No time for Evolution?

a reply to: Noinden

originally posted by: Noinden
No there is no proof is a valid scientific reason. You can't randomly decide something has to be in there, and find the evidence. That would be deciding the outcome before you knew the answer. That is unscientific.

The evidence is already there. All you need are systems or entities capable of transferring genetic information, replication and variation. Even the earliest forms of RNA and DNA were capable of this, were they not?

originally posted by: Noinden
Now as for gravity? Who knows? If they discover a particle, then its that. If they don't ? Well that is for Physicists to worry about. It does not effect evolution, or genetics

OR should we include that just incase??

Well on the matter of physics and its relationship to biological systems, there's an entire field of study dedicated to the subject. You guessed it.

originally posted by: Noinden
This Universal ancestor, is where evolution starts. By definition. That is logic.

Which definition? What type of evolution? What about how UCA got it's genome? Is HGT considered a mechanism of evolution?

originally posted by: Noinden
(a)That all life on earth is linked through a chain of ancestry-descent, and evolutionary theory can predict that if a new species is to arise.

Okay after reacquainting myself with what ToE predicts, I understand that it can be used to identify patterns of descent and where certain fossils fit or where certain transitional fossils might be located. I get that these are "predictions" in the scientific sense and not the crystal ball sense. Makes sense.

(b) Speaking of phylogenetic tree's?

Yes speaking of those trees. Or are they more like networks? Perhaps bushes? Damn HGT. Speaking of HGT, what are your thoughts on how this fits within the framework of the MES, a theory formulated around vertical transfer? ( I know I sort of asked this before)

(c)Eolution also predicts the idea of change in frequencies of inherited characters through generations, and based on that prediction,

Seems less like a prediction of evolution and more like a definition of evolution

How prey tell would knowing how life started help again?

I take it you're familiar with Carl Woese, the godfather of the 3rd domain? He redefined the thinking of evolution with his discoveries. His first focus and interest was the origin of the genetic code. I imagine he would scoff at the ignorance of your question. Do you think he never once considered OOL when he discovered archaea, or defined what the progenote (UCA) was, or established the origins of protein synthesis? Forgive me, but I will take this man's words and thoughts on the matter over yours every time. He seemed to rely less on ignorance as an excuse for not improving our knowledge by exploring a more wholistic and integrated approach to the study of life. His contributions to the understanding of evolution of early life flies in the face of your claims that OOL and evolution should be kept apart. So yes, pray tell again how keeping the two apart is not beneficial to the advancement of our knowledge of evolution or the way we categorize first life and it's subsequent lineages

a reply to: Noinden

It was not meant as an accusation, but more a friendly warning.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: PhotonEffect

Here you go. Hope you have access to academic journals and texts?

(a) Mount, D.M. (2004). Bioinformatics: Sequence and Genome Analysis (2nd ed.). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press: Cold Spring Harbor, NY. ISBN 0-87969-608-7.
(b) Zuckerkandl, E. and Pauling, L.B. (1962). "Molecular disease, evolution, and genic heterogeneity". In Kasha, M. and Pullman, B (editors). Horizons in Biochemistry. Academic Press, New York. pp. 189–225.
(c)myxo.css.msu.edu...

Off you go.

What from these links back up your claims exactly? Clearly I've missed it based on the support of this post.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I've cited the source material. The onus is now on you to go read it.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Again when have I edited a post to change the content, rather than to add to it, or usually edit grammatical or spelling errors? You will find I've not. Don't warn me, it implies you distrust me. Thus either state it, or don't bother.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You have my answers, multiple times. If you can't actually make the effort to read cited materials, why should I answer them again?

I am merely stating the point of view of science as a whole, not individuals. Do you understand the difference? I'm not the only person posting here who has made these statements.

So to repeat, as you appear to either be pushing an agenda, or simply unable to grok the point.

The theory of evolution has not been shown to be limited by not knowing how life began.

If you wish to challenge this. Go discover the evidence. Not the feels, not the "that does not seem logical". Go discover. Like I said, your dogged pushing of the point, appears to be agenda driven. I make no claim to know the agenda.

a reply to: Noinden

I read what I had access to.

a reply to: Noinden

Again, it wasn't an accusation. No need to make it personal. Really. I was only joking, hence the smiley face?

a reply to: Noinden

Evidence has been presented. Google Carl Woese et al and you will see they will disagree with you, based simply on their research and discoveries. Or you can circle back to that scienceblog link you posted a few pages ago to get another man's thoughts on it.

Just so you know, Woese has been compared to Einstein and Darwin based on his contributions to biology and science overall. But sure, feel free to keep pushing your opinions. I'll just side with Woese on this. He's right. Your insistence that I have an agenda is cute though. You're more religious that I am. (I'm not, really I swear, I just don't agree with you on some things)

(okay that was the last one, promise. It's only a mug of beer to cheers, not an accusation that you have a drinking problem)


ETA- any answers to the HGT questions I posed above would be welcomed.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

As I said, I'm done. I've answered the questions up till my citations. I'm not going to engage beyond that, until you have read those. Its not my problem if you can't access them.

@neoholographic

What you have to understand is that intellectually, academically and scientifically it's just easier for those that beleive in evolution to start with a fish swimming in the ocean on earth and for them to say now everything evolved from this over millions of years, case closed. They call that science.
BUT science does not exist in the vacuum of a singular ideology, before evolution you have cosmology, then abiogenesis, then evolution. They don't want to combine the three into a scientific concept because it much harder to defend.
Separating them is easier, but by doing that you arrive at a disingenuous cognitive dissonance disguised as a false dichotomy.
Of coarse they will argue with scientific definitions, which I don't dispute, they are correct.
That has never been then issue, yet they will keep posting it over and over and over.
They haven't figured out that posting the definition of evolution, does nothing to advance their case, literally NOTHING.
But it seems this is their strongest defense, which I find rather amusing.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
@neoholographic

What you have to understand is that intellectually, academically and scientifically it's just easier for those that beleive in evolution to start with a fish swimming in the ocean on earth and for them to say now everything evolved from this over millions of years, case closed. They call that science.
BUT science does not exist in the vacuum of a singular ideology, before evolution you have cosmology, then abiogenesis, then evolution. They don't want to combine the three into a scientific concept because it much harder to defend.
Separating them is easier, but by doing that you arrive at a disingenuous cognitive dissonance disguised as a false dichotomy.
Of coarse they will argue with scientific definitions, which I don't dispute, they are correct.
That has never been then issue, yet they will keep posting it over and over and over.
They haven't figured out that posting the definition of evolution, does nothing to advance their case, literally NOTHING.
But it seems this is their strongest defense, which I find rather amusing.

care to explain how primitive life arising from non life vs primitive life being created by a god of your choice affects our understanding of evolution?

Your pal neoholographic has ducked the question numerous times, perhaps you'd like to take a stab.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Yes, BlueJay, it is far "easier" to believe in something that is backed by tangible evidence. This is what logical rational people do. They don't invent some convoluted explanation, buy into it with no scrutiny and use it to justify using the equivocation fallacy and straw man fallacy against a field of science they have never studied themselves (as you just did).

You can't combine cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution into one thing because they are all completely different fields of study with different mechanisms and systems involved. That's what science deniers do, because it makes it easier to attack evolution without understanding it. When it comes down to the research and evidence, evolution is a slam dunk, and the deniers NEVER address evidence, they move the goalposts, hence "you can't prove abiogenesis, so evolution is wrong!" It's the oldest argument in the book, it's amazing people still use it today.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It has been well established you don't know science from pseudo-science. I can only speak for myself, I am not trying to advance my case, that would be what your creationist clade are trying to do.

But using your (il)logic no science should ever state something unless it can tie all theories in all of science to it, oh and hypotheses, and lets throw that badly edited book the Bible in as well

Like I said, you do not understand science. You don't get a say.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
@neoholographic

What you have to understand is that intellectually, academically and scientifically it's just easier for those that beleive in evolution to start with a fish swimming in the ocean on earth and for them to say now everything evolved from this over millions of years, case closed. They call that science.
BUT science does not exist in the vacuum of a singular ideology, before evolution you have cosmology, then abiogenesis, then evolution. They don't want to combine the three into a scientific concept because it much harder to defend.
Separating them is easier, but by doing that you arrive at a disingenuous cognitive dissonance disguised as a false dichotomy.
Of coarse they will argue with scientific definitions, which I don't dispute, they are correct.
That has never been then issue, yet they will keep posting it over and over and over.
They haven't figured out that posting the definition of evolution, does nothing to advance their case, literally NOTHING.
But it seems this is their strongest defense, which I find rather amusing.

perhaps you would like to explain to us how a complex system like the universe clearly begs a designing hand, but the designing hand itself is exempt from this rule? theres a catch 22 for you to chew on. go ahead, take your time, we can wait.

I know right? 6000 years... AND all that time he wasted planting fake dinosaur bones? No way.

a reply to: AshFan

Or having an underling from the office trick people into sinning. Damn Gods a Jerk.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: AshFan

Or having an underling from the office trick people into sinning. Damn Gods a Jerk.

But seriously, can I eat ham and shellfish?

a reply to: AshFan

Are you allergic to either? Are they properly cooked? Don't ask me, I'm a Pagan. All my dietry restrictions are medicinal (Lactose intollerance, and gout, means very little unprocessed dairy, and keep the non oily fish intake down)

originally posted by: AshFan

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: AshFan

Or having an underling from the office trick people into sinning. Damn Gods a Jerk.

But seriously, can I eat ham and shellfish?

Really has little to do with this thread, but IF you're looking for a biblical answer...

Yes... what goes into your mouth doesn't defile you... what comes out of your mouth can