Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Phantom423

There is no paper explaining how the first bacteria was formed from inorganic matter magically possessing all the information it need to function silly...
That's just a story...
That was rather easy...
Would you care to discuss Lucy or the piltdown man?

a reply to: cooperton

The experimental evidence is all there in the literature. Unfortunately, you don't read the literature so please refrain from making further comments.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

There is no paper explaining how the first bacteria was formed from inorganic matter magically possessing all the information it need to function silly...
That's just a story...
That was rather easy...
Would you care to discuss Lucy or the piltdown man?

You're right. There isn't a paper describing how a bacteria formed from inorganic matter. Because that's not how life formed on this planet. But you're getting close. Keep going.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Neighbour you don't understand Science do you?

Evolution never has and never will concern its self with how life started. Just because you say it must, does not make it so. Evolution (by definition) deals with the changes in life, not the start of life. If you try to shoe horn in things not related, it is not science. QED. How is it that you are so obtuse as to not understand these things?

a reply to: cooperton

Except the calendar was created after his supposed birth, and is most likely not correct. Scholars beleive if he was born it was 6BCE to 4BCE. Thus the calendaris no evidence. There are also other calendars used around the world. Prove they are wrong, and the Gregorian calendar is the only correct one.

So again I will ask you rather than your compatriot in Luddite thinking. Empirical proof in Jesus. And go....

a reply to: Noinden

So are you telling me evolution no longer claims all life arose from a primordial ooze and one common ancestor?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Evolution never has stated how life began. You are being disingenuous. You are using weasel words. There is the idea of the LUCA in that "is the most recent population of organisms from which all organisms now living on Earth have a common descent." No where in that does it state "how life began".

So stop with trying to say what evolution should say. IF You are so certain, go work at getting some science qualifications, and working in a decent university. If you find the data, you can change the theory. I am pretty sure you can not.

a reply to: Noinden

I don't need to go back to school to understand the premise portrayed by the theory...
I'll change my question...
Do you perceive this said common ancestor to have always existed or would it have been created...
I'll remind you of the definition of creation if you need it to provide me with an answer...
I am somewhat satisfied to hear you state that this explanation now is only preported to hold true to currently living things...
That's actually rather interesting and further backs intelligent design...
And things the bible says...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Did I say understand? No, though it is clear your critical thinking skills require a refresher. You seem invested in what you see is wrong with evolutionary theory. Go and get involved in the research.

As for the how I perceive the LUCA, As we are now talking about my beliefs rather than that of the scientific evidence, this is pure gnosis on my part. One version of the creation myths of my path goes as follows:

Once upon a time, there was no time and that was when there also was no gods and no man walked the surface of the land. But there was the sea, and where the sea met the land, a mare was born, white and made of sea-foam. And her name was Eiocha.

That is the answer you get. IF we are going to debate my religion however, you best create a new thread, and know what my path actually is.

C'mon you are almost there I know you are afraid and feel trapped...
Just let go...
Join us... we have milk and cookies?

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Who exactly was that aimed at neighbour? I'm firm in my faith, and well educated in science. So I am good. My Faith and Science do not disagree.

a reply to: Noinden

Forget it...
You just can't even admit that creation is not only needed but that it superseded evolution and allowed for any and all evolution...
The simplest answer is usually right...
So that means since things can't create themselves from nothing there then has to be a creator...
Unless you can prove that it would be easier for nothing to create something I will remain right...
In other words to understand creation would be to understand evolution because creation is the ancestor...No thats words not good enough...God of evolution....

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Abiogenesis (how life began) is about the origin of life. Evolution is simply about changes in that life.
Evolutionary biology says nothing about where life came from, how it first formed or what it was first formed from. That's a specialty which chemists/biochemists work on.

The title of this board is Origins and Creationism. They are two different topics.

a reply to: Phantom423

In your limted and biased opinion I believe you believe that...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

So you assume "creation" is the "simplest answer? Ok prove that satisfies Occam

My faith (which is based on Indo-European (and thus Proto Indo-European)) cosmology says things differently to your faith. Thus Prove yours is the correct one.

Like I've said, the ciritical thinking skills of creationists are lacking.

As a polytheist, my mind is open to many possibilities. You perhaps may have missed this so I will say it again.

A creator (or more likely creators) is one possibility. It is not the only possibility however. Again it is you and your creationist crew who are doing things the hard way.

Who created your creator, as "things can't create themselves" according to you. Your little deity had to start somewhere, he "can't have just have appeared" or "existed for ever". That is not the simplest answer.

Prove me wrong.

a reply to: Phantom423

Many large faiths agree with abiogenesis as an option. Sadly these Luddites can't grok that Evolution and biogenesis are separate topics. Logically so.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

In your limted and biased opinion I believe you believe that...

Biased opinion? It's two different research areas. You can talk about one or the other. If you talk about both, then one has nothing to do with the other and it doesn't make sense.

If you talk about origins, you're talking mostly complex chemistry. If you talk about evolution, you're talk about MES.

a reply to: Noinden

Actually because the universe was created that means something had to exist beyond natural laws...
In other words be eternal not need to be created they would have to have existed outside of their creation...
You know the exact definition of God in the Bible...
Now riddle me this how is anything created without a creator? If something from nothing created itself from nothing would it not then also be it's own creator?
There is just no escaping the reality....

a reply to: Noinden

Confusing the issue is part of the dance. It's also ignorance, as you say.

a reply to: Phantom423

You find honesty confusing?
Somehow I'm not surprised...