Existence

[Subduction Zone]

I’m aware of how classification is done. Thanks for explaining it in all its boring detail. It seems you’ve missed my points, I’m not surprised. I’ll keep it simple:

Who came up with the word “mammal” and decided what characteristics should fit into the mammal category? For what purpose did they do it? What’s the value of it?

People naturally classify things. It is what we do. It allows us to understand those things better. I am pretty sure that Linnaeus did not come up with the term mammal. It would have predated him. Linnaeus did not classify life to justify evolution. He was before Darwin's time and he was a creationist. Even so he was the first man on record that realized biologically that humans are apes.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

from previous posts

And there you are mistaken. This is an open forum. It is not a private discussion. If you want a private discussion with someone use the PM feature. When you post here you are inviting everyone to respond to you. There was no rudeness in responding.

I am not telling a Christian about God. I am telling a Christian about your version of God. You only have a belief in your version of God. And you do not fully understand the implications of what you have claimed here. And please note. the phrase that I used was "When I was a Christian".. Like many atheists in the US I used to be a Christian.

Your behaiour begs the question "Why bother?". But for the sake of your dormant Christianity, let us continue.

from a previous post

There are times when Wikipedia is not quite right. Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. That is why it is not part of the theory of evolution. Reread that in its whole context. You should have at least have quoted the whole paragraph:

" While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.[12]"

When or if the concept of abiogenesis has enough of its questions answered it will slowly move beyond the hypothetical stage. Then it will be proper to discuss it as part of the theory of evolution.

There are many times Wikipedia is wrong. Even the founder says it is a lost cause and is attempting to create another site Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger: Site’s Commitment to Neutrality Is ‘Long Gone’ Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger: Site's Commitment to Neutrality Is 'Long Gone'

Wiki was quoted because of the very fact it was so biased. Quoting an intelligent design site would be useless to an evolutionist.

The origin of life with each discovery is growing more complex, not less. Less viable, not more. The Miller-Urey experiment was in 1953. That is like 3 generations of your leading scientists and "it's not even wrong". This is the golden age of science, so one can solve it in the dark ages? Your faith is strong in science.

Over simplification is usually a creationist thing. In trying to explain complex ideas we will sometimes simplify them a bit, but often with a warning. Creationists tend to take over simplified ideas and "refute" them. The strawman argument is a creationist favorite.

Oversimplification is a religious thing. Simplification in a religious context is understandable as teachings of man are not a goal of religion. In science, oversimplification is an indicator of a corrupted method, politics and whatever social agendas.
"In the west, you can criticize the government, but in China, no. In China you can question evolution, but in the west, no" (paraphrased quote). Sounds like scientism to me, the "faithful" defending the faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Interesting how the goal post moves.

What are you talking about?

Better snatch this before it disappears. As per Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8]...."

I disagree with this wiki quote.

Evolutionary biology studies already existing life. It does not study the origins of life.
Evolution theory does make some predictions about first life though. As in, if first life would have been, for example, a multi-cellular organism, let's say a fly, then that would not fit with evolution theory.

But it says nothing about the specifics of the process that originated life.
Abiogenesis is the field of inquiry of the origins of life. There are several abiogenesis hypothesis that are being explored. It's an open question.

Yes, all these hypothesis are naturalistic in nature. They look for a natural process.
But that is not because evolutionary biology demands it to be so.

What branch of science exists in a vacuum?

None, but however first life originated, it won't make all the evidence of evolution go away.
Life exists and we can study it. Through that study, we might get clues about its origins, sure.
Just like how evolution theory does make some predictions about first life. It predicts something very simple, since it posits that the complexity of life has evolved through the process of evolution.

That it need not be consistent with any other scientific endeavour?

Sure.
If the origins of life turns out to be a god creating the first simple life form, then that is perfectly consistent with evolution theory.

Can I take it to mean you believe the evolutionary process not the theory (whatever that means)?

I don't understand this question.
The theory is a description of the process.

If the question is "how do plants generate their food?" sure. But if the question is "how was the atmosphere generated?" then no.

Now who's moving the goal post?
I don't even know what you mean with that second question, and I know even less where it came from.

Oversimplification usually indicates agenda, not truth.

Sometimes things are just simplified to illuminate the actual point that is being misunderstood.

So may I infer you see evolution not as a theory but a process (conjecture)?

You make no sense.
The process factually occurs:
- individuals compete over limited resources
- they reproduce with variation / genetic change
- this variation makes the offspring either better equipped to compete, lesser equipped or it makes no difference
- the better equipped will generally spread their genes as they are more successful at survival and breeding

All that is factually obvservable.
The theory is the body of explanation that details how that process, and its subprocesses, actually work.

Like I said no theory exists in a vacuum. If you find one, let me know. I would be curious to study it.

Nobody said otherwise.

What HAVE said, is that theories have scope. They address a specific set of facts. And while they need to fit into the bigger picture next to other theories, they only address their own specific set of facts.

So while you could probably link up germ theory with theories about climate in the matrix of reality, germ theory does not need to be able to explain weather patterns.

 

[Firelight]

If you are aware of how classification is carried out it is sort of a strange set of questions to ask.

I cannot answer your questions about mammals, but in general, the characteristics are observed and those with the characteristics are sorted together into a larger group. A list of characters is not generated a priori to stuff living things into categories.

The person that originated the system and the man known as the father of modern taxonomy was a Christian named Carl Linnaeus.

Why can’t you answer my questions about mammals? Have you never challenged a scientists motives before? Ever questioned how and why they make the decisions they do?

It appears to me that you simply accept scientists’ methods and decisions without question. If a scientist chooses certain words with which to label categories and then writes the definitions for those words, you readily accept it as being correct. If a scientist says human beings are mammals, apes, and animals, you readily accept it as facts and truth, no questions asked. Based on your previous responses, you want other people to have this same acceptance without question.

I can choose words, write definitions, and classify, too. Due to my observations, I don’t accept any scientist’s decision to classify human beings as animals, mammals, or apes. Human beings are in a class of their own.

The average human being could write a list of hundreds of characteristics that make us different from all other animals. A few of the obvious are: sophisticated brains, standing upright, language/spoken word, see colors, families, mating, learning capabilities, talents, human bones, no fur or feathers to keep warm, etc. I could go on and on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why can’t you answer my questions about mammals? Have you never challenged a scientists motives before? Ever questioned how and why they make the decisions they do?

I am not withholding the information. I simply don't have the information and did not look it up.

It appears to me that you simply accept scientists’ methods and decisions without question. If a scientist chooses certain words with which to label categories and then writes the definitions for those words, you readily accept it as being correct. If a scientist says human beings are mammals, apes, and animals, you readily accept it as facts and truth, no questions asked. Based on your previous responses, you want other people to have this same acceptance without question.

I am a scientist.

I can choose words, write definitions, and classify, too. Due to my observations, I don’t accept any scientist’s decision to classify human beings as animals, mammals, or apes. Human beings are in a class of their own.

Human beings have all the characteristics of mammals. Do you deny that?

The average human being could write a list of hundreds of characteristics that make us different from all other animals. A few of the obvious are: sophisticated brains, standing upright, language/spoken word, see colors, families, mating, learning capabilities, talents, human bones, no fur or feathers to keep warm, etc. I could go on and on.

Have you written such a list? Does it mean that we are not mammals? Can you show me?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why can’t you answer my questions about mammals? Have you never challenged a scientists motives before? Ever questioned how and why they make the decisions they do?

It appears to me that you simply accept scientists’ methods and decisions without question. If a scientist chooses certain words with which to label categories and then writes the definitions for those words, you readily accept it as being correct. If a scientist says human beings are mammals, apes, and animals, you readily accept it as facts and truth, no questions asked. Based on your previous responses, you want other people to have this same acceptance without question.

I can choose words, write definitions, and classify, too. Due to my observations, I don’t accept any scientist’s decision to classify human beings as animals, mammals, or apes. Human beings are in a class of their own.

The average human being could write a list of hundreds of characteristics that make us different from all other animals. A few of the obvious are: sophisticated brains, standing upright, language/spoken word, see colors, families, mating, learning capabilities, talents, human bones, no fur or feathers to keep warm, etc. I could go on and on.

Does being different from other animals mean we are not animals or not mammals? Lists of characters of dogs could be made that differentiate them from all other living things, but they are still mammals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why can’t you answer my questions about mammals? Have you never challenged a scientists motives before? Ever questioned how and why they make the decisions they do?

It appears to me that you simply accept scientists’ methods and decisions without question. If a scientist chooses certain words with which to label categories and then writes the definitions for those words, you readily accept it as being correct. If a scientist says human beings are mammals, apes, and animals, you readily accept it as facts and truth, no questions asked. Based on your previous responses, you want other people to have this same acceptance without question.

I can choose words, write definitions, and classify, too. Due to my observations, I don’t accept any scientist’s decision to classify human beings as animals, mammals, or apes. Human beings are in a class of their own.

The average human being could write a list of hundreds of characteristics that make us different from all other animals. A few of the obvious are: sophisticated brains, standing upright, language/spoken word, see colors, families, mating, learning capabilities, talents, human bones, no fur or feathers to keep warm, etc. I could go on and on.

What motives do you think are in play? Are you saying that scientists have a motive to make stuff up or that they are part of some greater conspiracy against God?

I have challenged scientists many times and been challenged in turn.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

What are you talking about?

See, below. You disagree with a wiki opinion from an evolutionist.

I disagree with this wiki quote.

Evolutionary biology studies already existing life. It does not study the origins of life.
Evolution theory does make some predictions about first life though. As in, if first life would have been, for example, a multi-cellular organism, let's say a fly, then that would not fit with evolution theory.

But it says nothing about the specifics of the process that originated life.
Abiogenesis is the field of inquiry of the origins of life. There are several abiogenesis hypothesis that are being explored. It's an open question.

Yes, all these hypothesis are naturalistic in nature. They look for a natural process.
But that is not because evolutionary biology demands it to be so.

So whose opinion is correct - the wiki guy or TagliatelliMonster (moving goal post).
So what is the OoL studies classified as - quantum physics?

Naturalism is the basis of all scientific endeavours. I have no problem with science. Can evolution be a science when it is isolated and modified by rhetoric (wiki vs TagliatelliMonster).

We will get to evidence, later if willing.[/QUOTE]

None, but however first life originated, it won't make all the evidence of evolution go away.
Life exists and we can study it. Through that study, we might get clues about its origins, sure.
Just like how evolution theory does make some predictions about first life. It predicts something very simple, since it posits that the complexity of life has evolved through the process of evolution. /QUOTE]
The theory of evolution predicts a tree like structure for species. Do you see this in the fossil record. If theoretical predictions are wrong, the paradigm says shift (in most sciences that is).

Sure.
If the origins of life turns out to be a god creating the first simple life form, then that is perfectly consistent with evolution theory.

Science is all naturalistic at this point. The question was why it is not consistent/beholden to other branches of science.

I don't understand this question.
The theory is a description of the process.

A theory is a little more than a process. This is wordnik definition - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Climate change vs carbon dioxide as a heat absorbing molecule. From reference.com "The theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin entails the evolution by natural selection of all life on earth. Now you say it just explains changes in the genome. Which one is it?

Now who's moving the goal post?
I don't even know what you mean with that second question, and I know even less where it came from.

You said that the explanation of photosynthesis is self contained subject. That further questions are not necessary. Are you really this shallow? The theory is isolated from all other sciences? The explanation of photosynthesis is not a theory. Evolution purports to be a theory. It begs to be falsified or verified.

Sometimes things are just simplified to illuminate the actual point that is being misunderstood.

The genome is not a simple structure. Simplification shifts it back from neo-darwinism to darwinism.

You make no sense.
The process factually occurs:
- individuals compete over limited resources
- they reproduce with variation / genetic change
- this variation makes the offspring either better equipped to compete, lesser equipped or it makes no difference
- the better equipped will generally spread their genes as they are more successful at survival and breeding

All that is factually obvservable.
The theory is the body of explanation that details how that process, and its subprocesses, actually work.

It is amazing! All you have quoted are conjectures and dress them up as facts. Can you not tell the difference? Fact, species A is difference from species B. Conjecture, species C was separated by river and became A and B. Do you see a difference?

Nobody said otherwise.

What HAVE said, is that theories have scope. They address a specific set of facts. And while they need to fit into the bigger picture next to other theories, they only address their own specific set of facts.

So while you could probably link up germ theory with theories about climate in the matrix of reality, germ theory does not need to be able to explain weather patterns.

You just did. Evolution is responsible for all variations except at the very beginning which could be supernatural or not???.
Now you say, evolution has scope? Which is it? All your statements are self-serving - all when unchallenged, scoped when asked to justify. Absurd.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Today must be national "I don't know anything about biology or evolution, but I am going to post pretending to be an expert" day.

Evolution is not responsible for the genetic variation in a population. Evolution is the process that takes place when selection is applied to variation and there is change in that population.

Mutations are a mechanism for variation.

I cannot believe the number of people that know nothing about a theory they pretend to be experts on in order to reject the theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pointing out that evolution is not dependent on how life originated is not shifting the goal posts. You would think these self-appointed, non-expert, experts could fake that level of expertise, but apparently not.

 

[rational experiences]

Ego. A human living as a human is first meant logically to look at theirselves.

We taught ourselves it defined conscious human spirituality.

Natural self presence. A human only.

Theists don't.

Don't look at their self human first or other humans.

That status human in an owned experience states for ego purpose only. Human ego.

A very basic human spiritual teaching.

Ignored about O God earth planet first. Owning it's created heavens first with no human.

A spiritual human hence says correctly I own no status in the God information is not lying.

It is consciously said.

When a human says you are an ape my conscious says naturally you are a liar.

I see the ape with its ape family.

No you claim once a human was an ape.

We can never be "the" ape.

No he says you were a human looking ape.

To consciousness that advice says a human present looked at an ape and said we look like it. By dead bones.

So I ask why.

Bones we dug up dead things.

Are you a human doing the looking?

Yes.

Is by your side your natural human partner?

Yes.

You say science says the bones look like a human and an ape in the same body?

Yes.

So you then tell a story why you believe the human looks like an ape.

So you do a time comparison. Yet time is just light voiding as burning gas in a vacuum,?

Yes.

So how old is science claiming apes body existence is.

To then claim how many humans back in time history were living as a human also?

After the ice age did apes and humans both live together side by side. Yet humans were two of and so were apes two of?

As a human living on God earth human argument only.

Against stories why a human once looked ape like.

Do apes ever look like humans?

No says the scientist.

So his consensus said apes by two had sex and the beast ape God having sex produced first two humans. An ape science says is our God parent.

Which would equate a higher power than what owned the ape form owned change. As we live higher in body and conscious life than apes.

Yes said science and I am researching what status that is. What caused it.

As if I have the atmospheric answer what takes a base body form into one higher form then I have God.

Why then did the bible two by two status animals plus the human quote man woman human were given dominion over all creatures for?

I think we have faced the human scientist lying before by human documented status men who theory about nothing.

And irradiated us instead. Whilst trying to convert us into the lower ape DNA life body type. Status one type higher changed the ape DNA.

As one status a man and woman came from one place. Theories.

Yet even animals owned two of for two of continuance. Which is not one condition.

I think it's why the bible was written proof human men in science irradiated life. So two starts trying to be expressed as just one human as the first warning signs.

As he applies all experiments researching for a God.

As a spiritual human I can quote the one place we came from is the same for all bio life. Eternal. And each two already owned their spirit living body.

Science finds that answer ludicrous.

Their one they claim is for scientific status only. I want it for machine conditions.

So when you see him applying his research not for bio existence supposed natural history it is why humans said don't let him destroy life by machines. As we are not ignorant.

 

[alypius]

"Billions" is excessive". Tens of millions would be more reasonable.

Is there evidence that the earth was formed tens of millions of years ago?

 

[rational experiences]

No status age. Evidence of a O mass burning consuming is a sun.

O earth stopped consuming then cooled so you don't own any advice from a consuming body to a hot non consuming body to it then becoming stone.

As cooling is part of why stone exists.

If a human is intelligent by human assessment. The human would quote I cannot discuss my human presence until I am said human. Owning the human conditions to express human consciousness.

So science says something beyond space and time is conscious taught me. Conscious has to exist first.

For him to believe he can count from the beginning to his own presence.

Counting just using numbers first.

So if he says earth is say one billion years old. I am one billion and say forty years old.

And be lying. As he is not the planet.

Then position one says earth is one billion counts away from not anywhere near any beginning.

Counting.

If you quote energy created energy you are just a human scientist who converted a higher energy mass into a lower energy mass.

As science the human forgets to include self presence in any inferred thesis.

The science mentality stated by their using theory how to destroy natural form then encoded his owned mind status.

Why a book was written about the human theist who said he was God but was just a human man who owns the destroyer mentality. From nothing.

As the sun supports earths alight heavens it is now nothing like the size it once was when earth was once converted.

As human science copied the sun attack of earth concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there evidence that the earth was formed tens of millions of years ago?

Yes. Lots of evidence.

Scientific evidence is the sort of evidence one uses for scientific discussions. It is well defined because scientists know that we are all to human at times and let our own personal biases affect what we accept. It also works extremely well. We could not be communicating right now without it.

If you understood the concept you could not deny the evidence. You would also realize that creationists have no scientific evidence for their beliefs.

 

[rational experiences]

Yes. Lots of evidence.

Scientific evidence is the sort of evidence one uses for scientific discussions. It is well defined because scientists know that we are all to human at times and let our own personal biases affect what we accept. It also works extremely well. We could not be communicating right now without it.

If you understood the concept you could not deny the evidence. You would also realize that creationists have no scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Science today using machines.

Applies feedback from machine to machine. Old data first science. Once.
New data constant of science. Constant change more and more radiation released everyday.

Mind contact mind interference men with machines. Instead of machine use machine theory of I will contact the mind.

Same program...now I will attack.

Two themes applied says machine contact is first. A human not the machine ignored.

Satellite.
Haarp.
Computer.

Says radio waves normally transmit by machine to machine.

I want UFO machine. Actually.

Human not either machine.

Human however designer builder controller of applied method. I want.

Says we know we watch cause it everyday the AI effect. Reason the man scientist designer DNA is being destroyed.

Stephen Hawking told you. Was healthy began to die.

Their answer. You caused it and control it.

Collider. Machine built from earths matter which a human is not.

You control machine. However it reacts as inside machine only with what you physically put inside of machine as humans. From earth also.

You don't know you haven't stopped experimenting.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

See, below. You disagree with a wiki opinion from an evolutionist.`

I disagree with the implication of the first 3 words, yes.

So whose opinion is correct - the wiki guy or TagliatelliMonster (moving goal post).

Well, since I disagree with what it says, obviously I consider myself to be correct.
And it sounds like you don't know what "moving the goal post" means. You're not using it correctly.

So what is the OoL studies classified as - quantum physics?

I've already told you several times: Abiogenesis.

A scientist that studies evolution, doesn't do abiogenesis research.

It is amazing! All you have quoted are conjectures and dress them up as facts. Can you not tell the difference? Fact, species A is difference from species B. Conjecture, species C was separated by river and became A and B. Do you see a difference?

You missed the step where all the evidence is gathered and studied and then leads to the conclusion that A and B share ancestry. Off course, when you ignore that little step, then it looks as if the conclusion is invented from thin air.

But off course it isn't.

You just did. Evolution is responsible for all variations except at the very beginning which could be supernatural or not???.

Evolution explains how you can get from a single population to bazibillions of species.
Evolution does not explain how the first population comes about.
Evolution deals with the process that existing life is subject to.
Evolution does not deal with how first life (ie, the first replicating organic thing) came about.
It only addresses that which happened to it after it came about.

I don't know how many times it needs to be stated before it will sink in.

Now you say, evolution has scope?

Every theory has scope.

Which is it?

The scope of evolution theory is the origin of species.
How life changes over time. The processes that drive and regulate that change.

All your statements are self-serving - all when unchallenged, scoped when asked to justify. Absurd.

lol

 

[PureX]

Today must be national "I don't know anything about biology or evolution, but I am going to post pretending to be an expert" day.

This is U.S.A.! Every day is "the wisdom of ignorance" day.

 

[tas8831]

I believe God created the earth. I don’t believe it was formed over billions of years despite the evidence. I’ve always thought most believers rejected the theory of evolution but I’ve come to learn many accept it. If you fall into this group feel free to share how you got there. Personally I didn’t really give the TOE much thought growing up and only rejected it outright about 13 years ago when I had a spiritual awakening.

Good for you.
Next.

 

[tas8831]

This is U.S.A.! Every day is "the wisdom of ignorance" day.

Especially on this forum.

 

[Polymath257]

Why can’t you answer my questions about mammals? Have you never challenged a scientists motives before? Ever questioned how and why they make the decisions they do?

It appears to me that you simply accept scientists’ methods and decisions without question. If a scientist chooses certain words with which to label categories and then writes the definitions for those words, you readily accept it as being correct. If a scientist says human beings are mammals, apes, and animals, you readily accept it as facts and truth, no questions asked. Based on your previous responses, you want other people to have this same acceptance without question.

Well, shall we see how we can classify things?

1) Are you made of complex cells with internal organelles? If so, you are a eucaryote.

The alternatives are to be a procaryote or to be an archaebacterium. Both of those are single celled.

2) Do your cells have membranes made of lipids rather than walls made from glucosides and are they surrounded by an extracellular matrix composed of collagen and glycoproteins? Then you are an Animal.

Alternatives here include Plants and Fungi.

3) During embryo development, does the blastopore (the first opening) become the anus? Then you are a Deuterostome.

The alternative here is to be a Protosome, like insects, for example.

4) Do you have a head, backbone, brain, red blood cells, and kidneys? Then you are a Vertebrate.

There are a large number of types of invertebrates.

5) Are air-breathing, have hair, three ear bones, sweat glands, the ability to regulate internal temperature and specialized teeth? Then you are a Mammal.

Alternatives are to be various types of Fish, Amphibians, or Reptiles (there are many different classes of Fish, by the way).

6) Do you lack an epi-pubic bone and do females like you have a uterus which produces a placenta during pregnancy? Then you are a placental Mammal.

Again, alternatives are the Marsupials


Now, these seem like definitions that are based on easily tested characteristics of the specimens involved.

I can choose words, write definitions, and classify, too. Due to my observations, I don’t accept any scientist’s decision to classify human beings as animals, mammals, or apes. Human beings are in a class of their own.

Except that by reasonable classification schemes like above, we are not in a class of our own. We are squarely in the category of Placental mammals.

The average human being could write a list of hundreds of characteristics that make us different from all other animals. A few of the obvious are: sophisticated brains, standing upright, language/spoken word, see colors, families, mating, learning capabilities, talents, human bones, no fur or feathers to keep warm, etc. I could go on and on.

Yes, and those are relevant for the later aspects of classification. Sophisticated brains happen in other animals, but are not relevant for most of the classification tree. Standing upright is a relatively minor variation. Our bones reflect that change. But you do get a few things wrong.

Other animals see colors, some see much more than we do. For example, we only have three types of color receptors while ducks have seven. A duck can see more variety of color than a human.

Other placental mammals have families and raise their young for extended periods of time. And yes, we do have hair. That is one of the characteristics of mammal.

I can also go on and on.