Why the theory of evolution is so important

[MJFlores]

This video contains nothing more than all the popular theist tripe about "complexity" and "fine tuning." Things that have been explained to be insufficient grounds for making any sort of determination time and time and time and time again.

00:36 - "The theory that life has evolved on Earth from non-life..."
That's your Mr. Smart-guy narrator for the video completely missing the mark with respect to what evolution actually encompasses. This has also been pointed out to theists time and time and time again. "Life from non-life." isn't part of evolution - so you aren't knocking holes in evolutionary theory by claiming that life can't arise from non-life. To make a statement like this and claimi it is evidence against evolution, you're basically loading your gun with poop, turning around - aiming 180 degrees away from the target and firing with an idiotic grin on your face. That's how dumb the content of this video sounds to anyone who has any idea what they are talking about.

I also love all the testimonials given from scientists where they use a featureless silhouette as a stand-in for actual photographs. Shows how much these people truly want to be married to these statements.

Don't put the blame on me.
I'm no white man.
Just sharing the video
Did not make them

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm no white man.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Seriously, I am eager to hear your well-thought-out, profound response to that question. I'm sure you have one, right?

Just sharing the video
Did not make them

Maybe don't share crappy, misleading videos made by people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"A typical cell is only one thousandth of an inch [0.03 mm] across! In that infinitesimal space, complex functions vital to life are occurring. (See diagram, pages 8-9.) Little wonder that it has been said: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex.”

The cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution.

This might be an issue if we were discussing abiogenesis or that science was claiming that abiogenesis resulted in fully formed cells. We are discussing the separate, distinct and independent concept of evolution. Science does not claim that cells sprang into existence fully formed. I wonder what sort of emotional response you will have for this in lieu of evidence and reason?

A mousetrap, for example is a simple apparatus which can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled"....which leads to the problem of “irreducible complexity.”

This has been refuted and famously in the court case Kitzmiller v Dover. Remove a few pieces of the mousetrap and it is still functional. You may say, 'not as a mousetrap'. Sure, but Behe's concept never required that a reduced complex have the same function as the more complex. What you wrote twists the words of the claim you are using for support.

"Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species.

So far, this has not been a problem as none have been found.

Another example of irreducible complexity is a process most of us take for granted when we cut ourselves—blood clotting. Normally, any liquid will immediately leak out of a punctured container and will do so until the container is empty. Yet, when we puncture or cut our skin, the leak is quickly sealed by the formation of a clot. However, as doctors know, “blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts.” These activate what is called a clotting cascade. This delicate healing process “depends critically on the timing and speed at which the different reactions occur.” Otherwise, a person could have all of his blood clotting and solidifying, or on the other hand, he could bleed to death."

Also refuted numerous times. Your denial is an amazing thing. Clotting systems with reduced steps and components exist. Behe had to admit that his concepts have not been tested and cannot be tested. So much for irreducible complexity. Even its formulator had to admit it was belief and not science.

Is Evolution’s Foundation Missing? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Why do we never see these examples raised?

Watchtower? Hilarious. Biased, cult propaganda is no source to turn to for answers about science.

 

[MJFlores]

The science of evolution has been demonstrated and falsified beyond any reasonable doubt by the scientific methods which you dishonestly misrepresent.

The list of scientists (yuch yuch!!!) you cited is as phoney as a stack of 3 dollar bills.

Sorry Mister.
Just sharing.

Let us listen to some atheist folks.

 

[Woberts]

Is Evolution’s Foundation Missing? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

>unironically quoting a cult's website

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't want to use math and calculus but if you insist...

Don't ask me for follow up questions because I did not do the math.
They did.

Does it not strike you as odd and questionable that you are using as evidence to support your position something you admit you do not understand?

Never mind. I do not need a music video in place of a response.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

>unironically quoting a cult's website

I found that particularly telling.

 

[Audie]

I really don't know.
You white people should talk this over with.
I'm Asian so I don't have something to do with that.

But what I know, humans cannot interbreed with animals including apes
Apes which I believe, evolutionist and Darwin fans placed their absolute faith that humans came from
Isn't that strange?
Not why humans cannot interbreed with animals
but why humans cannot interbreed with apes when they are your ancestors?

You say a lot of very seriously ignorant things here,

I would kind of prefer you not emphasize that you are
Asian, as in the US at least, Asians generally are known
for being among the best educated groups.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think it is a bit disingenuous for someone to say that the Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Understanding ToE leads deeply into the realization that the Universe is a deeply, naturally creative phenomenon and produces amazingly adaptative systems that can respond and persist under a wide range of changes. At some point it should become obvious that just as species didn't come out of a vaccuum, their progenitors didn't either. If species show change and adaptation, then their pre-cellular underpinnings might also show this ability.

Understanding this we might, then, also look at the physical Universe again and realize that the various structures and objects we find there also have undergone a historical development and produced similar forms in a wide variety of expressions of their shared underlying physical "media". This includes stars, galaxies and planets.

I disagree. It clearly does not, even though learning it and understanding it may result in the discovery processes you describe.

What Darwin described and what became the basis for a modern theory of evolution is not a theory that makes claims, supports or predicts a specific origin of life. Since the origin of life is unknown, how could the theory have much to say about it.

That said, I would agree that it is very likely the origin of life derives from natural processes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Seriously, I am eager to hear your well-thought-out, profound response to that question. I'm sure you have one, right?

I could not fathom why this was included either. It makes no sense. Is not relevant to anything discussed. It is gratuitous and with no value.

Maybe don't share crappy, misleading videos made by people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about?

He admits that he does not understand the content of the videos he posts or at least those purporting mathematics.

 

[Audie]

Sorry Mister.
Just sharing.

Let us listen to some atheist folks.

Proof? Anyone so ignorant as to think science
ever does "proof" can be counted on to say stupid
things about science. We see it in this form
on most every page.

Do you think that science does proof?
Please tell us.

 

[MJFlores]

This means absolutely nothing. You know what the specific value "settings" of the universe are evidence for? That the universe operates within the confines of these specific values. That's it. That's all you can claim knowledge of once you have observed the "laws" or "rules" in play within the universe. Putting anything else on top of it is pure make-believe.

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Seriously, I am eager to hear your well-thought-out, profound response to that question. I'm sure you have one, right?

Maybe don't share crappy, misleading videos made by people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about?

Just sharing
If it is benign, then its nothing
But if it hurts, tell me.
And if it is sensible, then we should accept it.

 

[MJFlores]

Does it not strike you as odd and questionable that you are using as evidence to support your position something you admit you do not understand?

Never mind. I do not need a music video in place of a response.

I understand a little bit not not much of it.
I thought it would stir something up.
And it did!

 

[MJFlores]

You say a lot of very seriously ignorant things here,

I would kind of prefer you not emphasize that you are
Asian, as in the US at least, Asians generally are known
for being among the best educated groups.

Humility is my trait.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I could not fathom why this was included either. It makes no sense. Is not relevant to anything discussed. It is gratuitous and with no value.

I feel that statements like this are thrown in when the poster wants to try and impart that there are esoteric, mysterious underpinnings to their opinions that make them more "right" - or at the very least, that the amount of "wrong" that they are becomes less possible to gauge.

A little too easy to see through when a reader is focused on facts however - something I feel that posters like this have to be sitting there praying they don't encounter.

 

[viole]

Being a creationist is nothing.
These scientists are just using their common sense.
Can nothing transform nothing to something?
Can non life elements create living things?
And did anyone witness an animal evolve into another animal?
A fish into a cat?
A pen to a pineapple?

Of course not. A fish into a cat? I wonder where you studied biology, assuming you did.

However, somebody said that such creationists are themselves the missing link between homo non sapiens and homo sapiens they claim it does not exist. Lol

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proof? Anyone so ignorant as to think science
ever does "proof" can be counted on to say stupid
things about science. We see it in this form
on most every page.

Do you think that science does proof?
Please tell us.

I generally interpret that as meaning the same sort of "proof" one finds in a criminal trial. In that case the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". It is not the absolute proof of mathematics.

 

[Audie]

I disagree. It clearly does not, even though learning it and understanding it may result in the discovery processes you describe.

What Darwin described and what became the basis for a modern theory of evolution is not a theory that makes claims, supports or predicts a specific origin of life. Since the origin of life is unknown, how could the theory have much to say about it.

That said, I would agree that it is very likely the origin of life derives from natural processes.

Auto mechanics does not deal with the origin of
physical law, iron, or petroleum.

It just deals with what is.

Genetics does not deal with the origin of life.
It just deals with what is.

ToE is about, yes,how life evolves. Nothing in it
is affected one way or the other by how life originated.

I suppose your creofriends keeeeeep harping on
origin of life, because they cannot grasp that.
ToE is in all ways independent of the origin of life.

Like mechanics and the origin of mass / energy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I understand a little bit not not much of it.
I thought it would stir something up.
And it did!

Are you here to discuss the issues or spam us?

The claims of the video have long been explained and refuted.

 

[Audie]

I generally interpret that as meaning the same sort of "proof" one finds in a criminal trial. In that case the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". It is not the absolute proof of mathematics.

As you wish, but it is a face-palm to ask a scientist
for proof Or "facts" beyond something like "it is a fact
that this is my data."