Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would like to keep things short and simple as possible with arguments for or against. It might become too challenging eventually but let's try anyway.
The theory of evolution of life i will define by my terms so everyone will be prepared, it consists of the origin of life and the transformation of life.
My position includes that abiogenesis is scientifically impossible and that species changes is scientifically impossible.
According to my knowledge, nobody has witnessed a specie change and nobody has ever witnessed spontaneous generation. The basic argument of small changes over long periods of time is unsubstantiated, only suggested to accommodate a theory.
Genetic mutations do not produce new genetic information, any biochemist knows this. Mutations cannot produce a single gene that is completely different from what was there to start with. That is to say that if a bat has no gene for feathers, then that bat will never get feathers at some point in its life and cannot produce offspring with a gene for feathers since it can only pass on what it had.
Where does genetic information come from?
Where does life come from?
These are the two questions that no scientist can provide a sound answer to.
Genetic information cannot arise from the non-existent, same for the origin of life.
The law of biogenesis is incapable of being contradicted. Its the only scientific truth regarding this matter. Life comes from life, info only comes from other info.
So my overall point is that to believe in evolution is to place blind faith into what is unscientific, nobody has seen it. Suggestions do not provide sound conclusions, suggestions are only suggestions.
Evolutionist charge creationist with the same thing they too are guilty of, belief for what you have not seen.
So one must prove that life is capable of springing into existence out of non-life, and one must prove that genetic information is spontaneously generated from the non-existent information to provide species changes.
I would like to keep things short and simple as possible with arguments for or against. It might become too challenging eventually but let's try anyway.
The theory of evolution of life i will define by my terms so everyone will be prepared, it consists of the origin of life and the transformation of life.
My position includes that abiogenesis is scientifically impossible and that species changes is scientifically impossible.
According to my knowledge, nobody has witnessed a specie change and nobody has ever witnessed spontaneous generation. The basic argument of small changes over long periods of time is unsubstantiated, only suggested to accommodate a theory.
Genetic mutations do not produce new genetic information, any biochemist knows this. Mutations cannot produce a single gene that is completely different from what was there to start with. That is to say that if a bat has no gene for feathers, then that bat will never get feathers at some point in its life and cannot produce offspring with a gene for feathers since it can only pass on what it had.
Where does genetic information come from?
Where does life come from?
These are the two questions that no scientist can provide a sound answer to.
Genetic information cannot arise from the non-existent, same for the origin of life.
The law of biogenesis is incapable of being contradicted. Its the only scientific truth regarding this matter. Life comes from life, info only comes from other info.
So my overall point is that to believe in evolution is to place blind faith into what is unscientific, nobody has seen it. Suggestions do not provide sound conclusions, suggestions are only suggestions.
Evolutionist charge creationist with the same thing they too are guilty of, belief for what you have not seen.
So one must prove that life is capable of springing into existence out of non-life, and one must prove that genetic information is spontaneously generated from the non-existent information to provide species changes.
1) The theory of evolution has a precise definition. It has nothing to do with the origin of life; it deals solely with the changes of existing life (precisely, with the changes of the frequencies of alleles within a gene pool). This is a scientific forum. It is both bad form and nonsensical to attempt to discuss well-established scientific concepts while insisting that you get to define those concepts in inaccurate ways.
2) Speciation has been documented both in the lab and in the wild. The problem, of course, is that you're talking dogma and declining to examine what actually happens. This is presumably because you cannot mentally accommodate the possibility that what you want to believe is not correct, and so you preemptively declare that anything to the contrary cannot happen. Of course, that's not how the real world works. Reality cares not a whit about your emotional needs.
1) The theory of evolution has a precise definition. It has nothing to do with the origin of life; it deals solely with the changes of existing life (precisely, with the changes of the frequencies of alleles within a gene pool). This is a scientific forum. It is both bad form and nonsensical to attempt to discuss well-established scientific concepts while insisting that you get to define those concepts in inaccurate ways.
2) Speciation has been documented both in the lab and in the wild. The problem, of course, is that you're talking dogma and declining to examine what actually happens. This is presumably because you cannot mentally accommodate the possibility that what you want to believe is not correct, and so you preemptively declare that anything to the contrary cannot happen. Of course, that's not how the real world works. Reality cares not a whit about your emotional needs.
Hybrids don't prove what you need to prove. Everybody is well aware of hybrids, there are rare exceptions when these can mate such as mules giving birth, rare but still just a mutation situation within itself.
Let's just stick with what is actually relevant to the discussion.
The theory of evolution implies abiogenesis no matter what you chose to believe. Life either happened from the supernatural or from abiogenesis. If you chose to never accept the supernatural then you must accept and endure the theory of abiogenesis and set out to prove it. By claiming you do not know how it happened, that puts you into the same boat as creationist as far as not seeing it actually occur and therefore involving oneself in a belief system (faith).
A lizard turning into a chicken or a fish turning into a land mammal is the kind of species change one needs to fulfill the theory of evolution, thats the exact kind of changes that the science textbooks promotes, so go along with that type of situation and not talk about our everyday hybridizations like hybrid trees used at tree farms to mass produce high-quality lumber, or ligers and grolar bears hybrids and mules and zonkeys. If you can't produce the necessary proof, thats fine, just don't respond.
Hybrids don't prove what you need to prove. Everybody is well aware of hybrids, there are rare exceptions when these can mate such as mules giving birth, rare but still just a mutation situation within itself.
Let's just stick with what is actually relevant to the discussion.
The theory of evolution implies abiogenesis no matter what you chose to believe. Life either happened from the supernatural or from abiogenesis. If you chose to never accept the supernatural then you must accept and endure the theory of abiogenesis and set out to prove it. By claiming you do not know how it happened, that puts you into the same boat as creationist as far as not seeing it actually occur and therefore involving oneself in a belief system (faith).
A lizard turning into a chicken or a fish turning into a land mammal is the kind of species change one needs to fulfill the theory of evolution, thats the exact kind of changes that the science textbooks promotes, so go along with that type of situation and not talk about our everyday hybridizations like hybrid trees used at tree farms to mass produce high-quality lumber, or ligers and grolar bears hybrids and mules and zonkeys. If you can't produce the necessary proof, thats fine, just don't respond.
The post was cor rect, you cannot accept that you are wrong and keep changing the subject plus making claims based on your personal dogma which is at odds with other that are also religious.
A lizard turning into a chicken would disprove the theory of evolution. You havevalready proven in another forum that you do not understand evolution.
The post was cor rect, you cannot accept that you are wrong and keep changing the subject plus making claims based on your personal dogma which is at odds with other that are also religious.
A lizard turning into a chicken would disprove the theory of evolution. You havevalready proven in another forum that you do not understand evolution.
Evolutionist sometimes claims that dinosaurs turned into chickens, how is that wrong of me to state that???
Evolution claims that humans evolved from a single cell organism. Thats what I'm saying that evolutionist need to substantiate. How can genetic information change to what it never had to begin with? You seem as if you dont want to take on the challenge, fine, just don't respond then. If you want to, then deal with abiogenesis and genetic information generation. Thats your problem to deal with if you place faith in that theory.
I would like to keep things short and simple as possible with arguments for or against. It might become too challenging eventually but let's try anyway.
The theory of evolution of life i will define by my terms so everyone will be prepared, it consists of the origin of life and the transformation of life.
My position includes that abiogenesis is scientifically impossible and that species changes is scientifically impossible.
Why do you argue this? What is your scientific argument? Why is life different to non-life? What is life? If you can not answer these questions, then all you have are assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
According to my knowledge, nobody has witnessed a specie change and nobody has ever witnessed spontaneous generation. The basic argument of small changes over long periods of time is unsubstantiated, only suggested to accommodate a theory.
Regarding spontaneous generation, correct, miracles do not happen. The basic argument of small changes over long periods of time has a lot of evidence for it, simply saying it does not and misrepresenting the evidence will get your post locked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
Genetic mutations do not produce new genetic information, any biochemist knows this.
How are you defining information? If you can not explain that, then all you are doing is repeating your assertions. I thought you was going to post some science here instead of just repeating your claims.
And here is a paper proving your assertion is wrong.
Mutations cannot produce a single gene that is completely different from what was there to start with. That is to say that if a bat has no gene for feathers, then that bat will never get feathers at some point in its life and cannot produce offspring with a gene for feathers since it can only pass on what it had.
Then why do we have genes for gills?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
Where does genetic information come from?
Darwin-Eigen-cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
Where does life come from?
Life is just a sub set of chemistry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
These are the two questions that no scientist can provide a sound answer to.
I have just done this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
Genetic information cannot arise from the non-existent, same for the origin of life.
The law of biogenesis is incapable of being contradicted. Its the only scientific truth regarding this matter. Life comes from life, info only comes from other info.
False, evolution is the alternative to the law of biogenesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
So my overall point is that to believe in evolution is to place blind faith into what is unscientific, nobody has seen it. Suggestions do not provide sound conclusions, suggestions are only suggestions.
So you keep asserting. But I asked you to provide here the science you claimed to have, not to just repeat your assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
Evolutionist charge creationist with the same thing they too are guilty of, belief for what you have not seen.
So one must prove that life is capable of springing into existence out of non-life, and one must prove that genetic information is spontaneously generated from the non-existent information to provide species changes.
No, one needs only have evidence. We have it, you do not.
Hybrids don't prove what you need to prove. Everybody is well aware of hybrids, there are rare exceptions when these can mate such as mules giving birth, rare but still just a mutation situation within itself.
Let's just stick with what is actually relevant to the discussion.
The theory of evolution implies abiogenesis no matter what you chose to believe. Life either happened from the supernatural or from abiogenesis. If you chose to never accept the supernatural then you must accept and endure the theory of abiogenesis and set out to prove it. By claiming you do not know how it happened, that puts you into the same boat as creationist as far as not seeing it actually occur and therefore involving oneself in a belief system (faith).
No, we do not know the precise details. But hydrocarbons form naturally, as do hydrocarbon polymers. Even cell walls form automatically due to chemistry, and repetition is observed. That is just a part of the evidence, the opposite of blind faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
A lizard turning into a chicken or a fish turning into a land mammal is the kind of species change one needs to fulfill the theory of evolution, thats the exact kind of changes that the science textbooks promotes, so go along with that type of situation and not talk about our everyday hybridizations like hybrid trees used at tree farms to mass produce high-quality lumber, or ligers and grolar bears hybrids and mules and zonkeys. If you can't produce the necessary proof, thats fine, just don't respond.
If you refuse to look at the evidence, why post?
And why do you not use your criteria for your own beliefs, such as the miracle of a lizard turning into a fish? Or Saint Peter resurrecting a cooked fish?
Why do you argue this? What is your scientific argument? Why is life different to non-life? What is life? If you can not answer these questions, then all you have are assertions.
Quote:
life has been defined differently of course over the years, but i consider it as being able to grow and possibly reproduce, I place "possibly reproduce " for the fact that sometimes people are born sterile
.
Regarding spontaneous generation, correct, miracles do not happen. The basic argument of small changes over long periods of time has a lot of evidence for it, simply saying it does not and misrepresenting the evidence will get your post locked.
Quote:
Small changes over time can never genetically change the genetic information within a species, only genes that already exist can continually exist. Ive already stated this and you simply ignore, this is what you have to deal with so pay attention.
How are you defining information? If you can not explain that, then all you are doing is repeating your assertions. I thought you was going to post some science here instead of just repeating your claims.
And here is a paper proving your assertion is wrong.
Humans have what looks like gills during a certain stage in embryos but scientists say that its the ears development, if that's what you are referring to.
Life is just a sub set of chemistry.
I have just done this.
False, evolution is the alternative to the law of biogenesis.
Quote:
The law of biogenesis has never been disproven.. deal with it.
So you keep asserting. But I asked you to provide here the science you claimed to have, not to just repeat your assertions.
No, one needs only have evidence. We have it, you do not.
Quote:
You make assertions against true science to stop with the absurdities and deal with abiogenesis and genetic information generation like i said before. Stop running from the issue here
You make assertions against true science to stop with the absurdities and deal with abiogenesis ...
I have done this with known science, not assertions. YOU make assertions against true science so stop with YOUR absurdities and answer my questions. Why do you argue abiogenesis is not possible? What is your scientific argument? Why is life different to non-life? What is life? If you can not answer these questions, then all you have are assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
... and genetic information generation like i said before.
Not only did I give you a scientific link, I asked YOU to explain what you mean by information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
Stop running from the issue here
I am answering your questions that you do not want answers to. You are evading mine.
1. I will, at least, give you credit for finding your way over here. I see that this forum ALSO draws a line between science and religion, so hopefully the mods will allow this to continue, if we can keep the focus on actual science.
3. As has been explained elsewhere, "theory" in this context does NOT mean "a wild guess," like it might in common usage. By the time something is called a theory in science, it has progressed far beyond hypothesis, been supported by facts, substantiated by multiple lines of evidence, tested and retested, challenged and prevailed... and has been broadly accepted as a reliable explanation of how the real world works.
4. In the case at hand, the Theory of Evolution (links above) is one of the most studied, best supported conclusions of how that real world really works... perhaps more than any other area of science. Of course we do not know everything, but arguing against the basics of evolution is akin to arguing against heliocentric theory, insisting that the sun and other planets really DO revolve around the earth because that's how it looks from your stationary vantage point... or that the germ theory of disease hasn't been established, and we really need to rebalance our four bodily humours via bloodletting. If those sound ridiculous, now you know how it looks to be denying everything we know about evolution.
5. Evolution does not address the origins of life, and does not rely on "spontaneous generation." The "Law of Biogenesis" is not a scientific law (here again, those apologetics websites are not serving you well), and does not even rise to the level of scientific theory. There are interesting hypotheses, but how life began is certainly much less understood than how it evolved once things got rolling. I found this website interesting, in that it lies closer to home for you, but still acknowledges what we DO know about early life forms and their evolution from simple to complex. They still assume a role (TBD) for God in kicking things off, but don't deny everything we know after that point, which is supported by cold hard evidence; that is much more defensible than pretending we don't know anything, and might be a good compromise stance for you to adopt?
6. There are MANY things that we understand and accept without seeing them occur, necessarily including those that occurred over millions of years. We didn't watch the Colorado River carve the Grand Canyon, but we know it happened over the last 5-6 million years. We weren't around for the breakup and migration from one supercontinent (Pangea) into current structure of continents, but we have clear evidence it happened. We didn't watch the Appalachian and Rocky mountains get formed, but we have a good idea how that worked, and that the former were formed several 100 million years earlier than the latter. We weren't here to watch the Chicxulub asteroid hit the Yucatan Peninsula 66 million years ago, but have clear evidence it did, and good support for the hypothesis that this contributed to the mass extinction of most species on earth, including the dinosaurs (certainly much stronger than "God decided He made a mistake," an explanation I recently saw elsewhere on CD). Evolution is as well-established, thoroughly-documented, and broadly-accepted as any of those phenomena. None of this equates to "blind faith" because there is strong evidence.
7. A change in genetic information is basically the definition of "mutation," so it's not clear what point you are trying to make by arguing that doesn't happen. That change in genetic information is, indeed, one result of evolution.
8. No one says "dinosaurs turned into chickens" or "fish turned into mammals" (see #2 above). Nor is anyone talking about hybrids (failed attempt at diversion?). We do know that current life forms (including humans) evolved from common ancestors. You appear to be demanding/expecting single discrete events that we can see happen (perhaps conditioned by reading that God producing Adam with a snap of finger?), but that isn't how life forms evolved.
9. No one needs to "prove" anything to you. The evidence is overwhelming in support of evolution as a fact, and that evidence is cited above. If you choose to respond, please provide links to evidence in support of your claims, beyond mere assertions that "no it isn't."
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 08-24-2021 at 11:17 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
