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

TalkOrigins wrote:

1. Language tends to be ambiguous at times (e.g., the entry for the word "set" covers more than twenty-two pages of the original Oxford English Dictionary.) The word "evolution" is an unfortunate instance of that ambiguity; it is used for the fact of biological change over time; as shorthand for the theory of evolution, which encompasses a much broader range of observations and ideas; and for change generally, in any realm. The ambiguity can usually be resolved by the context in which the word is used, at least by people who know something about biological evolution.

Mixing contexts is indeed improper, and the fact of allele frequency change, by itself, does not establish the theory of evolution.

2. The soundness of the theory of evolution does not rest on ambiguity. On the contrary, scientific papers are written so other scientists can tell what the authors are talking about; they must be as unambiguous as possible. The evidence is overwhelming: evolution is not only a theory; major aspects of it, such as common descent, are also facts.

3. Creationists sometimes misuse the ambiguity to their own advantage, trying, for example, to include cosmological change as part of the theory of evolution (Hovind n.d.). This is gross ignorance, deliberate dishonesty, or both.

(In short, this argument has been seen and dealt with many times before. There is no need for us to do it all over again.)

0 Replies

I see you refuse to deal with Shapiro's statements.

Your other attempts are the same crap..

Quote:

The timeline of human evolution outlines the major events in the development of humans species and the evolution of human's ancestors. It begins with the time of the origin of life ..............

The time of the origin of life is NOT before the origin of life. Once Darwinian evolution is capable then life has originated. So Darwinian is from the time life originated. You are arguing that Darwinian evolution occurs BEFORE life originated.

Quote:

EVOLUTION - ORIGIN OF LIFE

You didn't bother to check anything other than the title, did you?
It is a series of links to topics such as..
Becoming Human: Paleoanthropology, Evolution and Human Origins
Including a link to...
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/lessons/evolution.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1190297466-Mpv1TNwSCkioeW2FtjMoSg Daily lesson plan on evolution And SURPRISE.. NOTHING about the origins of life in the daily lesson plan on evolution.

And this lovely link
http://www-sbras.nsc.ru/ws/BOE-2007/index.en.html
Titled BIOSPHERE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION which includes topics like

Quote:

Problems of abiogenic synthesis and evolution of the matter under conditions of pregeological stages of the Earth evolution.

It really has nothing to do with the evolution of species but is about the biosphere and the elements and chemicals that are contained and how they have evolved.

But then you lept at this one..

Quote:

PREBIOTIC EVOLUTION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE: A STATUS REPORT

failing to realize that "prebiotic" means BEFORE life and would preclude Darwinian evolution which can only occur AFTER life originated as Shapiro has already pointed out with his 2 definitions.

This one is funny in light of your desire to want to quote Shapiro

Quote:

THE ORIGIN OF CELLULAR LIFE
When life arose on Earth about 4 billion years ago, the first types of cells to evolve were procaryotic cells

Shapiro hypothesizes that life would exist before cellular life exists. So any cellular life that would arise would be AFTER the origination of life and WOULD be Darwinian evolution.

0 Replies

Quote:

Welcome to Geology 146, "Origin and Evolution of Life on Planet Earth."

Quote:

However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from.

Chemistry is also of special interest to evolutionary biology but it doesn't mean that chemistry is part of Darwinian evolution.

You are a one trick pony RL. You really should check your sources before you post them as supporting your outlandish claims.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Your other attempts are the same crap..

Quote:
The timeline of human evolution outlines the major events in the development of humans species and the evolution of human's ancestors. It begins with the time of the origin of life ..............

The time of the origin of life is NOT before the origin of life. Once Darwinian evolution is capable then life has originated. So Darwinian is from the time life originated. You are arguing that Darwinian evolution occurs BEFORE life originated.

The clear statement that 'the timeline of human evolution begins with the time of the origin of life' shows that it is viewed as a continuum.

0 Replies

Life is a continuum. You are continuing to include "before life" in that continuum of life. Life had a beginning, you can't include what occured BEFORE that beginning if you want to talk about life.

You have done nothing but attempt to warp language or misuse quotes.

Deal with the statements by Shapiro who you said supported your claim.

Quote:

Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian evolution can NOT occur until life exists. Shapiro has said as much.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Life is a continuum. You are continuing to include "before life" in that continuum of life. Life had a beginning, you can't include what occured BEFORE that beginning if you want to talk about life.

You have done nothing but attempt to warp language or misuse quotes.

Deal with the statements by Shapiro who you said supported your claim.

Quote:
Once independent units were established, they could evolve in different ways and compete with one another for raw materials; we would have made the transition from life that emerges from nonliving matter through the action of an available energy source to life that adapts to its environment by Darwinian evolution.

Darwinian evolution can NOT occur until life exists. Shapiro has said as much.

Gee, do you think that's why the article referred to the origin of life as the FIRST STEP in evolution?

But I'll give you this: you are adept at avoiding actual discussion of the issue.

(Are you running for office?)

0 Replies

parados wrote:

. . . Darwinian evolution can NOT occur until life exists. Shapiro has said as much.

I'm just an ignirant yokel from New Jersey, but doesn't the origin of life have any bearing on the theory of evolution?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

parados wrote:
. . . Darwinian evolution can NOT occur until life exists. Shapiro has said as much.
I'm just an ignirant yokel from New Jersey, but doesn't the origin of life have any bearing on the theory of evolution?

I think other posters have said it has bearing but it is not part of evolutionary theory. Darwin titled his book Origin of Species (not origin of life).

Can you understand that there is a distinction between saying something has "bearing" on a subject rather than something is "part" of that subject?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Gee, do you think that's why the article referred to the origin of life as the FIRST STEP in evolution?

If the origin of life is the FIRST STEP in evolution then what are the steps leading up to the origin of life part of?

How do you take a step BEFORE the first step?

Darwinian evolution - first step = first life and second step = first adaptation. How that life got there is NOT part of Darwinian evolution otherwise it would NOT be the first step.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

parados wrote:
. . . Darwinian evolution can NOT occur until life exists. Shapiro has said as much.
I'm just an ignirant yokel from New Jersey, but doesn't the origin of life have any bearing on the theory of evolution?

Sure, and you could argue that the origins of the universe has a bearing on the manufacturing of a car but it doesn't make the Big Bang a necessary step in automobile manufacturing.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Gee, do you think that's why the article referred to the origin of life as the FIRST STEP in evolution?

I went back and looked at the article again. I can't find where the article does this. Please provide the quote to support your claim.

Quote:

But I'll give you this: you are adept at avoiding actual discussion of the issue.

(Are you running for office?)

You are the one that seems to be avoiding Shapiro's actual words and instead using yours as if Shapiro said them. I look forward to your posting where Shapiro said "the origin of life is the first step in evolution."

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

Gee, do you think that's why the article referred to the origin of life as the FIRST STEP in evolution?

I went back and looked at the article again. I can't find where the article does this. Please provide the quote to support your claim.

Perhaps if you had read the article you would've found it. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:

Gee, do you think that's why the article referred to the origin of life as the FIRST STEP in evolution?

I went back and looked at the article again. I can't find where the article does this. Please provide the quote to support your claim.

Perhaps if you had read the article you would've found it.

C'mon, RL. Don't keep the rest of us in suspense.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
real life wrote:

Gee, do you think that's why the article referred to the origin of life as the FIRST STEP in evolution?

I went back and looked at the article again. I can't find where the article does this. Please provide the quote to support your claim.

Perhaps if you had read the article you would've found it.
C'mon, RL. Don't keep the rest of us in suspense.

OK Neo

from page 2 of the article at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=B7AABF35-E7F2-99DF-309B8CEF02B5C4D7&pageNumber=2&catID=4

In a germinal 1986 article, Nobel Laureate Walter Gilbert of Harvard University wrote in the journal Nature: "One can contemplate an RNA world, containing only RNA molecules that serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves. & The first step of evolution proceeds then by RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities necessary to assemble themselves from a nucleotide soup."

One can argue whether the existence of a self replicating RNA molecule is truly 'the origin of life' or not.

But clearly , this distinguished gentleman is not held back by an arbitrary distinction from discussing the spontaneous generation of early life in the overall context of evolution.

0 Replies

A self replicating RNA molecule would be life since it replicates and can evolve.

The first step of evolution is when one of the self replicating RNA in this soup changes and combines to form a new self replicating strand

0 Replies

how evolution seems to be "scientifically refuted" usually:

(not counting [insert misconception about what evolution or theory is])

1. evolution requires [x] to happen
2. scientists agree [x] is required
3. scientists offer possible explanations for [x], including [y]
4. creationist shows why [y] is incorrect
5. "so [x] must be incorrect, and evolution is wrong!"

oops? bonus points to the creationist that can't see what's wrong with the above process...

0 Replies

There is an obvious flaw in the syllogism.
How many bonus points?

It still would not resolve the issue, however.

0 Replies

science rarely gets resolved. when it does, scientific american publishes a special issue called "the end of science?" similar to the patent office saying that everything has been invented, and there's no where to go but sideways. it seems to happen every several decades, and it sells a lot of papers and mags.

religion NEVER gets resolved, that's how you can tell it apart from science Smile

if you really want to refute evolution, you're stuck with old tired paradigms.

the future of refuting evolution "scientifically" will be to say that the theory of evolution is based on a newtonian view of the universe and it doesn't take quantum theory into account at all, therefore evolution is wrong, (or at the very best, right and wrong simultaneously, and therefore wrong.) why don't you get started? you could make a fortune writing a book about it.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

how evolution seems to be "scientifically refuted" usually:

(not counting [insert misconception about what evolution or theory is])

1. evolution requires [x] to happen
2. scientists agree [x] is required
3. scientists offer possible explanations for [x], including [y]
4. creationist shows why [y] is incorrect
5. "so [x] must be incorrect, and evolution is wrong!"

oops? bonus points to the creationist that can't see what's wrong with the above process...

What often happens is that an objection to evolution is raised, and an evolutionist responds with a 'you're stupid' answer.

A good example: I've often noted that evolution violates scientific principles such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Prominent evolutionists on A2K have responded that the 2nd Law only applies to closed systems.

When I asked for an example of a naturally occurring closed system to which it would apply, the answer is to launch an ad hom attack , rather than to continue the discussion. ('well you just don't understand' 'well you're just being dense' etc)

Actually your post is a good example as well. Rather than contribute anything to the discussion, you designed a strawman to caricature evolution's objectors as ignorant and illogical.

0 Replies

Certainty is relative.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know