Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


So you don't get "inherited" in the context of evolution either I take it. Listen, like has been posted numerous times already, the theory of evolution isn't concerned about the first life form. It only concerns itself with how life evolved from the first single celled organism all the way to the present time. In that respect, the theory works perfectly for every single life form we know of. It doesn't matter what the first life form was as whether it was a god, giant pink unicorn, "nothing turning into something"...it doesn't change the fact that life forms evolve in exactly the manner the theory evolution predicts. We INHERIT traits from generation to generation, and it doesn't matter what the first life form was.

I'll repost an example again:

You have a family history backed up by evidence (birth certificates, etc.). However, you probably don't know who the first was in your family unless your'e royalty who keeps track of that stuff. So not knowing who the first one was, does that mean your entire family history is wrong??? Of course not!!! You have evidence to back up your family history and it matters not at all who the first one was in your family. Doesn't change the fact that you can say how your family evolved because you have EVIDENCE in the form of birth certificates.

The same goes for evolution. We have evidence, but instead of birth certificates we have the incredibly complete fossil record and a ton of DNA evidence. Not knowing what started the first life is totally inconsequential for the theory as it only talks about how life evolved once it came into existence. How that happened is not something that is part of evolutionary theory...that would be abiogenesis, which some creationists stubbornly try to ignore.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Ok, so we have to know the origin of life to know it evolved?

Ok, then we need to know the origin of the compounds that started the life before it formed before it evolved.

Ok, the we need to know the origin of the less complex compounds that formed the compounds that started life before it formed and evolved.

Etc, eventually you end up at the Big Bang with a biological theory having to explain cosmology, which means it had to cross into biochemistry, chemistry, geology, atomic theory, etc on its way there.

You're just invoking regress. A single scientific theory doesn't have to explain everything, it has to explain a narrow field of things. In this case, evolution studies biodiversity and nothing more. You cannot rewrite the definition because you don't understand how science works.

Does circuit theory have to explain where electricity comes from?
Of course not.

Actually, let's apply your own reasoning to two different biological theories.

How does germ theory stand if it doesn't explain the origin of germs?
How does cell theory stand if it doesn't explain the origin of cells?

Oh wait, they stand because of the insurmountable mountain of evidence supporting them.

Now, can you please address the Theory of Evolution?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
. . .
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.)

Nope.
Nobody's saying this definition has been inherited.
It's just an outdated view from a couple of hundred years ago.

You see, science doesn't have holy prophets, whose words become tenets of the faith for ever.
In science, we are all human. We can all make advancements, we can all postulate theories and work towards proving or disproving the, or advancing our knowledge of them, and we can all make mistakes.

Scientists, on the whole, are like a massive jury which not only sits in judgement on any scientific finding, but each "member" can also research to add to the understanding of truth.


So if a scientist many years ago says one thing, and scientists these days say another, that does not prove today's scientists wrong, it merely indicates the scientific method is working.


If you want to dismiss modern science and go back a few centuries, why not pick Lamark?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Now, can you please address the Theory of Evolution?

Nope don't like your terms, and since this is your thread, and I respect how you're calling it, I am going to make a new thread that will cover it all. See you there : )

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2119bbf4aeba.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5fe8363ed5f4.gif[/atsimg]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Who would like to take a crack at falsifying evolution via natural selection?

If I may poke my nose in here...

madnessinmysoul, for the purpose of clarification: would you say that evolution occurs through natural selection and genetic mutation? Are those the only two agents involved, or have I missed one?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Now, can you please address the Theory of Evolution?

Nope don't like your terms, and since this is your thread, and I respect how you're calling it, I am going to make a new thread that will cover it all. See you there : )

They aren't my terms, they're science's terms. If you have a problem with it, please stop using all benefits of science, as these sorts of terms are the way we divide everything in science and that's how we achieve actual knowledge of the universe.

I've already posted in your thread and it's definitely going to be a nightmare thread, as it doesn't have a topic. You basically made the topic of that thread everything with a slight focus on discussing creationism.

You seem to have a problem with the entirety of natural science dealing with the formation of things without divine intervention, this would include evolution. Why is it that you cannot simply debunk evolution on the terms of its definition if it is definitively false? If you can show me that evolution doesn't happen, I'll move on to abiogenesis etc.

reply to post by qisoa


More or less. In some organisms (such as bacteria), there's the added factor of horizontal gene transfer (which accounts for how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics). Basically one very simple organism copy/pastes some DNA from another very simply organism.

We can get into it with more detail later, but we'll start off from there.

Changing the Subject

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Since it's my first post on this thread, I guess that means I'm not going to keep trying to change the subject of this thread - hunh?

Originally posted by Astyanax
Depends. If you run true to your form in other threads, you will.

*

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
how about you prove how life began scientifically, otherwise evolution is based on a 100% completely false precursor

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Just ask what was the first generation? Is there one? If so, how did it come in to being?

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
evolution... concerned itself with the origins of life.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
a first generation that came from somewhere. Where?

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Did they use to teach... the origins of life or not?

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
evolution was still using the origin of life as a basic tenet of it's teachings

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
how life began is pertinent to this thread.

*

Can I have my prize now, please?

reply to post by Astyanax


I award you one light taken from the firmament in recognition of your amazing feat of afflatus.



Of course, an event such as your Correct Prognostication must be inspired by a Supernatural Entity, because to suggest it was a Natural Occurance which logically followed on from your Previous Experience of this poster would be like suggesting the changes causing Evolution are Natural Occurances following on Logically from the ability of DNA to mutate and from the fact Better Adapted Individuals are more likely to pass on their Genes and we all know Logic doesn't come into it and it's only Chance and it can't be chance either because because there is only one Chance in Ten to the Google-Gazillion of all this happening by chance and we all know that unlikely things can't happen because that's against the law of probability as illustrated by the fact that the Sun rises Every Day unless GOD stops it rising and the Bible says GOD made the Sun pause in the Sky and only The Creator of the Sun could make it stop circling the Earth and We know He Did That because The Bible says so and we can trust The Bible because it is proven to be The Word of GOD by the fact that it's the only Book in the World which is SELF-AUTHENTICATING!!!!

You can't prove me wrong so I win nya-nya-nyanya-nya!!!

off topic - apologies to the OP.

reply to post by Astyanax

That is why so many Christians accept the truth of evolution. It is also why acceptance of it is official doctrine in the Roman Catholic church. Are people who accept evolution not to be considered Christians by your estimate?

I'm not sure if you want to go off topic but now that you mentioned it, I can't let it pass. And btw, thank you for mentioning it. I've seen these comments so many times now and just ignored them as unimportant. But the more I think about it the more it became clear to me why I need to address it.

As a faithful Christian witness of God and true defender of the Biblical Creation, all I can say to those who you say call themselves “Christians” that accept evolution or accept evolution as the 'official doctrine' are the following.

They are one the reasons why so many have abandoned the truth and substituted it with false teachings and doctrines and traditions of mere men. They make a mockery of their faith and above all they become like evolutionists who likes to make a monkey out of God's creations so that they can do whatever they want to without any feeling of guilt or accountability.

To them the words of Jesus is appropriate:

“and thus YOU make the word of God invalid by YOUR tradition which YOU handed down. And many things similar to this YOU do.”” (Mark 7:13)

“YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.” (Matthew 15:7-9)

“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.” (Matthew 7:21-23).

From the apostle Paul:

“For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed creatures and creeping things.” (Romans 1:18-23)

They stand condemned for their actions and are awaiting their final judgment.
A warning to all who follow their course:

“And I heard another voice out of heaven say: “Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have massed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind” – Rev 18:4, 5.

Just because these corrupt religious leaders accept evolution doesn't mean that it is automatically assumed that they are correct. That is one big lie! I wonder what else will they accept and do since they like to prostitute themselves to something that's even against the Creator's own words amd WILL? Please let me know if you want to pursue you're reasoning because I have many more scriptures at my disposal (will possibly derail this thread which I don't want to do in accordance to the OP – if you want to, post it in one of my threads and we can discuss it there: u2u).

Ty,
edmc2

be back later on topic

reply to post by edmc^2


It's called "using your brain" and "accepting facts"...nothing wrong with that.

Also, since you seem to like judging those "fake Christians", let me respond with a quote from the bible:

Matthew 7:1a: “Judge not, that ye be not judged”

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Madness, I seem to remember you asking recently why creationists are so incapable of looking at the evidence.
I found you an answer in a Creationist text which Blue-Jay quoted from,(without attribution,) in her new thread.

Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?
(1985) Chap. 20 p. 248 par. 6 :
"We need to face the fact that the theory of evolution serves the purposes of Satan. He wants people to imitate his course, and that of Adam and Eve, in rebelling against God. This is especially so now, since the Devil has only “a short period of time” left. (Revelation 12:9-12) Thus, believing in evolution would mean promoting his interests and blinding oneself to the wonderful purposes of the Creator. How, then, should we feel about this? We feel indignant toward those who try to defraud us of money, or even of a few material possessions. We should feel even stronger indignation toward the doctrine of evolution and its originator, since the intent is to defraud us of eternal life.—1 Peter 5:8."

You can buy a hardcover copy edition of this august tome for $0.01, if you think it's worth it.



Many people really do believe in an all powerful God who will throw his creations into hell to burn for all eternity if they dare open their eyes and acknowledge reality.

I don't understand why people would not only believe in that demonic-type evil, but would worship it.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Like what I said, I don't want to derail this thread so I created a new thread in order to reply to your post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ty,
edmc2

back to the topic on hand

Originally posted by qisoa

madnessinmysoul, for the purpose of clarification: would you say that evolution occurs through natural selection and genetic mutation? Are those the only two agents involved, or have I missed one?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

More or less. In some organisms (such as bacteria), there's the added factor of horizontal gene transfer (which accounts for how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics). Basically one very simple organism copy/pastes some DNA from another very simply organism.

Okay then, three agents for evolutionary change. Can we say that either genetic mutation or gene transfer would have to occur before natural selection acts upon a community of organisms?

Here are the possibilities as I see them:

1. A new trait arises in a population. The trait spreads through the population because of its survival benefit. The new-trait organisms supplant all other organisms in that population.

2. A new trait arises in a population. The new trait offers no benefit. The new-trait organisms multiply and co-exist with the old trait organisms.

3. A new trait arises in a population. The new trait offers no benefit. The new trait disappears from the population and the old-trait population remains.

Are these statements agreeable?

reply to post by qisoa


Well, all and none of those could happen. A trait never comes up independently, as mutation occurs prolifically throughout organisms. You and I contain somewhere around 180 unique mutations, entirely different from the DNA of our parents. So these forces aren't acting on a trait-by-trait basis, they're acting on an organism-by-organism basis. Eventually the organisms that survive pass on their traits, this is why we have to track evolution by generation and over many many generations to see it happening truly.

Thankfully, some organisms have much shorter life cycles and give birth to more young than we do.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Okay, to rephrase:

1. New traits arise in an organism. The traits spread in successive generations because of their survival benefit. The new-trait organisms supplant all other organisms in that population.

2. New traits arise in an organism. The new traits offer no benefit. The new-trait organisms multiply and co-exist with the old-trait organisms in successive generations.

3. New traits arise in an organism. The new traits offer no benefit. The new traits disappear from the population in successive generations and the old-trait population remains.

Would it be accurate to say that natural selection is applicable to only the first situation?

reply to post by qisoa


Well, genetic drift comes into play in number 2. Non-beneficial, non-harmful mutations can simply move around in the population, as there's no control on them.

Harmful mutations are culled out through natural selection.

And remember, there's the two components of natural selection: survival and reproduction. Sexual selection plays a part in it. If some otherwise non-beneficial mutation leads to greater reproduction it helps the organism reproduce and pass on its genetics. Hence we have the big displays of peacocks.

Originally posted by qisoa
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Okay, to rephrase:

1. New traits arise in an organism. The traits spread in successive generations because of their survival benefit. The new-trait organisms supplant all other organisms in that population.

2. New traits arise in an organism. The new traits offer no benefit. The new-trait organisms multiply and co-exist with the old-trait organisms in successive generations.

3. New traits arise in an organism. The new traits offer no benefit. The new traits disappear from the population in successive generations and the old-trait population remains.

Would it be accurate to say that natural selection is applicable to only the first situation?

I haven't followed this thread in great detail but I'll try to answer your question and hope my context is correct.

In natural selection you would expect ALL THREE to be seen.
1. classic example of natural selection, survival of the fittest. Of course other factors are also contribute, genetic drift (bottlenecking etc) and also the nature of mutant alleles (dominant semi-dominant recessive etc.)
2. Yes and No. Also happens. Traits are not selected for because they don't provide the organism with an advantage with others. This still doesn't mean that other traits aren't more favorable OR less favorable for that matter. Meaning, a neutral mutation would still be selected for against a harmful mutation. No in the sense since these neutral mutations are also subject to helpful mutations that might arise. So the neutral change may disappear.
3. Complementary to case 1. Its not correct to call dominant traits "old world" since they still benefit the organism in that environment.

reply to post by qisoa

Would it be accurate to say that natural selection is applicable to only the first situation?

The vast majority of mutations are harmful to the carrier. Natural selection selects them out.

Mutations that are selectively neutral (neither beneficial nor detrimental) are not, by definition, operated upon by natural selection.

Beneficial mutations are selected for.

Thus far, natural selection. But detrimental mutations, too, are sometimes selected for. This is due to sexual selection.

Sexual selection is often powerful enough to produce features that are harmful to the individual’s survival. For example, extravagant and colorful tail feathers or fins are likely to attract predators as well as interested members of the opposite sex.

Bacterial gene transfer by means of plasmids, etc., is, like sex, simply a way of shuffling genes. The results are operated on by natural selection in the usual fashion. Horizontal gene transfer is not an alternative to natural selection.