Proof of evolution -at last-

[Mark Charles Compton]

Obviously you know nothing about the historical background of the Piltdown Man.

Yes, it was indeed a hoax, but Charles Dawson was a lawyer by profession and a collector, he was not a paleontologist, even though he pretended to be one. He wasn’t a paleontologist because Dawson have no education in biology or in geology, which are vital in paleontology.

Second, Piltdown Man was challenged as early as 1915 by Gerritt Smith Miller. And it was challenged again by biologists a number of other times, before 1953, where it was finally debunked and finally put to rest, and it was scientists definitively concluded it was forgery.

As I said, Dawson was a lawyer and a collector, not a professional archaeologist or paleontologist. And the Piltdown Man wasn’t the only hoax. Many of his so-called discoveries are hoaxes and forgeries.

You've only repeated in more depth what I already presented. I'll add to your characterization of Charles Dawson by giving him credit as a supposedly skilled taxidermist, which could be why/how he was able to pull the bluff off at all. I did not know the piece of stool had other frauds to his name I hope none of the other cases were given the energy and time that was wasted disproving the one we were discussing here.

Now, have you nothing to say of a Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum? The other gentleman my previous post was focusing on. He was a palaeontologist, known as a world expert in fossil fish. Smith Woodward reconstructed the skull fragments and hypothesized that they belonged to a human ancestor from 500,000 years ago. The gentleman, who's reputation suffered posthumously from his involvement in the hoax, when he gave a name to a new species of hominid from southern England?

Dawson shouldn't have, and possibly wouldn't have, gotten his foot in the door had it not been for Woodward!

 

[Valjean]

This is not true either, people are delivered daily as I was from addiction, demon oppression, healing,

People overcome addictions all the time, by their own efforts, with help from others, with drugs, &c, yet you're attributing it to magic.
Demon opression? Really? What real evidence do you have for this save religious based, personal belief, delusion, or hallucination?
Healing? People heal. We have immune systems and can regenerate damaged tissue -- by known mechanisms.
You seem to attribute everything whose mechanism isn't immediately obvious to you to an invisible, magical being.

Jesus was raised from the dead He is not in any grave but in Heaven ( this takes faith for me

By calling it faith you admit you have no actual evidence, just a personal belief based on mythology.
Without actual evidence to back it up, it's no more believable than the ancient Norse, Aztec or Egyptian religious legends, is it?

but not for those who saw Him after He rose).

This, too, is part of the legend. Not only is there no actual evidence for this, but it's a fantastical claim that would need substantial evidence to support.

I have the testimony that when I called to Him He answered and set me free,

The "testimony?"

Apparently you had some kind of ecstatic experience, and attributed it to a magical being. You interpreted it in the light of an already familiar mythology.

These experiences are well known psychiatric phenomena, and are not confined to any particular religious tradition or mythology. You've duped yourself.

doesn’t take faith because He did this and I witnessed it, was given the Holy Spirit. Every day these things are happening in the name of Jesus Christ.

It does take faith because you have no real evidence other than a personal experience no different from many others. You then shoehorned this into an already familiar mythology.

You're dubious of science because you don't understand it and aren't familiar with it, so you choose a familiar, comfortable mythology and convince yourself it's supported by credible evidence. You've chosen comfort and familiarity over reason and evidence.

 

[ppp]

I asked what happened to the verifiable evidence? You have the scientists who create a scenario, they say they get the building blocks of life from non living materials. Well if this is so then what they created should’ve sustained itself, continued to grow and we should have that life right now from that very experiment. Do we? No it wasn’t sustained, a failure.

He asked you a few times what your qualifications are concerning the science of evolution. Are you going to answer him?

 

[ppp]

You've only repeated in more depth what I already presented. I'll add to your characterization of Charles Dawson by giving him credit as a supposedly skilled taxidermist, which could be why/how he was able to pull the bluff off at all. I did not know the piece of stool had other frauds to his name I hope none of the other cases were given the energy and time that was wasted disproving the one we were discussing here.

Now, have you nothing to say of a Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum? The other gentleman my previous post was focusing on. He was a palaeontologist, known as a world expert in fossil fish. Smith Woodward reconstructed the skull fragments and hypothesized that they belonged to a human ancestor from 500,000 years ago. The gentleman, who's reputation suffered posthumously from his involvement in the hoax, when he gave a name to a new species of hominid from southern England?

Dawson shouldn't have, and possibly wouldn't have, gotten his foot in the door had it not been for Woodward!

What point are you trying to get at?

 

[F1fan]

Nobel laureates.

This makes no sense. I stated "science won't allow religious ideas to influence results." and you reply the above? You are aware that only half of Nobel prizes are for science, yes? And you do know that religion has no influence on science, yes?

Because 5k races are science?

My point was mockery because you brought up the Nobel Prize in relation to science and religion and it made no sense. Also, the Nobel is a very prestigious prize of excellence.

I have no troubles using computers, I'm over fifteen. My mother is seven years your elder, she has no issue with such feats. Perhaps you should speak subjectively?

I was making another joke. You didn't understand this?

I always leave the possibility that I am wrong. You can think this to suggest whatever you want to believe. However, your strawman is weak and in shambles, why don't you beat up someone your own size?

You are a big boy here in this forum and you made a claim and argument based on a guess. That is a weak claim and argument.

 

[F1fan]

I find it realy sad that you have this authorative attitude that you can continue to bash, mock, and belittle any person with a Creationist view!

Creationism is self-mockery since the beliefs and claims are consistently shown to be false. Creationists oppose science and the valid results in science for religious reasons, not because they know science better than experts.

 

[ElishaElijah]

He asked you a few times what your qualifications are concerning the science of evolution. Are you going to answer him?

I did answer my qualifications, can you answer any of the questions I asked? You should be able to.

 

[F1fan]

"In 1912, Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. In February 1912, Dawson contacted Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History Museum, stating he had found a section of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown, East Sussex.[2] That summer, Dawson and Smith Woodward purportedly discovered more bones and artifacts at the site, which they connected to the same individual. These finds included a jawbone, more skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools."
"Smith Woodward reconstructed the skull fragments and hypothesised that they belonged to a human ancestor from 500,000 years ago. The discovery was announced at a Geological Society meeting and was given the Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man"). The questionable significance of the assemblage remained the subject of considerable controversy until it was conclusively exposed in 1953 as a forgery."

Source: Piltdown Man - Wikipedia

"Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, FRS[1] (23 May 1864 – 2 September 1944) was an English palaeontologist, known as a world expert in fossil fish. He also described the Piltdown Man fossils, which were later determined to be fraudulent."
"Woodward's reputation suffered from his involvement in the Piltdown Man hoax where he gave a name to a new species of hominid from southern England, which was ultimately discovered (after Woodward's death) to have been a forgery."

Source: Arthur Smith Woodward - Wikipedia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

50 years of fraudulent misinformation that led a lot of men to research down the wrong path. Whether Woodward was involved in the hoax or was genuinely fooled, I cannot know. However, by him putting his respectable name behind the findings, he ensured it was given serious and honest review by his peers in academia.

This illustrates why we have to be very careful about fraud and false claims. We do need to scrutinize claims before they are accepted. And to do this requires expertise and a precision of thought, but not just blanket skepticism. Dawson was a lay person, not an expert, and he's considered the maker of the hoax. Why? Probably attention. Evolution was hot back then, and still is to some degree among the most extreme Christians. It was experts who exposed the hoax. It took many years because at that time there was not very much in the way of a fossil record, so the development of humans was still being assembled.

I don't like it any more than you, but the world isn't as black and white as you seem to purport. Nuance is intrinsic to most things.

There is always variables that can't be totally controlled, and this is why the minimum statistical stands in science is 99.95% accuracy. It's not perfect, but it is prey damn good.

When I was at university for my psychology degree the study I had to develop and perform (which oddly enough was the correlation between religiosity and attitudes toward science) resulted in a 99.999% accuracy. The results showed a clear correlation: the higher the religiosity the more the contempt for science, and the lower the religiosity the more a person accepted science. Not perfectly black and white but the pattern was exceptionally high.

 

[ElishaElijah]

By calling it faith you admit you have no actual evidence, just a personal belief based on mythology.

Seems you only cite part of what I said, it doesn’t take faith for me that God is real and Jesus is alive because He did something for me and gave me His Spirit. What takes faith is what He said about what I will receive that I haven’t yet. That He will do what He promised. I have faith (trust) that He will do all that He said based on what He has done already for me.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I asked what happened to the verifiable evidence? You have the scientists who create a scenario, they say they get the building blocks of life from non living materials. Well if this is so then what they created should’ve sustained itself, continued to grow and we should have that life right now from that very experiment. Do we? No it wasn’t sustained, a failure.

Abiogenesis is in its infancy still and remains in the hypothesis stage, as the exact mechanisms and processes to arrive at that point are still unknown or at least poorly understood. We know it works, we know we can produce what is considered 'life' from what is considered 'non-life', we Just don't know the specific ingredients and environment that was going on when life kicked off on this rock. We still need to assess the biochemical makeup of what the environment on Earth was 4,000,000,000+ years ago, before we can properly reproduce and test the hypothesis.

Furthermore, I'm not sure if the antitheists realize that there's plenty of creationists cheering for abiogenesis. In my cursory reading of the subject I ran into a decent number of theological proponents to abiogenesis being received as in agreement to Christian scripture although I did not read any of them to judge the merit of their claims, so take it as you will.

 

[Valjean]

I said God is the only one who can create from nothing by speaking things to existence, He is the only one who can take and form man out of dust and breathe life as in Genesis.
A godless abiogenesis scenario is what I said was impossible.
You say my example is a strawman yet this is what you would have people believe, that we started out with some micro organism and by that we ended up with plants, animals, insects, humans etc. This is absurd and impossible as well because like begets like.

You make these fantastic, unsupported claims, which noöne would believe if they were reported today, even by otherwise reliable witnesses; and you seem to think they're actually credible; why? Tradition isn't evidence, nor is general support or religious consensus.

You seem to think discrediting evolution will support your belief in magic. It will not. False dilemma - Wikipedia
You make blanket claims that evolution and abiogenesis are "absurd and impossible," but not only do you not support this assertion, you ignore the voluminous countervailing evidence; evidence nearly universally accepted by the scientific community worldwide.
Your assertion is not rational.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

This makes no sense. I stated "science won't allow religious ideas to influence results." and you reply the above? You are aware that only half of Nobel prizes are for science, yes? And you do know that religion has no influence on science, yes?




My point was mockery because you brought up the Nobel Prize in relation to science and religion and it made no sense. Also, the Nobel is a very prestigious prize of excellence.




I was making another joke. You didn't understand this?




You are a big boy here in this forum and you made a claim and argument based on a guess. That is a weak claim and argument.

My friend. I fear you are the one whom either lacks understanding or is feigning such, or perhaps senility is setting in. If you need to, you are welcome to re-read my previous posts from days past to understand the simple inference I was attempting to present you.

You are a big boy here in this forum and you don't need me to repeat myself as though I'm your parent. Pull-Up© your Depends™ and take your pants off your head, so you can put your thinkin' cap on.

We're so proud of you! You're trying so hard! Perhaps if you activate some "Accessibility" options on your phone or computer it will assist you in managing what you're doing. If you're uncertain how perhaps you have grand-children you can ask? I know these contraptions can be so bewildering! Oh, fiddlesticks!

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

What point are you trying to get at?

The pointy kind.

 

[ElishaElijah]

You make these fantastic, unsupported claims, which noöne would believe if they were reported today, even by otherwise reliable witnesses; and you seem to think they're actually credible; why? Tradition isn't evidence, nor is general support or religious consensus.

You seem to think discrediting evolution will support your belief in magic. It will not. False dilemma - Wikipedia
You make blanket claims that evolution and abiogenesis are "absurd and impossible," but not only do you not support this assertion, you ignore the voluminous countervailing evidence; evidence nearly universally accepted by the scientific community worldwide.
Your assertion is not rational.

The claims are supported, I’m alive to tell about what happened. I’m not the only one, God has been active throughout history and recorded in the Scriptures, He is doing today what He has always done, making Himself known to all who call in Him in Truth. He is daily doing this all around the world.
I asked you a question about abiogenesis and evolution because the claim was made as fact when it’s not a fact at all that life happened all by itself apart from the Creator, evolution or changes do happen within species but to make the jump that an ape became a human being or after abiogenesis, evolution took over and this life form they happened is how we got what we see now is false. My reasoning is with the Miller experiment, that life form that was supposedly created, where is it now, what has become of it.

 

[gnostic]

Abiogenesis is in its infancy still and remains in the hypothesis stage, as the exact mechanisms and processes to arrive at that point are still unknown or at least poorly understood. We know it works, we know we can produce what is considered 'life' from what is considered 'non-life', we Just don't know the specific ingredients and environment that was going on when life kicked off on this rock. We still need to assess the biochemical makeup of what the environment on Earth was 4,000,000,000+ years ago, before we can properly reproduce and test the hypothesis.

Furthermore, I'm not sure if the antitheists realize that there's plenty of creationists cheering for abiogenesis. In my cursory reading of the subject I ran into a decent number of theological proponents to abiogenesis being received as in agreement to Christian scripture although I did not read any of them to judge the merit of their claims, so take it as you will.

Abiogenesis is a purely chemical processes, not magical or miraculous ones.

We already know that single-celled prokaryotic organisms, primitive species of bacteria, were the earliest species to exist on Earth, predating earliest evidence of animals, plants and fungi, by over 3 billion years.

You are right, Mark, that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, but it is working hypothesis, with several competing models (eg terrestrial vs extraterrestrial origins).

We already know that life started with various earliest species of bacteria, based on the age of microfossils discovered.

And we know that (prokaryotic) cells from bacteria (and archaea) differed from eukaryotic cells of animals, plants and fungi, in that prokaryotic cells have no “nucleus”.

But all cells - both cells from prokaryotes and eukaryotes - there are 3 common and essential biological compounds or biological macromolecules in every cells, these are -

1. proteins
2. nucleic acids (eg DNA, RNA)
3. carbohydrates

The point is that no cells can exist without all 3 of these essential macromolecules.

How each of these biological compounds formed, before the first cells would be very important answers for Abiogenesis.

Hence the importance of Miller-Urey experiment in 1952, discovering how biological compounds - amino acids - from with just some inorganic chemicals. Other scientists were able to use a few different chemicals to make amino acids through chemical processes (meaning chemical reactions).

As any biologists should know, amino acids are the building block of proteins. Protein is formed by chain of amino acids.

But not all amino acids would formed into proteins. There are over 500 different types of amino acids, but only 23 of them, can molecularly formed into proteins. Of these 20 only formed naturally on Earth, the other 3 have only extraterrestrial sources or can be synthesized in labs.

And in 1961, another experiment by Joan Oró, managed to make adenine, a nucleotide base, a component in DNA.

IN 1969, a meteorite crashed near the town of Murchison , Victoria, Australia. More than just amino acids were found inside the larger pieces of the meteorite, other organic compounds were discovered.

And based on radiometric dating of the Murchison meteorite, the silicon carbide were dated to about 7 billion years old, which predated the formation of our sun and the Solar System.

And when the Earth was young, during Hadean eon, Earth was orbiting around the young sun, colliding with asteroids and meteorite,, so the extraterrestrial model of Abiogenesis is still viable and valid hypothesis for extraterrestrial origin for these organic matters.

So essentially, Abiogenesis is a proposed explanations to origin of organic matters, through chemical processes, not supernatural ones.

 

[Valjean]

I asked what happened to the verifiable evidence? You have the scientists who create a scenario, they say they get the building blocks of life from non living materials. Well if this is so then what they created should’ve sustained itself, continued to grow and we should have that life right now from that very experiment. Do we? No it wasn’t sustained, a failure.

No, that doesn't follow. This line of research is a work in progress, and you're clearly unaware of what we've discovered and observed. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Until you make yourself at least somewhat conversant on this research, I don't think you're qualified to make these claims.

Not sure where you’re coming from, the way I test things is by the fruit produced, the Scriptures explain how to test spiritual things, science is unable to test these and that’s a big problem. There is a whole realm that is dismissed because of the weakness and ignorance of science in these matters.

This is not a valid or consistent way of "testing."
What are these "spiritual things" you claim science cannot fathom?
Most of your claims, which we're disputing, are assertions of objective fact, well within the purview of science.

The realm of religion is one of value, purpose, meaning, &c. When you make claims of objective fact you trespass into the domain of science, where you're clearly ill equipped to tread.

Religion is not a research modality. It's faith, not fact based. It is not observable, measurable, predictive, testable (falsifiable), or reproducible.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Abiogenesis is a purely chemical processes, not magical or miraculous ones.

We already know that single-celled prokaryotic organisms, primitive species of bacteria, were the earliest species to exist on Earth, predating earliest evidence of animals, plants and fungi, by over 3 billion years.

You are right, Mark, that Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, but it is working hypothesis, with several competing models (eg terrestrial vs extraterrestrial origins).

We already know that life started with various earliest species of bacteria, based on the age of microfossils discovered.

And we know that (prokaryotic) cells from bacteria (and archaea) differed from eukaryotic cells of animals, plants and fungi, in that prokaryotic cells have no “nucleus”.

But all cells - both cells from prokaryotes and eukaryotes - there are 3 common and essential biological compounds or biological macromolecules in every cells, these are -

1. proteins
2. nucleic acids (eg DNA, RNA)
3. carbohydrates

The point is that no cells can exist without all 3 of these essential macromolecules.

How each of these biological compounds formed, before the first cells would be very important answers for Abiogenesis.

Hence the importance of Miller-Urey experiment in 1952, discovering how biological compounds - amino acids - from with just some inorganic chemicals. Other scientists were able to use a few different chemicals to make amino acids through chemical processes (meaning chemical reactions).

As any biologists should know, amino acids are the building block of proteins. Protein is formed by chain of amino acids.

But not all amino acids would formed into proteins. There are over 500 different types of amino acids, but only 23 of them, can molecularly formed into proteins. Of these 20 only formed naturally on Earth, the other 3 have only extraterrestrial sources or can be synthesized in labs.

And in 1961, another experiment by Joan Oró, managed to make adenine, a nucleotide base, a component in DNA.

IN 1969, a meteorite crashed near the town of Murchison , Victoria, Australia. More than just amino acids were found inside the larger pieces of the meteorite, other organic compounds were discovered.

And based on radiometric dating of the Murchison meteorite, the silicon carbide were dated to about 7 billion years old, which predated the formation of our sun and the Solar System.

And when the Earth was young, during Hadean eon, Earth was orbiting around the young sun, colliding with asteroids and meteorite,, so the extraterrestrial model of Abiogenesis is still viable and valid hypothesis for extraterrestrial origin for these organic matters.

So essentially, Abiogenesis is a proposed explanations to origin of organic matters, through chemical processes, not supernatural ones.

Okay, I thought so. I was trying to find text on the different examples of how it came about. You answered for me here, extraterrestrial and terrestrial. So, a rock with the rights bits and pieces landed here, or the bits and pieces were here and just needed the time... Or stars colliding or exploding sprayed us with the right bits and pieces.

According to what I read, there are also ⁴lipids that are fundamental or essential to life:

"Life functions through the specialized chemistry of carbon and water, and builds largely upon four key families of chemicals: lipids (cell membranes), carbohydrates (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Any successful theory of abiogenesis must explain the origins and interactions of these classes of molecules."

Source: Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, that doesn't follow. This line of research is a work in progress, and you're clearly unaware of what we've discovered and observed. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Until you make yourself at least somewhat conversant on this research, I don't think you're qualified to make these claims.
This is not a valid or consistent way of "testing."
What are these "spiritual things" you claim science cannot fathom?
Most of your claims, which we're disputing, are assertions of objective fact, well within the purview of science.

The realm of religion one of value, purpose, meaning, &c. When you make claims of objective fact you trespass into the domain of science, where you're clearly ill equipped to tread.

Religion is not a research modality. It's faith, not fact based. It is not observable, measurable, predictive, testable (falsifiable), or reproducible.

Clearly the spiritual realm has evaded you as well as science. Would you say there is no spiritual realm because science cannot test it?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Would you say there is no spiritual realm because science cannot test it?

I would propose that until science can test it, speaking about it within scientific terms is pointless.

I believe one can speak of such things within logic and reason without using scientific terminology or needing to involve accepted theories and hypotheses within physics and the other material sciences.

 

[F1fan]

I asked what happened to the verifiable evidence? You have the scientists who create a scenario, they say they get the building blocks of life from non living materials. Well if this is so then what they created should’ve sustained itself, continued to grow and we should have that life right now from that very experiment. Do we? No it wasn’t sustained, a failure.

Wow. It's impressive how much science you don't know. The building blocks of life aren't like seeds that grow into something. It took billions of years for the stew of chemicals to form the building blocks of life, and the following steps took many millions of years. It's evident you have no basic knowledge of these ideas, which is taught in the 7th grade, at least in my school system. Didn't your schools teach biology and other science?