No time for Evolution?

a reply to: neoholographic

Screw "Sam", explain how not knowing the origins of life renders our understanding of genetics change sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity invalid.

a reply to: norhoc

That's not a particularly unbiased source neighbour. Why should I take it seriously? It's not even reporting the science correctly!

originally posted by: neoholographic
Evolution tells you how life evolved overtime.

The Origin of Life tells how and why life evolved overtime in this way.

No, it doesn't. It tells how life originated, not how it evolved over time. Just because you do not understand the mechanisms behind evolution doesn't give you the right to redefine it. And you still haven't explained how any part of the origin of life counters evolution. You did this previously in another thread and it pretty much turned into you repeating the same copy paste jobs over and over again and denying everything that was posted that conflicted with your poor understanding of science.

You can't have Evolution without the Origin of Life.

So what? Explain how hypotheses about the origin of life conflict with evolution.

You can't have cell theory without the big bang. That doesn't mean understanding the big bang is required to understand and validate how a cell works.

You can understand how a game of Poker is played but to understand how and why it's played this way you have to learn the Origins. To a Scientist Origins are very important.

Who cares if it's important to scientists? Everything unknown is important to scientists because their job is to learn how things work. The point is that nothing about the origin of life invalidates evolution. Nobody has ever said that our scientific understanding of evolution is complete. No scientific theory is 100% complete. I play poker all the time, and I have no idea where or how or why the game originated, and I still win money.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: neoholographic

Screw "Sam", explain how not knowing the origins of life renders our understanding of genetics change sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity invalid.

Yes, any day now, Neo. Please answer instead of dancing dodging and repeating your original claim.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: neoholographic

Screw "Sam", explain how not knowing the origins of life renders our understanding of genetics change sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity invalid.

Asked and answered like 3 or 4 times already.

You can have some understanding of Evolution but without the origins of life, you have incomplete information.

For instance, the Origins of Life will tell you how complex life was when it started to evolve. It will tell you why life evolved in the way it did. It will tell you how random evolution is.

This is because nothing is truly random. You can have an infinite set of Poker games and each game has random outcomes but the outcomes that can occur are determined by the rules and regulations created by the intelligent mind that invented Poker.

So the Origins of Life will put constraints on how these variations can occur and we will know how fine tuned these restraints are when we know the Origins.

You guys are blinded by Darwinist beliefs. It makes no sense to say Evolution must have Life and then say the Origin of Life has nothing to do with Evolution. Life is what will be evolving and the Origins of that life will tell you more than Evolution ever could.

I could spread 100 black and red checkers on the table. I can pick them up in random orders ad infinitum. Those checker pieces will never evolve into a chess piece even though there's all of these random variations in the way I can pick them up. This is because of the design of the checker pieces. I can have random variations that are limited to the parameters of the Origins or design.

Origins of Life is more important than Evolution and like the guy said Evolution must have life!

a reply to: neoholographic

Again, that's false.

The origin of life simply tells you where life came from, how it came to be. It has nothing to do with understanding how it evolved or could evolve. That would be down to understanding evolution.

You also seem to think that evolution is directional, like it's "leading to something" or "going somewhere". It's not. Evolution is simply changes, be then beneficial, neutral or just a change with no benefit.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Do you read what you write?

You said how something came to be has nothing to do with how it evolved. That's just Asinine!

Name me one thing in the universe where the origins have nothing to do with the physical characteristics that can evolve overtime.

a reply to: neoholographic

If you actually read it you would see that the ONLY thing that evolution and origins of life have in common is that life has to exist to evolve. That's it. The pre existing thing doesn't have to do or be anything else apart from life.

You WANT then to be all inclusive. Almost to the point of a grabbing NEED. You even change scientific definitions to create an argument that doesn't exist. Why is that?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Again I ask:

Name me one thing in the universe where the origins have nothing to do with the physical characteristics that can evolve overtime.

a reply to: neoholographic

Why should I answer your questions when you can't even understand the different between the origins of life and evolution? Why should I answer your questions when you ignore everyone elses?

How about this. You write a paper proving that the origins of life were needed to be fully explained and how they were fully explained before we can understand the theory of evolution. Then submit it for peer review. Then, after it's not been published because it's rediculous, you come back here and we can all explain, again, that the only thing needed for evolution is existing life, not why or how life started.

a reply to: TerryDon79

That's a long way of saying:

I can't answer the question!

a reply to: neoholographic

No, it was a long way of saying you don't know what you're talking about and this thread proves it.

I'm not surprised it went over your head. Everything else has.

a reply to: neoholographic

It will tell you why life evolved in the way it did. It will tell you how random evolution is.

No. It won't. Scientists already know tons about those things. Life evolves the way it does because genetic mutations happen from generation to generation. Sometimes it is mistakes in DNA copying, sometimes it is environmental factors like cosmic radiation.

So again, How, SPECIFICALLY does not understanding everything about how life originated, make the understanding of how life changes over time to be invalid. Stop the irrelevant metaphors, give us specifics that don't rely on maybes. We already know the mechanics behind how life changes over time, because geneticists can measure and map genomes from generation to generation. How could the origin of life invalidate those proven mechanics that have been observed countless times (genetic mutations and natural selection).

Poker is something that has also evolved over time.

Into many different types of poker (Holdem, Omaha, Razz, Hi-Lo, etc.), each with their own set of rules and strategies. None of those types of poker care about who first came up with the game.

They don't care because, before poker, poker couldn't evolve.

Likewise, without life, life could not evolve. Before there was life, there was nothing that could evolve. Since evolution is about the study of how life changes over time, it doesn't focus on how life came to be in the first place.

That is a different field of study. Still science, though. It's just not the field that explores the diversity of life, but rather, where it could have come from. Its origins, not its diversity.

Once the non-life becomes life, then let evolution deal with it.

How poker was invented means nothing to its ever evolving game types and strategies.

If that made sense. I know it probably didn't. Is this post a bluff?

I wanted on the bandwagon too!

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

They don't care because, before poker, poker couldn't evolve.

I wish it would evolve into something I could win at.

Sorry, at which I could win.

a reply to: Barcs

Sorry, asked and answered several times now.

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.

If you know the Origin of Life, it will then tell you how and why Evolution occurs the way it does.

If a person that watches Poker hands being played out but knows nothing about Poker, they will see randomness. They could come up with the Theory of Poker hand mutations. When you look at the Origins though, you don't see randomness but you learn that these hands have 2,598,960 possible hands that can occur and rules put in place by the intelligence that created Poker as to what these combinations mean.

Now you know the Origins, you know these variations aren't random at all. You're just seeing variations of specific laws and rules.

The same with Evolution. Darwinist look at the randomness and then they lose all common sense. This is because common sense will tell you the randomness is just variations of the laws and rules that gave us life's Origins.

If we know these Origins it can tell us how restricted these mutations can be. How many variations of life can occur?

What if we find the Origin of Life and at the heart of the Origin of Life is some value that's fined tuned to 70 decimal places. This value would tell us that Evolution isn't random at all. What we see as randomness is just variations of life and the Origin of Life that would be fine tuned to 70 decimal places and what we see as random mutations can only occur within a small range set by this value.

This would blow any natural interpretation of Evolution out of the water. So, Evolution must have life and without the Origin of Life being known then any randomness you see tells us nothing because the randomness could be occuring as variations of a very small value.

a reply to: neoholographic

Cool hypothesis, bro! Needs more God and crap.

Write a paper and submit it for peer review. Then get back to us.

originally posted by: Phage
I wish it would evolve into something I could win at.

Sorry, at which I could win.

All you need is faith, Phage.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

*Inside straight*
*Inside straight*
*Inside straight*

I'm believin' really, really hard.

a reply to: Phage

I beat you with a royal flush.

I'll take my winnings on cookies.