The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[ChristineM]

Elements coming together and bumping into each other to form matter? Sounds like spontaneous generation

Elements are matter

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me it is just a semantic game, most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis too, so whether if you what to call it evolution or not, abiogenesis is still part of your world view and you still have to support it……… evolutionists tend ask questions about the ark and creationists usually don’t say “I won’t answer because the ark has nothing to do with the creation account”

This amounts to projection. The reason that they are separate is that one is well understood and the other is not. There is no "has to accept" in the sciences unless an idea is well supported by evidence. It is the creationists that have the pressure to work God into the equation when there is no need for one.

To me it is obvious and easy to understand when creationist talk about “kinds” it is obvious that dogs and wolves are the same kind and Dogs and Bannanas are a different kind…….you are not quoting from a technical article, the article is meant to be a simple reading, for anyone to understand.

Then you should take Aron Ra's Phylogenetic Challenge. No creationist has managed to do so yet. The problem with kinds is that it is an undefined term and is worthless. On a practical level how would you tell if two populations were of the same "kind" or not?

What you call evolution is widely accepted by all creationists, the problem is that what you call evolution does not necessarily imply common ancestry, nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a process of random mutations and natural selection.

That might be true for some creationists, but in general IMO creationists tend to represent “evolution” correctly.

But in general terms I agree the article is silly.

Really? I have yet to see a creationist correctly represent evolution. They tend to present a steady diet of strawman arguments. At least they are high in fiber.

 

[leroy]

There's no have to about it. The difference is that evolution by natural selection is an extremely well established scientific theory, whereas the mechanism of abiogenesis is unknown. An argument against (natural) abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution. If somebody wants to do a "god of the gaps" argument and accept evolution while maintaining that natural abiogenesis is impossible, they taking a radically different (and somewhat less absurd) view from those who deny evolution.

By that logic, evolutionist shouldn’t ask creationists about the global flood, because the global flood has nothing to do with “creation”…any argument against the flood has no bearing on whether if creation is true or not ….. the point that I am making is that usually evolutionists deny answering questions about abiogenist, but expect creationists to answer question about the flood.

I dislike the word proof in the context but it's correct that evolution by natural selection and common decent is "proven" (or established) way beyond any reasonable doubt.

I still see why is common descent beautiful parsimonious , elegant and the best explanation but I think there is room for reasonable doubt. After all we do find discordances in the tree of life.

As for evolution by natural selection, it is a tautology, it is circular logic,

1. Fitness determines survival.

2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.

3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.


This kind of circular proposition is as unshakably true (and unscientific) as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.

As such, it is not scientific, since it’s unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

By that logic, evolutionist shouldn’t ask creationists about the global flood, because the global flood has nothing to do with “creation”…any argument against the flood has no bearing on whether if creation is true or not ….. the point that I am making is that usually evolutionists deny answering questions about abiogenist, but expect creationists to answer question about the flood.






I still see why is common descent beautiful parsimonious , elegant and the best explanation but I think there is room for reasonable doubt. After all we do find discordances in the tree of life.

As for evolution by natural selection, it is a tautology, it is circular logic,

1. Fitness determines survival.

2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.

3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.


This kind of circular proposition is as unshakably true (and unscientific) as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.

As such, it is not scientific, since it’s unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.”

Not tautological, just blatantly obvious. If I let go of this rock it will fall down. What makes it not tautological is that it is testable. It is conceivably falsifiable, just as it is conceivable that a rock could fall up. That neither happens when tested does not mean that an idea is tautological.

 

[shunyadragon]

By that logic, evolutionist shouldn’t ask creationists about the global flood, because the global flood has nothing to do with “creation”…any argument against the flood has no bearing on whether if creation is true or not ….. the point that I am making is that usually evolutionists deny answering questions about abiogenist, but expect creationists to answer question about the flood.

The problem with some of your questions is like many fundamentalist Creation is you demand all the answers to the questions as to how abiogenesis took place and likewise for evolution, because of your religious agenda.

I gave a very specific description of the relationship between abiogenesis and evolution. Not all the questions are answered concerning abiogenesis are answered, but much is known concerning the mechanism and steps.

Yes, and no, because the line between abiogenesis and evolution is rather vague. The chemical polymerization of amino acids, energy metabolism, and the early formation of early evolution of microbes, RNA synthesis, and ultimately DNA, and the natural selection process of the set of 20 amino acids, are shared by abiogenesis and early evolution. The first primitive life forms relied on natural heat sources for energy until they evolved the ability to metabolize energy themselves by feeding on other microbes..Life is an emergent process, and not something like turning on a light bulb in the difference between pre-life chemicals to primitive life forms that evolve.

The ability to internally metabolize energy in all life today is phosphate based, but early life forms began by using natural heat source evolving first to sulfur based energy sources, and the iron sulfates,and iron oxides may have been the catalyst for RNA reproduction.

From: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-biochemical-fossil-life-emerged-phosphate.html

One major mystery about life's origin is how phosphate became an essential building block of genetic and metabolic machinery in cells, given its poor accessibility on early Earth. In a study published on March 9 in the journal Cell, researchers used systems biology approaches to tackle this long-standing conundrum, providing compelling, data-driven evidence that primitive life forms may not have relied on phosphate at all. Instead, a few simple, abundant molecules could have supported the emergence of a sulfur-based, phosphate-free metabolism, which expanded to form a rich network of biochemical reactions capable of supporting the synthesis of a broad category of key biomolecules.

"The significance of this work is that future efforts to understand life's origin should take into account the concrete possibility that phosphate-based processes, which are essential today, may not have been around when the first life-like processes started emerging," says senior study author Daniel Segrè of Boston University. "An early phosphate-independent metabolism capable of producing several key building blocks of living systems is in principle viable."

Phosphate is essential for all living systems and is present in a large proportion of known biomolecules. A sugar-phosphate backbone forms the structural framework of nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA. Moreover, phosphate is a critical component of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which transports chemical energy within cells, and a compound called NADH, which has several essential roles in metabolism. But it is unclear how phosphate could have assumed these central roles on primordial Earth, given its scarcity and poor accessibility.

In light of this puzzle, some have proposed that early metabolic pathways did not rely on phosphate. In many of these scenarios, sulfur and iron found on mineral surfaces are thought to have fulfilled major catalytic and energetic functions prior to the appearance of phosphate. One notable origin-of-life scenario suggests that the role of ATP was originally assumed by sulfur-containing compounds called thioesters, which are widely involved in protein, carbohydrate, and lipid metabolism. Despite the availability of iron and sulfur on early Earth, concrete evidence supporting these scenarios has been lacking.

To test the feasibility of the "iron-sulfur world hypothesis" and the "thioester world scenario," Segrè and his team used computational systems biology approaches originally developed for large-scale analyses of complex metabolic networks. The researchers used a large database to assemble the complete set of all known biochemical reactions. After exploring this so-called "biosphere-level metabolism," the researchers identified a set of eight phosphate-free compounds thought to have been available in prebiotic environments. They then used an algorithm that simulated the emergence of primitive metabolic networks by compiling all possible reactions that could have taken place in the presence of these eight compounds, which included formate, acetate, hydrogen sulfide, ammonium, carbon dioxide, water, bicarbonate, and nitrogen gas



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-biochemical-fossil-life-emerged-phosphate.html#jCp

I still see why is common descent beautiful parsimonious , elegant and the best explanation but I think there is room for reasonable doubt. After all we do find discordances in the tree of life.

As for evolution by natural selection, it is a tautology, it is circular logic,

1. Fitness determines survival.

2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.

3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.


This kind of circular proposition is as unshakably true (and unscientific) as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.

As such, it is not scientific, since it’s unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.”

The science of Methodological Naturalism does not follow the contorted logic you describe above.
It is not circular logic, because first abiogenesis and evolution are not based on logic. They are based on falsifiable hypothesis of the science of evolution using Methodological Naturalism which is based on predictions since the work of Charles Darwin, and the predictions have been verified over the years and further confirmed by the more recent work with biochemistry and genetics.

The problem is the Creationists have not come up with a falsifiable hypothesis that explains the billions of years of evidence that supports evolution.

The fact that you are your mother's son can be falsified by genetics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To me it is just a semantic game, most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis too, so whether if you what to call it evolution or not, abiogenesis is still part of your world view and you still have to support it……… evolutionists tend ask questions about the ark and creationists usually don’t say “I won’t answer because the ark has nothing to do with the creation account”

Show me the statistics that support most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis. I do not believe in it. I accept the evidence that is available and sound and reasonable state of hypotheses that have been formulated. A natural process is the only thing that science can evaluate and coming up with hypotheses about that is reasonable and part of the scientific method. The fact is, we do not know how life originated.

Evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis for the origination of life.

Most of the time it is creationist claiming that the flood of Noah happened and others pointing out the lack of evidence, the history of the story, the inconsistencies and the impossibilities in response to those creationists.

To me it is obvious and easy to understand when creationist talk about “kinds” it is obvious that dogs and wolves are the same kind and Dogs and Bannanas are a different kind…….you are not quoting from a technical article, the article is meant to be a simple reading, for anyone to understand.

It is not obvious and dogs and wolves are not the same kind. Though they are related and there are similarities, there are many differences as well. Dogs have on average more copies of the gene for amylase than wolves do. This is a significant advantage consider the difference in diet between wolves and dogs.

Yes. I know. They are still dogs.

What you call evolution is widely accepted by all creationists,

Not from what I have seen.

the problem is that what you call evolution does not necessarily imply common ancestry, nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a process of random mutations and natural selection.

That is exactly what is meant by evolution. Common ancestry. Change in populations over time. Natural selection. There is nothing else to the theoretical basis than those three things.

That might be true for some creationists, but in general IMO creationists tend to represent “evolution” correctly.

I am still laughing at this. No creationist I have ever debated represents it correctly. They tend to misrepresent it, dismiss it without reason or twist it to some straw man that bears little resemblance to the theory and science.

But in general terms I agree the article is silly.

The only point we agree on. I would say it is disturbing as well as silly. I did not know whether to laugh or feel sick.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By that logic, evolutionist shouldn’t ask creationists about the global flood, because the global flood has nothing to do with “creation”…any argument against the flood has no bearing on whether if creation is true or not ….. the point that I am making is that usually evolutionists deny answering questions about abiogenist, but expect creationists to answer question about the flood.

The flood never happened. Now that the issue is settled, we no longer have to worry about anyone asking about it.

I still see why is common descent beautiful parsimonious , elegant and the best explanation but I think there is room for reasonable doubt.

I read that as any doubt you can come up with regardless if it is reasonable or not.

After all we do find discordances in the tree of life.

So we can jump to the unsupported conclusion that evolution never happened or the theory is wrong? Where is the logic in that? When you see the term discordance in relation to the tree of life, do you understand what it means and the context?

As for evolution by natural selection, it is a tautology, it is circular logic,

1. Fitness determines survival.

2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.

3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.

Scientists do not say that. Natural selection is not a tautology. Why does this silly claim keep popping up?

Those organisms with the highest fitness tend to reproduce more often on average than those with lesser fitness. Their genes have a greater probability of proliferating within a population. If selection continues to favor the traits that convey fitness, they become fixed and the population genome shifts to the more fit profile. Over time, these changes add up and a higher level shift like speciation occurs. Speciation has been observed. Evidence even supports that there has been the evolution of genera in at least one group of fish over a relatively short period of 15,000 years.

Organisms with lower fitness can survive. Just not as many do. Ancestor species can survive when descendant species evolve. There is no rule that would require their extirpation from the speciation event. The new population with the greater fitness could occur in an extreme range of the ancestral species who maintains fitness for their environment while the new species has evolved fitness for its new environment.

It is circular only because the straw man is the best argument that creationists can come up with to challenge the evidence and the theory. It is not actually a circular argument.

This kind of circular proposition is as unshakably true (and unscientific) as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.

It also is not used in science.

As such, it is not scientific, since it’s unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.”

Then it is a good thing that it is not the definition used in science.

 

[ratiocinator]

By that logic, evolutionist shouldn’t ask creationists about the global flood, because the global flood has nothing to do with “creation”…any argument against the flood has no bearing on whether if creation is true or not ….. the point that I am making is that usually evolutionists deny answering questions about abiogenist, but expect creationists to answer question about the flood.

Well the question of whether the universe was magicked into existence 6000 years ago is indeed a different one as to whether there was a global flood. However many creationists want to use the flood to 'explain' some of the evidence for evolution.

I still see why is common descent beautiful parsimonious , elegant and the best explanation but I think there is room for reasonable doubt. After all we do find discordances in the tree of life.

As for evolution by natural selection, it is a tautology, it is circular logic,

1. Fitness determines survival.

2. Survival is proved by all the organisms that exist, or ever did.

3. Therefore, existence proves fitness, & all life-forms prove natural selection’s correctness.


This kind of circular proposition is as unshakably true (and unscientific) as the statement, “I am my mother’s son”.

As such, it is not scientific, since it’s unfalsifiable under ANY experimental test.”

Where did you get that from? If it was from a creationist source that kind of makes the point that creationists misrepresent evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that has nothing at all to do with the circular logic that you've given here.

As for falsifiability, as J. B. S. Haldane once pointed out, fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would falsify it. It should also be pointed out that genetics were unknown at the time of the formulation of the theory but now we could make the case for evolution from genetics alone. There is a rather good article I came across recently that give some evidence from genetics (I posted it elsewhere on the forum but it's worth repeating): Genesis and the Genome (pdf). I thought the discovery of the mutated gene for egg yoke production in the human genome at the same position as in chickens was quite striking as was the fact we can use the disabling mutations of olfactory receptor genes to independently deduce the relationship between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, that had been established from other evidence.

 

[leroy]

Well the question of whether the universe was magicked into existence 6000 years ago is indeed a different one as to whether there was a global flood. However many creationists want to use the flood to 'explain' some of the evidence for evolution.

What evidence for evolution do creationists try to explain with a flood?.... Explain what exactly do you mean by evolution in this context.

Where did you get that from? If it was from a creationist source that kind of makes the point that creationists misrepresent evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that has nothing at all to do with the circular logic that you've given here.

I was pushing your answer, ....what exactly do you mean when you say yah evolution by natural selection is true ? What is the meaning of evolution in this other context ?

As for falsifiability, as J. B. S. Haldane once pointed out, fossil rabbits in the Precambrian would falsify it. .

Again what do you mean by evolution? Would a rabbit in the Cambrian falsify that natural selection occures? ..... What do you mean by evolution in this other context?

 

[ratiocinator]

What evidence for evolution do creationists try to explain with a flood?

The fossil record.

What do you mean by evolution in this other context?

Evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for producing the complexity and variety of life on earth, i.e. common descent.

Did you read the article?

 

[ChristineM]

what do you mean by evolution?

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

I posted earlier in this thread about a few animals that are currently being observed evolving through mutation.
I would like to add the African elephant. Observed to be evolving a tuskless species due to natural selection. Those with smaller tusks have a better chance of surviving ivory poachers.

 

[leroy]

The fossil record.



Evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for producing the complexity and variety of life on earth, i.e. common descent.

Did you read the article?

You are mixing things, common descent could be true and evolution by natural selection wrong or viseverza , both are different and independent ideas.


Exactly what evidence for evolution in the fossil record is explained by a flood by creationists ?

 

[leroy]

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

I posted earlier in this thread about a few animals that are currently being observed evolving through mutation.
I would like to add the African elephant. Observed to be evolving a tuskless species due to natural selection. Those with smaller tusks have a better chance of surviving ivory poachers.

Using that definition of evolution, then no creationists would deny evolution.

That definition does not imply common ancestry nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a proces of random mutations and natural selection.

The point is that creationists do not missrepresent evolution, the problem is that evolution has many different meanings .

 

[ChristineM]

Using that definition of evolution, then no creationists would deny evolution.

That definition does not imply common ancestry nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a proces of random mutations and natural selection.

The point is that creationists do not missrepresent evolution, the problem is that evolution has many different meanings .

Yet still they deny evolution until they are blue in the face.

I am taking it you have read the words but do not comprehend the implications.

Fyi the definition distinctly specifies change in genes from generation to generation (ancestry) natural selection and mutation which you appear not to have read.

And where does "random" come into it. Oh right it's a creationist stew man.

You have just misrepresented it while claiming not to misrepresent it.

Yes the evolution of the universe, technology, life etc. Different meanings meaning the same thing, i.e. change happens

 

[ratiocinator]

You are mixing things, common descent could be true and evolution by natural selection wrong or viseverza , both are different and independent ideas.

You asked me what I was referring to. Of course it's logically possible for them to be separate but I'm saying (to return to the original point), that the evidence for common descent via the mechanism of evolution by natural selection, is way beyond reasonable doubt.

This is well established science that pretty much every scientist who studies these things agrees about, and of the tiny, tiny minority of those who don't, almost all have an obvious religious vested interest in it being wrong.

You seem to want to quibble over terminology rather than actually address the point. Do you really have any doubt as to what current science says about this? What words would you like to use to cover it?

Did you read this: Genesis and the genome (pdf)?

Oh, and here's a creationist who's honest enough to admit that the evidence is with evolution and his position is one of faith: The truth about evolution.

 

[ratiocinator]

The point is that creationists do not missrepresent evolution, the problem is that evolution has many different meanings .

It really is as clear as day in the context of the evolution/creation 'debate' - and you totally misrepresented it (I assume based on creationist propaganda) in #83.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are mixing things, common descent could be true and evolution by natural selection wrong or viseverza , both are different and independent ideas.

Correct. Common descent and natural selection are independent, but related, theories.

Exactly what evidence for evolution in the fossil record is explained by a flood by creationists ?

They claim that the fossils, especially those found on uplifted mountains, are evidence of animals killed in the flood. They also make claims about the number of animals that were on the ark and speculate that all the diversity has evolved from a small number of animals on the ark or embryos, or juvenile animals on the ark. It is all silly.

 

[Segev Moran]

The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe It | Wisdom of God

Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.

For example...

Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms

Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.

Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.

Evolution isn't about a dog birthing a completely new breed. It is about a gradual change in each species. Depending on environment an external forces, some changes allow better chances for survival and just because they survive better and procreate more, that genetic trait becomes dominant in the species.

The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.

I agree.
many theists don't bother taking the time to understand what evolution is, yet they claim it is false.
Unfortunately, the same goes for many atheists who make the same claims about God

 

[ChristineM]

I agree.
many theists don't bother taking the time to understand what evolution is, yet they claim it is false.
Unfortunately, the same goes for many atheists who make the same claims about God

They are not comparative claims, one has a multitude of verified evidence, the other is guesswork

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe It | Wisdom of God

Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.

For example...

Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms

Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.

Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.

Evolution isn't about a dog birthing a completely new breed. It is about a gradual change in each species. Depending on environment an external forces, some changes allow better chances for survival and just because they survive better and procreate more, that genetic trait becomes dominant in the species.

The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.

Do you believe that god made Adam from clay and Eve from his rib?

I apply xenoview's razor to your claims of a god.

Xenoview's razor
Objective claims requires objective evidence