There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

a reply to: whereislogic

Once again with a Gish Gallop.... the only one directing the topic is you and your kin. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogensis. If you can't understand that, its not my problem.

Next you do the macro vs micro evolution fallacy.

Yep you are pulling out all the stops.

Talk to the topic of the thread neighbour

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: whereislogic
Talk to the topic of the thread neighbour

I did. Your turn (since you were the one that brought up chemistry when I asked a question about a topic in chemistry, suggesting no relation to "evolution" nor "biological evolution" other than being honest about which terminologies are being used to discuss abiogenesis; in my question that is; of course you immediately wanted to entice me into debating whether or not there is a relation or whether or not I'm allowed to even mention those terminologies in this thread and ask one measly question about it).

a reply to: whereislogic

What you asked is off topic for this thread. This is a thread about evolution, not biogenesis.

a reply to: Noinden
Your entire debate routine is off-topic. Every response you made to me is off-topic. I simply responded to your mention of chemistry. Just after posting something about the topic of so-called "macroevolution" which falls under the topic of "biological evolution". But nooo, you didn't choose to respond to that comment. That wasn't as conducive for what you wanted to do so you can accuse me of going off-topic, shoehorning, etc. While repeating your slogan that 'evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis' (and then pick yourself what you mean by "evolution" in that phrase, how convenient). Because that's what you wanted to make it about.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Noinden

How about some honesty in acknowledging that one abiogenesis storyline is called the "chemical evolution theory of life"? Are we allowed to say that much about the subject at least? And that the relation to so-called "biological evolution" is described as such on the wikipedia page for abiogenesis:

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

How about it? Anyone willing to be honest about either of these 2 facts/truths/certainties? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice (or false, true; either seems to have been avoided by everyone commenting so far, but plenty of implications that aren't spelled out). There's no need to bring up anything else. I'm not even suggesting we should talk about the subject of "chemical evolution" a.k.a. "abiogenesis" a.k.a. the "chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting wikipedia and numerous websites produced by those who either have referred or still refer to eachother as "evolutionists" using those terminologies in relation to one another). It's such a little thing to be honest about, it's about the least someone can be requested to be honest and truthful about for the purpose of rational discourse.

Luke 16:10 ("faithful" is a synonym for "truthful")

The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.

Here, an example:

Abiogenesis and the chemical evolution theory of life...[1]

1. Oparin AI. ...1976

Source: National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)

Alexander Oparin - Important Scientists - The Physics of the Universe

Alexander Oparin was a Russian biochemist, notable for his contributions to the theory of the origin of life on Earth, and particularly for the “primordial soup” theory of the evolution of life from carbon-based molecules. Oparin also devoted considerable effort to enzymology and helped to develop the foundations of industrial biochemistry in the USSR. He received numerous decorations and awards for his work, and has been called “the Darwin of the 20th Century”.

Mr. Bigshot himself used these terminologies (and variations) that I've been quoting and using correctly and appropiately in spite of any insinuations otherwise (without actually spelling out I was using those terms incorrectly or inappropiately cause that would make it a bit too obvious what those commenting so far have been doing to find something in my commentary they can disagree with and paint in a negative light rather than admit to 1 measly inconvenient fact they don't want to draw any attention to). Quoting Noinden:

This is a thread about evolution, not biogenesis.

He won't even call it "abiogenesis" anymore, let alone "chemical evolution" or "the chemical evolution theory of life" cause that shows the trickery with how one applies the word "evolution" in that statement or way of thinking about "evolution", carefully selecting a more limited definition such as "biological evolution" if anyone were to point out there might be something wrong with that statement. Even though it's slippery phrased as being about this thread on this occasion (after using the slogan I pointed out earlier) and not the way peter vlar phrased it, possibly allowing for the OP to play along with seperating the 2 overlapping* subjects, "chemical evolution" and "biological evolution" in the overarching evolutionary storylines of 'nature did it'; even the terms "variation" and "natural selection" are used in both general storylines connected to these terms (see also the video with David Berlinski and search the wikipage for abiogenesis for those terms, for those interested if any are here).

*: not overlapping chronologically, but in argumentation, like the overlapping terms I mentioned, the overlapping notion that 'nature found a way to evolve ... (the first lifeform, biomolecular machinery, all the different kinds of life from the first lifeform or lifeforms, etc.)', the overlapping personas promoting both sets of storylines (and again when I'm referring to storylines regarding the topic of so-called "biological evolution" I'm specifically referring to so-called "macroevolution" and those involving the common ancestry of different kinds of organisms like apes and humans or the common ancestry of all living organisms; I'm not going to defend against another false accusation for quoting the term "macroevolution" either or accusation of gish-galloping for being extra clear for those who love to twist what I'm referring to and what I have issues with believing) and the overlapping dishonesty in marketing and propaganda. Among anything else overlapping that I haven't thought of here off the top of my head.

a reply to: whereislogic

How about it? Anyone willing to be honest about either of these 2 facts/truths/certainties? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice (or false, true; either seems to have been avoided by everyone commenting so far, but plenty of implications that aren't spelled out). There's no need to bring up anything else. I'm not even suggesting we should talk about the subject of "chemical evolution" a.k.a. "abiogenesis" a.k.a. the "chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting wikipedia and numerous websites produced by those who either have referred or still refer to eachother as "evolutionists" using those terminologies in relation to one another). It's such a little thing to be honest about, it's about the least someone can be requested to be honest and truthful about for the purpose of rational discourse.

the content in your question was formulated in the 1920s, nearly two decades before Darwin's theories on natural selection were "adapted" to Mendel's work on heredity to establish a more complete framework of observations and proofs that were published in Huxley's Modern Synthesis book, which is the ACTUAL theory of evolution. it needed some refining in other words.

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
"his interest in evolution"
2.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

the second, more general definition is the one which applies to the evolution of the theory of modern synthesis.

He won't even call it "abiogenesis" anymore, let alone "chemical evolution" or "the chemical evolution theory of life" cause that shows the trickery with how one applies the word "evolution" in that statement or way of thinking about "evolution", carefully selecting a more limited definition such as "biological evolution" if anyone were to point out there might be something wrong with that statement.

see above.

i think we can all agree that the most wayward interpretation of modern synthesis aka evolution, is by those who have neglected to do their homework on the subject and fully inform themselves prior to criticizing said theory.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

Where did you look for evidence? No seriously. Do you read peer reviewed journals? Hell do you read PopSci? Or do you just go to church and listen to what you are told.

YOU are wrong over no observable evolution. We have seen speciation, we have seen adaption, including in the human species. Thus I call BS on "no observable evidence" . Where to dind this evidence? Google Scholar is you friend, I assume you do not have access to SciFinder or Reaxsys?

Thus, no its nothing like a religion, as new evidence makes science regularly reassess their views.

It's worse than any other religion, because it presents itself as a 'science', and we are never supposed to question 'science'l!!

I'm aware of species 'adaptation' - this is not 'evolution' of a species, into another species... nor anything close to it.

Humans have always been humans.

Look at a human from 1000's of years ago. Evolution is where no humans have ever changed, over 1000's of years, which means it would take many millions of years, before humans 'evolve' into another species!!

Evidence of 'evolution' is not like any other 'evidence'.....because it will be a long, long time before it ever happens, okay??

Science is based on the existence of evidence. Nothing else matters.


Nobody has shown proof of any sort for 'evolution', of a species. None.

I can't support a claim without any evidence - that's exactly what you are doing, here.

Adaptation is already built in to any species. Height variances in humans are already present within the human species, for example. As one tribe in Africa has tall people, another tribe has very short people. Both tribes are the very same species. Adaptation to a specific environment, cultural identities, medical advancements, etc. could make one tribe taller than average tribes. Or shorter.

All species have the ability to adapt, within the same species.


It's just that simple.

'Peer-reviewed' papers?

No scientist disputes 'evolution', right?

Same as 'gravity'.


A theory is not proven to be a fact, that's why it's not universally agreed upon, as if it WERE a fact!


Use your brain, here.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: turbonium1

Where did you look for evidence? No seriously. Do you read peer reviewed journals? Hell do you read PopSci? Or do you just go to church and listen to what you are told.

YOU are wrong over no observable evolution. We have seen speciation, we have seen adaption, including in the human species. Thus I call BS on "no observable evidence" . Where to dind this evidence? Google Scholar is you friend, I assume you do not have access to SciFinder or Reaxsys?

Thus, no its nothing like a religion, as new evidence makes science regularly reassess their views.

It's worse than any other religion, because it presents itself as a 'science', and we are never supposed to question 'science'l!!

You obviously have never attended a conference where everyone scrutinizes the data put forth by their peers. Science is questioned all the time.

I'm aware of species 'adaptation' - this is not 'evolution' of a species, into another species... nor anything close to it.

Since adaptation to new ecological niches demonstrates that there are genetic changes over time, it quite clearly falls under the auspices of the MES. Creating your own definitions for things already clearly described by Anthropologists doesn't make the science wrong, it makes you wrong.

Humans have always been humans.

Sure, except for prior to the emergence of the genus Homo. You know, when there were no humans?

Look at a human from 1000's of years ago. Evolution is where no humans have ever changed, over 1000's of years, which means it would take many millions of years, before humans 'evolve' into another species!!

Wrong again. There are numerous differences in humans from a few thousand years ago compared to today. Forget earlier members of the genus like Homo Georgicus at 1.8 Million years ago who had numerous differences compared to humans today. The only way to believe that humans have not changed over time is to burry your head very deep in the sand.

Evidence of 'evolution' is not like any other 'evidence'.....because it will be a long, long time before it ever happens, okay??

Again, you have yet to support a single claim and you're making. Please, feel free to falsify any aspect of evolutionary biology.

Science is based on the existence of evidence. Nothing else matters.

Absolutely. And the evidence indicates genetic changes in allele frequency over time. Eye color other than brown is less than 10 KA. Caucasian skin times, likewise less than 10 KA

Nobody has shown proof of any sort for 'evolution', of a species. None.

I strongly suggest you get a library card and spend some time actually researching the evidence supporting the MES. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for Gravity

I can't support a claim without any evidence - that's exactly what you are doing, here.

Adaptation is already built in to any species. Height variances in humans are already present within the human species, for example. As one tribe in Africa has tall people, another tribe has very short people. Both tribes are the very same species. Adaptation to a specific environment, cultural identities, medical advancements, etc. could make one tribe taller than average tribes. Or shorter.

All species have the ability to adapt, within the same species.


It's just that simple.

No, it isn't just that simple. The above is a simple minded approach based solely on willful ignorance but evolution of biological organisms has mountains of evidence supporting it.

originally posted by: turbonium1
'Peer-reviewed' papers?

No scientist disputes 'evolution', right?

Same as 'gravity'.


A theory is not proven to be a fact, that's why it's not universally agreed upon, as if it WERE a fact!


Use your brain, here.

It's sheer irony that you're telling someone else to use their brains when yours seems to be a little off of its game as well.

In science, Theories are made up of... Wait for it... Facts. Evolution is, as far as Anthropologists, Biologists, geneticists and on and on are concerned, all consider evolution to be a factual, biological process. The "Theory" part is simply how we describe the mechanisms behind how evolution works. It doesn't mean it's not factual because it's a Theory.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1
'Peer-reviewed' papers?

No scientist disputes 'evolution', right?

Same as 'gravity'.


A theory is not proven to be a fact, that's why it's not universally agreed upon, as if it WERE a fact!


Use your brain, here.

It's sheer irony that you're telling someone else to use their brains when yours seems to be a little off of its game as well.

In science, Theories are made up of... Wait for it... Facts. Evolution is, as far as Anthropologists, Biologists, geneticists and on and on are concerned, all consider evolution to be a factual, biological process. The "Theory" part is simply how we describe the mechanisms behind how evolution works. It doesn't mean it's not factual because it's a Theory.

I'm very aware of what they all support - the universal agreement on one issue, throughout, would seem very unlikely, when none agree on every point on our well-established, well-known, well-proven physical laws. Not saying the law is not true, or anything. But saying what supports the law is not established in part, or whole, overall. To have another point that others didn't see, or thought was irrelevant, may be found relevant, after all. That's because someone, or some group, used their own brains, or saw it from another angle, or it was only possible to see, many years later, never before.

Anyway, the point is simple to get - all of these issues, facts, laws, and theories.....have always been questioned - by many scientists - whether it's accepted as universal fact, or merely a theory.

You may believe all of the scientists, in biology, geology, chemistry, et al, have accepted evolution as a fact.

Every scientist would agree that life on Earth was probably, or must have been, created by mixing up all sorts of chemicals, and other unknown ingredients.

Anyway, all that matters to scientists is what happened after life started on Earth. So far, we know life was created in random piles of s#$. No problem.

Scientists didn't know what made life so diverse - and that's where 'evolution' came along!

All species of life on Earth started from that simple-celled microbial life-form, which 'evolved' into all other life on Earth!

What proves, or even suggests, that life was created from muck? Nothing. It's for spewing out the whole evolution story, not to appear like so much crap.... when it actually is crap.


When these 'experts' in biology, geology, and so on, suggest humans were apes, pointing to a few bones of some sort of extinct ape species is.....utterly moronic


Wow...

originally posted by: turbonium1
'Peer-reviewed' papers?

No scientist disputes 'evolution', right?

Same as 'gravity'.


A theory is not proven to be a fact, that's why it's not universally agreed upon, as if it WERE a fact!


Use your brain, here.

(Facepalm)
Oh dear. You still don't understand a damn thing about this, do you?
That or you are still trolling for 'OMG!' reactions.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: turbonium1
'Peer-reviewed' papers?

No scientist disputes 'evolution', right?

Same as 'gravity'.


A theory is not proven to be a fact, that's why it's not universally agreed upon, as if it WERE a fact!


Use your brain, here.

It's sheer irony that you're telling someone else to use their brains when yours seems to be a little off of its game as well.

In science, Theories are made up of... Wait for it... Facts. Evolution is, as far as Anthropologists, Biologists, geneticists and on and on are concerned, all consider evolution to be a factual, biological process. The "Theory" part is simply how we describe the mechanisms behind how evolution works. It doesn't mean it's not factual because it's a Theory.

I'm very aware of what they all support - the universal agreement on one issue, throughout, would seem very unlikely, when none agree on every point on our well-established, well-known, well-proven physical laws. Not saying the law is not true, or anything. But saying what supports the law is not established in part, or whole, overall. To have another point that others didn't see, or thought was irrelevant, may be found relevant, after all. That's because someone, or some group, used their own brains, or saw it from another angle, or it was only possible to see, many years later, never before.

Anyway, the point is simple to get - all of these issues, facts, laws, and theories.....have always been questioned - by many scientists - whether it's accepted as universal fact, or merely a theory.

You may believe all of the scientists, in biology, geology, chemistry, et al, have accepted evolution as a fact.

Every scientist would agree that life on Earth was probably, or must have been, created by mixing up all sorts of chemicals, and other unknown ingredients.

Anyway, all that matters to scientists is what happened after life started on Earth. So far, we know life was created in random piles of s#$. No problem.

Scientists didn't know what made life so diverse - and that's where 'evolution' came along!

All species of life on Earth started from that simple-celled microbial life-form, which 'evolved' into all other life on Earth!

What proves, or even suggests, that life was created from muck? Nothing. It's for spewing out the whole evolution story, not to appear like so much crap.... when it actually is crap.


When these 'experts' in biology, geology, and so on, suggest humans were apes, pointing to a few bones of some sort of extinct ape species is.....utterly moronic

Wow...

So basically, you've got nothing to falsify any of the literature And instead of admitting such you instead rant about things you clearly don't know the first thing about. The irony of ot all is that the only "utterly moronic" ravings come from you. Nobody knows how life began. There are only hypotheses, nothing more. And the origins of life play no role whatsoever in the MES so ranting and pouting and taking your toys home to stomp your feet isn't going t change that. Evolution occurs, we've seen it in real time. And as far as your "utterly moronic" assertion that common ancestry with the other great apes is based on only a few bones, again I implore you to get a library card and do someone reading because it just isn't so. It's much more than a few bones.

Please , feel free to falsify a single paper on huge topic instead of insisting your views are supreme. When you can falsify data then you've got an argument.

originally posted by: peter vlar

So basically, you've got nothing to falsify any of the literature And instead of admitting such you instead rant about things you clearly don't know the first thing about. The irony of ot all is that the only "utterly moronic" ravings come from you. Nobody knows how life began. There are only hypotheses, nothing more. And the origins of life play no role whatsoever in the MES so ranting and pouting and taking your toys home to stomp your feet isn't going t change that. Evolution occurs, we've seen it in real time. And as far as your "utterly moronic" assertion that common ancestry with the other great apes is based on only a few bones, again I implore you to get a library card and do someone reading because it just isn't so. It's much more than a few bones.

Please , feel free to falsify a single paper on huge topic instead of insisting your views are supreme. When you can falsify data then you've got an argument.

Since I'm not a mind-reader, and there are countless papers on the subject, it'd be helpful if you'd actually SHOW the paper(s) you'd like me to address.

I've got over 10,000 years of history as proof.

But if you really believe that a paper(s) will prove otherwise, go ahead..

a reply to: turbonium1

I don't know where you get that idea. Go to a Scientific conference, look at email correspondences between academics. They question it all the time.

Many of us have posted proof of evolutionary theory here, repeatedly. Yet you guys refuse to read it.

a reply to: Noinden




apparently he can't understand or get passed the word "theory", even though its been explained numerous times...

Along with everything else that has been explained ad nauseum

a reply to: Akragon

That word always hangs them up. When they accuse of us of being in a religion, they say we can't change our ideas based on the evidence. Yet when we point out we change our ideas with new evidence... we can't make our mind up. Its as if they don't want to engage in an honest and open manner?

a reply to: turbonium1

Pick any random paper of the 100's of thousands of them supporting the MES. It really is that simple.

And you may believe that you have 10 ka of history as your errant version of proof, I've got several million years between the genus Homo and the Australopithecines. That doesn't even touch older remains like Sahlanthropus Tchadensis or Orrorin Tugenesis which bring us back to right around the LCA of humans and Chimpanzee.

The science is solid but feel free to keep providing hilarious examples of how the scientifically illiterate approach scientific topics they disagree with but haven't bothered to learn about.


You keep claiming that there have been no changes in the human genome sporting the continuous evolution of life yet don't reply when people point out to you, specific adaptive traits such as lactase persistence, lighter skin tones and variable heritability of various eye colors other than brown.

If we didn't ever alter our views based in the newest data available, we would still be insisting the Clovis First was a fact and no humans were here prior to 12/13 KA yet we know people have been in the Americas for at least 20 KA and possibly 40 or more thousand years.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon

That word always hangs them up. When they accuse of us of being in a religion, they say we can't change our ideas based on the evidence. Yet when we point out we change our ideas with new evidence... we can't make our mind up. Its as if they don't want to engage in an honest and open manner?

That right there... You hit the nail on the head. Either we approach the MES from a perspective of religious orthodoxy which would mean that nothing has changed in evolutionary theory since 1859 or when we point out poignant examples of how we have adapted to the newer and more precise data then were still a sham because they don't know how to discuss the topic in an open manner at all.

gentlemen...

keep in mind you're arguing with someone who believes the earth is flat

need I say more?