No time for Evolution?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar
oh yes, play the twist about the meaning "...change..." that I already brought up I wouldn't consider to be part of an honest rational conversation. Sigh:

It's rather dishonest or unreasonable to now quickly pretend that you either used the word "evolution" to refer to what is described above as "biological evolution" or make an argument about "evolution" just meaning "change", when the word "evolution" has most definitely been used in stories presented as 'explanations' regarding the origin of life. Quite extensively actually, the searchterm "evol" has more than 100 occurances on that wikipedia page for abiogenesis.

Why don't you read back what I was responding to in my first comment if you genuinely want to know what the problem was rather than feign ignorance or willful ignorance (not looking what I was responding to and not reading my comment with too much attention, a dismissive attitude).
Here's what I was responding to:

Evolution has never been presented as explaining the origin of life,...

And a later comment of mine pointed out:

Historical fact: the word "evolution" has been presented in stories presented as explaining the origin of life, to such an extent and in such key places (often in place of "magic"), that it is also appropiate to say that "evolution has been presented as explaining the origin of life".

If wikipedia (and their sources) is/are saying things like:

Following on from chemical evolution came the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells.[45]

Or any of the other stuff I quoted before, then you're presenting "evolution" as explaining the origin of life in my book. I think it's a bit hopeless and desperate to try to argue against that. Perhaps that's why people are pretending I'm talking about something else and I haven't heard a single argument or reason directly responding to what I'm pointing out or where I'm seeing things wrong and why (the logical reasons for it). The red herrings are numerous today.

a reply to: whereislogic

So you're annoyed because the word "evolution" is used to describe things that evolve?

I'm annoyed at the word "fabric" to describe, well, fabrics.

Damn words being used as they were meant to!

a reply to: TerryDon79
so someone uses the phrase "the problem" and I respond with the same phrase and now I'm annoyed? Sure...have fun. I was actually thinking about that routine when using his terminology "the problem". Patterns in arguing and thinking, I keep on seeing them everywhere.

a reply to: whereislogic

Care to repost that, but this time use English?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: neoholographic

No life doesn't evolve the way it does because of genetic mutations. We can't know why life evolves the way it does without knowing the Origin of Life.

Again, this is a blatant lie. Scientists already know exactly why life evolves the way it does. You are just making this up and repeating it ad nauseum in an appeal to personal belief. It's like saying that we can't know about cell theory without first completely understanding the big bang. It's pure nonsense. We don't know the origin of gravity, but gravity still exists, just like evolution. You are basically using wishful thinking to come up with your connection, because you haven't even made it yet, you brought up a "what if" scenario. You've shown no reason to suggest evolution is invalid, and still have not addressed any evidence.

Are you serious?

Scientist don't know why life evolves the way it does. They can only understand the process but they can't know why without the Origin of Life.

Look at your example of gravity. Yes, we can understand gravity but we can't know why gravity exists without knowing the Origins. This is why you have theories of quantum gravity or theories that say gravity is an emergent property. So we can have an understanding of gravity but we don't know why it exists because we don't know the Origins.

The same with Evolution. You guys said EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE!

So, in order to understand why life evolved the way it has, we have to have the Origins of Life.

Darwinist treat Evolution like it's this magical theory that can defy any logic or reason. If Evolution MUST HAVE LIFE then the Origin of Life is needed to fully understand Evolution.

a reply to: neoholographic

Still waiting for your submitted for peer review paper. Any luck?

a reply to: neoholographic

Neighbour, do you read what you type?

Scientists do indeed understand the mechanism of evolution (that is why and how). You are being deliberately obtuse and arguing in circles here

So to use your argument on gravity (you started it). We should not trust that gravity exists, because "we don't know it's origins". I urge you to climb up really high, and test this.

Now onto your misuse of words. The only people who use the term "Darwinist" in this day and age are those who do not agree with evolution. Do you know what the modern ideas of evolution are? OR do you just rely on the old arguments against Darwin? This would be like arguing about computer software, from the point of view of Babbage.

You seem to have some rather biased views here. You assume taht only athiests will argue for evolution. Yet you ingore several threads here where you've interacted with several spiritual people, viz you have argued this same thing to a Jew, a Christian, and a Pagan in the last year. Hi I'm the pagan, I'm most certainly not an atheist. If the others wish to raise their hands and identify themselves, that is their call, it is all irrelevant, as faith has no place in a discussion on science (and vica versa). Yet it seems to be a certain flavor of spiritual seeking person who insists that faith is important and or "you need to know how it happened".

So to bring it down to the simplest argument, as you might get that.

Science does not require you to understand how life began, to understand how it changes. We've observed it changing, we've shown the mechanism (mutations in DNA), and we can measure it (genomics is your friend). That is enough.
Biogenisis is a different subject to evolution. If you can't get that, then go study some more

a reply to: Noinden

So you're saying you DON'T have to be an atheist to understand the theory of evolution?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Emphatically so Indeed Darwin was not one Several names in the field have identified strongly spiritually as well. HEre is the real ticket. No where in any spiritual text does it say "tho shalt not evolve".

a reply to: Noinden

That's just shocking. I might have to give up my atheism and worshipping science and become a Buddhist.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Or you could you know, leave spirituality or lack of it out of the Science That is radical I know. Its like how I don't bring my science to ritual.

Now cue the posts about atheists having no morals or attacks on my Paganism (with out them knowing which branch I follow)...

a reply to: Noinden

You don't have any clue as to what your talking about. You said:

So to use your argument on gravity (you started it). We should not trust that gravity exists, because "we don't know it's origins". I urge you to climb up really high, and test this.

EXACTLY!!

We can understand gravity but we can't know it exists or why it exists unless we know the Origins. Here's just 2 videos with Scientist questioning the existence of Gravity as a fundamental force.





So again, you can't fully understand Evolution without knowing the Origin of Life. I can know how a bike changes gears but that doesn't mean I know how the bike was built.

As was said earlier, EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE! Without the Origin of Life, you have a VERY incomplete picture of Evolution.

Without knowing the Origin of Life, we can't know if mutations are random. This is because the Origin of Life could contain a very narrow value and mutations can only occur within this narrow range then it doesn't look random at all.

Take an infinite set of Poker hands. You can have different outcomes ad infinitum but these outcomes are limited to the rules of Poker and 2,589,960 possible hands.

So once you know the Origins, you will see things like rules, laws and possible combinations that can occur and how loose or constrained these things can be.

This is called:

SCIENCE!

originally posted by: neoholographic
If Evolution MUST HAVE LIFE then the Origin of Life is needed to fully understand Evolution.

There's still more to learn so I've got no problem in saying we don't fully understand evolution.

But even with an "incomplete" understanding we can still use our knowledge for a wide range of medical applications, farming applications, IT applications.

Do you have an alternative which incorporates the usefulness of the current model?

a reply to: Noinden

You mean, just do science because science?

Never gonna happen. All scientists are here just to disprove god(s).

(This sarcasm thing is difficult sometimes)

a reply to: neoholographic

Neighbour you've now accused several sceintists (Hi also one of them, I get paid to commit science for a living) in ATS of not knowing what they are talking about, and as evidence you've used Youtube.

I return, that you don't know what you are talking about .

Science never EVER claims to fully understand something, rather it will evaluate all evidence as it comes to light. The only people who claim to "fully understand the universe" are religious Zealots.

Quite simply you are wrong.

Prove me wrong, by pulling out a recent peer reviewed paper, in the biological sciences, which supports you. No not a Youtube clip, no not a magazine article, the actual paper. Then talk to the contents of it. Prove that you can science.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Notice how the goal posts got shifted.

It began as "you can't understand evolution, with out knowing the origin..."

NOW

"You can not fully understand evolution, with out knowing the origin...."

Throw in some unrelated allegories (ooo look gravity, a fundamental force of the universe, we also don't understand them fully, guess we can't rely on them either).

When some muppet shifts the goal posts mid argument, you know they are now back peddling. Some one hand him an oar for the smelly river he navigated up.

a reply to: neoholographic

Yay, YouTube videos! (Not gonna waste my time)

It's funny you keep saying we need to know the origins of something to understand it, but fail to understand that we really don't.

You don't need to know where the first wheel comes from to know how the last 10 types of wheels on a Toyota works.

You don't need to know where the first wall comes from to know how walls work.

You don't need to know where the first water particle came from to understand how it works.

Your "argument" (if you can call it that) is based purely on ignorance.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Oh no, we're here for teh Illuminati (miss spelling deliberate). I work for "big Pharma" (actually mostly little Pharma and start ups, CRO work is whom ever has a project and can pay). Clearly I am monsanto's stooge.... as evidenced by the new treatmetns for sepsis and heart disease I am project managing

Seriously, if you can't leave your spirituality at the door of the lab, at least make it wear safety glasses

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

Neighbour you've now accused several sceintists (Hi also one of them, I get paid to commit science for a living) in ATS of not knowing what they are talking about, and as evidence you've used Youtube.

I return, that you don't know what you are talking about .

Science never EVER claims to fully understand something, rather it will evaluate all evidence as it comes to light. The only people who claim to "fully understand the universe" are religious Zealots.

Quite simply you are wrong.

Prove me wrong, by pulling out a recent peer reviewed paper, in the biological sciences, which supports you. No not a Youtube clip, no not a magazine article, the actual paper. Then talk to the contents of it. Prove that you can science.

You didn't refute anything I have said. I don't have to prove you wrong because you haven't said anything right. You made this statement:

So to use your argument on gravity (you started it). We should not trust that gravity exists, because "we don't know it's origins". I urge you to climb up really high, and test this.

This is an ASININE comment that shows a lack of understanding. People are asking questions about Gravity because they don't know it's Origins. Is it a fundamental force? Is it an emergent property? Is gravity a property of energy densities caused by entanglement on the horizon?

If you had a clue as to what you were talking about you wouldn't make such a silly statement.

The fact is, Darwinist treat Evolution like it's magic but it's not, it's just science. Evolution is VERY incomplete without the Origins of Life.

originally posted by: norhoc
cnsnews.com...


This article basically says that the timeline for life on Earth just got pushed back even earlier then goes onto say this makes evolution harder to explain? Can someone please explain how? I mean if life has been around even longer now wouldn't that help evolution as there has been more not less time for things to have evolved?

The CNS piece is confusingly phrased. The source for the 'not enough time' comment is the New York Times at an embedded link in CNS piece, viewable here: www.nytimes.com...

What the NYT piece does that the CNS piece doesn't is make it clear that the 'not enough time for evolution' comment refers to the evolution of the fossils that have just been discovered. Not the evolution that has taken place since those fossils were living creatures!

What has happened is that the evolutionary timeline has just been extended backwards in time by a considerable length. That length takes the emergence of life closer to a period earlier in the Earth's history at which everyone more or less agrees that life shouldn't have been possible. The 'not enough time' in question is the period after the 'uninhabitable Earth' period ended and before these fossils were created.

In everyday terms, it presents the sort of puzzlement that you would feel if you learned your heavily-pregnant next-door neighbour had given birth just last week and that her child is now celebrating its first birthday. There isn't enough time between the two events for the necessary processes to have happened.

Except obviously, that's a dumb analogy, because the pregnant mother scenario is impossible!