If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Are you talking about abiogenesis?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: intrptr

It doesn't explain it tho, it just explains what happened after...

They shouldn't use the misleading "exactly what is evolution" then. Origins are a huge hole and why they continue to call it a theory.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: secretboss

When has Richard Dawkins said that?

He was asked a speculative question by Ben Stein, and speculated on possibilities.

a reply to: secretboss

You really made this thread? I mean I see it, I just do not believe it.

a reply to: wheresthebody

Ahhem - technically natural selection.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: secretboss

You really made this thread? I mean I see it, I just do not believe it.

I dont believe this thread qualifies as intelligent design. it evolved from mud

a reply to: olbe66

haha, right you are, thanks

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: intrptr

It doesn't explain it tho, it just explains what happened after...

They shouldn't use the misleading "exactly what is evolution" then. Origins are a huge hole and why they continue to call it a theory.

In science, theory does not mean unsubstantiated or unproven. It is another word for "model" or "framework." The strength of a particular theory depends upon the body of empirical observations supported by it. Ergo, evolution is one of the best supported models in the history of science.

Abiogenesis is a different thing altogether. The model of abiogenesis is incomplete. We can produce RNA in a laboratory from organic compounds present on the early earth, but we cannot create a living cell -- not yet.

The lack of a working model of abiogenesis does not, in anyway, undermine the thousands upon thousands of observations supporting evolution, in fields ranging from biology to paleontology to geology, and beyond.

originally posted by: olbe66
a reply to: wheresthebody

Ahem - technically natural selection.

And lends to adaptation. Either adapt or die.

The smart, short beaked hungry hummers break into the too deep flowers from the side.

a reply to: intrptr

Abiogenesis is the origin of life, fun stuff, cool ideas, no one knows for sure. This is where the debate is.

Evolution is everything that happened after.

a reply to: wheresthebody

This troll is not too much fun - too easy.

a reply to: olbe66

Troll?

Secretboss
a reply to: wheresthebody

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: secretboss

When has Richard Dawkins said that?

Made a seperate thread about it. I've also linked the video of him saying that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

pretty interesting stuff.

a reply to: olbe66


Phew, I thought you meant me...

a reply to: Greggers

Ergo, evolution is one of the best supported models in the history of science.

Evolution like religion, bases its theories on precepts, even political agendas. I disagree, my theory is life was brought here and managed, that fills all the theoretical gaps. There are witnesses to other world beings and their craft, you know. What you call empirical evidence is as 'true' there, too.

Because your model has no explanation for origins, it can't be accepted even as a theory. My theory has origins explained. And I don't mean to allude to religious dogma, either.

Abiogenesis is a different thing altogether. The model of abiogenesis is incomplete. We can produce RNA in a laboratory from organic compounds present on the early earth, but we cannot create a living cell -- not yet.

Did you just use the words 'create' and 'genesis' in your model, too?

Again, not inferring a religious perspective.

a reply to: secretboss

This interview was heavily edited for a heavily biased documentary.

originally posted by: olbe66

Well, I fully agree with Richard Dawkins theory that extraterrestrials may have seeded life on earth, and that life on earth may contain the signature of an intelligent designer.

a reply to: secretboss

OK - you are familiar with Dawkins and post this question? I'm over with be gentile - you're just trolling boss - no quarter.

Of course I'm familiar with Dawkins. I'm just pointing out that there is something off with the way evolution is working out for monkeys/apelike beings.

a reply to: wheresthebody

Abiogenesis is the origin of life, fun stuff, cool ideas, no one knows for sure. This is where the debate is.

Like religious interpretation, thats an old debate.

But science, like religion, doesn't take to new ideas very well. They don't have proof of origins , focusing on what they call 'life evolved' . You can't have a car without a factory.

a reply to: intrptr

I'm not sure that you're aware of the values of the words you're using.