Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
By the embedded links it looks like it came from a Wikipedia article.
Edit: Nailed it. Here is a link to the article:
Heaven - Wikipedia
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Believabliltiy of Evolution
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
Edit: Nailed it. Here is a link to the article:
Heaven - Wikipedia
cladking
Well-Known Member
All real science is based on experiment but there are no experiments underlying the linchpins of evolutionary "science". The experiments must be heeded but the interpretations of these are based on beliefs.
I would agree that it's entirely possible that life (consciousness) arose from simpler chemical interactions but this hardly makes all the assumptions and interpretations of "Evolution" to be "known science". Much of evolutionary "theory" is actually Look and See Science and is based on the opinion of Peers who come and go suddenly leaving new consensus when they pass on. Reality doesn't change when Peers die but beliefs do. The reality of change in species is fixed in all cases so the death of individual scientists don't affect this other than the insignificant direct effect.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Says who? Please find a science based source that supports this claim.
And of course you are fractally wrong throughout your post. No need to pile on of course lets deal with your first error first.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is quite wrong. All real science is based on observation, not necessarily on "experiments".
In some disciplines, the observations are made in a laboratory, by means of what we call "experiments". This is largely true in physics and chemistry for instance. (Men and women in white coats, test tubes, fume cupboards, wires, dials, etc, etc - all the standard paraphernalia of stereotypical popular "science".)
But in other sciences, e.g. earth science and astronomy, there is no "lab", just nature. So in those sciences the observations are not done by means of "experiments" at all. The scientists search for the right location and circumstances in nature itself to make the observations. This is also true of palaeontology, which is where the observations of the fossil record come from.
But in fact, evolutionary science has plenty of lab work too, to back it up as well. This ranges from DNA analysis showing kinships between different species to the growing of organisms in environments that force them to evolve in real time. For one example, see here: E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
Thanks. Would have been helpful (and good forum practice) if our poster could have given his sources.
gnostic
The Lost One
When a parent organism or parents organisms make offspring, through fertilisation and then through cell division, then the offspring will inherit the gene information (RNA or DNA) from one parent if it is asexual reproduction or gene information from both parents if it is sexual reproduction.
It is a biochemical reaction, which is nevertheless chemical reaction.
That the nature of life.
One of your mistaken assumptions is thinking that “life” equals “consciousness”.
The fact of matter is that some organisms have consciousness, but some don’t.
And some of those “don’t” have consciousness, would include such eukaryotes like fungi, plants, algae, as well as prokaryotes like bacteria and archaea.
(If you don’t already know, there bacteria don’t have cell division, rather it is binary fission. But since you brought up “life (consciousness)”, I think I will focused on animals that have consciousnesses, to compare against those that don’t have consciousnesses.
Consciousness is an emergence property, and for organisms like humans, consciousness is the emergence property of the brain. Without brain there are no consciousness.
My points are that life don’t alway have consciousness to be a “living” organism.
That’s mistake number one.
Unfortunately you whole post are full of mistakes, but I am not going to focus on “experiments” or “theory”, both of them are examples of your ignorance on basic science.
Mistake number two.
Let re-examine the same part I quoted from your reply, but let focused on what I highlighted in bold, ignoring the “(consciousness)” part, which I have already covered about your first mistake.
You wrote:
“...life (consciousness) arose from simpler chemical interactions but this hardly makes all the assumptions and interpretations of "Evolution" to be "known science".”
First, “...life arose from simpler chemical interactions...”
I am assuming here, you are talking about “origin of first life”, right?
Then you equating this “origin” or “life arose” with the other half of your sentence, regarding to “Evolution”.
You are exactly like creationists, we deal with constantly at RF, who cannot learn from this mistake, no matter how many times they have been corrected.
The “life arose” is all about “Abiogenesis”, which is a very different field to “Evolution”. How “life arose” isn’t the study of Evolution.
Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, hence you are correct that it is not “science”, yet, but Evolution is all life that already existed, and still existing if that life haven’t gone extinct.
And Evolution is about changes in the population of organisms - biodiversity - that occurred at genetic-level, over a period of time, which are measured in generations, not by merely by numbers of years.
This change can be triggered by one of five different mechanisms:
- Natural Selection
- Mutation
- Genetic Drift
- Gene Flow
- Genetic Hitchhiking
The point is that these mechanisms all fall under the umbrella of Evolution. And every ones of them have been tested.
And the points are that Evolution work with life that have already existed, and if they are extinct, life still existing today. Evolution is about WHAT organisms have changed enough for speciation to occur, WHY and HOW did they change, as well as finding out the WHERE and WHEN.
Evolution has been tested, and the number of evidence and data, support the finding, so Evolution is “science”, which actually lead to your third mistake.
The problem is that you have mistaken Abiogenesis (how “life arose”) with Evolution (studies of adaption, biodiversity and speciation of populations of species).
Your 4th mistake is that like other creationists here at RF, is that Abiogenesis isn’t just about first life, but also how cell first formed, and cells been made of many parts, like the origin of 3 essential biological macromolecules that exist in all life:
- Proteins
- Nucleic acids (eg RNA & DNA)
- Carbohydrates
And there already have been some experiments to cause chemical reactions, that convert inorganic matters into one of these macromolecules.
For instance, the Miller-Urey experiment (1952) was the earliest experiment to replicate amino acids from what inorganic compounds might exist in the early Earth’s environment. There are over hundred of different types of amino acids, but only 20 to 23 of them exist naturally and are building blocks for proteins.
In 1952, 9 out of the 20 amino acids were successfully produced them from this experiment, and stored in vials. In 2007, they discovered there now 20 amino acids.
Other experiments have been performed in the decades that followed. Some experiments added a couple more inorganic compounds that might existed in the Earth’s atmosphere, like carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide that may existed due to volcanic activities.
While Abiogenesis may not be science at stage, these experiments demonstrated that Abiogenesis is a “falsifiable” hypothesis.
That’s your fifth mistake, because you said that “life arose” is nothing but “assumptions and interpretations”.
If you can find evidence or you can perform a successful experiment, then Abiogenesis isn’t just “assumptions and interpretations”.
I will leave for now, because it is very late. So good night.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Dating specimen of fossils or non-fossilized remains or dating minerals, (A) using radiometric dating methods or (B) using luminescence techniques, can be considered experiments too.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Indeed, as can any form of analytical test on a sample of anything. But I am sure what @cladking is reciting is the silly creationist notion that because digging up and classifying fossils does not involve test tubes and white coats, it isn't really "science".
Like most creationist attacks on evolution, this one depends for its success on total ignorance of science. As such, it is designed to bolster the beliefs of the creationist community, rather than being any sort of serious argument with traction in the wider world.
cladking
Well-Known Member
My intent is certainly not to "bolster the beliefs of the creationist community" but rather to point out that science derived from observation alone is not science at all. "Theory" can be largely dependent on observation especially in the soft sciences and in any field that experiment is difficult or impossible such as the "theory" of evolution but to the degree it is dependent on observation it is not science at all. "Experiment" of sorts can be done in "evolution" but all such experiments ever performed have clearly shown all change in life of all types and sorts is "sudden". Despite this simple fact "scientists" still believe in "evolution" and survival of the fittest with no experimental basis and every single experiment and observation showing gradual change does not exist. And they are mistaken because of the assumptions with which they "observe" the evidence. They believe the fossil record is incomplete because it shows missing links when in point of fact the reality is closer to punctuated equilibrium caused NOT by survival of the fittest which exists only as a belief system but rather through consciousness and behavior driven by genes.
No matter how many times I say this or the words I choose believers in science and scientism simply can't even understand it. They parse the words into gobbledty gook because it flies in the face of their beliefs and the "observations" derived from those beliefs.
All science is a belief but those beliefs extrapolated from properly interpreted experiment are probably largely correct.
All of the soft sciences today are a train wreck derived from the assumptions of 19th century science. Some are better or worse than others.
My intent is to bolster the search for truth and certainty not to undermine true science or religion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again you started out with a clearly false claim. Evolution is not based on observation only. Tests are proposed and performed. Instead of making absolute statements about the science that you do not understand you should be asking questions.
cladking
Well-Known Member
No matter how many times I've asked nobody has ever shown one single experiment that shows a gradual change in species nor evidence it was caused by "survival of the fittest".
People believe in this nonsense because they want to believe and because they don't understand that it is consciousness that underlies life and NOT fitness. They want to believe so they can't see that in every single case of known change in species it was the result of behavior and the change was SUDDEN just like all change in ALL life.
Now you'll respond as though I didn't say these words at all. You'll not show evidence for a gradual change because no such evidence exists. No matter how much evidence I present you'll ignore it just as is typical for scientism.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Because that is a bogus demand. There can be more than one way to test an idea. Experiments do not need to be done to your improper standards.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is just rubbish. It is observation of nature that is key to science. It does not matter how this is done, whether in nature or in the lab. You are in effect arguing that astronomy (to give one example) is not science. How absurd.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Again there is no evidence to show a gradual change in any species! There is no evidence any change in any species is caused by "survival of the fittest".
ALL the evidence shows ALL change in ALL life is SUDDEN. No evidence shows sudden change in species is caused by "survival of the fittest". You BELIEVE in survival of the fittest despite the lack of logic and evidence.
I've listed lots of evidence in this very thread and you et al ignored it. And no one has linked to any evidence to support your beliefs.
All the experiments IMO opinion supports what you call "punctuated equilibrium" except it is caused by behavior which is expressed consciousness driven by genes. This is the fact. This is what experiment shows and Darwin was wrong because he started with false assumptions. Namely that populations remain relatively steady even over the long term. You can't change this by ignoring the argument, facts, logic, and experimental evidence. You gainsay it only because it sounds like religious beliefs. You can deny anything but it has no effect on reality or the argument at hand.
You have taken apart reality to study without ever realizing that reality can't be dismantled in this way and that life without consciousness is an oxymoron than can not exist in reality.
Science is a powerful tool only when wielded properly.
cladking
Well-Known Member
You are mistaken.
"Observation" alone is the new consensus Look and See Science.
The opinion of people is irrelevant to reality even when those people are Peers.
We have lost touch with science and reality.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I also see neither you nor SubductionZone boithered to reply to a single thing in the post.
This is the MO of believers; to ignore the point and change the subject, gainsay it, or play semantical games.
I will not continue playing your game. I will not post to games.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Actually there is . You simply deny it and come up with poorly designed tests.
I do not remember your presenting any evidence. In fact you may not even understand the concept when it comes to the sciences. Tell us your hypothesis and then present your evidence. Without a testable hypothesis one cannot have scientific evidence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We did. We both pointed out basic errors in your post that made most of it nonsense. No one is playing any games. You are simply proposing bad tests and then falsely claiming "No evidence" instead of looking at the evidence for evolution or asking questions when you do not understand.
Ask proper questions and you will get answers. Ask poorly formed "gotcha" questions and you will be corrected. A proper question is one where one asks something about a topic that one does not understand in order to understand better.
exchemist
Veteran Member
There is nothing new about this. The process of science involves observations, the forming of a hypothesis to account for them and the testing of the hypothesis against further observation. That is all that is required, and this has been true of science ever since the Renaissance. In fact, the first scientific discoveries were made in astronomy, by observing changes in the apparent position of celestial bodies and forming testable hypotheses to explain them. No white coats, no experiments, just a man, a telescope and pen and paper to record the observations.
Evolution is just the same: the hypothesis of common ancestry and change is tested by observation of fossils of differing ages, and observation of DNA similarities and differences, and the hypothesis of natural selection is tested by observation of changes in living organisms in response to their environment.
cladking
Well-Known Member
By George I think you got it. There is no testable hypothesis to show any gradual change in individual life or in species.
You merely gainsaid one thing from my post and ignored the rest.
This is typical for believers and scientism.
The sad part of it is you want to explain your beliefs to me without any evidence.
Where is your evidence for a gradual change?
You will continue to ignore everything I say. I'm done. Go back and read my posts. They contain several dozens pieces of evidence. Then you merely claim you provided evidence while ignoring mine such as ALL OBSERVABLE CHANGE IN LIFE OF ALL TYPES IS SUDDEN!! But you can't even see that this is evidence because you see what you believe.
You will ignore it yet again.