Recommended reading for evolution?

[Deeje]

Because evolution IS a fact - species DO change over time. The THEORY of evolution is another matter.


I find it very telling that you elected to ignore the entire rest of my post and instead hinge your entire argument on one quote from one scientist saying something that doesn't even contradict anything I've written and weaving a completely fictitious narrative about it.

So, I guess you admit then that you were extremely wrong about micro and macro-evolution, and the observed instances I cited have left you with no actual defense of your position.

Immortalflame: 57, Deeje: 0.

Guess it was easy to dismiss the two lengthy posts before that one....? Its not a contest BTW.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Guess it was easy to dismiss the two lengthy posts before that one....? Its not a contest BTW.

They weren't responses to what I wrote.

And, to be honest, my attempts to make it into a contest are really just a cheap attempt to goad you into response, kind of like your constant, patronizing use of emojis. It's childish, I know, but I feel like you shouldn't have a monopoly on that sort of thing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I was raised with Creationism at a religious school and that's all I know, but I haven't believed the doctrine in years. It never really bothered me much that I didn't really know the science behind evolution before, but now I have a preachy person in my life and I'm hearing arguments that I feel are wrong but I don't know why they're wrong (e.g. I have no knowledge of the science to back it up). Not for the sake of debate with said person but more for my own peace of mind, what books can you recommend to me that come back at common creationist arguments with science-based evolutionary ones? Thanks.

I will try to keep this in mind next time I visit the bookstore to see if I can find again one of the books that have assisted me. I think its important to read someone who writes about the recent history of the creationist invasion of science and who points out some of the slanders put against scientists. Its pretty nasty what has gone before. I think the recent creation science literature is full of chicanery and disrespect for fellow human beings. It is a pat on the head and an attempt to make it seem like science is overwhelmingly complicated, and it slanders scientists and science and tries to make it look like a fools game or guessing game.

Evolution is the result of two things, perhaps from three. First it comes from cataloging the species on the planet, a process begun in 19th century though various ancient writers did make efforts to catalogue the animals in their areas. Until after 1800 not much was done planet-wide. Secondly it comes from the observation Darwin makes on the Galapagos Isles, survival of the fittest. This idea transforms all of the plain observations of similarities between species and their apparent tree structure into meaningful data. It provides the 'How' that a species separated into distinct groups can diverge into multiple species. If there is a third it is knowledge of breeding and variation in breeds. People long understood the power of breeding variation, but what they didn't understand before 19th century was what could guide breeding long term to make one species from another. If there is a fourth it is modern microscopy and understanding of DNA. Not only do the physical characteristics point to natural progression of species but the DNA shows it.

Notice that nothing in the above paragraph says anything about carbon dating or about fossils. That's because everything is plain without fossils and without carbon dating. They are important, but they are not that important for determining whether species evolve. They are one more set of data, icing on a cake. Creationist writers will tend to put them forward as the main ingredient of evolution, but they are not. They attack the bones of the dinosaurs, because they are avoiding the issue of survival of the fittest. They misquote Scientists and pull them out of context, because quoting them in context would be informative and devastating. You need a book that talks about that and that is full of quotes and misquotes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, there is a rule in science that life can only come from pre-existing life. Then they turn around and say the first living thing had to come from non-living matter. And no one wants to explain how this is possible. Both cannot be true but science refuses to admit any other possibility.

You are referring to the law of biogenesis that was developed from experiments to refute the belief of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation was that idea that some or all members of a group of living things could spontaneously arise, fully formed, from nonliving matter. Flies from rotting meat. Mice from manure and straw. The law has not been fully formalized, but one of the tenets is that life reproduces from pre-existing and like forms of life.

What has been done by some is to take this and extend it to claims about the origin of life in order to refute it or show some conflict in science. The law of biogenesis and life arising from pre-existing life does not apply to life arising from a purely natural and chemical origin. What it says is that we only know of life arising from pre-existing life and have never found it to arise fully formed from non-living matter.

Abiogenesis is about the formation of life through a process of chemistry under the laws of nature and no one is suggesting that it would be fully formed, adult, modern species.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Has science ever seen anything alive come from matterials that were not already alive?

 

[Sapiens]

Has science ever seen anything alive come from matterials that were not already alive?

Yes: Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

 

[Polymath257]

Has science ever seen anything alive come from matterials that were not already alive?

None of the atoms in your body is alive. Life comes from non-life in us all.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

In other words, science has never observed a living creature come from non living matter. They just won't admit it.

 

[Darkstorn]

In other words, science has never observed a living creature come from non living matter. They just won't admit it.

In other words: "la la la i'm not listening" ?

 

[metis]

In other words, science has never observed a living creature come from non living matter. They just won't admit it.

We "admit it" all the time within the scientific community since that concept is only considered a hypothesis, not a scientific theory or axiom. IOW, it simply is not assumed, nor do we have definitive evidence that it happened.

BTW, there's literally no objectively-derived evidence for theistic causation and yet so many assume that there is.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The evidence is very clear. The only way for life to come from non life is if there is a greater power that can overcome the normal laws of science and create life from non life. That greater power is God. But because "science" does not want to admit there could be a greater power, they refuse to accept the idea of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence is very clear. The only way for life to come from non life is if there is a greater power that can overcome the normal laws of science and create life from non life. That greater power is God. But because "science" does not want to admit there could be a greater power, they refuse to accept the idea of God.

Really? I am totally unaware of such evidence. None has ever been provided here that I have seen. Meanwhile I can link the work of just one man in the field of abiogenesis.

But it is nice to see you admitting that evolution is factual. People only move the goal posts when they know that the debate has been lost. You moved the goal posts totally out of the realm of evolution into abiogenesis and since evolution does not rely on abiogenesis you in effect admitted that evolution is right.

Meanwhile I am anxiously awaiting evidence that abiogenesis is impossible.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

You are absolutely right. No evidence has been posted to show that life came from non living material without the help of God. And trying to change the subject to evolution shows you have no proof either. The only way living creatures could come from non living matter is by the work of a superior power which could bypass the laws of science. I call that power God. You can give it a different name but without that power no living thing could come from non living matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are absolutely right. No evidence has been posted to show that life came from non living material without the help of God. And trying to change the subject to evolution shows you have no proof either. The only way living creatures could come from non living matter is by the work of a superior power which could bypass the laws of science. I call that power God. You can give it a different name but without that power no living thing could come from non living matter.

Not what I said or implied. Their is evidence that supports the concept of abiogenesis. I have yet to see any evidence that tells us that it is impossible. You made a claim that there was evidence that supported your beliefs. Were you telling tall tales when you made that claim? Why did you not link this supposed evidence? Again, once you do I will gladly link evidence that supports the concept of abiogenesis. And I did not try to change the subject. It appears that you did. Please tell me, what is the title of this thread?

 

[Valjean]

The evidence is very clear. The only way for life to come from non life is if there is a greater power that can overcome the normal laws of science and create life from non life. That greater power is God. But because "science" does not want to admit there could be a greater power, they refuse to accept the idea of God.

I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion. Why can't the normal laws of science create life, and how does the fact that we haven't observed a fully formed organism pop into existence (which science isn't claiming), support a God hypothesis?

What actual evidence do we have for your God? What mechanism do you suppose this God used to form life?
I think you're arguing from incredulity.

You are absolutely right. No evidence has been posted to show that life came from non living material without the help of God.

Yes it has. We observe components of life forming by natural means all the time. We know Earth was once lifeless, yet now has life, ergo, life arose.
What isn't reasonable is to infer an invisible, magical cause with no actual evidence of its existence..

The only way living creatures could come from non living matter is by the work of a superior power which could bypass the laws of science.

This makes no sense at all. You're saying that because some phenomenon isn't fully understood it can only be explained by intentional, magical intervention, by something we have no evidence of.

At one time you could have made the same claim for earthquakes, tides, eclipses, &c. How is abiogenesis any different from these?

 

[ChristineM]

The evidence is very clear. The only way for life to come from non life is if there is a greater power that can overcome the normal laws of science and create life from non life. That greater power is God. But because "science" does not want to admit there could be a greater power, they refuse to accept the idea of God.

Please provide link to your claimed evidence. If it can stand scrutiny you could put an end to all us pesky atheists at the stroke of a keyboard.

But never happened in 10 thousand years of god worship so im not expecting miracles from you.

 

[Polymath257]

You are absolutely right. No evidence has been posted to show that life came from non living material without the help of God. And trying to change the subject to evolution shows you have no proof either. The only way living creatures could come from non living matter is by the work of a superior power which could bypass the laws of science. I call that power God. You can give it a different name but without that power no living thing could come from non living matter.

No. No evidence has been presented actually *doing* a transition from non-life to life, whether with God or without.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that non-life and life are on a continuum. ALL of biochemistry shows how life happens through the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry. The only question is the arrangement of the physical components, not some 'extra spark'.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

And of course all these arguements come from people who do not believe in God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please provide link to your claimed evidence. If it can stand scrutiny you could put an end to all us pesky atheists at the stroke of a keyboard.

But never happened in 10 thousand years of god worship so im not expecting miracles from you.

And of course all these arguements come from people who do not believe in God.

So what? The same claims will be made by Christians that are not afraid of reality and whose faith is not weak.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes: Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

The evidence is very clear. The only way for life to come from non life is if there is a greater power that can overcome the normal laws of science and create life from non life. That greater power is God. But because "science" does not want to admit there could be a greater power, they refuse to accept the idea of God.

The idea of a god is quite unnecessary.

You are absolutely right. No evidence has been posted to show that life came from non living material without the help of God. And trying to change the subject to evolution shows you have no proof either. The only way living creatures could come from non living matter is by the work of a superior power which could bypass the laws of science. I call that power God. You can give it a different name but without that power no living thing could come from non living matter.

Sure it has: Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

No. No evidence has been presented actually *doing* a transition from non-life to life, whether with God or without.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that non-life and life are on a continuum. ALL of biochemistry shows how life happens through the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry. The only question is the arrangement of the physical components, not some 'extra spark'.

I provided a reference that demonstrates that there is such evidence. Don't provide any recognition for the crock-a-duck school of denial, even though it is half right ... e.g. it is a crock.