Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by proof? Something is either refuted or it is not.

OK, perhaps I misunderstood the exact meaning of refute. According to one dictionary, refute means: "the act of saying or proving that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is wrong or false:" So, it seems in some cases (maybe I'm wrong), the act of saying that something is wrong is refutation. So if a person says something, and another says, "You're wrong," that is refutation. But it can obviously go deeper than that. With reasons why the opponent thinks the other is wrong, I suppose.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don’t call anything “intelligent design,” and I know very little about what other people mean by it. In my way of thinking, however evolution works, it’s designed by the God of Abraham to work that way.

I'm trying to learn what other people think about it. Would you say that God is an intelligent designer?

 

[YoursTrue]

What do you mean by proof? Something is either refuted or it is not.

A person can say anything in refutation, perhaps a simple, "No, it isn't true," or providing some sort of proof that the initial statement is wrong. In any case, the refutation itself doesn't have to be true, does it?

 

[YoursTrue]

First off most of the scientists that signed that were scientists in other fields than biology or paleontology. In other words they really did not know what they were talking about. Very very few biologists and paleontologists signed that and most of them accepted the theory of evolution. They were not dissenters. The wording of the petition means that people were not necessarily dissenters if they signed it. That alone makes it worthless.

And then when some of the signers found that those who were organizing the petition were dishonest and planned to misrepresent their signatures they asked them to be taken off. The Discovery Institute refused. That makes it even more worthless.

You are relying on dishonest people.

What did the dissenting signers originally agree to? Granted they may not have liked the way the concept of their statement was eventually used for, and so they wanted their signatures off. And I think their desire to have their signatures removed should have been honored. But -- what did they agree to at first?

 

[Jim]

So--my question to believers in evolution is: what is the first living matter that just happened to come about? Anyone know?

I’m not a “believer in evolution,” but I have no objection to evolution theory, including common ancestry, being taught in public schools, and I disagree with anything being taught in opposition to it. I don’t think of it as being “true.” I think of it as being useful and widely used, for some beneficial purposes. I think that some day there will be more academic research from a separate ancestry point of view, and eventually that will work its way into the textbooks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

jk as werjle

So--my question to believers in evolution is: what is the first living matter that just happened to come about? Anyone know?

No, and we may never know. The only evidence we have for first life is the DNA that all life is based upon.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, perhaps I misunderstood the exact meaning of refute. According to one dictionary, refute means: "the act of saying or proving that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is wrong or false:" So, it seems in some cases (maybe I'm wrong), the act of saying that something is wrong is refutation. So if a person says something, and another says, "You're wrong," that is refutation. But it can obviously go deeper than that. With reasons why the opponent thinks the other is wrong, I suppose.

In scientific parlance, refute means to falsify a statement that leads to rejecting the statement. This is based on evidence, but the logic behind the statement can also lead to its being refuted. If it is faulty logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What did the dissenting signers originally agree to? Granted they may not have liked the way the concept of Discovery Institute statement was used, and so they wanted their signatures off. And I think their desire to have their signatures removed should have been honored. But -- what did they agree to at first?

Did you not read the original document? First off they said that they had doubts. Properly speaking all concepts should be doubted in the sciences. Second the original document reference "Darwinism". Darwinism is a term that creationists use and do not understand. Darwinism would be Darwin's original beliefs and he had some errors in his work. Not fatal ones, but errors nonetheless. Darwin knew nothing of genetics, it was not an active science at the time, he thought that evolution arose from "mixing". Though that played a role a more thorough explanation arises when genetics is added to evolution. So they were not even wrong when they said "Darwinism" could not fully explain the variety of life that we see. But the theory of evolution has no problem. So it was dishonest of the people that organized that petition to call it a "dissent on evolution". It clear was not and that was their fault.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

A person can say anything in refutation, perhaps a simple, "No, it isn't true," or providing some sort of proof that the initial statement is wrong. In any case, the refutation itself doesn't have to be true, does it?

The refutation has to be logical, and demonstrate and explain, with evidence, that the original proposition is falsified by the new evidence. Otherwise, the refutation can be rejected with an explanation of why. Simply asserting a proposition is false has no value.

 

[Jim]

I'm trying to learn what other people think about it. Would you say that God is an intelligent designer?

No. I wouldn’t say that, because I’ve never seen Him being called that in my scriptures. I’ve seen Him called “Fashioner,” “Creator,” “All-Knowing,” but never “Intelligent Designer.” Just now I searched in a list of 331 names of God, and didn’t find “Intelligent” or “Designer.”

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did you not read the original document? First off they said that they had doubts. Properly speaking all concepts should be doubted in the sciences. Second the original document reference "Darwinism". Darwinism is a term that creationists use and do not understand. Darwinism would be Darwin's original beliefs and he had some errors in his work. Not fatal ones, but errors nonetheless. Darwin knew nothing of genetics, it was not an active science at the time, he thought that evolution arose from "mixing". Though that played a role a more thorough explanation arises when genetics is added to evolution. So they were not even wrong when they said "Darwinism" could not fully explain the variety of life that we see. But the theory of evolution has no problem. So it was dishonest of the people that organized that petition to call it a "dissent on evolution". It clear was not and that was their fault.

The Disco Institute got a small number of scientists to assert they were skeptical of a theory that was revised and replaced 60 years after Darwin passed away. A theory that was in effect no longer valid as it was proposed. Given that the Disco Institute guys should have been well aware of this, the only reasonable conclusion is intentional fraud.

 

[Jim]

I'm trying to learn what other people think about it. Would you say that God is an intelligent designer?

I think of my God as having a will and purposes. Things happen by His will, for His purposes. If you want to call that “intelligent design, feel free, but that isn’t what I call it.

 

[Jim]

Given that the Disco Institute guys should have been well aware of this, the only reasonable conclusion is intentional fraud.

Be careful what you say around here. Some thought police might start dogging you around, demanding that you Substantiate Or Retract.

 

[YoursTrue]

I’m not a “believer in evolution,” but I have no objection to evolution theory, including common ancestry, being taught in public schools, and I disagree with anything being taught in opposition to it. I don’t think of it as being “true.” I think of it as being useful and widely used, for some beneficial purposes. I think that some day there will be more academic research from a separate ancestry point of view, and eventually that will work its way into the textbooks.

You disagree with anything taught in opposition to the theory of evolution? Does that mean that you think/believe evolution is true?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So--my question to believers in evolution is: what is the first living matter that just happened to come about? Anyone know?

I am a believer in the Christian God. I am trained in science and I accept the theory of evolution. I do not believe in it in the same way as I believe in God. I accept that the theory of evolution is based on logic and evidence, but remains contingent on being falsified by new data. My belief in God does not have that requirement. It cannot. That belief is based on faith.

The first living thing is unknown and may remain unknown. The theory of evolution is not dependent on knowing the original life. It is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory about the relationships and diversity of living things and how they change over time. All that is required is that life exist, have variation that is heritable and be subject to natural selection.

The identification of the first life may be interesting and would have value, but is unnecessary to validate the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think of my God as having a will and purposes. Things happen by His will, for His purposes. If you want to call that “intelligent design, feel free, but that isn’t what I call it.

OK, what do you call whatever 'it' is? You think that your God has a will and purposes but don't want to call him intelligent and a designer? Things happen by his will? What things? Everything, including babies born with serious illnesses, for example?

 

[Jim]

I don’t think of it as being “true.”

Does that mean that you think/believe evolution is true?

 

[YoursTrue]

I am a believer in the Christian God. I am trained in science and I accept the theory of evolution. I do not believe in it in the same way as I believe in God. I accept that the theory of evolution is based on logic and evidence, but remains contingent on being falsified by new data. My belief in God does not have that requirement. It cannot. That belief is based on faith.

The first living thing is unknown and may remain unknown. The theory of evolution is not dependent on knowing the original life. It is not a theory about the origin of life. It is a theory about the relationships and diversity of living things and how they change over time. All that is required is that life exist, have variation that is heritable and be subject to natural selection.

The identification of the first life may be interesting and would have value, but is unnecessary to validate the theory of evolution.

OK. It is my belief that the "first life" consists of 'irreducible complexity.' Yet to be seen, I suppose. It's late on the east coast of the U.S., time to give in to my nature and wind it up. Thanks for conversation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Be careful what you say around here. Some thought police might start dogging you around, demanding that you Substantiate Or Retract.

Others can have their opinions. If they can support them, then I would have to reconsider my conclusion. But considering the make up of the members of the Disco Inst. and how they flaunt the few scientists that make up their ranks, I think my conclusion will hold up. The fact that they have come clean about who they think the designer is, does not help their case either. But thanks for the heads up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You disagree with anything taught in opposition to the theory of evolution? Does that mean that you think/believe evolution is true?

The only thing that is in opposition to theory is outside of science and entirely religious. Religious opposition cannot be taught in US schools due to that pesky old Constitution.