evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

a reply to: Raggedyman

It's the best theory out there right now, with lots of evidence to support it.
If you are asking me do I think all the answers have been found then obviously no, they haven't.
I guess you'll have to take up your 'settled science' semantics game with someone who does assert that science knows all the answers, because that ain't me.
The theory of evolution is the best one in town though, with much evidence supporting it.
I'll leave you find someone else to argue with about the definition of settled science. Plenty of questions unanswered, that's the beauty of science, it can adapt a theory with new evidence.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I wasn't arguing, I was agreeing
I think your position is logical

Sorry

Dp

a reply to: Raggedyman

Gosh no need for an apology fella, it's been interesting and entertaining posting in this thread so thanks for posting it.
I come to ATS for robust discussion, and a thread like this usually guarantees it. I've enjoyed.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The only part of evolution that isn’t settled science is abiogenesis...

The origins of the first single celled organisms.. and evolution isn’t even trying to explain that..


From that point on it is very, very, very settled science..


Your just still holding out on the Bronze Age myths of goat herders lmao

It always makes me smile when people use Evolution as a tool to explain life.

I think it's a pretty solid theory. But it answers so little. No point arguing about it.

It's probably partly... maybe mostly true - but the question of where life began is far too vast and incomprehensible.

Also.

Aliens. And I'm not even kidding.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Xenogears

Well you get a star for a very interesting read

Cheers for posting the links, I enjoyed reading them.
But, I didn't read anything to indicate that children have an inherent belief in any deities. Belief in deities is learned behaviour.

Those were regards belief in essentialism. There's been commentary on the desire to attribute agency to phenomena in the world and how that may have been evolutionarily advantageous.

Say a few leaves rustle in a bush, attributing it to an animal has the advantage, that if a predator is nearby and you are correct you can take action to secure safety, if you're wrong almost no cost. The alternative of not attributing agency to the act, if you're wrong, it costs you your life, so it is safer to attribute agency.

Also, the tendency to ascribe purpose to most things seen in children could be taken as contributing to the probability of developing superstitious beliefs. That is called teleological thinking.

There's an origin to religions, and a reason why not only do they arise easily but they propagate and are accepted so easily.

A tendency to ascribe agency to phenomena of the world combined with a tendency to ascribe purpose will lead to superstitious belief and a high probability of creating beliefs in spirits or gods if left in isolated uneducated communities.

originally posted by: AlienView

1. Occur in a universe that as far as is known is completely inorganic?

2. Why does it evolve - And then evolve into extremely diverse patterns of life?
:

1. Inorganic may not be the word to use regards the universe, there are lots of organic compounds around. Devoid of complex intelligent life, probably since we've not seen any cosmic megastructures. Devoid of complex life, we can't say as that would be hard to detect. Devoid of simple life, probably not, there likely is abundant simple single cell life around.

2. Extremely simple rules can yield extraordinary diversity, a simple toy example can be seen in 1 dimensional cellular automata. For example the book A New Kind of Science from Wolfram talks about such. The body of truth, of all possible rules, there is an eternal intrinsic ability for simple rules to generate arbitrary complexity. Not ALL simple rules but some, which are special.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
It always makes me smile when people use Evolution as a tool to explain life.

I think it's a pretty solid theory. But it answers so little. No point arguing about it.

It's probably partly... maybe mostly true - but the question of where life began is far too vast and incomprehensible.

Also.

Aliens. And I'm not even kidding.

Life is complex machinery. How did it arise? Well considering it is here, and considering there's no evidence of supernatural events occurring, the likeliest explanation is that there exist extremely simpler machines that can spontaneously arise and serve as initial steps with a line of intermediate complexity machines to get to the current point.

Alternatively, I've heard quantum physicists say that even complex spontaneous appearances of objects, even brains is possible just extremely unlikely. So an entire cell appearing out of thin air is seemingly allowed by known science, if I'm not mistaken, but it is far far more likely that simple machines arose from spontaneous chemical reactions in the beginning.

With regards to information being added to a genome, there are errors in dna replication that lead to duplication of information, once duplicated the duplicated genetic information can acquire mutations without affecting the original and its function. The accumulation of mutations can yield specialization towards new functions over time.

The data on genetic similarity between organisms that matches the expected the relations between organisms, is strong evidence that there was an ancestral relation. For examples humans more similar to apes than to mice than to bananas, at a genetic level. There is no need or reason for this similarity, and this web of similarities between closely related species to exist, barring some "Last Thursdayism" or alternatively some intentional conspiracy from a higher power to mislead by placing such evidence there.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Well answer my question or continue to troll
Nothing stopping you

I am considering doing another thread, please don't forget to join me in that one, maybe a week or two away when this one dies.
Page gave me the idea

This one still has some legs and I don't want people to miss seeing evolutionists troll instead of answering the question I posed

Evolution, the facts that inform the theory, or lack thereof as none have been offered

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
It always makes me smile when people use Evolution as a tool to explain life.

I think it's a pretty solid theory. But it answers so little. No point arguing about it.

It's probably partly... maybe mostly true - but the question of where life began is far too vast and incomprehensible.

Also.

Aliens. And I'm not even kidding.

Aliens is possible but what are their origins, how did they develop from nothing
The problem just becomes offworld, we need an abiogenesis for aliens

Unless they always existed, then that becomes faith

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Well answer my question or continue to troll
Nothing stopping you

I am considering doing another thread, please don't forget to join me in that one, maybe a week or two away when this one dies.
Page gave me the idea

This one still has some legs and I don't want people to miss seeing evolutionists troll instead of answering the question I posed

Evolution, the facts that inform the theory, or lack thereof as none have been offered

No, large amounts of proof have been offered up, especially in other threads that you have been involved with. But you do what you always do, pretend that those threads never happened, or that you somehow prevailed in them and then rehash the same sterile arguments that you always use, pretending that you are looking for answers when in fact you refuse to admit that you are beating a dead horse.
And then you wonder why no-one takes your input in threads like this seriously?
Yeah, right, of course!

a reply to: Raggedyman

What question have you asked lol?!?!


Last I checked your OP was “prove evolution to me as I deny any science you point to”..


That isn’t asking a question..

If you ask a legit question some one would have it answered instantly.. because all your talking points are old..


The god of the gaps basically covers all of them..

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Welcome to conservatism..


If you don’t like reality just fabricate a new one and troll those who point out how ridiculous your points are..

The thing with genetic similarity between species in terms of their closeness, is that it is not only functional genetic information that is similar but also INERT mutations that do not affect function. Why would entirely different species SHARE INERT MUTATIONS, and the amount of SHARED MUTATIONS be greater the closer two species are expected to be according to scientific findings, and evolutionary theory, why would such be the case?

The probability of large amounts of inert mutations occurring in the same exact places in multiple different species, if this was not from shared ancestry, would be virtually impossible in terms of odds.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Well answer my question or continue to troll
Nothing stopping you

I am considering doing another thread, please don't forget to join me in that one, maybe a week or two away when this one dies.
Page gave me the idea

This one still has some legs and I don't want people to miss seeing evolutionists troll instead of answering the question I posed

Evolution, the facts that inform the theory, or lack thereof as none have been offered

oh cool i can update my list. you are at risk of becoming a major contributor. maybe i can bump you to the top if you keep up the good work, all this attention is great for the forum and very educational for the discerning viewer.

First rate comedy though people

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

No one says science has all the answers..

It is a fake rebuttal..


You say :science has figured out that specific part..


He says: I can’t believe your saying science has figured everything out!


Lol.. it is a childish deflection.

a reply to: Xenogears

But.. but...

Jesus?!?!

Lol