Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

How many people will needlessly suffer and die because we can't do real stem cell research, for example. They don't want to allow it, they don't have a clue why but they don't want to allow it.

cicerone imposter wrote:

neo, You gave the wrong response to the right post by TCR. Evolution and stem cell research are relative issues.

Well, technically, all medical research is related to evolution, as it explains similarities between species, thus justifying animal research in a scientific manner.

Reading this thread is like watching a blind guy arguing with a deaf guy about the taste of french fries.
Posted earlier here

....his remarks about whether or not there were liquid water on the earth at the beginning of its history. He's dropped that one like a hot rock now.......

Setanta wrote:

....his remarks about whether or not there were liquid water on the earth at the beginning of its history. He's dropped that one like a hot rock now.......

Nonsense, I'll discuss it all day.

My remarks were in response to maporsche who asserted that the Miller-Urey experiment used 'conditions like they were in the early earth'.

I pointed out that this was doubtful.

Whether one considers that the oceans were completely frozen, or only the top 300 meters were frozen----

----- the point is that a lightning shot to a puddle on the early earth wasn't a likely scenario to jumpstart the process of life.

Keep it in context and you'll understand the argument, Setanta. :wink:

I see the dance is to now post responses to the wrong thread...

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

neo, You gave the wrong response to the right post by TCR. Evolution and stem cell research are relative issues.

Well, technically, all medical research is related to evolution, as it explains similarities between species, thus justifying animal research in a scientific manner.

Since you are an evolutionist, Wolf, what is the difference between man and 'other animals' ?

If 'animal research' is justified (without the animal's consent , obviously) , is the use of human animals without their consent similarly justified?

If not, on what scientific basis do you disqualify such a notion?

Should science be impeded by antiquated notions of morality (insofar as the only justification for not using human animals against their will is most likely based on a moral objection)?

real, What a stupid q. I eat meat all the time.

Cannibalism was accepted in Fiji less than a century ago. Americans crossing the Sierra Nevada Mountains ate other humans to survive. Just because my ancestors came from another country doesn't mean my values are superior to theirs; we're all animals who develop bastardly weapons to kill other humans. Some cultures still eat dogs and cats. Some eat brains, snakes, grasshoppers, and bugs. My values are no better than anyone else's just because I believe or disbelieve in cannibalism.

No one posted anything about lighting to a puddle starting life.

parados wrote:

No one posted anything about lighting to a puddle starting life.

I want to clear up my misstatement.

I mentioned 'a[/i][/u] lightning shot'.

Actually, Miller-Urey used NUMEROUS electrical discharges, not just one, to the same batch of chemicals.

This was meant to simulate numerous lightning strikes to the same random handful of molecules, out of all the molecules in the earth------

--------the probability of this is so remote as to make even evolution look likely by comparison.

My apologies.

Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

No one posted anything about lighting to a puddle starting life.

I want to clear up my misstatement.

I mentioned 'a[/i][/u] lightning shot'.

Actually, Miller-Urey used NUMEROUS electrical discharges, not just one, to the same batch of chemicals.

This was meant to simulate numerous lightning strikes to the same random handful of molecules, out of all the molecules in the earth------

--------the probability of this is so remote as to make even evolution look likely by comparison.

My apologies.

Quote:

Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen.

Care to find me a puddle that contains water vapor?

Context is important. So define "context" as you used it. Show us where the experiment ever used lightning to puddles. Your error was not in use of the term "lightning" but in your claim they used "puddles" or any liquid water for that matter.

I would say the probability of life is better than the probability that you will ever get facts correct. Just my opinion but based on your posts I think it's a fair conclusion.