-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How much do we know. Part 2
- Thread starter leov
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What makes you think that he is a "secular thinker"? He claims to be a "secular Jew", but he uses the same failed and dishonest arguments against evolution that creationists tend to use.
Heyo
Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Ow, is this guy still at it?
It seems that he's still repeating the same BS arguments as whenI first heared him talk some 20 years ago.
They were already PRATTs then, they are still PRATTs now - even if some of them have been repackaged with an extra camouflage layer of sciency-sounding word salad.
leov
Well-Known Member
anything changed in evolution theory in the last 20 years?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Well, biologists all over the world continue doing research and gathering more knowledge about all kinds of things. There's also this new field called Evolutionary Medicine, which is some kind of new approach to medical science...
But you seem to have missed the point.
That point being that the arguments he is still spewing today, were already pratt's 20 years ago (pratt: Point Refuted A Thousands Times).
It means that the arguments he's been repeating for these last 20 years, have already been refuted more then 20 years ago.
In other words: he's very much insisting on getting it wrong.
leov
Well-Known Member
evolution is a part of this reality, but it cannot account for the moment of the beginning.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why would it?
It's not a theory of beginnings. It's a theory of development. About the process that existing life is subject to.
leov
Well-Known Member
how can you separate them? how would you know its roots?Why would it?
It's not a theory of beginnings. It's a theory of development. About the process that existing life is subject to.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Nearly daily. Read it here: Evolution News
The smallest monkey fossil is interesting:
"Some 18 million years ago, a tiny monkey weighing little more than a baseball lived in the Amazon rain forest, the smallest fossil monkey known worldwide."
So also is the interbreeding with archaic humans and Homo sapiens in Asia:
"An analysis of a 160,000-year-old archaic human molar fossil discovered in China offers the first morphological evidence of interbreeding between archaic humans and Homo sapiens in Asia."
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Because they are 2 different things.
You don't have to.
I don't need to know how matter came into existance to study the development of rocks after they form from molten lava. In fact, I don't even need to know about the inner workings of volcano's to study such.
Life exists and we can study it.
Having said that: scope, it kind of matters. The scope of evolution is explaining diversity of biological entities. Why isn't there just one species? Why are there many and how do they develop?
Those are the questions that evolution answers.
Where does life come from? => completely different question. In fact, it's a different scientific field altogether.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Evolution is based upon that very first precursor organism existing. It is based upon chemical combinations EVOLVING into that precursor organism.Why would it?
It's not a theory of beginnings. It's a theory of development. About the process that existing life is subject to.
Therefore abiogenesis is critical to the atheist form of evolution.
The arbitrary separation of abiogenesis from the theory is critical because abiogenesis remains a fairy tale.
leov
Well-Known Member
I do not see it this way, apparently I am not only one. I see theory of evolution (the way it presented) as a greater miracle than any in the Bible. Only limited pieces make sense.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No. It is based upon the processes that existing life is subject to.
It doesn't matter to evolution if there was one universal common ancestor, or if there were several populations of such. It's the collected data that suggests there being a universal common ancestor - it's not actually part of the core explanatory model, which deals primarily with "descend with modifcation followed by natural selection" and the processes that this entails.
Only things that already exist can evolve.
Origins aren't a matter of evolving. They are matter of originating.
"atheist" form of evolution? What's that?
And no.... If tomorrow we found out that a god divinely seeded life on this planet, evolution theory would remain completely unchanged.
It doesn't matter HOW life came about in context of what happened to it once it existed.
A natural process, gods, aliens,... all the same.
The only thing one could say is that the theory of evolution makes a prediction about "first life". And that prediction is that first life was fairly simple / primitive, which got increasingly more complex through the effects of the evolutionary process.
But it makes no mention whatsoever about the process that made life originate. It's completely out of scope and even somewhat irrelevant.
As explained, not arbitrary at all. It's simply a different process. Evolution theory deals with the process of how existing life develops over time. It does not deal with the process of how life comes to be where no life existed previously.
I don't understand what you find so hard about that....
Abiogenesis is a fact. At one point there was no life and then there was life.
What abiogensis research try to find out, is how abiogenesis occured.
Creationists also believe in an abiogenesis event. They believe that their god created life - that would be the act of abiogenesis.
As for the scientific explanation, yes there is none at the moment. There are some hypothesis, one more detailed then the other, some more promising then the other, but nothing conclusive.
I don't see that as a problem.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You're just wrong.
Yes, other people are wrong also. Curiously, those who also wrongly see it like you do, almost always seem to be evolution science deniers with a religious agenda.
Really?
What's so miraculous about mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat?
Last edited:
leov
Well-Known Member
Explain appearance of the first DNA helix or explain irreducible complexity..
No, abiogenesis is testable.
Fairy tales, like creationism, are "nicht einmal falsch", as they say.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sure, scientific theories are often being continually refined. Why ask?