Evolution has been observed... right?

[tas8831]

Funny how Darwin actually used it in his book title, but evolution actually says nothing about origins... Hmmm. How can you have origins of the species when you don't know how life started?

It is called "On the Origin of Species"
Not "On the Origin of Life".

Not that hard, really,

Still waiting on a bunch of citations supporting your assertions and the quote from the book you read..

 

[tas8831]

I'm going for generic well poisoning for $200 Alex.

Poor @Rise - he used Wikipedia in one of his 'arguments'. Creationists backstabbing each other, glorious!

 

[tas8831]

Would developing the ability to utilize a new substrate be a temporary benefit?

On the other hand, it is good to see that someone is using the internet to find something relevant to science.

And very cleverly paraphrasing to avoid plagiarism detection, too. Could have provided a link, but I guess to some that is an admission of some sort.

 

[tas8831]

No it isn't. Its just rearranging what already exists.

And what you just wrote is also just rearranging what already exists.

Creationist arguments very frequently undercut the points the creationist is trying to score. Why do they use such foolish 'arguments'? Do they not know any better? Out of desperation? Malice? All of the above?

 

[tas8831]

Speciation is accepted by creationists. So who are you arguing with?.

Ah, so creationists accept the first part of macroevolution.

 

[tas8831]

The code gets altered all the time -- added to, rearranged, deleted from.
Didn't we clarify all this yesterday?

He keeps using the wrong terminology. "The genetic code" is not what he seems to think, which is possibly why he continues to be confused. But as is the case with most creationists, he cannot allow that he might be wrong about anything, so he just keeps on spewing nonsense.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Origin of species =/= "origin of life". Have you read it?

Wouldn't waste my time on it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Ah, so creationists accept the first part of macroevolution.

Nope.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Ignorance must be bliss to you. The book is entitled "Origin of Species" not origin of life. Of course if you had actually read the book you are commenting on it would be clear what Darwin addressed and it was not the origin of life. If you are going to make statements about a book you really should become familiar with it instead of looking foolish.

How can you have origins of species if you don't know how life started? You don't.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not only that, but you totally avoided the point of my post. Speciation is a macro-evoltuionary event.

Actually it's not in creationists terminology.

 

[ratiocinator]

How can you have origins of species if you don't know how life started? You don't.

What a silly assertion. It's answering the question "why are there species?", not "why is there life?" You could compare it to asking "why are there different languages?" rather that "why do people speak?"

 

[ratiocinator]

Actually it's not in creationists terminology.

Creationists are not free to redefine scientific terms. That would be dishonest.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Please explain this "added information," and why it's needed.

Genomes add, subtract or alter information with every replication.

The same genes can be used to build different parts of an animal depending on how those genes are incorporated with other genes.
Biologists claimed that “fundamental genes do not acquire new functions.”
However that was found to be incorrect.
Rather, the genes are multifunctional, because of design.
As far as information... it depends what you mean by new information.
If you mean some traits get passed your children and some don't, then yes
If you mean DNA can form itself into an entirely different kind of organism, then no.
A gene switch turned on or off is not what creationists would refer to as new information.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What a silly assertion. It's answering the question "why are there species?", not "why is there life?" You could compare it to asking "why are there different languages?" rather that "why do people speak?"

No it's directly related. You can't have species without a starting point. That's like saying it's not important to understand where the parts of a motor came from only how it was assembled.

 

[ratiocinator]

No it's directly related. You can't have species without a starting point. That's like saying it's not important to understand where the parts of a motor came from only how it was assembled.

But you can easily talk about motor assembly without knowing where the parts came and the evolution versus abiogenesis comparison is actually more like talking about the motor assembly and where its parts came from versus how the chemical elements that made the parts came into existence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How can you have origins of species if you don't know how life started? You don't.

How can you know how your aunt became your aunt unless you know exactly when and where the very first member of your family was born?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No it's directly related. You can't have species without a starting point. That's like saying it's not important to understand where the parts of a motor came from only how it was assembled.

You can't roll a ball down a hill unless the ball is made first, but you don't need to know precisely how a ball is made in order to observe, record and understand how that ball rolls down a hill.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How can you know how your aunt became your aunt unless you know exactly when and where the very first member of your family was born?

You really can't. Not if you want to know your origins.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually it's not in creationists terminology.

Then why use it? Why not use scientific terminology to discuss science?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You really can't. Not if you want to know your origins.

But what if you just want to know how your aunt became your aunt?