direct answer. If you can't be honest about your errors you cannot demand that others fix their supposed errors.

Try again.

Just curious, exactly what error did I make?


Ok your definition for evolution was ok, I, I am simply saying that I would like a definition that doesn’t include the word “evolve” quite frankly I think I am making a very reasonable request.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just curious, exactly what error did I make?


Ok your definition for evolution was ok, I, I am simply saying that I would like a definition that doesn’t include the word “evolve” quite frankly I think I am making a very reasonable request.

They were explained to you when you made them. Follow the back arrows on the quotes. You are a big boy. I am sure that you can do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Granted, using that definition of evolution, then evolution and abiogenesis would be completely independent things.

And yet I gave you that definition. I also gave you a simpler one since you do not seem to understand the implications of the one that you just accepted.

 

[leroy]

They were explained to you when you made them. Follow the back arrows on the quotes. You are a big boy. I am sure that you can do it.

Ok so you cant find any errors

 

[leroy]

And yet I gave you that definition. I also gave you a simpler one since you do not seem to understand the implications of the one that you just accepted.

ok
Ok so this is what you mean by evolution?

The natural and biological process through which the allele frequency of living populations changes over time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so you cant find any errors

No, don't lie. The time for you to object was when the corrections were made. Not the next day and posts later. You want others to do your homework for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok
Ok so this is what you mean by evolution?

Hey look! You can go back! That is one definition. But once again you do not seem to understand the consequences of that definition.

 

[YoursTrue]

Probably on the count of them being different religions.

In what sense? Some claim to be in a religion, but do not share the same views with others in that same religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In what sense? Some claim to be in a religion, but do not share the same views with others in that same religion.

That tends to happen in all religions. I have seen many Christians claim that another Christian is not a real Christian. When two meet that have that opinion of the other there can be some very violent arguments.

 

[leroy]

No, don't lie. The time for you to object was when the corrections were made. Not the next day and posts later. You want others to do your homework for you.

Well then just quote my errors, or admit that there aren’t any

 

[leroy]

Hey look! You can go back! That is one definition. But once again you do not seem to understand the consequences of that definition.

Ok and what are the consequences of that definition?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then just quote my errors, or admit that there aren’t any

I am not pointing out your errors a second time. Once again do your own homework. The time to object was when you were corrected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok and what are the consequences of that definition?

Descent from a common ancestor.

 

[leroy]

Descent from a common ancestor.

Ok I have no problem in accepting descent from a common ancestor.(nether do many ID proponents like Behe and Demski) and I would agree with the first post of this thread, there is too much evidence for evolution and few if any evidence against it

And back to the abiogenesis stuff, then yes evolution (common ancestry) does rely on some assumptions regarding abiogenesis, for example it relies on the assumption that abiogenesis only happened once (or that only 1 line survived to this date)

With assumption I simply mean: something that you take for granted (regardless if there are good scientific reasons to accept it or not) please let me know if I should use any other word instead of “assumption”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok I have no problem in accepting descent from a common ancestor.(nether do many ID proponents like Behe and Demski) and I would agree with the first post of this thread, there is too much evidence for evolution and few if any evidence against it

And back to the abiogenesis stuff, then yes evolution (common ancestry) does rely on some assumptions regarding abiogenesis, for example it relies on the assumption that abiogenesis only happened once (or that only 1 line survived to this date)

With assumption I simply mean: something that you take for granted (regardless if there are good scientific reasons to accept it or not) please let me know if I should use any other word instead of “assumption”

I would not say that it is an assumption to say that abiogenesis happened only once. In fact that is again incorrect due to oversimplification. There could have been multiple starts on life, but it appears that only one form succeeded. The genetic evidence supports a common ancestor.

As to ID there is no scientific evidence for it. Behe for example only had an argument from ignorance and his claims of "irreducible complexity" have been refuted. Dembski too has only proposed arguments from ignorance, at least that I have seen. By the way, merely writing a paper does not necessarily mean that one has evidence for one's beliefs. Technically Behe did have evidence for a while. He had a testable hypothesis. There was only one problem. It was tested and failed. Massively. At that point one no longer has scientific evidence. Behe redefined "irreducible complexity" to the point that it no longer was a scientific idea. At least that is what I have seen, perhaps you are more up to date on his idea. He tried to make his idea untestable, but by doing so it is no longer scientific.

And one has to be careful with the word "assumption". Scientists very often "assume" that previous well supported ideas are correct. That is about the extent of assumption one can make. So one can "assume" that gravity is real. There is no need to reinvent the wheel with every experiment. They may be assumptions, but they are well justified ones. Creationists typically use the term with the implied meaning of "unjustified assumptions" and that is not the case.

 

[leroy]

As to ID there is no scientific evidence for it. Behe for example only had an argument from ignorance and his claims of "irreducible complexity" have been refuted. Dembski too has only proposed arguments from ignorance, at least that I have seen. By the way, merely writing a paper does not necessarily mean that one has evidence for one's beliefs. Technically Behe did have evidence for a while. He had a testable hypothesis. There was only one problem. It was tested and failed. Massively. At that point one no longer has scientific evidence. Behe redefined "irreducible complexity" to the point that it no longer was a scientific idea. At least that is what I have seen, perhaps you are more up to date on his idea. He tried to make his idea untestable, but by doing so it is no longer scientific.

I don’t think you and Behe disagree on any relevant point.

You both agree on that organisms change and adapt, you both agree on that we all share a common ancestor, and you both agree that there is not enough evidence to conclude (beyond reasonable doubt) that all (or nearly all) the complexity and diversity of life was caused by a process of random genetic change and natural selection.

Perhaps the only point of disagreement is that he goes one step forward and proposes ID as the best alternative.