Evolution a proven fact! (ritual, Abiogenesis, creation, genesis, atheist)

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Godlike

Theory=PROPOSED description, explanation, or model...a hypothesis clothed in a theory is still a hypothesis until proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Er... You still don't seem to get the concept of what a theory is... fantôme profane gave a great description of what a theory is in the sceintific world yet you seemed to just brush this description aside...

Originally Posted by Godlike

No-one will be doing that with Evolution anytime soon: for a phenomena to be accepted as conclusively true, it must be empirical, observable, reproducable and falsifiable (as per the Scientific Method).

Actually in order for a hypothesis to turn into a theory it needs to be tested through the Scientific Method... As was done with the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by Godlike

This won't happen with Evolution in the near future: no scientist can claim to have observed random Mutation in action and Natural Selection properly belongs in the realm of Social Darwinism.

Er, it has happened with evolution... You don't think we have observed mutations of DNA? How old are the books you are reading on evolution?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
Here is a book from 1995 about DNA mutations observed in humans...

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Mike182

so i'm right, your arguments is just as vague and "iffy" as mine is

If you have a genuine queery about the appearance of chemical systems we term life-forms I recommend background reading.

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Mike182

so i'm right, your arguments is just as vague and "iffy" as mine is

Really? Then can you give me an example of a religions belief that life came from life and thats how it has always been... other than scientology of course.

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

Really? Then can you give me an example of a religions belief that life came from life and thats how it has always been... other than scientology of course.

no, you correctly identified that most religions teach life came from non life, only they teach that it was devinely commanded - to you, this is just as vague and "iffy" as your argument is to me.

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

If you have a genuine queery about the appearance of chemical systems we term life-forms I recommend background reading.

i'll be honest, i don't know where to start in researching the science that surrounds this, i am simply asking for some direction on this

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Mike182

no, you correctly identified that most religions teach life came from non life, only they teach that it was devinely commanded - to you, this is just as vague and "iffy" as your argument is to me.

Hrm, I'll go back to your origional post... I just think we have some confusion and I'd like to start over.

Originally Posted by Mike182

evolution is inevitably founded on life appearing from non life, evolution is a forwards-moving process, so to speak, ergo we should be able to trace the current state of things back through time, and back through the process of evolution... we should eventually find the point where we have the first form of life, that came from some form of non life.

if evolution was not based on life appearing from non life, it would be the same as saying lifeforms have, in one state or another, existed for eternity, which is scientifically bull-plop

can science explain the miracle or life appearing from non life? any explanation given will sound just as vague and "iffy" to me, as me saying "God did it" sounds to you.

Hrm... first off this thread is about evolution, not the orgin of life... So I am not exactly sure how most of this post applies to the op...

Second of all, now that I am thinking of it... evolution makes no claim that life came from non-life... Other scientific theories claim this, but not evolution.

Also, were you suggesting that any theory of how life came about would sound just as vague and "iffy" as saying god did it to me? If so... how many theories of how life came about have you actually read up on and how can you forsee that they will sound just as vague and iffy?

[JerryL]

It is not an untrue statement at all. Read the oft-cited "Timeline of Evolution" online and it is plain for all to see that A) At one point as the Earth is forming there is no life, then, B) Life appears and develops allegedly from "Self-replicating RNA molecules", posssibly stimulated electrically.

Change the cause of first life appearing to "God said so", "The shark dreamed it into existance" or "the Flying Spagetti monster did it".

Look, no change in evolution at all. I guess how the first life appeared is irrellevent.

Secondly, who has proven it? How? I have heard no formal declaration of this from the scientific community, who despite almost unanimously agreeing to the validity of Evolution, still refer to it invariably as a theory.

Exactly. It's a theory therefore it's proven. You don't seem to know what the word means.

[JerryL]

can science explain the miracle or life appearing from non life? any explanation given will sound just as vague and "iffy" to me, as me saying "God did it" sounds to you.

For the sake of this argument, I accept the "God did it" hypothesi of abiogenesis.

Now tell me how this effects evolution.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Mike182

i'll be honest, i don't know where to start in researching the science that surrounds this, i am simply asking for some direction on this

A high school level biology text might give you a brief introduction to the subject of abiogenesis. I think I first encountered it in Sylvia Mader's 'Biology 7th ed'. Wikipedia has a more detailed though accesible article on 'Origin of Life'.

Beyond the textbooks there are the various and varied papers that reveal experimental verification of small hypotheses pertinent to the subject (polymerisation etc), though if you are willing to have a bash at those be warned, they are often gibberish to someone who isn't trained in biology.

A lot of the science is on shaky ground, and none of it compelling enough to convince me yet. It's a start though, and it's something we can look at as parts in a very complex puzzle.