abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

reply to post by edmc^2


How is me pointing out that your arguments are argumentative fallacies off topic? The link proves it

If your arguments are demonstrably nonsense, and they are, do you expect people to just keep quiet about it? That would turn your posts into "preaching"!

reply to post by edmc^2

So are you saying then that there's INTELLIGENCE involve in the Origins of Life?

That life has the Hallmark of Intelligent Design?

No, I'm saying what I 've already explained to you in this very thread - that evolution is a combination of mutation and natural selection, which is clearly not "blind chance". Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

reply to post by MrXYZ


Please stay ON Topic and address my simple question.

If you say NATURE and the FORCES OF NATURE is the CAUSAL FORCE - the Prime Mover of Life NOT Intelligence, does this mean then that there's no INTELLIGENCE in Nature?

If NO Intelligence - does this mean then that NATURE is dumb? And was just lucky to create life by accident?

If by ACCIDENT - would you consider this then .... BLIND CHANCE EVENT?

what say you?

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So are you saying then that there's INTELLIGENCE involve in the Origins of Life?

That life has the Hallmark of Intelligent Design?

No, I'm saying what I 've already explained to you in this very thread - that evolution is a combination of mutation and natural selection, which is clearly not "blind chance". Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

"evolution is a combination of mutation and natural selection" - I've heard this statement so many times already. But enlighten me about this.

Is mutation the result of of a planned event, i.e. intelligent guided process or an accident, i.e. blind chance event?

what say you?

reply to post by edmc^2

Is mutation the result of of a planned event, i.e. intelligent guided process or an accident, i.e. blind chance event?

Mutations are essentially random but you conveniently left out natural selection, which clearly isn't. Why is that?

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Is mutation the result of of a planned event, i.e. intelligent guided process or an accident, i.e. blind chance event?

Mutations are essentially random but you conveniently left out natural selection, which clearly isn't. Why is that?

Which one do you think comes/happens first? Mutation or Natural Selection?

Who is the driver? Isn't it mutation?

If so, and if the result of mutation is not conducive to "evolution" - will natural selection occur?

And what's the trigger for natural selection? Does it select randomly or Intelligently?

If randomly, then is it by accident - i.e. Blind Chance?

So it goes back again to Blind Chance Event. Doesn't it?

reply to post by edmc^2

Which one do you think comes/happens first? Mutation or Natural Selection?

Who is the driver? Isn't it mutation?

If so, and if the result of mutation is not conducive to "evolution" - will natural selection occur?

And what's the trigger for natural selection? Does it select randomly or Intelligently?

If randomly, then is it by accident - i.e. Blind Chance?

So it goes back again to Blind Chance Event. Doesn't it?

You really are a fountain of logical fallacies, aren't you? This particular variety is called a false dichotomy. You're suggesting that "random" and "intelligent" are the only options when this is clearly not the case. Natural selection is neither random nor intelligent. I'm surprised you're struggling with this as it's the very foundation of the theory of evolution. Wouldn't you need to at least understand the basics of a theory to be able to criticize it?

Whether a mutation will be passed along to future generations or not is anything but a random proposition. If the mutation increases the chances of survival of the organism then it will clearly have a greater chance of having offspring than if the mutation decreases the chances of its survival. It's got nothing to do with blind chance.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Which one do you think comes/happens first? Mutation or Natural Selection?

Who is the driver? Isn't it mutation?

If so, and if the result of mutation is not conducive to "evolution" - will natural selection occur?

And what's the trigger for natural selection? Does it select randomly or Intelligently?

If randomly, then is it by accident - i.e. Blind Chance?

So it goes back again to Blind Chance Event. Doesn't it?

Still repeating the same nonsense I see. The driver is NATURE and not all mutations are random. Some are caused by cosmic rays, solar radiation, and various other factors. That's not random, it's direct cause and effect. The selection itself is very specific and includes not just natural selection but sexual selection. I know you love repeating the catch phrase "BLIND CHANCE EVENTS!!!!" but it's not relevant at all. Asking circular questions does not change that. Is it blind chance events that men generally prefer to mate with healthy attractive women?

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Please stay ON Topic and address my simple question.

If you say NATURE and the FORCES OF NATURE is the CAUSAL FORCE - the Prime Mover of Life NOT Intelligence, does this mean then that there's no INTELLIGENCE in Nature?

If NO Intelligence - does this mean then that NATURE is dumb? And was just lucky to create life by accident?

If by ACCIDENT - would you consider this then .... BLIND CHANCE EVENT?

what say you?

So MrXYZ - did you finish you research already?

If so, what's the answer to my simple questions above?

Originally posted by radix
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Which one do you think comes/happens first? Mutation or Natural Selection?

Who is the driver? Isn't it mutation?

If so, and if the result of mutation is not conducive to "evolution" - will natural selection occur?

And what's the trigger for natural selection? Does it select randomly or Intelligently?

If randomly, then is it by accident - i.e. Blind Chance?

So it goes back again to Blind Chance Event. Doesn't it?

You really are a fountain of logical fallacies, aren't you? This particular variety is called a false dichotomy. You're suggesting that "random" and "intelligent" are the only options when this is clearly not the case. Natural selection is neither random nor intelligent. I'm surprised you're struggling with this as it's the very foundation of the theory of evolution. Wouldn't you need to at least understand the basics of a theory to be able to criticize it?

Whether a mutation will be passed along to future generations or not is anything but a random proposition. If the mutation increases the chances of survival of the organism then it will clearly have a greater chance of having offspring than if the mutation decreases the chances of its survival. It's got nothing to do with blind chance.

Sure I understand the process but if Natural Selection has NOTHING to do with BLIND CHANCE (random) and Intelligence, then how does it naturally select?

Who or what decides the selection so that it will be a Natural Selection?

And by Natural Selection - what are the parameters for it to occur?

And finally - who set the parameters?

Can't be Nature since it's not intelligent so who or what can it be then?

Blind Chance Event?

But you say this is "called a false dichotomy."

In that case who or what drives Natural Selection to select what randomly a result of random mutation?


And if as you say "Mutations are essentially random" - what makes Natural Selection non-random?

Know what I mean?

Also if you say

..the chances of survival of the organism then it will clearly have a greater chance of having offspring than if the mutation decreases the chances of its survival.

Does this mean that CHANCE was the trigger for Natural Selection to occur?

Is this Blind Chance Event or planned event?

reply to post by Barcs

Still repeating the same nonsense I see. The driver is NATURE and not all mutations are random. Some are caused by cosmic rays, solar radiation, and various other factors. That's not random, it's direct cause and effect. The selection itself is very specific and includes not just natural selection but sexual selection. I know you love repeating the catch phrase "BLIND CHANCE EVENTS!!!!" but it's not relevant at all. Asking circular questions does not change that. Is it blind chance events that men generally prefer to mate with healthy attractive women?

Talk about nonsense - make a sense of what you just said:

"The driver is NATURE and not all mutations are random." - If so, what parameters does NATURE use to randomly and non-randomly effect mutation (by what ever means)?

Does it intelligently / blindly select its target randomly or non-randomly so that like you said

"selection itself" will be "[is] very specific"?

Specific in what way?

Does it select a specific cell, a DNA molecule so that a fish will mutate into an amphibian, an amphibian into a reptile...etc.?


Also, is it specific so that it can randomly / non-randomly mutate itself in order to create its own reproductive system? And thus be selected by Natural Selection to further its survival?



Anyway I can go on and on but I'll just leave it here for now. gotta go.

later dude.

reply to post by edmc^2

Sure I understand the process but if Natural Selection has NOTHING to do with BLIND CHANCE (random) and Intelligence, then how does it naturally select?

This question alone makes it abundantly clear that you don't understand the process at all. I just explained it to you, try reading this again:

Whether a mutation will be passed along to future generations or not is anything but a random proposition. If the mutation increases the chances of survival of the organism then it will clearly have a greater chance of having offspring than if the mutation decreases the chances of its survival.

It really isn't all that hard to grasp, is it?

Who or what decides the selection so that it will be a Natural Selection?

And by Natural Selection - what are the parameters for it to occur?

What you need to have natural selection is basically a population of individuals competing for finite resources. The better adapted the individual is to its environment, the better its chances of having offspring and passing its genes on to the next generation.

And finally - who set the parameters?

Can't be Nature since it's not intelligent so who or what can it be then?

This makes absolutely no sense at all. Why would the parameters need to be set by an intelligence? A change in climate will bring a new set of parameters. Are you saying climate change is intelligent?

And if as you say "Mutations are essentially random" - what makes Natural Selection non-random?

The simple fact that it is. Let's say one individual has a mutation that causes a debilitating disease that will kill him before adulthood. According to your "blind chance" logic, this individual would have the same chance of passing on his genes to the next generation as an individual without this mutation when, in actual fact, his chances would be zero.

Also if you say



"..the chances of survival of the organism then it will clearly have a greater chance of having offspring than if the mutation decreases the chances of its survival."


Does this mean that CHANCE was the trigger for Natural Selection to occur?

Cute. I was using the word "chance" as meaning "probability", not as in random (but you knew that).

Is this Blind Chance Event or planned event?

Still trying to push that false dichotomy, I see. The answer, of course, is neither.

reply to post by edmc^2


Wake Up To Reality...

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1

Evidence - Prophetic and Scientific...Language and Mathematical Structure 100%









Prophecy -
www.reasons.org...

reply to post by radix


Is this Blind Chance Event or planned event?

Still trying to push that false dichotomy, I see. The answer, of course, is neither.

Why are evolutionists so scared and coward when it comes this word - Blind Chance Event?

Every time I mention it I get this 'it wasn't me' response.

So if abiogenesis / evolution is not by Intelligence / planned event or Blind Chance Event, Accident, Luck what then?

If Nature / Climate Change / blah blah blah was responsible for the existence / mutation / evolution of life then did "IT" do it by accident, luck, blind chance?

It could not be Intelligence because like you said there's no need for parameters.

So what was responsible for triggering abiogenesis / mutation / evolution if not an accidental, unplanned and may i dare to say - Blind Chance Event?

reply to post by edmc^2

Why are evolutionists so scared and coward when it comes this word - Blind Chance Event?

Every time I mention it I get this 'it wasn't me' response.

So because we don't buy your fawlty logic, we're cowards? Nice try.

So if abiogenesis / evolution is not by Intelligence / planned event or Blind Chance Event, Accident, Luck what then?

You still don't get it, do you? You truly believe intelligence and blind chance are the only options. So which one is gravity, then? It's obviously not random since it always produces the same result (you know, things tend to fall down when you drop them and not fly away in a random direction). I guess gravity must be intelligent, huh?

It's obviously escaped your notice but nature doesn't operate on blind chance. If it did, we wouldn't be able to study and understand anything about it. It's only because there are consistent, observable patterns that science can pose hypotheses and test them through experimentation. If the outcomes of the experiments were truly random, no predictions or conclusions could be made and no knowledge could be gained.

If Nature / Climate Change / blah blah blah was responsible for the existence / mutation / evolution of life then did "IT" do it by accident, luck, blind chance?

It could not be Intelligence because like you said there's no need for parameters.

So what was responsible for triggering abiogenesis / mutation / evolution if not an accidental, unplanned and may i dare to say - Blind Chance Event?

Abiogenesis is still just a hypothesis but so far there is nothing to suggest that it's impossible to find a plausible path from simple organic chemicals to a replicator. If such a path is found, it will be a result of the forces of chemistry and physics which are anything but random. We're now up to page 60 in this thread and you still haven't been able to back up your premise that abiogenesis is unscientific or a silly idea. What you have given us is verbose arguments that all boil down to the same logical fallacy: life must be the result of divine creation because you can't imagine any other possibility. This doesn't prove anything except that you have a limited imagination.

As for evolution, I'll just let this video speak for itself. It's a great illustration of natural selection at work and why evolution is not a random process:

^Great video! I have that DVD from HHMI. It's very informative.

Originally posted by edmc^2
"The driver is NATURE and not all mutations are random." - If so, what parameters does NATURE use to randomly and non-randomly effect mutation (by what ever means)?

Does it intelligently / blindly select its target randomly or non-randomly so that like you said

Some mutations are random when passed from parent to child. Some are effected by environmental factors. Parameters? Natural selection is not conscious. Creatures that can survive and reproduce, succeed.

"selection itself" will be "[is] very specific"?

Specific in what way?

Male Peacocks have a beautiful assortment of feathers that they use to attract mates. Females are more likely to mate with males that have attractive feathers. Given enough time, most males will have worthy feathers because they breed more and pass down their genes. This is sexual selection.

Does it select a specific cell, a DNA molecule so that a fish will mutate into an amphibian, an amphibian into a reptile...etc.?

Fish don't just mutate into amphibians. Surely you've at least read the basics of evolution before criticizing it, right? The changes are in the DNA and no they aren't consciously selected. Changes like a type of fish, going amphibian would take millions and millions of years. The changes themselves are small, but seem big after enough time passes. A creature never just suddenly gives birth to a whole different family of organism. 1

Also, is it specific so that it can randomly / non-randomly mutate itself in order to create its own reproductive system? And thus be selected by Natural Selection to further its survival?

Okay, that's one of the most nonsensical statements I've read in a while. What are you trying to say? Reproductive systems didn't exist and then suddenly poofed into existence with a genetic mutation? Are you serious?

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Please stay ON Topic and address my simple question.

If you say NATURE and the FORCES OF NATURE is the CAUSAL FORCE - the Prime Mover of Life NOT Intelligence, does this mean then that there's no INTELLIGENCE in Nature?

If NO Intelligence - does this mean then that NATURE is dumb? And was just lucky to create life by accident?

If by ACCIDENT - would you consider this then .... BLIND CHANCE EVENT?

what say you?

Why do you keep on repeating that blind chance stuff over and over again??? Physical forces being responsible for it doesn't mean it was "blind chance"

Of course you keep on repeating that "blind chance" narrative (no matter how silly it is) because in your mind it forms the basis for "science can't explain that, ergo god did it" ARGUMENTATIVE FALLACY.

Funny how you aren't able to debunk the FACT that you are using ARGUMENTATIVE FALLACIES in every single one of your arguments...instead you simply repeating the same argumentative fallacies over and over again

But let me link it again so you and others can see why your arguments are nonsense:

Argumentative fallacies

You are using the inductive fallacy for example:

Inductive Fallacy
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white.

...and the argument from complexity, argument from ignorance, and of course "god of the gaps"

Douglas Adams said it best imo...

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Douglas Adams said it best imo...

that is pretty neato.,,..,,. but the way i look at it,.,..,

If there is a God,..,. its not all about you or I or a puddle or zebra.,,.,. its the fact that everything exists including you.,,.,. not that God made a perfect nook for you,.,.,. its that you were able to exist in a nook,.

reply to post by radix

It's obviously escaped your notice but nature doesn't operate on blind chance.

EXACTLY!!!!!! That was my POINT!!!! Now you got it.


"nature doesn't operate on blind chance"

lets repeat it again:

"nature doesn't operate on blind chance."

Why, because they are GOVERNED by fundamental laws of Nature. These laws are so accurate and fine tuned that they are very reliable and predictable.

So Blind Chance was never at/in play - never been never was because like you said:

"nature doesn't operate on blind chance."

Question that you need to answer is:

Where did the Laws of Nature came from?

Did they just came to be - i.e. spontaneously appeared or someone with a MIND put them together?

Let's take the four forces of nature - according to findings these forces complement each other in order for the Universe - Nature to function properly.

Did these forces / laws created themselves?

Me thinks - you will say NO.

Yes?