The Creationist Lie That Just Wont Die

[Dan From Smithville]

If you are referring to a bunch of molecules getting together and suddenly forming a man, I would agree. However, what WAS actually said was...

Note the word "evolution". Also note I, and presumably WAS, are using the 2nd definition:

2.

the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
​

This shouldn't be confused with "The Theory of Evolution" with a capital "E".

​

Molecules to man evolution is an assumption I have made for many years. If you have a better concept for the origins of prokaryotes or man, I'd like to hear them.

This all seems to have started when I responded to a creationist that was incorrectly using the term molecules to man conflating the origin of life with the evolution of life.

Christine made this comment that I agree with. "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming across all involved sciences".

The poster Was made this comment in response. "I'm not aware of any "overwhelming" evidence for molecule to man evolution".

Not only did he conflate the two concepts, he responded as if Christine had made that comment originally as if it were her own. It is not what she stated.

You seem to be manufacturing a controversy, because for some reason, correcting this creationist conflicts with your personal assumptions even though it was accurate to correct the cretionists conflated statement.

Are you trying to argue that biological evolution was occurring prior to the first living reproducing organisms? Do you have some reason to support the evolution of life happening prior to the origin of life? I am open to review your evidence.

I have not once made a claim that evolution does not have more than one meaning. I have not conflated the origin of life with the evolution of life.

It may bend your personal sensibilities, but that is not a qualification for me to think that the two concepts should be combined. We do not even know the origin of life.

The theory of evolution is often described by creationists as simply evolution, since they do not seem to make any distinctions between process and theory.

If you are unsatisfied with my position, you are going to either have to live with that dissatisfaction or come to grips with the fact that I have not conflated the two concepts nor am I wrong about correcting a creationist for making an incorrect statement.

You have made a mountain out of--not even a mole hill.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
   synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
   "early ecologists were not interested in evolution"
2. 2.
   the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
   "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
   synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding; More

I have repeatedly stated that when using the phrase molecule to man evolution, I was using definition #2. Do you see anything in that definition referring to "biology"? Biology refers to living organisms. We would both agree that molecules are not living organisms. WAS used the phrase "molecule to man evolution" and I picked up on that. Usually, I refer to it as atoms to man evolution. In either case, the word "evolution" is shown as the 2nd definition which has no biological aspect.

Synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding




I am not doing anything of the sort. I am using a word that has two separate and distinct definitions and I refuse to let the Creos conflate the two. I am correcting you when you attempt to conflate the two.

I also do not let them conflate the two separate and distinct definitions of words like "belief", "believe" or "faith".

The other question that came to mind here regards the identity of Was. It was his post and his statement I directed my response to. Yet, you act as if I directed it specifically to you. I cannot recall whether or not you have used the term evolution in a broad sense by describing evolution as 'molecules to man'. That poster did. You are not claiming that you were posting as Was are you? I have to ask. Your responses seem over the top as if you were personally offended by my post to a creationist.

You have not established that I conflated anything. Since I did not. It will be up to you to show that I did. Good luck with that.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know that I agree. Dead if left without DNA, sure. But the fact that they were revivable simply with new DNA added seems more like a mothballed dormancy to me.

I'll try an analogy, which won't be perfect, because no analogy is, but let's liken a cell to a complex machine, say a car, with many separate components that all work together to achieve various tasks. In this analogy, the DNA of the cell is like the driver of a car. Once the driver turns off the ignition and gets out, the car isn't metabolising, none of the subsystems of the car are doing anything, but they're all still sitting there perfectly viable and ready to do their thing, just waiting for the next command from the next driver that comes along.

OK, but would we say the car is running in the mean time? No.

The cell was not running: it was dead.

Being 'perfectly viable', for a protein, simply means being intact.

I don't know if replacing a cell's DNA really counts as "reviving" a "dead" cell. It seems more like switching drivers of cars, whereas "reviving" a "dead" car to me would involve repairing some critical failure to a critical component that rendered the whole thing unviable. IMHO.

To change your analogy a bit. Instead of thinking of the driver as the same as the DNA, think of the DNA like the engine, or maybe the electrical distributor. If we take out the engine of the car or the distributor, the car is dead. If we replace it, the car is revived.

I acknowledge that part of the problem here is that macroscopic common idiom doesn't really lend itself to accurate microscopic science, but I'm just trying to be clear about exactly what we're talking about.

And part of this *is* that line between 'being alive' and 'not being alive'. If there is no metabolism and no DNA, is that cell alive?

The only case I can think of is a red blood cell, which does not have a nucleus, but does still have metabolism. The situation where the DNA was replaced is definitely beyond this, though.

Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that it is possible for scientists to one day reanimate unarguably dead, structurally impaired cells, and construct artificial cellular life from completely artificially derived non biological elements. I also happily acknowledge that switching DNA between cells is an astonishing achievement, but let's be clear about exactly what we're talking about here.

Understood. And I think a bit part of this is that we are getting close enough to the line that specific definitions become crucial.

 

[ecco]

So when I correct a creationist who is conflating the two concepts, I am conflating the two concepts. That is as clear a mud.

When you correct a creationist who is conflating the two concepts you are showing him that you understand that some words in the English language have two different meanings. That is kinda the opposite of conflating.

I have not conflated the two concepts. To say so is a lie.

You objected to WAS's phrase "molecule to man evolution". You accused me of being a Creationist in disguise when I defended the usage of the phrase "molecule to man evolution".

The reason was that you refused to see the "evolution" has two different and distinct definitions.

When I write that "humans are the result of an evolutionary process that begins before atoms", you incorrectly think I am saying "humans are the result of a process called the Theory of Evolution and that begins before atoms".

I'll say again, Fundies also like to conflate the multiple definitions that words like "faith" and "belief" have. My faith that the plane that I'm will make it from point A to point B is not the same as the faith Fundies have in the "facts" of Genesis.

 

[ecco]

You do not seem open to discussion. It sounds more like you have concluded that your way is the only way and any deviation from that is incorrect,

It's not my way.

I did not create the word "evolution". I did not give two different and distinct definitions to the word. I did not originate the phrase "Theory of Evolution".

even when the deviation is to clarify the creationist penchant for conflating evolution with the origin of life.

If you cannot correct fundies when they misuse words like faith, belief, and evolution, that is not my problem.
If you don't want to correct fundies when they misuse words like faith, belief, and evolution, that is not my problem.

It is all very confusing.

What's confusing to me is that you would accept fundies, or anyone, defining words as they choose.

All I see is that you are arguing that I am both correcting those that conflate the origin and the evolution of life and that I am somehow conflating those two at the same time. It makes no sense.

Beyond what I've repeatedly posted, I can't think of any other way to discuss it.

If you want to look at the big picture and use evolution in the broad sense, I can understand that, but it does not change the context of evolution when it is used in biology...

Chemistry is not biology. If I am talking about atoms or molecules or cars I am not talking about biology.

You're OK with saying that the shape of cars has evolved over the years, aren't you?

... and it does not connect the separate and distinct concept of the origin of life.

Would I be putting another bee in your bonnet if I stated ...

There ain't no such thing as "the origin of life" since there is no distinct line between "not life" and "life".​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When you correct a creationist who is conflating the two concepts you are showing him that you understand that some words in the English language have two different meanings. That is kinda the opposite of conflating.

When a creationist conflates the theory of evolution, biological evolution and abiogenesis--the origin of life, I am correcting them by pointing out that the two are independent concepts and not some conjoined concept. There is no need to include or mention all the possible definitions of every word used. I cannot fathom why you think this should be so. Based on the OP and Christine's prior post, are you claiming the context included both abiogenesis (molecules) and biological evolution (man)? If so, explain how that is and that my understanding of the context was wrong. Please provide me with the evidence and which hypothesis of abiogenesis has become accepted in science. It seems to me that you are conflating your opinion with established science and then calling me out for following a correct path.

You objected to WAS's phrase "molecule to man evolution".

And correctly, since it is not part of the context of biological evolution which was the point of the OP and the focus of the discussion.

You accused me of being a Creationist in disguise when I defended the usage of the phrase "molecule to man evolution".

I asked a question and speculated on the possibilities and expectations. If you are going to rewrite what I post, you may want to see if you can get my originals removed first.

Your defense is outside the context and apparently some personal point that is not followed in science.

The reason was that you refused to see the "evolution" has two different and distinct definitions.

I never did. The acknowledgement and use of other meanings was not required. No one has shown that they need be.

When I write that "humans are the result of an evolutionary process that begins before atoms", you incorrectly think I am saying "humans are the result of a process called the Theory of Evolution and that begins before atoms".

You did not write this and as such, I could not respond to it. This is entirely speculation and is an entirely different context. What I would think should probably be left up to me to articulate, but you have some very creationist tendancies that are coming out here and doing you no service.

Since your statement is a positive statement about an origin that has not been demonstrated, it is not set in stone and amounts to the same approach taken by creationists in claiming that God did it cause they know. You are giving an opinion and not stating demonstrated facts.

I'll say again, Fundies also like to conflate the multiple definitions that words like "faith" and "belief" have. My faith that the plane that I'm will make it from point A to point B is not the same as the faith Fundies have in the "facts" of Genesis.

I know they do, but that conflation is not part of the context of this thread.

I am still not seeing how you are not making a mountain out of a mole hill by asserting that your opinion about human evolution, extending back to before the formation of atoms is an established fact and then using that opinion as the basis for attacking my proper defense against the aforementioned conflation by a creationist.

Molecules to man is not evolution in the context of this thread. It may be a concept you use personally, but you were not who I was addressing and that person made no stipulation that correlates with your stipulation. You refuse to accept that and have turned this into a pissing contest of no value except to make us both look foolish.

I believe I have established and defended my position and I am done with this line of discussion. You may do as you please.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not my way.

I did not create the word "evolution". I did not give two different and distinct definitions to the word. I did not originate the phrase "Theory of Evolution".


If you cannot correct fundies when they misuse words like faith, belief, and evolution, that is not my problem.
If you don't want to correct fundies when they misuse words like faith, belief, and evolution, that is not my problem.


What's confusing to me is that you would accept fundies, or anyone, defining words as they choose.



Beyond what I've repeatedly posted, I can't think of any other way to discuss it.



Chemistry is not biology. If I am talking about atoms or molecules or cars I am not talking about biology.

You're OK with saying that the shape of cars has evolved over the years, aren't you?



Would I be putting another bee in your bonnet if I stated ...

There ain't no such thing as "the origin of life" since there is no distinct line between "not life" and "life".​

I know that it must hurt you that I am right, but walk it off.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you are referring to a bunch of molecules getting together and suddenly forming a man, I would agree. However, what WAS actually said was...

Since I am open to the possibility that I may be in error, I thought I would review this one more time to see if there were glaring errors here or if some of your accusations were correct.

I do not know of any theory that postulates that humans or any other organism would spring suddenly into existence. That would be the rejected belief of spontaneous generation. Not a topic of the post from Was that I responded to. So I concur and accept your agreement with that.

I note a spelling error I made.

Note the word "evolution". Also note I, and presumably WAS, are using the 2nd definition:

2.

the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.​

I know what Was actually said and I know the context of the OP and the previous post for which his response was formulated. Your presumption is not evidence that was the definition that Was was using. I noted it as another definition. I know that I specifically said 'theory of evolution' in my response.

Dan From Smithville said: ↑
Molecules to man is not an assumption, statement of fact or prediction included in or made using the theory of evolution. Molecules to man is made up and not something claimed in science.
​

The last line may have been somewhat ambiguous on its own, but it was in the context of my comment about the theory of evolution. I could have left it out or explained it better, but you never mention that and it hardly seems to be a worthy target considering the effort you have expended on this.

What was definition number 1 for evolution? Was that your spontaneous generation definition? Do you really consider that a definition of evolution?

This shouldn't be confused with "The Theory of Evolution" with a capital "E".

As I previously noted, creationist rarely distinguish between the theory of evolution and the process of evolution. They often refer to both as simply 'evolution'. Do you think Was is a creationist? A scientist? A well-informed supporter of the science of living things and their evolution?

​

Molecules to man evolution is an assumption I have made for many years. If you have a better concept for the origins of prokaryotes or man, I'd like to hear them.

It is not the only assumption you make. You assume that I am against abiogenesis. Probably because you make assumptions about me without bothering to ask or find out. Your assumption is not an established fact. I do not know how life got here, but my odds on favorite, based on evidence and reason, is abiogenesis. You seem to be trying to make a case that I am against the possibility of abiogenesis. How you managed to make that leap, I am uncertain, but my use of molecules to man seems to have been your trigger.

You make other assumptions and accusations about me that go beyond the scope of anything I posted. You assume that I would not be aware that speciation, any biological evolution or the change from non-life to life is on a continuum. I have not really said, so your views must be assumption. If you had asked, I would have told you something that is likely very much what appears to be your view.

I am at a loss as to why you turned this the way you did. I am open to the possibility that I made errors, but I can find no error that would warrant the labor you poured into this or the false accusations that flowed with that labor.

If you have issues with my personal beliefs, I do not know why that would be, since I do not use them to make statements about issues of science.

I am sorry if this turned into something personal for you. I wish you would have been clearer, it would have saved us both a lot of time, trouble and looking foolish. No one is immune to emotionalizing their position, not even those usually positioned on the side of logic, reason and evidence. Maybe, as it appears, my use of 'molecules to man' set you off, but I do not see a need to continue this line any further. I have done my due diligence and reviewed my work. Aside from a few minor changes that do not alter my message, I would not alter the content of anything I wrote to Was and feel that it represents a view based in science to a creationist whose view has all the appearance of a belief basis. I would not alter anything I wrote to you, except maybe to be a bit more professional about it and not get sucked into someone else's issues.

 

[ecco]

...

Are you trying to argue that biological evolution was occurring prior to the first living reproducing organisms?

If you are asking that in response to anything you think I posted, you seriously need to re-read my comments. I have stated several times the difference between chemistry and biology.

I have not once made a claim that evolution does not have more than one meaning. I have not conflated the origin of life with the evolution of life.

I never said you did either of those two things.

It may bend your personal sensibilities, but that is not a qualification for me to think that the two concepts should be combined. We do not even know the origin of life.

What two concepts? The "origin of life" and ToE?

I'm pretty sure I have already said hat it is impossible to know the origin of life since there is no hard line between non-life and life.

The theory of evolution is often described by creationists as simply evolution, since they do not seem to make any distinctions between process and theory.

When fundies make claims from a point of ignorance or an attempt to bend the truth, I point it out.

If you are unsatisfied with my position, you are going to either have to live with that dissatisfaction or come to grips ...

It's not for me to be disappointed in you or proud of you. I really don't care.

...with the fact that I have not conflated the two concepts nor am I wrong about correcting a creationist for making an incorrect statement.

We seem to have a difference of opinion of what you have and have not conflated.

You have made a mountain out of--not even a mole hill.

I made a comment. You challenged that comment. Also, you made some unwarranted accusations about me personally. Perhaps you need to review who said what and when it was said.

 

[ecco]

Following is a recap of of the early posts regarding "molecules to man". All emphases in the following quotes mine and not in the original.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming across all involved sciences.

I'm not aware of any "overwhelming" evidence for molecules to man evolution.

Note the not too subtle shift - typical fundie tactic.

In fact we are likely to never know the exact path of molecules to life because there appears to be more than one possible path and there is no record of that path.

You have no species without first there being species.... Regardless of how hard you try to avoid it, the beginning of life is paramount to the ToE..... The very first species would be the "origin" of species. After that it would not deal with origins, but change of one existing species into another....

You used the expression "the beginning of life". This is a concept that is important only to theists and creos.

It is not a valid question to scientists. Scientists understand that there is a steady progression from atoms to molecules to protein chains to cells.

Your whole "beginning of life" schtick is completely meaningless to science and scientists.

As a lawyer with 'hard science' studies under his belt, please tell us all in which hard science class you learned the phrase "molecules to man evolution". One of your lawyer classes, maybe?

Post #119 posted 3/31 in response to WAS's post #14 posted 3/5 (quoted above)

Molecules to man is not an assumption, statement of fact or prediction included in or made using the theory of evolution. Molecules to man is made up and not something claimed in science.

Before you and tas8831 made those comment, both Subduction zone and I had made contrary statements.

If you are referring to a bunch of molecules getting together and suddenly forming a man, I would agree. However, what WAS actually said was...

"evidence for molecules to man evolution"​

Note the word "evolution". Also, note I, and presumably WAS, are using the 2nd definition:
2. the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
This shouldn't be confused with "The Theory of Evolution" with a capital "E".

I intentionally wrote "and presumably WAS" to get his reaction. But by that time he had already bailed.

Molecules to man evolution is an assumption I have made for many years. If you have a better concept for the origins of prokaryotes or man, I'd like to hear them.

----------------------------------
4/1

The other question that came to mind here regards the identity of Was. It was his post and his statement I directed my response to. Yet, you act as if I directed it specifically to you. I cannot recall whether or not you have used the term evolution in a broad sense by describing evolution as 'molecules to man'.

Since you couldn't recall, I took the time to go back and pull the pertinent quotes.
You will note that you were, in fact, a latecomer to the party.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Following is a recap of of the early posts regarding "molecules to man". All emphases in the following quotes mine and not in the original.




Note the not too subtle shift - typical fundie tactic.









Post #119 posted 3/31 in response to WAS's post #14 posted 3/5 (quoted above)


Before you and tas8831 made those comment, both Subduction zone and I had made contrary statements.


I intentionally wrote "and presumably WAS" to get his reaction. But by that time he had already bailed.



----------------------------------
4/1


Since you couldn't recall, I took the time to go back and pull the pertinent quotes.
You will note that you were, in fact, a latecomer to the party.

I responded to one party independent of all the other posts. I am not sure what value my being late to the thread, responding in the fashion I did or not having read other posts does to explain the situation that has arisen here. But I am satisfied that this is done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

...

If you are asking that in response to anything you think I posted, you seriously need to re-read my comments. I have stated several times the difference between chemistry and biology.




I never said you did either of those two things.



What two concepts? The "origin of life" and ToE?

I'm pretty sure I have already said hat it is impossible to know the origin of life since there is no hard line between non-life and life.



When fundies make claims from a point of ignorance or an attempt to bend the truth, I point it out.





It's not for me to be disappointed in you or proud of you. I really don't care.


We seem to have a difference of opinion of what you have and have not conflated.




I made a comment. You challenged that comment. Also, you made some unwarranted accusations about me personally. Perhaps you need to review who said what and when it was said.

You challenged my comment first and without the clarity you seem to recall you had.

I asked some questions that crept into my mind from the rather bizarre and often baseless direction you took this line along. You can call them accusations if you want. I am not going to bother to bring out dictionary definitions of accusation to keep this rolling for no reason.

I think we should both end this. It is not healthy.

 

[tas8831]

Hello ChristineM. I'm a lawyer with a physics major, I'm not a biology major.

Clearly. So which Pysics did you take wherein the phrase "molecules to man evolution" was uttered by another non-biologist?

That said, my studies ranged fairly broadly across the hard sciences.

Biology majors take hard science courses, too. A broader array, I suspect, than the typical physics major.

I'm not aware of any "overwhelming" evidence for molecule to man evolution.

Gee, golly - really? A physics major and lawyer not acquainted with evolutionary biology (even as idiotically misrepresented by that creationist mantra)?

What is the overwhelming evidence that DNA/RNA copying errors in brainless sea sponges or nearly brainless comb jellies and their descendants (along with damage to DNA from cosmic rays, etc.) resulted in the conscious human mind?

Whoa, whoa - bay steps, champ... Baby steps.

But you do seem convinced that the Yahweh story has merit, wherein an ancient middle eastern tribal deity turned out to be the one TRUE God, Who had decided for no apparent reason to one day create the universe and all in it in 6 24 hour days, to include the creation f a fully formed adult human male from dust of the ground.

So, um, remind me again why you are skeptical of evolution?

Unless you can perhaps provide some actual evidence for the Yahweh creation tale - maybe a demonstration of how Yahweh-magic transformed silicate into sphyngomyelin, maybe?

I mean come on, all that 'hard science' background of yours, surely you saw clear demonstrations of this sort of process?

As for abiogenesis--it cannot be truly seperated from molecule to man evolution.

And yet, it is.

Well, in reality, "molecule to man" evolution is a creationist fantasy. You, Mr. HardScienceLawyerCreationist, the Theory of Evolution is about the 'creation' of new species. NOT the origin of life.

Both form necessary components of the naturalistic origins paradigm. Whether someone believes life arose spontaneously from non-life on earth or whether one believes in some form of panspermia, abiogenesis is the unavoidable necessity when working within a naturalistic origins paradigm. Panspermia is just an attempted escape mechanism from the difficulties of abiogenesis via infinite regression. However, it doesn't remove the abiogenesis dilemma. Extraterrestrial life itself must have originally arisen spontaneously from non-life.

Great insights.

I know that the silly creation myth of Genesis is the foundation for many modern cults, but you are just projecting. Sorry.