I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

kyviecaldges
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Except it HAS been proven.

Then kindly point me in the direction of the repeatable experiments that validate this.

Please do.

Because I have already shown that the Miller-Urey experiments show absolutely nothing.

And I have also shown that the recent effort to synthesize ribonucleic pyrimidines using inorganic phosphate as a catalyst shows absolutely nothing as well.

Read the thread.

Please. I grow tired of repeating myself.

edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

I'm not talking about Abiogenesis in my post there so you bringing up the Miller-Urey experiment is useless. If you want to talk about Abiogenesis (which you seem to keep going on and on about), then make a thread about it. This thread is about Evolution.

reply to post by helldiver

And meteor bombardment seems a likely source of phosphorous

Good guess yoda, but it proves nothing. I am likely to make myself a cup of coffee, but maybe not.

Do you know the definition of the word likely

Possessing or displaying the qualities or characteristics that make something probable.

link to source

LIGHT YEARS away from a fact.

An inorganic phosphate will NOT allow for the hypercycle, which is absolutely necessary to continue catalysis.
That is why I mentioned that we use phosphate that originates in our muscles in the form of ATP.
This allows for the creation of a hypercycle.

Louis Pasteur referred to this as biogenesis.

Only life can give birth to life.

If not then it is spontaneous generation.

Krazysh0t

kyviecaldges
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

Except it HAS been proven.

Then kindly point me in the direction of the repeatable experiments that validate this.

Please do.

Because I have already shown that the Miller-Urey experiments show absolutely nothing.

And I have also shown that the recent effort to synthesize ribonucleic pyrimidines using inorganic phosphate as a catalyst shows absolutely nothing as well.

Read the thread.

Please. I grow tired of repeating myself.

edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

I'm not talking about Abiogenesis in my post there so you bringing up the Miller-Urey experiment is useless. If you want to talk about Abiogenesis (which you seem to keep going on and on about), then make a thread about it. This thread is about Evolution.

I have been participating in this thread the entire time. You haven't.
Please read the thread.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


So what does that have to do with you confusing what I was talking about? You mentioned an experiment that has to do with Abiogenesis. I am talking about Evolution. Two different theories. YOU keep trying to combine the two for some reason (believe it or not I have been reading this thread since I first posted in it back on page 12. Just because I'm not sitting at my computer hitting refresh every two minutes to respond to every post doesn't mean I'm not following what is going on.

Abiogenesis—Origins of Life Research

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life. Evolution, technically, is about what happened after life arose on Earth.

Abiogenesis & Evolution

Now, the origin of life is certainly an interesting topic, but it is not a part of evolutionary theory. The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

So what does that have to do with you confusing what I was talking about? You mentioned an experiment that has to do with Abiogenesis. I am talking about Evolution. Two different theories. YOU keep trying to combine the two for some reason

You may have looked at the words, but you obviously don't understand my position.

I believe in evolution as proven valid by Gregor Mendel, but I do not believe in abiogenesis.

They are two different theories and I have in no way tied to the two together.

In fact, I addressed this issue here on page 4 of the thread at the bottom-

Evolution and Darwin's theory of the evolution of our species are separate entities.
Gregor Mendel proved evolution, and as I have stated already, several times, his work is undeniable.

And peter vlar, who was debating against those in agreement with the OP, said this on page 26-

You're barking up the wrong tree. They don't dispute the Evolution exists based on Mendels own work. They dispute that Darwin had a clue because they wrongly attribute abiogenesis to Darwin based on Darwin's depiction of common descent.

Like I said... Please read the thread.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


So if you believe in Evolution and not Abiogenesis, why are you in an Evolution thread on the side of anti-Evolution and using your distrust of the Abiogenesis theory as a basis for your argument? Just start a thread titled "Why I don't believe in Abiogenesis" or something like that. I actually don't have an opinion one way or the other about if Abiogenesis is true or not. I haven't done enough research into it to form one. But I know that Evolution starts with the premise that life already exists so there is no reason to speak about Abiogenesis in an Evolution thread. It is offtopic; unless some uninformed Creationist makes the tired and stupid statement "Evolution doesn't explain how life started" or some variation of that nonsense.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


This is a quote from the OP, the first line in fact.

A year ago I was a person who accepted evolution as it is currently being used in academia, but as an observer of facts, evidence and discussions abroad I have come to the conclusion that it is something which requires faith to believe in and can not be proven.

Evolution is currently being used by academia to validate the abiogenesis hypothesis.
This includes the universal common ancestor theory posited by Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species, although Darwin did not create this idea, his theory presented in his book is being used by me in particular to represent exactly how evolution is currently being used in academia.

This is exactly, word for word, what the OP was discussing.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but please read the thread.

kyviecaldges
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

This is a quote from the OP, the first line in fact.

A year ago I was a person who accepted evolution as it is currently being used in academia, but as an observer of facts, evidence and discussions abroad I have come to the conclusion that it is something which requires faith to believe in and can not be proven.

Evolution is currently being used by academia to validate the abiogenesis hypothesis.

So? That doesn't disprove Evolution. All that says is that Evolution needs to be true for Abiogenesis to be true. It doesn't say, however, that Abiogenesis needs to be true for Evolution to be true.

This includes the universal common ancestor theory posited by Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species, although Darwin did not create this idea, his theory presented in his book is being used by me in particular to represent exactly how evolution is currently being used in academia.

Evolution has left Darwin behind and has evolved itself to explain newer models. To use Darwinian evolution as some sort of spring board for disproving evolution is like saying people can't run a mile then using a baby to prove your premise.

This is exactly, word for word, what the OP was discussing.

No it isn't... The OP was JUST talking about evolution. You brought Abiogenesis into the conversation.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but please read the thread.

First off, stop telling me to read a 20+ page thread like I have the time to casually peruse all those posts to get a full idea of what is going on. Again I've skimmed over this thread. I have come to the conclusion that you aren't making a lot of sense and that many people have already pointed that out to you, yet you continue on this conversation about Abiogenesis. You've even responded to a post I made to ANOTHER poster on this thread to continue this conversation with me. I hate to sound like a broken record too, but if you want to talk about Abiogenesis then make a thread about it. I'm not trying to discuss that concept in an Evolution thread.

reply to post by helldiver


Not upset. Thanks.

Not fact......THEORY....hence why it is always and will always just be called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. No Nobel prize has been handed out as of yet giving credit to anyone who successfully proved it.... That would be the day you can say what yo do.

Instead of providing a laughable little link trying to place the misconception on defining the term......try PROVING IT.

We can not prove something we have not observed once, let alone more than once to say that it is something we can say happens always conclusively.

What if evolution is a process that does effect the rate of variety of life, but is a minor process. Or if it is only something that happens in SOME species. Or if it is the product of something happening more globally.

Point is we dont know. Dont feel bad. You are not dumb for it. Yo just dont know.


and we are done.....

BYE!

kyviecaldges

peter vlar
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

The problem though us that it seems that you are approaching biological systems as though they are mathematical equations with a linear route and a defined static answer and that just isn't the case with biological organisms. If evolution had a set or stated goal then sure you could uplugin whatever variable you want and run the numbers but this simply is not the case no matter how much you want it to be so. You're lookin at evolution under a microscope without vein aware of the true scope of it. It's like standing on an 1000 mile long interstate highway next to a sign that says the next town is 10 miles away but saying its a lie because you can't see where the road disappears to over the horizon.

You are totally mis-framing my argument.

I am not the one saying that Darwinian Evolution acts like a mathematical equation.
If someone believes what today is taught as the origin of species, then they believe a model only proven through the use of recursive algorithms.
If you don't have this mathematical construct, then the very theory being promoted in this debate is moved to the conjecture pile.
And that is fine, because even with the mathematical model- it is still conjecture.

This is based upon ancient and heralded computer maxim.

G.I.G.O.

Garbage In Garbage Out.

edit on 25/11/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

Here you clearly saying that recursive algorithms have been used to prove evolution but that it's all just conjecture. "Garbage in, garbage out."

At this point i'm going to call you disingenuous and deceitful. You keep reshaping your arguments when they are challenged, making them very tricky targets indeed. You've really got a talent for it.

Everything you've spewed forth so far has been dismantled. Everything from your use of the null hypothesis, the use of logic, the cambrian explosion, adaptive radiation, the 2nd law, Darwin....basically your entire take on evolution (including, according to you, abiogenesis).

Oh aye, and here's a link explaining punctuated equilibrium:

evolution.berkeley.edu...

It's even got a little list of common misconceptions and their implications for evolution. You'll recognise all of them.

tadaman
reply to post by helldiver

 

Not upset. Thanks.

Not fact......THEORY....hence why it is always and will always just be called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION. No Nobel prize has been handed out as of yet giving credit to anyone who successfully proved it.... That would be the day you can say what yo do.

Instead of providing a laughable little link......try PROVING IT.

and we are done.....

BYE!

edit on 12 3 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

Hehe, classic just classic.

Here's Evolution101. If it's good enough for Berkeley then it should be good enough for you, at the least, to take it seriously.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Peace :-)

reply to post by helldiver


more "trust me brah"

Well if it is good enough for the entire scientific community the world over then its good for me. Not just one institution or one group of cronies.

I edited my post to reflect my sentiment of another classic tactic my evolutionary apologists.....which is to pretend that the discrepancy is on our part and that it is rooted in the definition of the terms we use.

There is no experiment to prove evolution....so how was it proven?
We havent witnessed evolution.....so how is it a process we know happens?


IT IS A THEORY.....dont cry.....I know. Much invested...but at least you have fun here arguing about it...

tadaman
reply to post by helldiver

 

more "trust me brah"

Well if it is good enough for the entire scientific community the world over then its good for me. Not just one institution or one group of cronies.

I edited my post to reflect my sentiment of another classic tactic my evolutionary apologists.....which is to pretend that the discrepancy is on our part and that it is rooted in the definition of the terms we use.

There is no experiment to prove evolution....so how was it proven?
We havent witnessed evolution.....so how is it a process we know happens?


IT IS A THEORY.....dont cry.....I know. Much invested...but at least you have fun here arguing about it...

edit on 12 3 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

Oopsy, wrong again:

www.talkorigins.org...

and



www.talkorigins.org...

reply to post by helldiver


Hybridization is not speciation.

Environmental adaptations are not speciation.

Fundamental changes to DNA are a form of speication in a sense....if evolution is correct.....ones that are beneficial to the organism and dont interfere with reproduction that is.

We just havent seen a new species emerge. Only more adapted species of the same type have emerged in environments that favored some traits over others.

An dog is a dog. Some are better dogs for certain environments for having longer snouts, thicker fur, ect....but they are still dogs.


But you knew that. Its just not convenient. I know.

Can we mate with chimps? No. Because we are two separate species. Can a wolf and a dog mate? Yes, and they can make a hybrid offspring because they are still members of the same genus.

We have NOT seen a new genus emerge from one species as of yet....sorry.

THAT would be the proof for evolution......

reply to post by tadaman


Gravity too is just a "theory". Keplers 3 laws another "theory" but we wouldn't be able to launch into orbit let alone to other planetary bodies without keplers law. Thermodynamics is just a "theory". Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is another. In science a theory is not the same as when Scooby, shaggy and the gang have a hunch. A scientific theory is supported by facts and consensus. systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner. Saying something is "just a theory" is like being on the receiving end of a tsunami and saying its just a little water.

reply to post by peter vlar


More of this?

I understand the concept and the definition of a theory and a conceptual terminology.

There is no observable process of evolution that we know of as of yet.

There is no testable experiment to say conclusively that evolution is constant or even sporadic.

So it is unproven.

I will not deny SOUND evidence as valid enough to speculate enough to get a better idea. BUT nothing is a fact until it is provable and testable.

Sorry. creationists have tactics. Evolutionists have tactics.

Definitions arent an issue. We know.

reply to post by tadaman


That's ridiculous. Here a quick hypothetical situation for you.

Let's take a species of animal, say a large carnivorous cat. Let's say that a certain number of these cats were to move to another area where big game to hunt isn't as prevalent and these cats adapt by having the bigger ones die out while the smaller ones remain. Let's say that this new group of cats lives in this area for a while, but the climate starts to change and the air becomes colder and colder. The cats that have little fur die out from the lack of heat while the ones with a lot of fur live on and pass on the gene to have a lot of fur. Now say that over time the cats have hunted the small animal population down and they start dying out from starvation. The cat adapts by becoming an omnivore and eventually an herbivore. The cats with flatter teeth in the back of its mouth live on. Let's also say that the plants that this cat feeds on is low lying and the cats that are too tall cannot reach it properly. The cats with shorter limbs start to appear and the ones with longer limbs die out. The cats with claws more suited to digging start dominating the area. Now a new predator emerges on the scene. By now our cat has lost its girth, its height, and is slowly becoming a herbivore. It cannot properly defend itself like its brethren from where it originally came from. Therefore the cats that have adapted some camouflage of their surroundings live on, but let's say that wasn't enough and they also develop some defense mechanism like a spike on its head to defend itself. All this continues on and on, with one change building up on a previous one.

By now the cat has lost its girth, has far more fur than before, has last its height, has become a herbivore, its claws are for digging as opposed to slashing, it has camouflage, and finally it has a weapon it can fight predators with. Would you still call this animal a cat? The thing I'm picturing in my head would look nothing like a cat and with all the genetic mutations, I'd doubt it would have the same dna structure as a cat. The reason we cannot witness this happening is because all those changes to compile up over time to produce a new species requires millions of years to happen. But it is easy to see that as changes pile up over time, a new species can easily emerge. Just because we haven't witnessed it happening doesn't mean it doesn't. In fact all evidence points to it being the most likely result.

reply to post by tadaman


The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences

talkorigins.org...

Here is an example of testable evidence-
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


you do realize that environmental adaptations dont constitute speciation, right?

Is a chiwawa a different SPECIES than a german shepherd to you?

reply to post by tadaman


No but a wolf and a dog are different species with the wolf being the common ancestor of all current dog breeds.