Why Abiogenesis separated from Evolution is a false Dichotomy.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
You call it that, I call it spreading reality, so people have the pertinent information, so they can save themselves from what is coming ahead.

If it were reality you could prove that it is and back up your claims.

The concept of Abiogenesis/Evolution

You keep acting as if they're linked, yet you've yet to establish that link despite repeated requests to do so by several members.

Once more, where is the link between Abiogenesis and Evolution? How can evolution not exist without abiogenesis? How would a supernatural cause for life prohibit evolution?

I like how he keep ignoring this. Over, and over, and over, again. What a waste of time his life must be, since he keeps staying on ATS arguing for his beliefs, yet provides no proof at all, in thread upon thread..

reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch


It's called "preaching" for a reason

reply to post by edmc^2


So evolution is tied to the origin of life...but it is tied to the origin of life no matter how life originated. If life were supernaturally created, we'd still have evolution. If life were seeded by aliens, we'd still have evolution. If life arose naturally, we'd still have evolution.

Evolution requires the origin of life....good point. But how does it necessitate an acceptance of abiogenesis?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I don't like saying that people are wrong all the time, but I've yet to see an instance where you're right

Sure you do, I have seen you do it to other posters as well, not just me.

Hey look, it's Blue_Jay33 back in his thread and not addressing the question I've repeatedly asked!

I never said I had a problem with calling people wrong, but I do have a problem with saying people are always wrong. I apologize for my lack of clarity.

Yet another instance of opinion based dogmatic arrogance.

So...it's opinion based dogmatic arrogance to call someone wrong when I can demonstrate that they're wrong? Wow, that's just wrong.

It's even in that new debate thread you have up with the MOD Skyfloating on this subject, you just can't help yourself.

Look, a baseless accusation! Please, demonstrate for me where I've done this.

Oh well, it is what it is, and you are what you are.

And this post of yours is what it is, yet another post on what seems to be your favorite subject, attacking my character.



Now, would you mind actually addressing my honest question? How is abiogenesis inseparable from evolution? I've asked this repeatedly and in all sincerity as you never laid out an argumentative basis for the claim made in the thread title.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

How is abiogenesis inseparable from evolution?

That I can answer not from a scientific point of view, but from a philosophical point of view.
Simply put, the concept of both hypothesis of both topics are directly linked, and can't be separated.

Actually Madness just like I can't prove to you that creation is a fact, you can never prove to me that the concept of evolution is fact. Adaptation sure, if you want to call that evolution go for it, it doesn't represent the true concept and is very disingenuous. There is no solid evidence, that science has produced that I can find and believe to conclusively prove that Evolution....

FROM THIS

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5413f9dd6e4.png[/atsimg]

TO THIS

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b977e39cbbc6.jpg[/atsimg]

TO THE FINISHED PRODUCT

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6d7157dd163f.jpg[/atsimg]

You just can't prove it, I won't say you are wrong, you just have an opinion based on fantasy science, and that's ok. Everybody is allowed to express their own personal opinion.
But you do know that arrogant opinion on ANY topic is distasteful.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

I can answer not from a scientific point of view, but from a philosophical point of view.

Okay, we'll take that to be going with...

Simply put, the concept of both hypothesis of both topics are directly linked, and can't be separated.

Right, that's the statement you are being asked to prove...

Actually Madness just like I can't prove to you that creation is a fact, you can never prove to me that the concept of evolution is fact. Adaptation sure, if you want to call that evolution go for it, it doesn't represent the true concept numtitumtibumpitybump...

Where's the philosophical proof?

Where is it?

Where is it?

Where is it?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

How is abiogenesis inseparable from evolution?

That I can answer not from a scientific point of view, but from a philosophical point of view.
Simply put, the concept of both hypothesis of both topics are directly linked, and can't be separated.

...so the origin of life cannot be separated from the diversity of life? I've already addressed that this means nothing to connect abiogenesis to evolution. Abiogenesis is one of many ideas for the origin of life. You have not addressed how a supernatural creation event would render evolution null and void.

Actually Madness just like I can't prove to you that creation is a fact, you can never prove to me that the concept of evolution is fact.

I many not be able to prove it to you, but it has been proven repeatedly.

Of course, the true colors of this thread show in this statement. You don't care about the relationship between abiogenesis and evolution, you just love taking uninformed jabs at evolution. Evolution is fact, we have observed speciation. Get over it.

Adaptation sure, if you want to call that evolution go for it, it doesn't represent the true concept and is very disingenuous. There is no solid evidence, that science has produced that I can find and believe to conclusively prove that Evolution....

Once more I must point out that have observed speciation.

FROM THIS

A modern bacteria. Definitely not one of our evolutionary ancestors.

TO THIS

A modern proboscis monkey (if I'm not mistaken). Definitely not one of our evolutionary ancestors.

TO THE FINISHED PRODUCT

To a pair of actors.

Um...of course modern organisms didn't evolve into humans and there were significant numbers of intermediate steps between single celled organisms and primates and pre-human ancestors to modern hominids.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that humanity is not a finished product, merely another in a line of progressively changing biological forms. Evolution has no end goal, merely the requirement of sustained survival.

So a straw man.

You just can't prove it,

Of course I can't prove your insanely false idea of evolution. Your straw man is invalid. Of course, this isn't the main thesis of evolution. For some reason you seem to think that the thesis of evolution relates to humans rather than to accumulated genetic change in life.

I won't say you are wrong, you just have an opinion based on fantasy science, and that's ok.

Except that it isn't fantasy science, it's applicable science that makes predictions which are later confirmed. Tiktaalik was predicted decades before its discovery in the fossil record.

This isn't fantasy science, you're either wrong or just being dishonest. You are either entirely ignorant of the central ideas of evolution and the scientific work behind it or you're simply lying about them. If you can demonstrate some understanding of the actual science.

Everybody is allowed to express their own personal opinion.

Yes, you're even allowed to express demonstrably ignorant ones.

But you do know that arrogant opinion on ANY topic is distasteful.

The only arrogance is that coming from the person claiming to have a legitimate argument that has been demonstrated to be from ignorance.

Copy paste those pictures as many times as you want, they're still useless. We have observed evolution. Deal with it.

edit on 16/2/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Noted in text.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


So in your little fantasy world evolution works like this:

1) Modern bacteria

to...

2) Modern monkeys

to...

3) Humans...

That's not how evolution works!! You clearly still don't have a clue what the theory of evolution is, after all these pages and threads. That's beyond sad

And of course we can prove the theory, we know for a fact we had a common ancestor with today's monkeys. DNA analysis supports this, fossil remains support it too, and migration patterns do as well. Sorry if this bursts your Adam & Eve story, but it's complete nonsense no matter how often you keep on repeating it isn't.

reply to post by uva3021


So uva3021 - you’re saying that:

TalkOrigins.org is scarcely a source with the sophistication to negotiate the complexities of microbiology and organic chemistry, or even evolutionary biology.

not according to these folks.

reply posted on 19-8-2010 @ 05:55 PM by nophun

You seem like a semi-intelligent person, why not check out a REAL science book or web page. I am sure you will be surprised.

www.talkorigins.org...

reply posted on 16-1-2011 @ 06:36 PM by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by MrXYZ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think you meant answersingenesis. Talkorigins is a great scientific resource that actually supports the scientific consensus and provides the evidence. The only problem with it is that it could be updated more regularly.

reply posted on 16-1-2011 @ 07:47 PM by PieKeeper
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I honestly get the two confused sometimes as well.

TalkOrigins is a really great resource. Like madness said, it could be updated a bit (at least the format, the current one is, IMO, horrible.)

I don’t mean to put you on the spot or pit you against the other but you folks need to have a consensus whether Talkorigins.org is a valid evolution website or not. Else you will be contradicting each other.

Honestly the site wasn’t even my 5th choice for sources - but was highly recommended and often quoted by your fellow evolutionists.

Anyway - back to point of the post:

Let me quote just a portion of it:

Here’s what prompted my post:

You keep acting as if they're linked, yet you've yet to establish that link despite repeated requests to do so by several members. --- madness

Based on the websites quoted: wiki and TalkOrigins.org

Did I make the case that abiogenesis and evolution are closely link, not a separate processes but one process?

I think I i did based on your clear remark below:

Correct. There is zero evidence for natural discontinuity.

unless I misunderstood what you meant or you want to retract it or further clarify it. Please let me know.

So still think that TalkOrigins.org not a valid evolution website, “is scarcely a source” website? Then you will need to convince a lot of people - including the owner and members of that website?

3 to 1 who should I believe?

BTW, do you know that there’s not much of a difference between the website you recommended and the websites that other evolutionists recommended - including the one that Blue_Jay33 used?

They all show the coalescence of the theories.

BTW, I have noticed this for a while now - do you always attack the messenger instead of the message or the manner of their speech? That seems to be your tactic. Unfortunately it makes a poor platform.

Like attack your own evolution website (TalkOrigins.org) because it goes against your pre-conceived ideas. What’s up with that?

Since we have established that abiogenesis theory is part of evolution theory - a continues process next Q for you is:

Is abiogenesis theory the same as spontaneous generation theory (a metamorphosis of it) or are they different theories? What’s your take?

ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


So now we're going from talking about the actual subject to discussing sources?

Kinda desperate move...one could think you ran out of real arguments...

reply to post by MrXYZ


missed the point of the post MrXYZ - here let me quote it again:

You keep acting as if they're linked, yet you've yet to establish that link despite repeated requests to do so by several members.-- madness

Did I make the case that abiogenesis and evolution are closely link, not separate process but one process?

I think I i did based on uva3021's clear remark below:

Correct. There is zero evidence for natural discontinuity.

of course unless it gets retracted.

But what say you? Is abiogenesis not part of evolution theory?

Now I'm well aware of waht you're saying - that is 'does'nt matter if this or that'. But I'm just trying to established the facts here then I can go to your contention.

ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

A modern proboscis monkey (if I'm not mistaken). Definitely not one of our evolutionary ancestors.

Actually I am 100% sure it is not one of my ancestors, I will agree with you there, for once.

But since your the one that believes in evolution so strongly how can you be 100% sure he is not one of your ancestors?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So now we're going from talking about the actual subject to discussing sources?

Kinda desperate move...one could think you ran out of real arguments...

no - just asking if the source is valid.

Do you still disagree with others and on uva3021's side on this? That TalkOrigins.org is not a valid evolution website? If not any recomendation? I have my own but to be fair - I would like to use yours. Any offer?

Just askin.

ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


It's only part of it because life itself is a prerequisite for the theory of evolution. But how that life came to be is 100% irrelevant, like we've told you before. If the first life form came into existence because a giant space turtle shat on our planet, then the theory of evolution would still be valid. If a deity created the first life form, the theory of evolution would still be valid.

The only "link" there is, is that life is required for the theory of evolution. And we know life exists, just not how it started in the first place...but once the first life form came to be, the theory of evolution does a great job at explaining how life evolved. So it's a fact that today's humans had a common ancestor with today's apes, it's not really something up for debate in scientific circles. How life started in the first place is not relevant and has no impact on this fact.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

A modern proboscis monkey (if I'm not mistaken). Definitely not one of our evolutionary ancestors.

Actually I am 100% sure it is not one of my ancestors, I will agree with you there, for once.

But since your the one that believes in evolution so strongly how can you be 100% sure?

edit on 16-2-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

We can be sure because we know the ancestors of that modern monkey??

reply to post by MrXYZ


So you agree then that Blue_Jay33's OP is correct all along?

Just askin.

tx,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So you agree then that Blue_Jay33's OP is correct all along?

Just askin.

tx,
edmc2

Of course not, because he implies that because abiogenesis hasn't been proven like evolution, the theory of evolution is wrong...which from a scientific standpoint is beyond nonsense

reply to post by MrXYZ


I have heard it passionately argued from evolutionists that for an evolutionist this fellow is your ancestor.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b94c526e81d3.jpg[/atsimg]

Do you disagree?
Please set the record straight for us otherwise.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So you agree then that Blue_Jay33's OP is correct all along?

Just askin.

tx,
edmc2

Of course not, because he implies that because abiogenesis hasn't been proven like evolution, the theory of evolution is wrong...which from a scientific standpoint is beyond nonsense

MrXYZ - I'm referring to the OP:

Here it is again:

Over and over and over people who believe in evolution keep saying they are completely separate topics of biology, this has developed in more recent years simply because it is an easier position to defend. However the two are intricately bound, without that first single cell prokaryotes, evolution is not possible, and evolutionists, sidestep that entire discussion by saying well it's a different field of biology, this is weak, very weak, and intellectual honesty must acknowledge that. To disregard the Abiogenesis as part of the foundation of evolution sidesteps and conveniently avoids a major issue that confronts a person that life came from nothing. It's just too easy. It's really intellectually dishonest.

Which is exactly what I just proven - that both theories are part of the same process. Others agree (unless they retract).

But if you insist NOT. That's cool.

tx,
edmc2