Proof of evolution -at last-

[F1fan]

Generally speaking the theory of evolution IS about how life first arose and then evolved. Abiogenesis is as much a part of natural evolutionist theory as natural selection is.

Why? Because if life was intelligently created with a purpose of propagating then anything after that creation would not be natural. And no natural evolutionist would like that.

OK, here you are admitting to your bias. You are meaning natural evolutionist" as meaning atheists. And you are wrongly assuming atheists and those people who are well educated on science, would not like new evidence of a divine force behind life. What atheist has said they would not like this new fact?

Obviously well educated religious people would be happy for their religious beliefs to be validated by facts because currently they are not.

And then of course one would also simply be pushing the question further down the line by asking where the intelligence that existed which created life came from itself?

And that is actually an active question for believers who can't demonstrate their God exists anyway.

No abiogenesis, no natural evolution.[/auote]
All that stands in the way is a god/divine/creator existing in reality, and outside the minds of believers. Plus, evidence this divine actually did the work of creating. Since it is plausible for organic molecules to form from inorganic molecules there is no need for a creator. So, two strikes for the ID proponents.

Evolutionary theory presumes as axiomatic that life arose from non-life in an undirected process.

It's not a guess like assuming religious texts are true and relevant, abiogenesis is actually plausible in nature. It is just a matter of performing tests that demonstrate it. Let's noe that scientists are still trying to explain gravity and the gyroscopic action of bicycle wheels. Ever spin a bicycle wheel in your hands and try to turn it certain directs and you can't do it? Scientists aren't sure why.

I would bet that you would be hard pressed to find a proponent of abiogenesis that wasn’t a natural evolutionist.

In other words, a well educated person. The opponents of abiogenesis and evolution tend to have adopted a certain religious view that is largely fraudulent disinformation, not science.

 

[F1fan]

List of Christian Nobel laureates - Wikipedia

That Christians happened to have won this award does not mean or imply their religion influenced the work that led to the achievement. How about Hindu award winners? Muslim award winners? Atheist award winners? How many are men, does that suggest they are superior to women? If there were no other winners other than Christians, that might be something. But it isn't.

 

[F1fan]

According to you but not to me, do you have an answer to this or just dismissive?

Your post had no relevance to the current discussion. You think it does, but don't bother explaining how you think it does. You aren't a God that we have to recognize. You posted Christian rhetoric. And if you don't contribute relevant material it isn't going to be relevant to the discussion.

 

[Valjean]

No I didn’t say that, but I will say like begets like. A fish will not change into an ape, human or an insect.

You said:

"On the other hand there are those in the abiogenesis camp who say there were materials that obviously made themselves

Materials make themselves all the time, from basic, preëxisting elements. It's natural, undirected chemistry.

and from those materials a chemical reaction or some kind of reaction took place and out of these dead lifeless things life happened

Many, if not most, of the steps in this process can be easily demonstrated in the lab. The components of life assemble themselves into structures, they reproduce, they exhibit various qualities we associate with life -- through simple, reproducible chemistry.

Don't make the mistake of thinking there exists a clear alive vs non-live dichotomy. There are degrees of aliveness, and at what point we can declare something unambiguously alive is problematic. "Alive" itself is not clearly understood, and may be a fairly simple emergent property.

and then we had evolution from this to get this complex life we have now.

Exactly! -- and this is the most easily demonstrated part of the sequence.

This view makes no sense to me at all. This scenario is impossible.

The first I accept -- but hold to be epistemically irrelevant. The second does not follow. It's a personal, emotion-based conclusion, at odds with observable facts.

 

[cladking]

How are you defining religion, then? I see nothing religious in science.

A "religion" takes basic tenets mostly on faith. "Christianity" takes the existence of God largely on faith and "Evolutionists" takes the fossil record and the existence of missing links on faith. They also take "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" on faith.

Where are you getting this information, and please clarify what you mean by 'sudden'.

All experiment and all observation shows all change is sudden. "Sudden" often means "instantaneous" such as when a zygote forms or an organism dies but it can mean up to three generations. It can be even longer under very unusual circumstances. Nothing is simple in nature. If you very gradually change the nature of the medium in which e coli grow, for instance, changes can be drawn out. It can also take time for a genome to stabilize after a bottleneck.

There are no gradual changes in species because there are no gradual changes in environment. Niches change in fits and starts and cyclically until they change utterly. Change in species occurs during these massive changes. It would occur gradually if niches lasted long enough but they do not. Darwin made numerous bad assumptions and he wanted to believe in "survival of the fittest". What other justification was there for the way England treated her colonies and her own citizens? People believe what they want to believe and many modern "scientists" believe what they are paid to believe. Money buys "science"; "Look and See Science".

A gazelle born with short legs, a brown or short-haired polar bear -- how are these animals fit?

A short legged gazelle would have extreme survival characteristics under some conditions. But this is mutation which is a different way species change. Species change at bottlenecks which select for unusual behavior. If all the carrots are poisoned only rabbits that don't like carrots survive. Change in species is an unusual process that has occurred only a few million times in earth history. We have observed it many times but forget because we don't remember the invention of agriculture and our view is tainted by our beliefs when we see it today.

All individuals are fit and have different genes cause by localized bottlenecks that also select for behavior.

Sexual reproduction is not cloning. It's whole function is to generate variation for environmental selection.

Yes and no. Its primary function is to provide a mixture of genes for the off spring. It also helps exclude unhealthy or extremely different individuals who are more likely to pass on "bad" genes.

A woman may be justified in believing in "survival of the fittest" but not biologists.

 

[F1fan]

That was not what you argued, nor what I was correcting you over. If you meant specifically creationism, you shouldn't have shoehorned the entirety of religious thinkers into your insult.

Why would I argue that these laureates had religious ideas that were accepted by peer reviewed journals? Traditionally, most if not all aspects of a religious individual's life is based within the system of belief they prescribe to, including the scientific minded and their desire to unravel the processes of nature which they attribute to their deity/deities.

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

Example: Darwin at first was trying to equate or bridge his idea within his famous 'On the Origin of Species' with the idea of creationism or a first cause. Of course, in the end he learned that if anything all he accomplished was diminishing the logic of believing in the miracle producing personal God of Abrahamic religions. This diminishing caused a rapid change in his beliefs to more of an agnostic. None-the-less it was religious ideas that sparked him to push the boundaries of biology, which allowed the capability of our current understanding of such processes.

How much longer would it have taken us if his idea was refuted by science as easily as science of the day was being refuted by the church? Luckily, we need not worry about that outcome. For in our Universe, we did have a theist named Darwin to push truth above idealisms. Lets not be like the church and "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Which is understating what particular churches do to children.

Well there was also Wallace making these observations and writing. Darwin just happened to be the first one to get the recognition. So it would not have been long had Darwin not gotten aboard the Beagle.

 

[cladking]

An endogenous retrovirus is a snippet of viral genetic material appearing in an organisms overall DNA strands that is recognized due to its unique genetic makeup.

When a virus infects a host cell, it over-writes portions of the cell's DNA with its own instructions. If this attack is on a gamete (sperm or ovum) and the cell ultimately survives the attack, then this DNA transcription can then be propagated to the next generation via reproduction using that particular cell. Keep in mind here that if the transcription of DNA of the sperm or ovum had resulted in key systems or functions being over-written, then this just means the resulting attempt at producing offspring would simply fail.

This passing on of virus' genetic material from generation to generation can mean that an entire lineage can have these traces of viral DNA coded into their genetic make-up.

The mechanisms by which this process occurs are well known and documented within the spectrum of observable phenomena. In the specific case of humans and other great ape species, the research conducted found that these types of viral DNA markers' found in humans and other apes (considering BOTH the exact-same virus of origin and the relative location within the entire strand of DNA) match in literally tens of thousands of locations!

Very interesting. Live and learn.

Understanding and accepting the processes by which this happens leaves no alternative but to conclude that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

I already had little doubt this was true. Apparently oak trees and humans share a common ancestor as well whether it can be shown by this process or not.

...changes to genetic makeup as a result of selection...

Nonsense. There is NO natural selection. It is an artificially produced bottleneck EXACTLY as my theory predicts. There is no "survival of the fittest". Unusual behavior in wolves was bred to make dogs SUDDENLY. Dogs are not more fit than wolves and they were not selected at random or by nature. Luck and consciousness played no overarching role.

The rest of this is just biased soap-boxing. There is nothing to address here.

Despite all observed and experimental change in life being sudden you believe in "survival of the fittest" and then say I'm the one soapboxing.

"Evolution" is a religion founded by Charles Darwin.

 

[F1fan]

There is no doubt that evolution must go back to its roots -- and mechanics -- in other words, abiogenesis.

That's OK, because abiogenesis is fact-based and naturally plausible. There are no facts or evidence for magic and supernatural beliefs. So abiogenesis wins.

 

[F1fan]

Don’t mind you saying I’m preaching but how was my post preaching? Creation by God makes sense, abiogenesis doesn’t and is imposssible.

False. There are no facts and evidence that any Gods exist. There is a fact-based explanation called abiogenesis that does work in nature, so it is plausible. So abiogenesis wins. Religious belief loses. Your claim above is wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

No I didn’t say that, but I will say like begets like. A fish will not change into an ape, human or an insect.

This agrees with the 'science of evolution.'

 

[ElishaElijah]

False. There are no facts and evidence that any Gods exist. There is a fact-based explanation called abiogenesis that does work in nature, so it is plausible. So abiogenesis wins. Religious belief loses. Your claim above is wrong.

Abiogenesis is impossible, to use the ingredients that God created in an experiment is funny. In a Godless scenario you get to start with absolutely nothing and out of that comes what we have today.
There are no facts or proof of abiogenesis

 

[ElishaElijah]

This agrees with the 'science of evolution.'

No it doesn’t, a fish has always been a fish, the flesh of a fish doesn’t become the flesh of an ape.

 

[F1fan]

Abiogenesis is impossible, to use the ingredients that God created in an experiment is funny.

OK, demonstrate your idea of God exists in reality, and also that it created anything. Use facts, not religious rhetoric.

In a Godless scenario you get to start with absolutely nothing and out of that comes what we have today.

That sounds like the religious model, that nothing existed (except the God) and it poofed energy into existence. There are no facts of this.

There are no facts or proof of abiogenesis

Actually it is a hypothesis that is based on facts. Get your science right. You can't bluff your way in thee discussions with well educated people correcting your errors of basic science.

 

[shunyadragon]

No it doesn’t, a fish has always been a fish, the flesh of a fish doesn’t become the flesh of an ape.

This is an self imposed ignorant statement based on an ancient religious agenda. The previous statement agrees with the 'science of evolution,' which is based on objective verifiable evidence' as is all science.

 

[F1fan]

No it doesn’t, a fish has always been a fish, the flesh of a fish doesn’t become the flesh of an ape.

And you won't find anything in science that disagrees. What you suggest here is absurd. Do you think experts in biology are missing something that you understand? Do you have a degree in biology, btw?

 

[ElishaElijah]

And you won't find anything in science that disagrees. What you suggest here is absurd. Do you think experts in biology are missing something that you understand? Do you have a degree in biology, btw?

Yes they are missing something that I understand and know.

 

[ElishaElijah]

This is an self imposed ignorant statement based on an ancient religious agenda. The previous statement agrees with the 'science of evolution,' which is based on objective verifiable evidence' as is all science.

Never has a bird become anything other than a bird, a fish has always been a fish, same with animals and humans. Science has failed to find any evidence of a this happening, no observable evidence, the only thing science says is billions of years ago such and such happened and who saw this? No one
Has anyone witnessed this change from one species to another since recorded history of man? Nope

 

[F1fan]

Yes they are missing something that I understand and know.

It's odd that you stop without explaining what you know. Perhaps you aren't confident.

 

[rational experiences]

All humans are stating the virtual advice.

A human states. A human studies. A group of humans agree best advice.

A human says I compare an ape to a human. Everyone agrees.

I then quote by human identity...agreed ....cells and changed chemical biology from ape body to human body is why a human is not an ape.

Everyone agrees. Status stated. Group says humans are a better body and consciousness than an ape.

Exact human status. Exact human stated.

Agreed.

The non agreement. How it occurred.

So if the group says status of intelligence is by agreement. Only then does it agree that non agreement is not allowed.

By group consensus who imposed what human correct answers and use of advice meant.

As some humans just like to argue for ego behaviour. Human law was enforced regarding human behaviour. About disassociation by self destructive use of human reasoning.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It's odd that you stop without explaining what you know. Perhaps you aren't confident.

I know that if I plant an apple seed I will get an apple tree not an orange tree. It’s the law of sowing and reaping.