Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Again, I don't think you even know what evolution is. It doesn't concern itself with what the first life form was or how it started. All it claims is that from the first life form, we can predict how everything evolved...we know that because of hard scientific evidence.

The fact that we don't know how the first life form came to be is 100% IRRELEVANT as it doesn't mean the theory is wrong. We know it's not wrong because every single life form past the single celled life forms fits the theory, and we're actively using evolutionary theory to predict outcomes in medicine and chemistry. If evolution were wrong, you wouldn't have half the meds you have access to now. The fact that we're actively using evolution in modern science (and it holds up every single time) is incredibly strong evidence.

You on the other hand try to mix in abiogenesis which is a different field. Evolution doesn't concern itself with that, or requires it to hold up as a theory. You saying evolution is wrong is like you looking at the sky and saying it's pink when clearly it isn't. We are actively using the theory in modern medicine!! All those meds wouldn't work if the theory was wrong!

Look, I don't mean to attack you, but you don't seem to understand how science works or what evolution really is.

Here's 2 short videos you really should watch, they make it very clear why all your arguments are pure speculation and belief not backed up by evidence. They're not even theories, they're mere hypotheses.

"Again, I don't think you even know what evolution is. It doesn't concern itself with what the first life form was or how it started."

Ok - I quote a definition of evolution from wiki and I get it wrong?

More to the point - let's hear what you have to say on another thread: "First of all, I don't know when you went to school or how good your teachers were, but evolution hasn't claimed to concern itself with the origins of life for decades."

So, besides you attacking me personally, which is kind of shocking for you to do, anybody can see that you admit that evolution has concerned itself with the origins of life at one point.

And by direct inference, that since it does not seem to do so anymore - the theory was wrong.

Specifically, evolution was wrong because it concerned itself with the origins of life. To use your own words.

So if it evolution was false back then because it concerned itself with the origin of life it would be wrong now if it did so today - right?

Well, then evolution is wrong today then - why?

Because it is still based on the same 'concern of the origin of life' but instead of calling it by that name the theory uses 'inherited' - as in:

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

So please, offer me another definition of evolution or show me the fault in my logic or admit I am right.

p.s. I bring up abiogenesis? Please reread all of my posts. I ask all of you NOT to bring it up. It's a completely unproven theory.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


The "inherited" is in there because we obviously pass on traits form one generation to the next, that's what evolution is all about. It doesn't mean we "inherited" something from a super being. You desperately try to bring in abiogenesis because you want to claim everything comes down to some super-being that created it all. We have no proof of that, in fact, we have no proof about what started life in the first place. Luckily, evolutionary theory doesn't care or require the knowledge of what came first and how. What we DO know is how life evolved from one generation to the next by passing on traits...subsequent generations therefore have INHERITED traits. That's a fact.

Inherited doesn't mean it's comes from a super being, it's the transfer of DNA and resulting traits we pass on over the generations. I don't think you know what "inherited" means in the context of evolution...it's not the same as your grandma passing on money after her death or giving you some life lessons before she passes on!

Some scientists at one point tried to connect abiogenesis theory with evolution, but the original theory never once mentioned how life started in the first place.

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your teachers who obviously were bad.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Ok - I quote a definition of evolution from wiki and I get it wrong?

When you post half of a definition to try and make your point? Yes, that means you're getting it wrong willfully. Again, the full quote:

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.

So, besides you attacking me personally, which is kind of shocking for you to do, anybody can see that you admit that evolution has concerned itself with the origins of life at one point.

And by direct inference, that since it does not seem to do so anymore - the theory was wrong.

What you infer may not be what someone was implying. But I appreciate that you used the word "inference" instead of trying to cram words into someone else's mouth, as others seem to continually do here. That being said, let's go back to the definition from wikipedia you were using earlier:

The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred. Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA, and the assembly of simple cells.

This doesn't suggest that theory of evolution is wrong about the origins of life, given that the theory of evolution is agnostic on the origins of life. No conclusion is being drawn from the theory of evolution regarding the origins of life. If someone's reply to a questions is, "I don't know," you really can't tell them that they're wrong.

Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

So please, offer me another definition of evolution or show me the fault in my logic or admit I am right.

Does the study of your family history involve what happened before your family ever existed?

What are you talking about?

I never once bring up abiogenesis except to tell every one not to bring it up.

Unless you mean that the word inherited - leads back to the origin of life - which is my point exactly.

Inherited means passed down from generation to generation. Which means there has to be a first generation that came from somewhere.

Where?

So if evolution uses the word inherited in its own definition, it is false.

Now if there is a different definition, let me know.

But as it reads now, evolution does concern itself with the origin of life. And as you yourself stated, it was wrong in the past, therefore it is wrong now.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
What are you talking about?

I never once bring up abiogenesis except to tell every one not to bring it up.

Unless you mean that the word inherited - leads back to the origin of life - which is my point exactly.

Inherited means passed down from generation to generation. Which means there has to be a first generation that came from somewhere.

Where?

Seriously, again????

We already told you the "where"....the answer is: WE DON'T KNOW!!

By asking "where", you are automatically bringing in abiogenesis as the "where" isn't part of evolutionary theory. The inherited only refers to one generation passing down something to the next. Just because we don't know what started it first, doesn't mean the theory is wrong. In fact, we know it's right from the first life forms we know of down to where we are today.

Like some other poster already said: According to your logic, your entire family history is wrong because you don't know who the first person in your family was. That's incredibly illogical...something that should be obvious to anyone with a basic high-school education.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. - yahoo answers and other sites

Is this corect or not?

If it is, then darwin did try to address the origins of species, just like you said was done early on. And you said they changed the theory. Were you not telling the truth?

If it is, then the current definition of evolution uses inherited and therefore still, by the definition of the word, still addresses the origin. Which was incorrect back then and still is now.

p.s. Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859. The 19th century.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


It addresses the origin of species, not the origin of life.

Let me invoke the magical kangaroo again.

The theory of evolution would still be correct if life originated on this planet because a giant, flying, purple, sombrero-wearing kangaroo farted the first life onto this Earth after an absinthe binge.

Evolution takes place after the first lifeform arises, no matter how that happens.

Sure, there had to have been a first generation, but where does it say that the theory is predicated upon the origin of the first bits of life?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


I'll say it again, you don't seem to have the slightest clue what inherit means. Either way, not knowing the first ancestor doesn't invalidate the theory, so I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Just like not knowing your first family ancestor doesn't mean your entire family history is wrong. You can tell the story of your family without knowing your first ancestor, and it doesn't make the story any less true. If you can't see that, you're too brainwashed to ever accept facts and I wish you a lot of happiness as a religious blind brainwashed sheep. You can't give a clearer example of how you went wrong in your argumentation than that...

Here's an official definition of evolution by the way:

Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Again, as much as you want to imply a god is necessary and abiogenesis is a prerequisite for evolution...IT'S NOT!! They're 2 entirely different, independent fields. One is based on a strong scientific theory (evolution), the other still has a lot of gaps (abiogenesis).

Also, what Darwin said in the 19th century is a lot less relevant than what modern science discovered about evolution. The theory didn't end with Darwin, we had over 150 years to fine tune it and make sure there's no holes in it...which is why in our modern age we are able to use those findings in modern medicin for example.

If evolution is wrong as you claim, please be so kind and tell me how we were able to develop stuff to combat viruses or bacteria? You need knowledge about evolution of cells/organisms in order to create antibiotics for example...if you were right, the mortality rate would be a LOT higher than it is now. Luckily you're wrong and we have those meds!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


to quote mrxyz:

"Basically, that line of reasoning is hogwash.

First of all, I don't know when you went to school or how good your teachers were, but evolution hasn't claimed to concern itself with the origins of life for decades. So you either had a very bad teacher, simply refused to accept facts, or are at least 80 years old. "

So was he right?

Did they use to teach evolution and the origins of life or not?

Because if they did and changed it, they were wrong.

Now, when the very definition of evolution uses the word 'inherited', they are still referring to the origin of life - so it is still wrong.

Provide another definition or admit it is wrong.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

to quote mrxyz:

"Basically, that line of reasoning is hogwash.

First of all, I don't know when you went to school or how good your teachers were, but evolution hasn't claimed to concern itself with the origins of life for decades. So you either had a very bad teacher, simply refused to accept facts, or are at least 80 years old. "

So was he right?

Did they use to teach evolution and the origins of life or not?

Because if they did and changed it, they were wrong.

Now, when the very definition of evolution uses the word 'inherited', they are still referring to the origin of life - so it is still wrong.

Provide another definition or admit it is wrong.

In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on February 1, 1871,[14] Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."[15] In other words, the presence of life itself makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.

Source

Notice how he speculated about it, he didn't provide strong evidence. So yeah, Darwin talked about the origins of life, but it is NOT part of the evolutionary theory. Also, the first scientific basis (aka real research with evidence) about abiogenesis was done in 1924...last I checked that's AFTER Darwin published his evolutionary theory!

So yeah, there was a time where we didn't have a specific field concerned with the origins of life, so some people grouped it with evolution...which explains why Darwin was asked about his opinion on the matter.

However, that was over 100 years ago, and believe it or not, science made a lot of progress since then when it comes to evolution

It sure has made a ton of progress.

So how about they get a new definition for evolution and not base it on the word inherited?

Because the current definition still leads back to the origin of life.

Whether they have a new field to try and exlplain it does not take away the fact it is still based on it.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
It sure has made a ton of progress.

So how about they get a new definition for evolution and not base it on the word inherited?

Because the current definition still leads back to the origin of life.

Whether they have a new field to try and exlplain it does not take away the fact it is still based on it.

Why should they take "inherited" out if that's exactly what's happening. The fact that it goes all the way back to the start of life doesn't invalidate the theory at all. I know you refuse to accept facts, but evolution does NOT concern itself with how life started (it plays ZERO role in it) but rather with biodiversity and how species evolve over time.

The fact that you're still trying to bring abiogenesis into this is laughable. You conveniently ignore the "family history" example which makes it abundantly clear how illogical you are. I know posting all this is useless, because you will just repeat the same false "logic" over and over and over and over and over and over again no matter how stupid it is.

If you were right, I could claim a pink unicorn shat in a corner and that's how you came to be. Obviously you have proof of your family history that would suggest otherwise, but given that you don't know who the first person in your family was, I claim my pink unicorn crapping in a corner theory is valid and your family history is wrong.

That's pretty much what you're doing...it's total hogwash, and makes you look really silly. You also go agains the "deny ignorance" mantra of this site by refusing to accept logic.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
It sure has made a ton of progress.

So how about they get a new definition for evolution and not base it on the word inherited?

Because the current definition still leads back to the origin of life.

Whether they have a new field to try and exlplain it does not take away the fact it is still based on it.

Why should they take "inherited" out if that's exactly what's happening. The fact that it goes all the way back to the start of life doesn't invalidate the theory at all. I know you refuse to accept facts, but evolution does NOT concern itself with how life started (it plays ZERO role in it) but rather with biodiversity and how species evolve over time.

The fact that you're still trying to bring abiogenesis into this is laughable. You conveniently ignore the "family history" example which makes it abundantly clear how illogical you are. I know posting all this is useless, because you will just repeat the same false "logic" over and over and over and over and over and over again no matter how stupid it is.

If you were right, I could claim a pink unicorn shat in a corner and that's how you came to be. Obviously you have proof of your family history that would suggest otherwise, but given that you don't know who the first person in your family was, I claim my pink unicorn crapping in a corner theory is valid and your family history is wrong.

That's pretty much what you're doing...it's total hogwash, and makes you look really silly. You also go agains the "deny ignorance" mantra of this site by refusing to accept logic.

Your analogy is as false as your definition of evolution.

I'm sure you talking about pink unicorn shiat makes you look like a genius. So let me do it too.

Let's take on the family analogy for a moment.

How do you know a pink unicorn didn't start it all?

And if it did, wouldn't it invalidate what I thought I knew?

But that is not even my point at all.

By me saying that inherited means there had to be a beginning was not to prove a creator, rather it was to prove that evolution was still using the origin of life as a basic tenet of it's teachings and that it was wrong in 1895 and it is still wrong today.

You say I deny logic and yet I'm the only trying to walk you through a step by step logical approach to this subject. And you are the one talking about pink unicorns, mocking my education, and saying I look silly & that I'm laughable.

So who's the logical one?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Well, evolution needs life to work, duh!! But that's about it...how that life came to be is 100% irrelevant as it wouldn't change the theory. If a god created the first life, the theory stays the same, because how species evolve won't change given that we've observed how it works. If life came from something not alive, the same thing holds true. If it was a giant purple kangaroo, nothing changes either.

Evolution just states how species evolve. Where the first one came from isn't something that concerns the theory. That would be ABIOGENESIS, as much as you'd like to disagree.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

Well, evolution needs life to work, duh!! But that's about it...how that life came to be is 100% irrelevant as it wouldn't change the theory. If a god created the first life, the theory stays the same, because how species evolve won't change given that we've observed how it works. If life came from something not alive, the same thing holds true. If it was a giant purple kangaroo, nothing changes either.

Evolution just states how species evolve. Where the first one came from isn't something that concerns the theory. That would be ABIOGENESIS, as much as you'd like to disagree.

Evidently where it came from did matter at one time, hunh?

I wonder why?

I wonder why they changed their views?

"First of all, I don't know when you went to school or how good your teachers were, but evolution hasn't claimed to concern itself with the origins of life for decades. So you either had a very bad teacher, simply refused to accept facts, or are at least 80 years old. "

Or did they keep their views the same and just change a word or two in their definition?

Who really knows except the powers to be.

All we do know is evolution has adapted over the years. It started from a false premise and has developed in to I'm not 100% sure what. Because I don't think any of you here actually know either. Each of you seem to have your own take on it.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


You do realize that Darwin didn't have the means to study abiogenesis, all he and his contemporaries could do was speculate on it. The original theory never included as section that talked about how life started. People used evolution to come up with explanations for abiogenesis before 1924...that was 86 years ago!! The "inherited" part was always in there, because that's correct.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Please refrain from attacking me personally and try to stick with the subject on hand.

Attack you personally? I wouldn't sully my hands. I pointed out specific untruths and acts of deceit in your posts.

First, that you deceitfully tried to make out that the parameters of discussion stated in the OP were changing. They are not, and you very well know it.

Second, you lied by leaving out part of a quoted sentence that actually refuted the claim you were trying to make with it. That is disgraceful.

Please read my post directly before yours. It answer all of your points without attacking the messanger.

I read it. It is lamebrained gobbledygook and answers nothing.

I would love to have your opinion of that post.

You have it now.

The last few pages of this thread bring to mind the measuring posts in front of some fun-park rides, with notices on saying, "You must be at least this tall to ride".

It's frustrating to see intelligent people trying to teach posters who comprehend neither English nor logic, and whose idea of "winning" a debate is to post walls of such nonsensical self-contradictory twaddle that there is nothing one can give a logical answer to.

It would be too funny if a final judgement did take place, and the Lord said, "Ok, all you sillies who took myths literally and refused to exercise your brains, you hop on the hell-train.
The rest, I've got this fantastic resort for you, you won't believe the science labs we have here!

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
It sure has made a ton of progress.

So how about they get a new definition for evolution and not base it on the word inherited?

Because the current definition still leads back to the origin of life.

Whether they have a new field to try and explain it does not take away the fact it is still based on it.

I have been saying this over and over again, but everybody keeps saying no we don't want to talk about the beginning of the species just the development of the species.

They are talking about and defending this dictionary definition of evolution

Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

biology See also natural selection a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them

Whereas some of us are trying to discuss this definition that as you say is "inherited"

A theory first proposed in the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin, according to which the Earth's species have changed and diversified through time under the influence of natural selection. Life on Earth is thought to have evolved in three stages. First came chemical evolution, in which organic molecules were formed. This was followed by the development of single cells capable of reproducing themselves. This stage led to the development of complex organisms capable of sexual reproduction. Evolution is generally accepted as fact by scientists today, although debates continue over the precise mechanisms involved in the process. ( See mutation, punctuated equilibrium, and creation science.)