1. 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!

Featured The watchmaker

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Disciple of Jesus, Jul 9, 2018.

Tags:
  1. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    The Phylogenetic Tree
    This tree, like all phylogenetic trees, is a hypothesis about the relationships among organisms. It illustrates the idea that all of life is related and can be divided into three major clades, often referred to as the three domains: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota.

    The tree is supported by many lines of evidence, but it is probably not flawless. Scientists constantly reevaluate hypotheses and compare them to new evidence. As scientists gather even more data, they may revise these particular hypotheses, rearranging some of the branches on the tree.
    For example, evidence discovered in the last 50 years suggests that birds are dinosaurs, which required adjustment to several "vertebrate twigs."

    [It is evident that this is not a tree that grows normally.
    It might have grown from a seed - Darwinism, and hence it's roots are evidently ideologies, imo.
    There is no solid verifiable evidence that can support a watertight argument.
    Speculations, assumptions, and inference, cannot establish fact.

    That simply is what this science is.
    It has its hypotheses, theories, etc.
    This is what we expect from science - continuous study.

    So from LUCA to the evolutionary tree assumptions are made, and the search for evidence continues.

    Since we are on this topic...
    I think it is important to mention this.
    ]


    Trees, not ladders
    Several times in the past, biologists have committed themselves to the erroneous idea that life can be organized on a ladder of lower to higher organisms. This idea lies at the heart of Aristotle's Great Chain of Being

    [This tree was removed, and replaced. Not that I am saying Aristotle's tree was accurate, but neither is this one, as it is admitted.
    However, although I mentioned a seed and roots for this tree, all of its components are artificial. The tree does not take in nutrients to grow.
    Human hands are responsible for its growth.
    ]


    Building the tree
    Like family trees, phylogenetic trees represent patterns of ancestry. However, while families have the opportunity to record their own history as it happens, evolutionary lineages do not — species in nature do not come with pieces of paper showing their family histories. Instead, biologists must reconstruct those histories by collecting and analyzing evidence, which they use to form a hypothesis about how the organisms are related — a phylogeny.

    [What exactly are patterns of ancestry?]

    Example #1
    African Pygmy groups show a distinctive pattern of phenotypic variation, including short stature, which is thought to reflect past adaptation to a tropical environment.
    ..........
    Africa is thought to be the location of origin of modern humans within the past 200,000 years and the source of our dispersion across the globe within the past 100,000 years. Africa is also a region of extreme environmental, cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic diversity, and human populations living there show the highest levels of genetic diversity in the world. Yet little is known about the genetic basis of the observed phenotypic variation in Africa or how local adaptation and demography have influenced these patterns in the recent past.
    ..........
    The term ‘Pygmy’ is applied to human populations whose adult males exhibit an average height of ∼150 cm or less, although thresholds between 140 and 160 cm have been employed. Such groups are found all over the world including Africa, Asia, and the Americas, tend to live in tropical environments, have high levels of pathogen exposure, and practice a predominantly hunting and gathering lifestyle.

    [Clearly, these are obvious adaptation or changes which take place as genes are passed on.

    Do you notice where these adaptations
    are observed? In one kind of organism. Not a gorilla an a human, but a human and a human.
    More examples...

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1309/1309.5118.pdf]

    To build a phylogenetic tree... biologists collect data about the characters of each organism they are interested in. Characters are heritable traits that can be compared across organisms, such as physical characteristics (morphology), genetic sequences, and behavioral traits.

    In order to construct the vertebrate phylogeny, we begin by examining representatives of each lineage to learn about their basic morphology, whether or not the lineage has vertebrae, a bony skeleton, four limbs, an amniotic egg, etc.

    Using shared derived characters
    Our goal is to find evidence that will help us group organisms into less and less inclusive clades. Specifically, we are interested in shared derived characters. A shared character is one that two lineages have in common, and a derived character is one that evolved in the lineage leading up to a clade and that sets members of that clade apart from other individuals.

    Shared derived characters can be used to group organisms into clades. For example, amphibians, turtles, lizards, snakes, crocodiles, birds and mammals all have, or historically had, four limbs. If you look at a modern snake you might not see obvious limbs, but fossils show that ancient snakes did have limbs, and some modern snakes actually do retain rudimentary limbs. Four limbs is a shared derived character inherited from a common ancestor that helps set apart this particular clade of vertebrates.


    However, the presence of four limbs is not useful for determining relationships within the clade, since all lineages in the clade have that character. To determine the relationships in that clade, we would need to examine other characters that vary across the lineages in the clade.

    [Don't miss the large font.]

    A snake with 4 legs - Tetrapodophis (meaning "four-footed snake" in Greek) is an extinct genus of snake from the Early Cretaceous of Brazil. It is one of the oldest snakes and the only known snake with four legs.

    Classification

    A phylogenetic analysis published alongside the original 2015 description of Tetrapodophis places it as a close relative of other early snakes such as Coniophis, Dinilysia, and Najash, but outside the crown group Serpentes, meaning that it branched off before the most recent common ancestor of all living snakes. Below is a cladogram from that analysis.
    The interpretation of Tetrapodophis amplectus as an early snake and as an animal adapted to burrowing was challenged by Caldwell et al. (2016), who considered it more likely to be a dolichosaurid squamate.

    Dolichosauridae (["long" lizard]) is a family of Late Cretaceous aquatic varanoid lizards closely related to the mosasaurs.


    Studies that propose a close relation between snakes and mosasauroids in a group dubbed Pythonomorpha demonstrate the importance of Dolichosaurus, Coniasaurus and other Late Cretaceous marine squamates in squamate phylogeny and evolutionary history. The hypothesis suggesting that snakes, mosasaurs, aigialosaurs and dolichosaurs share a common aquatic ancestor is not universally accepted and stands in stark contrast with the previously widespread hypothesis of snakes having a fossorial origin.

    [That debate can rage on until "thy kingdom come".]

    Mistaken Identity? Debate Over Ancient 4-Legged Snake Heats Up
    SALT LAKE CITY — A critter heralded as the first four-legged fossil snake on record may actually not be a snake, according to new research. Instead, the 120-million-year-old creature is likely a dolichosaurid, an extinct four-legged marine lizard with an elongated, snake-like body, a new analysis of the specimen finds.
    "Tetrapodophis doesn't show any of those features that you would expect to see in a snake," said Michael Caldwell, a professor and chair of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, who is leading the new investigation into the enigmatic fossil.

    Update: Controversial ‘four-legged snake’ may be ancient lizard instead
    Four-legged snake fossil stuns scientists—and ignites controversy
    new study challenges assumption.

    The authors argue that T. amplectus was more closely related to aquatic lizards, and that these snake-like forebears evolved their long bodies for eel-like swimming.

    [Speaking of assumptions...
    Here we are
    trying to figure out things we may never know, but we are building trees, and based on what? Assumptions.]

    Here I need to take a break. To be continued...
     
    #441 nPeace, Aug 1, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2018
  2. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,797
    Ratings:
    +13,120
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Once again your own links refute your claims @nPeace. Though you seem to be having a hard time understanding them at best.

    And yes, you did break the ninth Commandment earlier when you claimed that Dawkins speculated. By making that claim you put the burden of proof upon yourself. You do not seem to realize that conclusions based upon testable ideas that are massively supported by evidence are not speculations.

    You would be doing yourself a world of good if you learned what is and what is not evidence. There are mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution, and none that supports your beliefs. What you believe does not even rise to the point of being a speculation.
     
  3. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    [Right. So we are talking about assumptions.]

    Homologies and analogies
    Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characters — characters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that feature — so the presence of four limbs is a homology.

    [What are they looking for?
    They...
    Study the
    specific structural features of organisms.
    Study the
    behavioral traits of organisms through genetic influence - In other word tampering with their genes and then watch how they behave.
    Study the
    arrangement and function of the genes.

    What do they learn from this?
    Organisms adapt to their environment, and genes can play a role in how they behave.

    The bottom line is, they build a tree based on their inferring that behavior, features, and genes, tell a story of evolution - from their root node LUCA.

    In other words,they build a tree based on an idea that all life descended from a common ancestor... like my bread tree.
    None of these can confirm anything about a LUCA.

    I think it's about time I get off this tree. It's shaky as it is already.
    I'm not surprised it's still standing though. I am sure there its props are not going to move until they are dislodged, at Armageddon.

    However, I must mention this:
    ]


    Using the tree for classification
    Biologists use phylogenetic trees for many purposes, including:
    Testing hypotheses about evolution

    Learning about the characteristics of extinct species and ancestral lineages
    Classifying organisms

    Using phylogenies as a basis for classification is a relatively new development in biology.

    [If the phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis, how does one use it to test another hypothesis - unless it's a null hypothesis, of no use.
    That's like me drawing up my bread tree, and formulating a hypothesis that Baker John bakes no bread. Hey! What do you know!!? I am right!

    There is your evidence of what the theory of evolution hinges.


    Someone said I should accept the evolution theory.

    I do know that adaptation is compatible with the Biblical record.
    ]

    The explanation
    Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance. :)
    The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
    :D
    Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales. :eek:

    [Okay. That's biological evolution.]

    Microevolution
    House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution — evolution on a small scale.

    [Okay. So biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time, but involves descent through genetic inheritance.
    What are examples of "descent through genetic inheritance"?
    Here are a few...
    ]


    Mosquito Genes Explain Response To Climate Change
    Scientists studying mosquitoes have produced the first chromosomal map that shows regions of chromosomes that activate -- and are apparently evolving -- in animals in response to climate change. The map will allow researchers to narrow their focus to identify specific genes that control the seasonal development of animals.
    "Climate changes already are extending the growing seasons," Holzapfel said. "We know that portions of the country are becoming warmer and dryer than others. Plants and animals are not confronting this stress directly, but rather they are flowering, reproducing and going dormant at different times of the year than they used to. Many species will be unable to change quickly enough and will become extinct."

    "Climate change will change the seasonal ecology of many animals," Bradshaw said. "Rather than having a bully coming to beat you up at recess everyday, you can take a body-building course and beat up the bully, or you simply can take recess at a different time. Many organisms are taking the latter course, using day length to guide them."


    Mosquito evolves because of global warming
    First Comes Global Warming, Then an Evolutionary Explosion

    In a matter of years or decades, researchers believe, animals and plants already are adapting to life in a warmer world. Some species will be unable to change quickly enough and will go extinct, but others will evolve, as natural selection enables them to carry on in an altered environment.
    ............
    Weis is convinced that his experiment is just a harbinger of things to come. Global warming is projected to drastically raise the average global temperature, as well as producing many other changes to the world’s climate, such as more droughts in California. And in response, Weis and other researchers contend, life will undergo an evolutionary explosion.
    “Darwin thought evolution was gradual, and that it would take longer than the lifetime of a scientist to observe even the slightest change,” says Weis, who is now at the University of Toronto. “That might be the average case, but evolution can also be very rapid under the right conditions. Climate change is going to be one of those things where the conditions are met.”

    Over the past decade, conservation biologists have published a string of studies demonstrating that global warming is changing the face of nature. Red squirrels in Canada breed earlier in the spring, for example. Feral sheep in Scotland are getting smaller. Many populations of birds, animals, and plants are shifting their ranges, as well. Species that live on mountains are moving uphill; other species are shifting away from the equator and toward the poles.


    [So evolution doesn't take millions of years right. We can witness evolution taking place in our own backyard.
    Organisms adapt every day. We observe this. Genetic information is passed down, and it's never the same.
    Absolutely in harmony with creation. No problems there.

    Still don't see how or where LUCA fits into this.

    That's the problem.
    Let me see if this article helps...]


    Defining microevolution
    Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.

    Defining populations
    For animals, it's fairly easy to decide what a population is. It is a group of organisms that interbreed with each other — that is, they all share a gene pool. So for our species of beetle, that might be a group of individuals that all live on a particular mountaintop and are potential mates for one another.

    Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population.


    [Zooming in on a branch - a group of organisms that interbreed with each other? Oh. A species.
    So
    we only see evolution/adaptation taking place at this level.

    So for example, that won't be a chimp with a human.
    Yet all life diverged from one common ancestor - LUCA. There is nothing you can observe to show it, but it is assumed to have happened. :(
    ]

    I'll be back to conclude.
     
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,797
    Ratings:
    +13,120
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You do realize that you are merely Gishing at this point,don't you?


    Since you are totally lost why can't you acthonestly? You should be asking questions politely and proper,y.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    15,398
    Ratings:
    +1,639
    It is really interesting.
    Did all the parts got assembled to a watch on its own, please?
    Regards
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  6. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    15,398
    Ratings:
    +1,639
    And watches do not breed and don't have babies. Do they ,please?
    Regards
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Apparently it's not organic, so that doesn't count. Ahem.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    15,398
    Ratings:
    +1,639
    Is it a quantum aspect of Ford manufacturing, please?
    Regards
     
  9. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,797
    Ratings:
    +13,120
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Since life does self assemble, with changes, and a method for choosing the best changes, the analogy fails terribly.
     
  10. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    I agree. So how about answering the questions I've been asking you?

    Please show us how you can "easily disprove evolutionary theory".

    And exactly where did you do that previously?

    And what you think "transitional fossil" means?
     
  11. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    It just shows once again that ID creationists can only agrue via analogy. If there was any merit to their ideas, they would actually point to something in the biological realm that they determined to be "designed" and describe the method they used to make that determination.

    The reason they don't is because they can't.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,797
    Ratings:
    +13,120
    Religion:
    Atheist
    And it is not a matter of them not being intelligent enough. This is not that hard of a concept to understand. They simply can't afford to let themselves understand. I have met very few people on forums that were not intelligent enough to understand evolution, and that is what makes this so frustrating at times.
     
  13. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    Yup. ID creationism is a belief masquerading as science, which is why their posts are the way they are.
     
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Conclusion
    Based on what I observed and know about the theory of evolution I propose a hypothesis.
    Hypothesis - The theory of evolution in part seems deceptive.

    My explanation for this is as follows:
    There doesn't appear to be any major problem - unless stretched by imagination - with what is being called evolution (at a small scale - micro). The visible aspects has been observed for millennia, and has been a conclusive fact long before anyone dreamed of Darwinism. These observations are not theory but law or fact. I have a theory about this.

    I theorize that what is scientific law, is being combined with scientific theory, in order to give more credence and credibility to the theory.
    Theory - The theory of deception - to some degree.

    If my theory be true, then there should be evidence for this deception found in the proposed theory.
    If false... so what? :p

    First - the scientific law.
    Heredity - the inheritance of traits, features, etc, were observed from the first reproduction seen by a human being. It was a known observable fact.

    Scientists over the centuries had various and interesting ideas as to how, and why, and it was not until the 19th century that a connection was made to genes within organisms.
    Until then, we could not say directly why heredity occurred, since we could not see genes, nor their function with our naked eye.

    Heredity is only possible through another observable fact - Reproduction.
    Reproduction is a fundamental feature of all known life; each individual organism exists as the result of reproduction.
    Life without
    The existence of life without reproduction is the subject of some speculation. The biological study of how the origin of life produced reproducing organisms from non-reproducing elements is called abiogenesis. Whether or not there were several independent abiogenetic events, biologists believe that the last universal ancestor to all present life on Earth lived about 3.5 billion years ago.

    Scientists have speculated about the possibility of creating life non-reproductively in the laboratory. Several scientists have succeeded in producing simple viruses from entirely non-living materials. However, viruses are often regarded as not alive. Being nothing more than a bit of RNA or DNA in a protein capsule, they have no metabolism and can only replicate with the assistance of a hijacked cell's metabolic machinery.
    The production of a truly living organism (e.g. a simple bacterium) with no ancestors would be a much more complex task, but may well be possible to some degree according to current biological knowledge. A synthetic genome has been transferred into an existing bacterium where it replaced the native DNA, resulting in the artificial production of a new M. mycoides organism.

    There is some debate within the scientific community over whether this cell can be considered completely synthetic on the grounds that the chemically synthesized genome was an almost 1:1 copy of a naturally occurring genome and, the recipient cell was a naturally occurring bacterium. The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be "creating life from scratch" but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA". Venter plans to patent his experimental cells, stating that "they are pretty clearly human inventions". Its creators suggests that building 'synthetic life' would allow researchers to learn about life by building it, rather than by tearing it apart. They also propose to stretch the boundaries between life and machines until the two overlap to yield "truly programmable organisms". Researchers involved stated that the creation of "true synthetic biochemical life" is relatively close in reach with current technology and cheap compared to the effort needed to place man on the Moon.


    For anything to evolve, it first must be alive, and able to reproduce.
    To me, this is another area of deception, where abiogenesis is treated as though it is foreign to biological evolution, yet is a fundamental part of it, since according to the theory - to quote Darwin...
    "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

    This one primordial form - LUCA, cannot of course, be conclusively verified according to the ideas for it, and in fact has been shown to be untrue - falsified. To quote Louis Pasteur...
    "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

    Hence, I believe a deliberate effort was made to separate this idea from the theory of evolution - hence the term biological evolution.

    The definition
    Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene — or more precisely and technically, allele — frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

    The explanation
    ...descent through genetic inheritance.
    Small Scale Evolution
    Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population.


    There is hardly any conflict with what we observe physically in nature, and what is observed in science, concerning small-scale (micro) evolution.
    The Bible long ago commented on the Law of heredity, before these scientific discoveries were ever made.
    (Acts 17:26) . . .he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, . . .
    Romans 5:12; Genesis. 1:11, 12, 21, 25, 28; 2:7; 3:20; James 3:12
    Gen. 30:37-43; 31:10-12

    Further explanation on biological evolution
    The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
    Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.


    Here is where I think there is deception also.
    The phrase - "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor", is a theory.
    The phrase - "as you and your cousins share a common grandmother", is a law, of better yet - a fact.

    The statements that follow, build on the deception imo.
    The phrase - "Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today.", is a theory.
    The phrase - "Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.", is not a fact, and is not an accurate statement.

    I believe there is also deception when speaking of observation of evolution in species as though it means evolution in organisms of different clades.
    However, this is not observable nor can it be certifiably tested.

    Whether the deception is intentional, or not...
    These statements do not give a true explanation of biological evolution, and are misleading imo.

    Summary
    The idea of LUCA remains that - an idea.
    The idea that all life descended from LUCA, has no verifiable evidence to support its supposition.
    The speculations and assumptions in support of different organism, sharing a common ancestor is not based on observable evidence.
    Scientist inferring from what they believe to be evidence, is at best theories that have been accepted, but are not certifiable.
    The theory of evolution on a small scale - unstretched by human imagination - is currently given as an explanation for what we know as scientific law or fact. This evidence presents no challenge to special creation - in harmony with the Genesis account.

    Finito.
     
    #454 nPeace, Aug 3, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2018
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,797
    Ratings:
    +13,120
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Too long didn't read. I did scan this and it appears to be loaded with ignorance at best.

    You sadly do not even understand the terms that you use. Perhaps you should first try to learn the difference between a scientific law, a scientific theory, and a scientific hypothesis. Though there is no absolute hierarchy most in the sciences recognize a scientific theory as the top of the heap. Do you know why?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    Again, given that you are a Jehovah's Witness and given the severe restrictions that puts on you regarding this subject, you are about as biased as a person can be. So why should anyone take anything you say on this subject seriously?

    Further, you also display a level of ignorance that is at such a fundamental level, it removes whatever credibility that remains after considering the above. You demonstrate this ignorance with the following....

    The spontaneous generation Pasteur was addressing was the antiquated notion that fully-formed organisms spontaneously arose from things like piles of old clothes, rotting meat, or chicken broth. I learned that in middle school.

    So to summarize, you are both highly biased towards and fundamentally ignorant of evolutionary biology (and science in general), yet you post your opinions on the subject as if they should carry weight and be taken seriously. You also repeatedly dodge and evade very simple questions, acting like a guilty defendant on the stand.

    I don't think there's much else that need to be said.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Scientists have speculated about the possibility of creating life non-reproductively in the laboratory. Several scientists have succeeded in producing simple viruses from entirely non-living materials. However, ...

    The Craig Venter Institute maintains the term "synthetic bacterial cell" but they also clarify "...we do not consider this to be "creating life from scratch" but rather we are creating new life out of already existing life using synthetic DNA".

    This one primordial form - LUCA, cannot of course, be conclusively verified according to the ideas for it, and in fact has been shown to be untrue - falsified. To quote Louis Pasteur...
    "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

    Biogenesis is the production of new living organisms or organelles. Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction. That is, life does not spontaneously arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation.

    Spontaneous generation refers to an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular.
    Description and terms
    Spontaneous generation refers both to the supposed processes by which different types of life might repeatedly emerge from specific sources other than seeds, eggs, or parents, and also to theoretical principles presented in support of any such phenomena. Crucial to this doctrine are the ideas that life comes from non-life and that no causal agent, such as a parent, is needed.
    .........
    Experimentalists used a variety of terms for the study of the origin of life from nonliving materials. Heterogenesis was applied to the generation of living things from once-living organic matter (such as boiled broths), and Henry Charlton Bastian proposed the term archebiosis for life originating from inorganic materials. Disliking the randomness and unpredictability implied by the term "'spontaneous' generation," in 1870 Bastian coined the term biogenesis to refer to the formation of life from nonliving matter. Soon thereafter, however, English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley proposed the term abiogenesis to refer to this same process and adopted biogenesis for the process by which life arises from existing life; it is this latter set of definitions that became dominant.

    I am not even going to stoop to your level.
    Peace. :)
     
  18. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    Not sure what you mean by that, since all I've done is state the facts. Or do you deny that you're a Jehovah's Witness? Do you deny that as a JW, there are significant restrictions at play on this subject? Do you deny that you are highly biased regarding evolution?

    And finally, your ignorance of the basics is right there for all to see, as is your evasive behavior.

    The only thing I can offer is that the above are all fairly common among creationists, so it's not like we haven't seen this sort of thing before. In fact, I'd say you represent a pretty standard stereotype of the internet creationist. Now, you could surprise us all and engage in an open and honest discussion where you answer questions and requests for you to clarify/define your terms. You could take some time to study evolutionary biology from actual scientific sources and then come back and amaze us all with your newfound knowledge.

    But getting back to my original point....that would be pretty risky for you, wouldn't it?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,797
    Ratings:
    +13,120
    Religion:
    Atheist
    LOL! All you have done is to quote articles that you do not understand and that refute your claims.

    Why not try to learn a little bit? Why does reality frighten you so much? If you faith was strong you would not be afraid.

    EDIT: It also appears that you are misunderstanding the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation is closer to being a creationist concept than an evolutionary one. It relies on a "spirit of life" or similar belief that causes life to arise.
     
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Strange.
    You are so highly educated, and you don't know what I mean by that.
    Say I was not a Jehovah's Witness.
    Say I was not a creationist.
    Say I didn't even believe the Bible.
    What would you say about me then?

    Even if I were an atheist, and denied the theory of evolution. Your remarks would still be condescending. Wouldn't they?

    As long as anyone does not believe in what certain people believe, those certain people follow a particular pattern.

    I say certain people, because I have conversed with people I consider to be reasonable, and even though they disagreed with me, and I with them, they didn't take on an air of pride and insult me.
    Nor did I insult them.

    We reasoned like two adults - each trying to show why the other can't be right.
    Certain people on the other hand try to prove they are right by putting on an air of superiority - Their best argument.


    All that I have said in my previous four posts is designed for discussion. If anyone disagrees with what I said, they can feel free to discuss it.

    The information is all from scientific sources. None of it - zero - is from any creationist website, or source. None of it comes from Jehovah's Witnesses. Every bit is from nPeace alone - using his own mind.
     
Loading...