The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: whereislogic

Once again that video, shows someone who does not understand what biological evolution is. In no part of the theory of evolution does how life began get stated.

Now as for your issues with the term evolution. You are being disingenuous. The etymology of evolution, is via the latin evolvere. So while it is implied that evolution means biological evolution, it does not have too. When I am doing a chemical reaction, which is off gassing, the term is that it evolved gas similarly an exothermic reaction evolves heat. In that it this is a new thing in the chemistry from an earlier state.

Thus the use of evolution can mean many things. HOWEVER when we are talking about life, and how it changes, but not how it began, it means biological evolution. WHY is that so hard for you guys to get?

a reply to: Noinden

In no part of the theory of evolution does how life began get stated.

i can't help but wonder how many times you guys have to say that before it actually sinks in...

Gesus its repeated on almost every page...

a reply to: Akragon

The problem is that people who they see as religious leaders say otherwise. It would be like me saying Jesus said to eat the hearts of virgin children, at the start of a lab I taught. He did not, but because I said so, and any of my previous chemistry students saw me as a scientific authority, it thus must be so. Even though I am not a subject mater expert (or give a flying fig) about things a supposed messianic figure said.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Noinden

In no part of the theory of evolution does how life began get stated.

i can't help but wonder how many times you guys have to say that before it actually sinks in...

Gesus its repeated on almost every page...

Repeated and ignored because you/they dont decide what others need to understand or accept.
You and they do not write the rules, you just want to make them up

So just keep repeating it and some will ignore your constant goal post shifting.



Its as if you are saying
"please dont talk about abiogenesis and evolution, it makes us look sillier than we already are"

a reply to: Raggedyman

Ahh so you know the rules do you? By rules I assume you mean the rules of what a Scientific theory is? Pull the other one, it has bells on neighbor.

The theory of evolution only speaks to (wait for it) evolution . Not how life started, the universe started, etc. There are no grand unifying theories.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Ahh so you know the rules do you? By rules I assume you mean the rules of what a Scientific theory is? Pull the other one, it has bells on neighbor.

The theory of evolution only speaks to (wait for it) evolution . Not how life started, the universe started, etc. There are no grand unifying theories.

Again
You dont get to decide what information I need to decide what is a truth or a fallacy.

Your beliefs dont decide for me what is acceptable or unacceptable

Some boffin in a white coat does not decide what evidence is acceptable for me to agree with him.
Science is not a faith decided by anothers opinion.

Pull your own, bell or no
Wait for it, the theory of evolution should include the evolution of life from nothing, if it doesnt its not acceptable to me.

Sorry I dont kowtow to your and your faiths every whim and fantasy

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Noinden

In no part of the theory of evolution does how life began get stated.

i can't help but wonder how many times you guys have to say that before it actually sinks in...

Gesus its repeated on almost every page...

Repeated and ignored because you/they dont decide what others need to understand or accept.
You and they do not write the rules, you just want to make them up

So just keep repeating it and some will ignore your constant goal post shifting.



Its as if you are saying
"please dont talk about abiogenesis and evolution, it makes us look sillier than we already are"

This coming from someone who doesn't know the rules, or the words we are talking about in the first place as it has been repeatedly proven time and time again in all of these threads...

From a guy who reads nothing that people post, and slanders almost everyone he speaks to...

From a guy who basically stuffs his head in the sand and yells "nope Nope"... when he asks for evidence... then ignores the very evidence he is given time and again...

Ok bud... Smoke another one...

a reply to: Raggedyman

YOU do not get to decide what a scientific theory is about. You can not suddenly decide gravity also is about zoology.

If it is not acceptable to you? Tough luck.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Repeating myself:
"...that's not actually equivocating "origin of life and evolution".."
All you did was swap out "origin of life" with "abiogenesis"; when I used "origin of life" I was quoting you, now you swap again possibly to distract from you repeating what I said about it and rephrasing it into an excuse (in the sentences before and after that line) to do exactly what I expected you would do (as if it required an excuse even after me already saying the above and more below, bringing up similar or the same things).

Abiogenesis IS ONE hypothesis about the origin of life. Referring to abiogenesis IS referring to the origin of life. Biological evolution is separate from both. It doesn't change my point in the slightest. This is semantics you are arguing now. I was referring to keeping abiogenesis OR the origin of life separate from biological evolution (theory of MS). I wasn't arguing that abiogenesis should be separate from origin of life, but it seems you are arguing exactly that.

If you understood what equivocation is as a logical fallacy, you might have a better idea of what I'm talking about here. The video did no equivocating whatsoever. Look up the fallacy.

I just listed facts and the views of others regarding these facts (and part of your expected response, I just didn't want to finish your whole line of thinking and everything you brought up there in your dancing+distraction game because that would make my comment too long):

I don't see how repeating your original argument changes anything. I wasn't distracting, you are arguing semantics to avoid addressing the multiple experiments cited in the video that you claimed didn't exist.

And a nice pick again to go on a red herring debate and distract from the main points of my comment, I guess that's what you get for trying to spell everything out and try to bring up the twists and responses you expect someone is going to post while conveniently talking past the effect it has on the minds of those such as GetHyped who make such statements because that's what they've been conditioned with by those who like to twist people's understanding regarding the subject of so-called "evolution" or as I call it, evolutionary philosophies.

You quoted one single line of mine out of context while ignoring my main points and sticking to semantics arguments. I was very clear and concise in my post. If you didn't understand my points, that's on you for not reading thoroughly before responding with walls of text that have nothing to do with anything I said.

Also interesting how you avoid using the term chemical evolution for this subject for clarity that the phrase:

Um, I mentioned chemical evolution.

Look up the word evolution, then look up the word chemical. It basically means the evolution of organic chemicals. Evolution simply means change or increase in complexity/knowledge over time, and we all know what chemical means. That is abiogenesis and not related to modern synthesis (theory of evolution). You can't just look up words in the dictionary, you have to look up their definitions and application IN SCIENCE.

So basically you lied and claimed I avoided mentioning chemical evolution when I clearly explained it in the first post you responded to.

Oh, but they added "cosmic", I guess that must mean it's OK now cause "evolution" supposedly just means "change over time" (or you wanna try another similar switch of meaning?). Go ahead, continue the vague wordgame.

Facepalm. Look up the word. Evolution DOES mean change over time, or increase in complexity / skills / design over time. There are actually something like 10 definitions for evolution. "Cosmic evolution" is exactly that, the origin of stars and planets. It is not part of the theory of evolution. You are trying to turn this discussion into something that is patently false. You are using Kent Hovind arguments.

1. The origin of life OR abiogenesis OR chemical evolution - IS NOT biological evolution (common ancestry)
2. Evolution as a word can refer to almost anything.

I know the subject of "evolution" when used on a subforum entitled "Origins and Creationism" includes all evolutionary philosophies that are phrased using all the various terminology I have used as examples so far, I'll make another short list to describe the 3 main varieties some of which have overlap, all of which are based on the same core philosophy of philosophical naturalism, 'nature did it':
- cosmic evolution
- chemical evolution
- biological evolution
- organic evolution
- molecular evolution
- and so on

Once again you are failing to understand the difference and application of the term evolution. Cosmic evolution is the origin of stars and planets. Chemical evolution can refer to the origin of organic chemicals or life itself. It can also have other applications in chemistry, because evolution is a word that can describe many different things. Biological evolution is the theory of evolution. Organic evolution.... I don't even know what you mean, but looking it up, it seems to be the same thing as biological evolution.

Evolution is just a broad descriptor in all of those. Again, my point that you failed to acknowledge, is that each version of "evolution" you listed there is unrelated to the others. The process of each of those requires completely different mechanisms. If there are unanswered questions about the origin of stars and planets, it doesn't make the origin of life wrong. If there are unanswered questions about the origin of life, it doesn't make theory of evolution wrong. Do you understand what I'm saying yet? Evolution is not an all encompassing thing that can be proven right or wrong completely. It is a layman's term that can refer to almost anything that changes over time. How much more thoroughly do you need me to explain this?

you were and still will continue to capitalize on the ambiguity of language regarding the word and topic of "evolution" (and chemical evolution in particular, trying to disconnect the 2 cause the mythology is strong and obvious in chemical evolution;

If you don't get science, you don't get it. I can't fix that. I'm not aware of any mythology in science. I am aware of hypotheses and theories. I understand that you don't understand science and think that it is simply mythology, but that's a different issue. My post is based on pure science based fact and accurately describes how terminology applies in science. I was very specific about what each means, I was not ambiguous in the least. It is YOU that is being ambiguous with terminology and suggesting that evolution is evolution no matter which scientific discipline we are talking about. Nobody's twisting anything here except you. I broke it down for you. Either upgrade your understanding of the science and terminology or try arguing a topic you actually understand.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Seen it (or most of it, I don't last long when I'm noticing mythology being presented as being "scientific"). You have already demonstrated not to care to evaluate such information.

What mythology was presented as science in the video? Give me specifics.

...more below...

originally posted by: PhotonEffect


Definition 1:
"originally posted by: Barcs
Biological evolution (aka theory of modern evolutionary synthesis) is about the change in frequency of alleles in a population, usually via genetic mutations and natural selection."

Definition 2:
"The increase of the frequency of a certain trait amongst a population, is what we are talking about and what science defines as biological evolution (or MS)."

1 & 2 are technically different. Which is it - traits or alleles?

Come on, PE. traits are caused by alleles, they are virtually the same thing. I even worded that first definition specifically for you knowing that you may be lurking and ready to pounce on a completely insignificant difference based on semantics.

Alleles are variations of genes. Genes are not traits. But these terms are often used interchangeably without anyone noticing or giving a sh*t.

Nonsense. What exactly causes new traits to emerge? Does that have nothing to do with gene variations? Come on, PE. I thought you were better than this. The only difference between my 2 definitions is that one uses the official scientific term and one is more generalized for simplification purposes. It's like using the term "chemical evolution" instead of abiogenesis.

originally posted by: cooperton
No. Gravity is a law.

Gravity is BOTH a theory and a law. Laws are not theories that are validated.

Yes they do. Let's say a hypothetical allelic frequency for A/a in a population is 80%/20%. If one child is born, with AA, Aa, or aa, it will cause a shift, albeit very small, in the allelic frequency of the population. Therefore, according to the definition of evolution, every birth is evolving a population. No mutation is required.

Wrong again. It's not about being born, it's about passing down genes. That is what changes the frequency. If the organism never passes down the genes, it is irrelevant in the evolutionary picture. When more organisms passdown certain genes that benefit the species in a certain environment more than others, it leads to the increase of the alleles in the population. Evolution affects populations not individuals.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Thinking about the interdependency of cell components and machinery may help some people to understand why a step by step process or chemical evolution/abiogenesis from so-called "simple to complex" is not possible.

EXACTLY. Please, please please please, people, open your minds and think on this. Darwin himself said evolution would only be viable if gradual progression could culminate complex organs, yet we now know that each cell, organ, etc all have a complex network of interdependent components that are useless without all the pieces in play. If a clock is missing one gear, it will not function correctly.

That's not how irreducible complexity works. It's not about ripping apart something and seeing if it functions on its own. It's about gradual increases to the complexity of it over time. Can you prove that anything is irreducibly complex? No you can't. You can guess about it because it's complex, but that doesn't prove anything. It just shows you don't understand science and probably never will. I don't know why you even bother arguing against something you don't know anything about.

originally posted by: Barcs


Wrong again. It's not about being born, it's about passing down genes.

but genes are passed on by birth...

That is what changes the frequency.

yes, each birth changes the allele frequency in the population (unless, for example, an Aa is birthed into a population with 50/50 A/a).

That's not how irreducible complexity works. It's not about ripping apart something and seeing if it functions on its own. It's about gradual increases to the complexity of it over time. Can you prove that anything is irreducibly complex? No you can't.

The irreducible complexity of, for example, the first cell. A viable cell would need:

1) reproduction
2) transcription
3) translation
4) metabolism
5) structural components (i.e. exterior casing - lipid bilayer w/proteins)
6) regulation

If one of these components are missing you cannot have a viable cell - this is irreducible complexity. Without reproduction the cell line ends. without transcription or translation you can't make proteins. Without metabolism there is no ATP production (energy). Without structural components it cannot isolate and protect itself from the environment, or have a structural scaffold.

It just shows you don't understand science and probably never will. I don't know why you even bother arguing against something you don't know anything about.

Get off your pedestal, you act as if science is limited to some elite group of people. You lead the others astray by your chauvinism, yet you don't realize that a material-based worldview was rendered obsolete in the early 20th century:

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” -Nikola Tesla

continued response to Whereislogic:

Evolution simply means change or increase in complexity/knowledge over time, and we all know what chemical means.

Yes this is my quote.

What happened to 'evolution having no direction' (supposedly)?

You have got to be kidding me! You are really lost here and are doing yourself a disservice by not understanding the terminology. BIOLOGICAL evolution IS NOT LINEAR. Who said it has no direction? It follows the environment. The definition I stated above was the definition of the term "evolution" in general as a layman's term (NOT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION), the way YOU are using it when you say "chemical evolution" or "cosmic evolution". You just committed the equivocation fallacy again. You used a different definition of evolution and tried to apply it to biological evolution. Classic example right there. Thanks for driving my point home for me.

And how does increase of knowledge have anything to do with evolutionary philosophies

It doesn't. That was my point. My knowledge can evolve. It's a different meaning of the term evolution, and it's the same thing when you say "chemical evolution". There is no theory of chemical evolution. There are multiple hypotheses to try to explain how it works, but it hasn't been verified yet. I already explained it. Look up chemical, look up evolution and use the non biological definition.

Evolution:


noun
1.
any process of formation or growth; development:
the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2.
a product of such development; something evolved:
The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3.
Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4.
a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5.
a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6.
a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements:
the evolutions of a figure skater.
7.
an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8.
Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity.
Compare involution (def 8).
9.
a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10.
any similar movement, especially in close order drill.

#3 is biological evolution (theory of modern synthesis). #1 is the definition you are using in "chemical evolution". Please note the obvious differences. #1 can refer to almost anything that changes or develops. You can't use definition #1 to argue against #3 or vice versa. That is classic equivocation. None of those definitions mention anything about the origin of life or stars and planets.

Cosmic evolution is the process of development and growth of the cosmos.
Chemical evolution is the process of development of organic chemicals (or non organic as well)

This isn't rocket science here. It's basic understanding of the English language.

onegoodmove.org...

Equivocation

Definition:

The same word is used with two different meanings.

Examples:

-The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there.

-All child-murderers are inhuman, thus, no child-murderer is human. (From Barker, p. 164; this is called "illicit obversion")

-A plane is a carpenter's tool, and the Boeing 737 is a plane, hence the Boeing 737 is a carpenter's tool. (Example borrowed from Davis, p. 58)

Sigh, what else is new around these parts...

Obviously nothing coming from your camp. These fallacious arguments that equivocate origin of life and biological evolution are ancient and have been debunked countless times here. There is no basis of reality in that argument at all. They are different processes that utilize different mechanisms. You guys are the ones misusing the terminology to promote a world view.

it's quite frustrating looking for someone who is both honest and reasonable in their commentary on ATS. Only 1, I only want to find 1, is that really so much to ask? I'm not thinking about those who've already figured out the most important facts/truths about reality. I'm hoping that there is anyone out there who is honest and reasonable and hungry for knowledge, recognizing both the need and value of learning* new things (* = increasing their knowledge, not "evolution"; sigh, almost unbelievable this conversation), discovering new important facts about reality, appreciative of and being able to recognize beneficial teaching. If you're out there, please do speak up in this subforum. .... CUT...

Calling BS on this. Your rant about my "dishonesty" is completely unfounded. Please show me exactly where I lied or was dishonest about anything I posted. Your inability to understand my position, does not make me a liar. I quoted the exact definitions and broke everything down for you. The ball is in your court to debunk me if you really think I am lying here. I have cited experimental evidence and also thoroughly explained your misunderstandings with the terminology in regards to the term "evolution" backed up with sources.

The whole AronRa video is an excercise in pretending that something that doesnt provide evidence for the supposed "steps" in abiogenesis/chemical evolution, can be twisted and warped to make it sound like it does (and every detail left out of the story that would suggest otherwise, such as the ones mentioned in the video I shared above but many others as well concerning the meteorites for example,

Um, you do realize that you can look up the research paper for any details of any experiment he referenced in the video. Again, I posted it because you claimed there were no experiments related to abiogenesis. I posted the video because you don't read research papers and it would probably confuse you even more if I posted them instead. You do nothing but post youtube videos with people's opinions (IE Newton's opinion from from the 1600-1700s long before we discovered anything about the theory of evolution or even the cell) and consider them automatic fact because it resonates with your worldview. Newton's opinion was an opinion based on our limited understanding of how things work. To claim it's fact just because Newton said it, would be an appeal to authority, another logical fallacy.

originally posted by: cooperton
but genes are passed on by birth...

No. They are passed on during conception. If the organism that is born does not pass down genes it does not affect the frequency of the population in the least, as it will die and not affect the rest of the population. Being born alone is not enough. That organism must procreate and pass down genes.

The irreducible complexity of, for example, the first cell.

But you can't prove that. You are guessing based on complexity. You think the original first cell was the same as a modern cell, which is a ridiculous assumption. My abiogenesis video explains parts of the process involved in how the first cell CAN emerge.

If one of these components are missing you cannot have a viable cell - this is irreducible complexity.

That is NOT irreducible complexity. How is it that a modern cell being unable to function with parts of it removed, proves that it cannot emerge and change naturally over time? It doesn't. Gradualism suggests that the original cell was very simple in comparison to the cell 4 billion years later. Fossils show this as well, although they can't get DNA from fossils that old, they can still tell how simple it is based on the morphology.

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection.

It has nothing to do with being able to function with parts removed. It's about being able to change over time gradually, and it's pure pseudoscience. LOL.

Get off your pedestal, you act as if science is limited to some elite group of people. You lead the others astray by your chauvinism, yet you don't realize that a material-based worldview was rendered obsolete in the early 20th century:

Science is limited to people that understand it. If you don't, you shouldn't be posting here. Clearly you have demonstrated this lack of knowledge numerous times and shown that you prefer literal bible translations over scientific evidence. No pedestal here, brother. I'm just defending science from your baseless illogical attacks. Remember YOU are the one attacking science in this thread, so telling me to get off my pedestal is laughable.

This thread is hilarious and that's actually the only reason I'm still responding. The arguments you guys make are downright desperate and it's even more funny that you refer to science as mythology and dismiss it, yet your worldview is 100% mythology and you believe it hook line and sinker with no scrutiny whatsoever.

originally posted by: Barcs

No. They are passed on by conception.

no. they are passed on by birth. Conception can result in a miscarriage which will not effect the allele frequency of the population. So it is birth that effects allele frequency. I tire of this semantic game you play.

If the organism that is born does not pass down genes it does not affect the frequency of the population in the least.

it does though. Each birth alters the allele frequency. You're a teacher of this depraved theory, you should know this.

Being born alone is not enough. That organism must procreate.

Yet a couple sentences ago you said conception was a more accurate statement? You've lost yourself

But you can't prove that. You are guessing based on complexity. You think the original first cell was the same as a modern cell

I'll make it simpler and reduce it to 4 necessary components. Explain to me how any cell line could survive without ALL of the following:

1) reproduction
2) transcription
3) translation
4) metabolism

"Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection."

It has nothing to do with being able to function with parts removed. It's about being able to change over time gradually, and it's pure pseudoscience. LOL.

You're quoting wikipedia. Can't say I'm surprised. You'll agree with any source that agrees with your preconceived notions.

LMAO. Science is limited to people that understand it. If you don't, you shouldn't be posting here. Clearly you have demonstrated this lack of knowledge numerous times...

Then refrain from posting. Your scientific knowledge is juvenile and incomplete.

a reply to: cooperton

You didn't read or understand a single thing I said. Re-read my post (I edited it for clarity). Your arguments are laughable at best. Sorry this offends you, but YOU are the one irrationally attacking science. I'm merely defending it, so claiming I'm putting myself on a pedestal is flat out hilarious. I'm not going to waste my time acknowledging your posts, you are clearly just a religious troll, and I am disposing you in the trash with the likes of Raggedy man and Neo. When you have a real argument, please let me know. You just deny everything, even when I post sources you find a way to dishonestly dismss it. Enjoy your life of servitude to a book of fairy tales. I hope it works out for you.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

You didn't read or understand a single thing I said. Re-read my post (I edited it for clarity). Your arguments are laughable at best. Sorry this offends you, but YOU are the one irrationally attacking science. I'm merely defending it, so claiming I'm putting myself on a pedestal is flat out hilarious. I'm not going to waste my time acknowledging your posts, you are clearly just a religious troll, and I am disposing you in the trash with the likes of Raggedy man and Neo. When you have a real argument, please let me know. You just deny everything, even when I post sources you find a way to dishonestly dismss it. Enjoy your life of servitude to a book of fairy tales. I hope it works out for you.

My post had nothing to do with religion or spirituality. I was addressing you solely on a scientific perspective. You won't address my points because you are incapable. Despite being incapable of defending your beliefs, you still tout them as infallible and hide behind unwarranted insults.

I will gladly discuss any scientific facts with anybody. But I will not tolerate theory being touted as fact.

a reply to: cooperton

That post came out way harsher sounding than I meant it to be. I was trying to be funny but it completely came out wrong. I apologize for that. I was kind of reading my posts with a deep booming WWE voice and it seemed legit at the time.

I'll bottom line it for ya:

If you can't objectively demonstrate that the first replicating cell was the same as the modern cell, you have no argument.

Currently, more evidence is needed to even answer that question. Speculation doesn't help the situation. Also, dismissing wiki instantly is ridiculous, everything is sourced and verified via other links as well. Irreducible complexity is a load of donkey dung. Wiki isn't the only site that understands that.

Reducing Irreducible Complexity

For those that prefer videos:



It gets put to bed in this one.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

That post came out way harsher sounding than I meant it to be. I was trying to be funny but it completely came out wrong. I apologize for that. I was kind of reading my posts with a deep booming WWE voice and it seemed legit at the time.

I feel ya. To be honest these debates really get to me, and I get out of hand at times. I can't imagine there's a more seasoned debate on these topics than the participants on these threads.

But anyway, let's call it a truce and call it the truth... for now

a reply to: cooperton

Really? So everyone else is allowed to post any half assed YouTube video or link from a creationist blog but Wikipedia links are somehow inferior in spite of their numerous citations and references?

Don't make me laugh.