Of birds and men. Covergent evolution.

[Deeje]

First, if somebody were to give you this evidence, would you then accept the whole of evolution, including our common ancestry with other primates and the evolution of birds from dinosaurs?

"Evidence"? What would you classify as "evidence"? If the evidence is manipulated by very biased interpretation then how is that "evidence" even valuable except to perpetuate a lie?

Since I will believe God before I believe flawed, ego driven humans (the difference in wisdom , intellect and experience is not small) then I already see common ancestry as a figment of science's imagination since they never produce or identify these "ancestors" any more than they provide the "missing links" in their supposed evolutionary "chain".....a chain without links is called....what?

Second, if scientists were to agree that the first life-form was created by Yahweh the God of Israel about 4 billion years ago, would you then accept that all other living things evolved from that first life-form by neo-Darwinian processes?

No, because that is not what God told us that he did. Each "kind" is a carefully constructed organism, each with a built-in mechanism for adaptation. All adaptation provides is new varieties within a taxonomic family, triggered by a change of environment or food spource. No scientist has ever observed a new species that was unrelated to its "family" or "kind"....(that is "above species level").....that is an assumption, not an established fact. "Adaptation" in no way proves "macro" level evolution.

So to me, to suggest (for example) that whales were once furry four legged land dwellers the size of a small dog is stretching the imagination way beyond anything that science can prove....they can "suggest" it till the cows come home, but they can't prove that it ever happened.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Really can you explain the difference between an assertion and an argument or evidence?

In what way are “naturalist” presenting arguments and/or evidence (and not assertions) for natural abiogenesis? Why is that different and better that the “supposed assertions” made by ID proponents?

Seriously? You claim it is an answer. You explain and support that first. Can't imagine why you never have. Yes I can. But go on and fulfill your obligation to burden anyway.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes and if I were to bet, I´ll bet that you (nor tagliate) will ever answer to my question; where is the strawman this is an honest question I am not following 100% of the conversation ?

I believe it you read @TagliatelliMonster recent posts, you will find the answer lose your bet. Sorry.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What straw man argument did he do?

Continously pretend that abiogenesis needs to be solved before we can study and conclude that evolution occurs.

 

[leroy]

Continously pretend that abiogenesis needs to be solved before we can study and conclude that evolution occurs.

Did he ever said or implied such a thing?

 

[leroy]

Seriously? You claim it is an answer. You explain and support that first. Can't imagine why you never have. Yes I can. But go on and fulfill your obligation to burden anyway.

Avoiding an answer again? Shame on you

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is my point

If that is indeed your point then you should be far more carefull in your choice of words and acknowledge that what I have is an expectation and not a belief, like you keep claiming.

I find it hard to believe that you developed this “expectation” based on what we know about life and based on what we know about chemistry.

But that is just my opinion.​

That's your problem. I told you what my reasoning is - multiple times, in fact. You can assume I'm lying about that if it makes you feel better... It won't change the facts though.

well the thing is that copper, Aluminium, Iron and any other
Material that you cyborg might have come from nature

Nope.

Such things have to be manufactured.

So what is the relevant difference between cyborgs and life?

Cyborgs have to be manufactured.
Evolution isn't capable of evolving things like in the picture above.

Sure cyborgs are complex, but maybe they “evolved” from “simple” small machines.

No. Machines don't reproduce with modification.

ID proponents have an answer

No. cdesign proponentsists have religious claims.

, both life and cyborgs would have the attribute of SC, so design would be inferred in both cases.

The problem is that SC isn't an actual metric, nore is it capable of detecting artificial design.
It's just another made up fallacious sciency-sounding bs argument, meant only to sound impressive to the scientifically illiterate, just like "irreducible complexity".

so under what objective basis would you reject design with “organig life” and accept design with cyborgs?

I've already told you........
In a nutshell: signs of manufacturing. Cyborgs have them. Organic life does not.

It seems to me that any argument for “organic life” could also be used for Cyborgs.

Nope.

Specified complexity simply means that the “thing” has many parts that can be arranged in many possible combinations (according to the laws of nature) and that there is not a bias in the laws of nature towards an order that would favor life

Except natural selection, off course

Anyhow.... the unstated implication here being "i don't know how this organization formed naturally, therefor it didn't". There's your argument from ignorance.

or cyborgs. ………

Cyborgs can't evolve because evolution isn't capable of producing parts that require artificial manufacturing, like copper wires covered in plastic coating.

This is not an argument from ignorance

It is, as the unstated implication is "I don't know / understand how this can occur naturally, therefor it doesn't"

, it’s an argument based on what we do know

No. It's based on what you don't know. It's assuming that things you do know can overrule things that aren't known.

. Inteligent design is based on the premise that in order to have a self-replicating molecule (or cyborg) you need a whole bunch of buildings blocks organized in a particular order, such that most possible combinations would fail to produce a self-replicating thing. This premise is completely testable and falsifiable

It actually isn't testable, because you'ld be required to test every possible combination. And you can never know if you tried them all.

Where are the testable premises in your naturalistic model?

What model?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In what way are “naturalist” presenting arguments and/or evidence (and not assertions) for natural abiogenesis?

I already addressed this.
The fact that life ultimately is just an expression of chemistry.
The fact that life operates independently.
The fact that life is made up of the most common materials available in the universe.
The fact evolution occured and can be traced back to simple beginnings.
The fact that life shows no signs of "manufacturing".
The fact that chemistry and organic chemistry exists and occurs.
The fact that the building blocks of life are known to form spontanously under certain conditions. So much so that we even find amino acids in space rocks.
The fact that carbon is such a chemically rich element that you can make more molecules out of carbon then all other elements combined.
etc....

All these facts taken into consideration when asking the question "how did life originate" makes the most plausible answer "some chemical process or combination of processes".

Why is that different and better that the “supposed assertions” made by ID proponents?

One is based on facts.
The other on a priori religious beliefs.

Then there is off course Occam's Razor also.... A natural abiogenesis process doesn't require the assumption of the existance of some undemonstrable entity which is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes and if I were to bet, I´ll bet that you (nor tagliate) will ever answer to my question; where is the strawman this is an honest question I am not following 100% of the conversation ?

You just lost the bet it seems as I responded a couple posts ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please.....give us the substantiated evidence for the appearance of a single cell, spontaneously generated, coming into existence accidentally (with no direction from any intelligent source) and being fully equipped with all the necessary mechanisms to morph itself into all the life forms that have ever existed on this ‘Goldilocks’ planet.....

Why would I give you evidence for things that I don't even believe?

See, this is the strawmen you insist on using....
1. this is not what any abiogenesis hypothesis claims
2. abiogenesis is irrelevant to the science of evolution. Evolution starts with life already existing.

How hard is it to do that?

About as hard as for you to provide me with evidence of what your penis looks like, since you are a woman.

If science’s first premise is a “best guess”

Number 9.

It's not science's "first premise".
I have a feeling that subsequent post nr 10 of me having to point out the same strawman again, won't be long....

devoid of any actual proof that it ever happened the way science has to believe it did, then what does that say about the validity of all that follows? Your fairy tail ends up being bigger than the one you think we have.....

If tomorrow science finds out that your god of choice created first life, evolution theory would remain equally valid.

Why do you insist on arguing strawmen?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am getting the distinct impression that my question will never be answered......

The question was answered.
The answer was that the question is wrong, as it is loaded up with a strawmen.

are they just trying to bully their opposers into submission

Nope. Just trying to educate you.
You can call it "bullying" if you wish.

But when you insist on being wrong, others will insist on correcting you.

....’methinks they protesteth too much’.....

Me thinks you lie for jesus too much.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First, if somebody were to give you this evidence, would you then accept the whole of evolution, including our common ancestry with other primates and the evolution of birds from dinosaurs?

HAHA!

Good one. Indeed. Regardless of the strawman... her invalid demand isn't even honest.
Indeed, abiogenesis researchers could provide her with all the proof she wants and she'll just come up with some other lie or call it "satanic" and would remain entrenched in her fundamentalist religious science-denial beliefs. It's painfully obvious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Did he ever said or implied such a thing?

"he" is a "she" btw.

And yes. When she talks about "evolution's first premise", that is what she is refering to.

When discussing the evidence for evolution, she demands evidence for abiogenesis and pretends as if it is the same.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Avoiding an answer again? Shame on you

I suppose I should not be surprised, but creationists claim that they hold the high moral ground.

Just another claim you refuse to support.

Shame does not attach to me in this.

 

[Astrophile]

Please.....give us the substantiated evidence for the appearance of a single cell, spontaneously generated, coming into existence accidentally (with no direction from any intelligent source) and being fully equipped with all the necessary mechanisms to morph itself into all the life forms that have ever existed on this ‘Goldilocks’ planet.....

"Evidence"? What would you classify as "evidence"? If the evidence is manipulated by very biased interpretation then how is that "evidence" even valuable except to perpetuate a lie?

You demanded 'the substantiated evidence for the appearance of a single cell, etc.', so I assumed that you had in mind observational facts that, if they were presented, you would accept as substantiated evidence. It is for you, not me or other people on this forum, to decide what would be substantiated evidence. If you had decided in advance that there were no observational facts that you would accept as evidence and that everything that could be presented as evidence was manipulated and vitiated by biased interpretation, why did you ask for evidence in the first place?

 

[Deeje]

You demanded 'the substantiated evidence for the appearance of a single cell, etc.', so I assumed that you had in mind observational facts that, if they were presented, you would accept as substantiated evidence.

"Substantiated evidence" for me would of necessity have proven observational facts in laboratory experiments that...
1) The 'primordial soup' needed for life to begin had no recipe or chef. (just accidental)
2) That life could pop into existence as the result of undirected chance. (accidental)
3) That this life as a simple cell, came fully equipped with the right mechanisms to (accidentally) become all the forms of life that we see on earth. (past and present)

If you can supply that, I will listen to anything you can substantiate. The mere fact that so many evolutionists so quickly divorce themselves from any mention of abiogenesis is comical to say the least.....

If you can't figure out how life began...what is the point of arguing about how it changed? Adaptation is not the issue.....but macro-evolution uses adaptation to take their theory right out of the ballpark.....none of it can be substantiated.....it is assumed. Assumptions are guesses. Guesses are not facts.

It is for you, not me or other people on this forum, to decide what would be substantiated evidence. If you had decided in advance that there were no observational facts that you would accept as evidence and that everything that could be presented as evidence was manipulated and vitiated by biased interpretation, why did you ask for evidence in the first place?

If I am going to exchange one 'belief system' for another, then you better have more evidence for macro-evolution than I have evidence for the obvious intelligence that is so clearly demonstrated in creation.

If there is no foundational support for its first premise, then the whole theory has nothing to stand on...do you understand this? No building, no matter how beautiful you make it or decorate it...if its foundations are weak (or in this case non existent) then I am not going to swap my house for yours...OK?

 

[Deeje]

And yes. When she talks about "evolution's first premise", that is what she is refering to.

When discussing the evidence for evolution, she demands evidence for abiogenesis and pretends as if it is the same.

And you act as if it is unimportant....

You can run away but you can't hide.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you act as if it is unimportant....

It is unimportant to the process of evolution, as I have been explaining to you now for 11 subsequent posts.

It is an important question, in fact it is THE question, in the field of abiogenesis.
It's not the question in the field of evolutionary biology.

Evolutionary biology asks the question "where does biological diversity come from?"
Abiogenesis asks the question "where does life come from?"

You can run away but you can't hide.

Says the person who insists on arguing strawmen, and has been running away from correcting this particular strawman for 11 subsequent posts now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you act as if it is unimportant....

You can run away but you can't hide.

You would know best about running and hiding. But then you will not see this, since you have me on your hiding from you list.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And you act as if it is unimportant....

You can run away but you can't hide.

This is a misrepresentation of the factual presentation of abiogenesis and evolution.