Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Barcs

Then you should probably tell that to the very non-scientific people who still believe in Darwinism, because several of them argued that on this thread.

If you say Darwinism is dead, the students on your side didn't get the memo.

So the rest of my response that directly answers your concerns with evolution is cannon fodder? Why do you keep ignoring people's main points in their responses? You asked questions, they were thoroughly answered and the scientific studies you quoted did not prove any of your points.

Darwinism didn't die. It evolved into modern evolutionary synthesis. NOBODY claims that Darwin's theory was perfect and absolute. Creationists treat it like it's a bible. The theory has changed immensely since Darwin initially proposed it. When people use terms that are outdated by 150 years it only exemplifies their agenda. Nobody uses the term "Darwinism" except creationists. It's a misnomer. Originally there were more than one theory of evolution and Darwinian evolution was one of them. The term doesn't apply today.

originally posted by: WarminIndy


When there is no substance, hope is still hope, love is still love, and yet there is still faith, because faith is in the waiting. Are you waiting for evidence in the substance? Then you have faith that it will happen.

I'm waiting for you to answer the question I posted above. I have no faith that you will be able to do so.

a reply to: WarminIndy

You presume that God can be measured and experimented on and you presume that man is capable of doing this, when man can't even find the evidence in the gaps.

perhaps the evidence is just being misinterpreted. and i firmly believe that any entity capable of building and operating a universe without error is more than capable of being measured.

I thought of something, you know, when a couple find out they are having a baby, they hope the baby will turn out well, but there is no evidence that it will. They have no substantive proof or evidence that the baby will one day be a great scientist, great leader or perhaps a serial killer. But they hope in something they don't see.

indeed they do. but that hope doesnt become a fact in the same sense that they have established she is now carrying a child in her body.

There is another verse in our Bible, we have no promise of tomorrow. We can all embrace this truth because we don't have foresight into tomorrow or the day after. We simply do not know. Yet we all still live as if tomorrow will come, except those who commit suicide. They want the end today. So then, there is still no promise for tomorrow.

But we have hope there will be a tomorrow because we structure our lives around that. We have hope and faith. Again, faith becomes substance because our life tomorrow is the expression of what we do today.

As atheism is a disbelief that leads to rejection, then both of those are action verbs, meaning that both become expressions and manifested in how one determines to live according to that.

is that how you reacted to santa claus? i do believe in the human power to create miracles, with or without a divine authority giving them help or permission. we have the capacity to be gods in our own lives, and if you feel that you have failed as a god, maybe its because you dont understand what a god is and what it does. in my humble opinion, gods are overrated in the same sense as a security blanket.

Richard Dawkins says there is nothing, but yet makes moral statements within a moral framework. Can we discuss his moral worldview?

Dawkins tweets that it is immoral not to abort babies with Down's Syndrome. If there is nothing, then there is no moral standard and therefore he defeats his own argument that we evolve with kindness and compassion as he said in The Selfish Gene

so that you understand my perception, i feel that morality is a human construct. but we can still teach ourselves to behave in emotionally constructive manners, which will ultimately lead to physically constructive patterns. a happy society is a productive one.

But yet I hear atheists say there is a moral instrinsicness built within their evolutionary makeup, that we evolve compassion. This man says we do not. I was told to attack the man's argument, so I am, and this is not quote mining or cherry picking as we often get accused of. It highlights the various arguments I have heard over the years. No other species has ever aspired to? Is this a true statement with evidence?

ad i thank you for that. i think morals are the murky middleground between biological impulses and higher thinking processes. also known as, morals are a symptom that we are either in or entering the halfway point between being animal and being...something else. dont ask me what that means for us, i dont know.

maybe that answers your question.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Barcs

Then you should probably tell that to the very non-scientific people who still believe in Darwinism, because several of them argued that on this thread.

If you say Darwinism is dead, the students on your side didn't get the memo.

So the rest of my response that directly answers your concerns with evolution is cannon fodder? Why do you keep ignoring people's main points in their responses? You asked questions, they were thoroughly answered and the scientific studies you quoted did not prove any of your points.

Darwinism didn't die. It evolved into modern evolutionary synthesis. NOBODY claims that Darwin's theory was perfect and absolute. Creationists treat it like it's a bible. The theory has changed immensely since Darwin initially proposed it. When people use terms that are outdated by 150 years it only exemplifies their agenda. Nobody uses the term "Darwinism" except creationists. It's a misnomer. Originally there were more than one theory of evolution and Darwinian evolution was one of them. The term doesn't apply today.

Barcs, please read Peter Vlar's comment about Darwinism. Abiogenesis was a construct within the paradigm of Darwinism. As much as you seem to be trying to say that since we have learned so much more about evolution that those original concepts don't apply any more in that sense. However, as much as one likes to say there were other evolution concepts, it is always Darwin's ideas that are still quoted in the textbooks for children in school.

And in textbooks, they still teach the embryonic fraud as if it were fact. And these are things that no matter how you try to get around it or mask it, if Darwinism or Naturalism as it was also called, that is the basis. Of course you know more now, we all know more now.

But all of the current ideas are still just naturalism, which is what it was called then.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't think we are all gods. I think people would like to think they are.

That still raises an important thought, that if we could be gods, then going by that ancient definition of gods as spirits, then we are spirits wrapped in a body of flesh. But we are not that Highest Intelligent, we are not that Eternal Immortal. And if we have a spirit, then it can't be measured naturally.

There is something in man that is greater than just animalistic impulses, but it comes from somewhere outside of the human, because a lot of humans do act like animals. Think about feral humans who have lost the ability to speak and act like what we call normal. And then think about how people act like animals in situations of the most violent and aggressive.

Joe Clark, the high school principal from New Jersey made a comment about the violence in his school, he said "If you treat them like animals, they will act like animals". And this idea is dangerous when you have young people who are constantly being told they are simply animals so no moral standards should be placed onto them and they don't need restraints from "silly religious institutes that brainwash people".

Yes, we need to be constrained and restrained, but it is not within the power of the animalistic impulse to do so. We are not mere animals and no one should feel as though they are. When I read your comments, I don't sit here and think "oh, that's just an animal on the other side of that screen" I think that you are a human with the very human capacity to think from a higher plane. You think about what words you choose to say, you have emotion behind those words and thoughts and you present yourself as more than just an animal. But it comes from a spiritual place inside of you and you are not a monkey randomly hitting the keys on the keyboard, you do this in an orderly fashion.

And that to me is why there is Intelligent Design, because of the intelligence in the design. And it is expressed in the intelligence displayed by you. At no point did you hit random keys in an attempt to make a coherent expression.

I could do this...fuenseesdud diiserhodtrwed..sehhdserry3ste64...shhierwatata8fd, but there is nothing coherent in that randomness and there will never be any order that arises from that and there will never be a chance or probability that you will ever understand anything communicated in that.

I inserted random letters but did not cause an order of a functioning statement.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Barcs

Then you should probably tell that to the very non-scientific people who still believe in Darwinism, because several of them argued that on this thread.

If you say Darwinism is dead, the students on your side didn't get the memo.

So the rest of my response that directly answers your concerns with evolution is cannon fodder? Why do you keep ignoring people's main points in their responses? You asked questions, they were thoroughly answered and the scientific studies you quoted did not prove any of your points.

Darwinism didn't die. It evolved into modern evolutionary synthesis. NOBODY claims that Darwin's theory was perfect and absolute. Creationists treat it like it's a bible. The theory has changed immensely since Darwin initially proposed it. When people use terms that are outdated by 150 years it only exemplifies their agenda. Nobody uses the term "Darwinism" except creationists. It's a misnomer. Originally there were more than one theory of evolution and Darwinian evolution was one of them. The term doesn't apply today.

Barcs, please read Peter Vlar's comment about Darwinism. Abiogenesis was a construct within the paradigm of Darwinism. As much as you seem to be trying to say that since we have learned so much more about evolution that those original concepts don't apply any more in that sense. However, as much as one likes to say there were other evolution concepts, it is always Darwin's ideas that are still quoted in the textbooks for children in school.

And in textbooks, they still teach the embryonic fraud as if it were fact. And these are things that no matter how you try to get around it or mask it, if Darwinism or Naturalism as it was also called, that is the basis. Of course you know more now, we all know more now.

But all of the current ideas are still just naturalism, which is what it was called then.

so your problem is with naturalism?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Barcs, please read Peter Vlar's comment about Darwinism. Abiogenesis was a construct within the paradigm of Darwinism. As much as you seem to be trying to say that since we have learned so much more about evolution that those original concepts don't apply any more in that sense. However, as much as one likes to say there were other evolution concepts, it is always Darwin's ideas that are still quoted in the textbooks for children in school.

No that isn't true at all. Abiogenesis was NEVER part of Darwinism. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that came about many years after Darwin postulated his theory on evolution.

And in textbooks, they still teach the embryonic fraud as if it were fact. And these are things that no matter how you try to get around it or mask it, if Darwinism or Naturalism as it was also called, that is the basis. Of course you know more now, we all know more now.

Which frauds are they teaching as facts? Do you have any examples or evidence of this? Or do we just have to take your word for it? I certainly don't trust you after reading your responses, so I'm going to have to see some evidence of this being true.

But all of the current ideas are still just naturalism, which is what it was called then.

Who cares what it is called? The ideas are STILL different then they were back then. To keep pushing outdated thinking as if it is current thinking is wrong and misrepresenting science. Science doesn't work like religion. Science updates its theories and ideas all the time. Stop focusing on the past and learn about CURRENT evolutionary synthesis. No scientist cares about outdated Darwinian evolution.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

i think warmindy may be suggesting that a significant portion of evolution adherents lean on abiogenesis as a complementary theory to evolution.

maybe im wrong.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Krazysh0t

i think warmindy may be suggesting that a significant portion of evolution adherents lean on abiogenesis as a complementary theory to evolution.

maybe im wrong.

But that's fine, but they still aren't related. One doesn't have to be true for the other to be true. WarminIndy should really read the thread in my signature.

ETA: BUT since he won't do that, I'll just take the bit about abiogenesis and evolution out and post it here:

Abiogenesis & Evolution

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

thas only the 35th time its been explained in this thread. sure you dont want to try for 36? hahaha...

a reply to: TzarChasm

I know... I think I'd have more success talking to a brick wall. He clearly doesn't want to educate himself on what the theory says. Which is really annoying, because you can't even start an actual debate with someone unless both parties fully understand the topic. That's like arguing with a Christian and saying that Jesus and Moses lived at the same time and knew each other. Not only is it wrong, but it is a waste of time to discuss it, because it doesn't further any points for or against Christianity (because it's wrong).

a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't think we are all gods. I think people would like to think they are.

That still raises an important thought, that if we could be gods, then going by that ancient definition of gods as spirits, then we are spirits wrapped in a body of flesh. But we are not that Highest Intelligent, we are not that Eternal Immortal. And if we have a spirit, then it can't be measured naturally.

im not familiar with this ancient definition you speak of. could you provide a source?

Joe Clark, the high school principal from New Jersey made a comment about the violence in his school, he said "If you treat them like animals, they will act like animals". And this idea is dangerous when you have young people who are constantly being told they are simply animals so no moral standards should be placed onto them and they don't need restraints from "silly religious institutes that brainwash people".

silly religious institutes that teach you the earth is 6000 years young, people lived with dinosaurs, the universe (or the earth, whatever) was created in seven days, the human species can be traced back to two humans living in a garden with a talking snake, and gay people are pawns of the devil are a detriment to society and scientific awareness. "reflections of morality as related to human animalism" is a subject for another thread.

Yes, we need to be constrained and restrained, but it is not within the power of the animalistic impulse to do so. We are not mere animals and no one should feel as though they are. When I read your comments, I don't sit here and think "oh, that's just an animal on the other side of that screen" I think that you are a human with the very human capacity to think from a higher plane. You think about what words you choose to say, you have emotion behind those words and thoughts and you present yourself as more than just an animal. But it comes from a spiritual place inside of you and you are not a monkey randomly hitting the keys on the keyboard, you do this in an orderly fashion.

evolution has given us the tools to tame those animal instincts and mechanisms. thats the point i was making earlier. on the other hand, idealism (my term for the higher cognivitive faculties we have developed in more recent centuries as a hominid species) has its extremes just like animalism. more specifically, it seems to have fostered an attitude where the mind and its potential are the ONLY part of the body worth having. in other words, we are glorious buds of imagination waiting to explode from filthy sacks of meat and water. our only point in being human is to learn why we dont want to be human. then we die and receive our reward of being, for all intents and purposes, wisps of imagination lingering at the beck and call of whatever master we chose in life.

THAT seems just as unhealthy a concept as being savage beasts of the wild.

And that to me is why there is Intelligent Design, because of the intelligence in the design. And it is expressed in the intelligence displayed by you. At no point did you hit random keys in an attempt to make a coherent expression.

a hundred monkeys with typewriters could theoretically reproduce the entire works of shakespeare by complete accident given a sufficient amount of time.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Krazysh0t

i think warmindy may be suggesting that a significant portion of evolution adherents lean on abiogenesis as a complementary theory to evolution.

maybe im wrong.

Yes, that is what I am suggesting. I have been saying it all along that a great portion of the general public that is in school now and are going into college or are out of school are still believing that it is a fact. And if it is still being taught as fact, which it was when I was in college, then the textbooks should reflect that. But these same people will quote Darwin and then Richard Dawkins and the now deceased Christopher Hitchens, and now Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris and many others.

When it asked of them to provide the evidence, they continually tell us that all we have to is read a science book, which cycles back to the same Darwinism ideas.

The last time I went to college (film school from 2009-2011), I had to take Biology for that degree, the funny thing was that in that class, the Biology professor questioned my presentation about my brother's DNA genetic test and when I said "Mitochondrial Eve" as I had given from National Geographic, the words he said to me, in class, was "If you believe in that stuff". I had used the term exclusively as it was mentioned by National Geographic's Genome Project.

That Biology professor told me in class that the term "Mitochondrial Eve" was religious, even though I had presented nothing about Intelligent Design or Creationism. I simply mentioned that T2b, leads to my "mitochondrial mother". Amazing, isn't it that a secular professor of biology tells me in class about a presentation where nothing about ID or Creation was even mentioned, he is offended by the very term used by the very secular National Geographic.

My Biology professor This guy, in class, told me the term "Mitochondrial Eve" was inappropriate. So how can you tell us that we don't know evolution when the very educators themselves are doing this?

Mitochondrial Eve

a reply to: TzarChasm

Joe Clark was principal of East Side High in Paterson, New Jersey.

Can you show me those exact tools? That means if evolution has made you function with that complexity at the cellular level, to work with tools, then that would be a functioning intelligence that communicates, right? You said evolution gives the tools, not the very specific method in which that operates.

Yes, theoretically my car can suddenly start on its own and drive itself to the store and back home. Anything can be theoretic, even cartoon characters in a spaceship could turn into balls of yarn, given the probability factor. Theoretically anything is possible, even Nibiru smashing into us. But given enough times, are there now monkeys sitting in front of a keyboard that are typing to prove this theory? Is it testable and can it be replicated in a lab?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Can you show me those exact tools? That means if evolution has made you function with that complexity at the cellular level, to work with tools, then that would be a functioning intelligence that communicates, right? You said evolution gives the tools, not the very specific method in which that operates.

tools of the mind. aka love, truth, peace, justice. intangible concepts that influence how we interact with this reality. a product of evolving brain tissue.

Yes, theoretically my car can suddenly start on its own and drive itself to the store and back home. Anything can be theoretic, even cartoon characters in a spaceship could turn into balls of yarn, given the probability factor. Theoretically anything is possible, even Nibiru smashing into us. But given enough times, are there now monkeys sitting in front of a keyboard that are typing to prove this theory? Is it testable and can it be replicated in a lab?

not that im aware of. but we dont need monkeys with typewriters to demonstrate that evolution is the most plausible theory to date. what are you trying to prove here? whats the point to all this.

a reply to: TzarChasm


The point is this, I didn't mention Darwinism or Naturalism in my OP. I did ask about original biome though. Whatever you consider the original biome is, whether it was in Africa or Asia or elsewhere, the problem was that I had asked about random mutations and how they lead to evolving creatures from one species to another. I mentioned Natural Selection, which many people still defended on this thread.

Please, go back and read the OP, ok? What happened was a knee jerk reaction like this "Ugh, another stupid Creationist doesn't know evolution and asks these moronic questions because they believe in the absurdly impossible God". Do you see what happened?

Now we are this many pages into it and everything else has been addressed. My questions still pertain because I asked about original random mutations and only one about Natural Selection.

And, if I am not wrong, Natural Selection was from Darwinism, was it not? And people defended that position and now telling me that position is wrong and no one thinks that way any more. So Natural Selection is out the window?

a reply to: WarminIndy

The point is this, I didn't mention Darwinism or Naturalism in my OP. I did ask about original biome though. Whatever you consider the original biome is, whether it was in Africa or Asia or elsewhere, the problem was that I had asked about random mutations and how they lead to evolving creatures from one species to another. I mentioned Natural Selection, which many people still defended on this thread.

random mutations are various degrees of helpful or harmful. the more helpful, the better chances of survival. the more harmful, the worse the chances. by and large, the harmful mutations are weeded out via natural selection and the helpful mutations make the grade.

Please, go back and read the OP, ok? What happened was a knee jerk reaction like this "Ugh, another stupid Creationist doesn't know evolution and asks these moronic questions because they believe in the absurdly impossible God". Do you see what happened?

your use of terminology strongly suggests an incomplete comprehension of the subject. we have tried to assist you with that, but you refuse to update your vocabulary. you being a creationist has little to do with it, aside from throwing stones in glass houses and whatnot. but we are here to educate you, and i am here to learn from all of you.

And, if I am not wrong, Natural Selection was from Darwinism, was it not? And people defended that position and now telling me that position is wrong and no one thinks that way any more. So Natural Selection is out the window?

natural selection is part of adaptive evolution. same old cog, new clockwork theory. except not nearly so precise as an actual clock.

a reply to: TzarChasm

So Natural Selection still applies? You just told me that Darwinism no longer is relevant, that it is merely a part of the puzzle, and yet the concept of Natural Selection was from Darwinism.

You can't have it both ways.

I'm sorry, but here it says

Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:

OK, the steps...

There is variation in traits.
For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

yes, they are still beetles. They aren't evolving into a California Condor or Lady Gaga.

There is differential reproduction.
Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

But not by becoming a bird. Still a beetle.

There is heredity.
The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis

And that's why I have blue eyes.

End result:
The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.

No, the green beetles just simply got eaten. Of course the population will only be brown, because those are the ones that didn't get eaten.

But isn't this funny that this is Berkeley University again, teaching this to college students?

Show me anywhere at all in that, anywhere on that page, anything that says the beetles become a new species through Natural Selection.

If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.

Nothing here indicates that concept, only that if you live, your traits might save you from getting eaten. Well, the bird might also smash into my car window. This is variation within the species itself, not to change it from one species to another.

And while we are on the subject of species, if a species is considered that because all members of the group are that, then individual species that do not mutate or get eaten, then it remains a previous species...or it is a pre-species?

The earliest primates, those individuals who were discovered, are they pre-human species or are they post-earlier species? If I recall, they are called by a different species group altogether. Homo Erectus is never called Pre-Human or Post-Homo Egaster. They are called "human" but if we go back further, then what was before the primates that are not human, are they called Proto-human? No, the Proto-humans are those pre-Archaic humans.

But if we go back even further, then the single cell organism, could it be considered Proto-human? But even babies at the embryonic stage are fully human because the DNA states that they are. They aren't anything else.

For example, the Neanderthals are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and Homo heidelbergensis is Homo sapiens heidelbergensis. Other taxonomists prefer not to consider archaics and modern humans as a single species but as several different species. In this case the standard taxonomy is used, i.e. Homo rhodesiensis, or Homo neanderthalensis.[1]

And in taxonomy,

the branch of science concerned with classification, especially of organisms; systematics.

Today, traditional rank-based biological classifications persist in a structure largely unchanged since the 1700s; however, how the relationships of these taxa are investigated has changed drastically in recent decades. It is now common for biologists to devise a classification based on the results of phylogenetic analysis using DNA sequence data, and taxa are typically required to be clades. Although phylogenetics itself is fundamental to modern-day systematics, its use for the description of new taxa, and for their placement within a classification scheme, is not required.

But now, aDNA sequencing is proving that actual dating is flawed and then overestimated. Bayesian Estimation of Substitution Rates from Ancient DNA Sequences with Low Information Content

It is interesting to note that the alignment of complete mitochondrial genomes from woolly mammoths failed the date randomization test. This suggests that the analyses performed by Debruyne and Poinar might be misleading, being based on a data set that is unable to yield plausible posterior estimates without strong prior information on the population size or root age.

Even Carl Woesse can't find the universal ancestor

Yet the totipotent ancestor also fails: it cannot explain the manner of the ancestor’s evolution, i.e., how it became so miraculously complex in so short a time and just as rapidly gave rise to the ancestors of the three primary lines of descent. All of this apparently happened in far less than 1 billion years, whereas evolution within each of the three primary lines of descent has been going on for over 3 billion years now with outcomes that don’t even begin to compare with the spectacular ones associated with the ancestor and its original offspring (4)—yet experience teaches that complex, integrated structures change more slowly than do simple ones. Moreover, the totipotent ancestor associates physiologies that have not been observed together in any modern lineage and asks that all of this come about through vertical inheritance. Thus, we are left with no consistent and satisfactory picture of the universal ancestor. It is time to question underlying assumptions.

And here, he says that your common universal ancestor from a single cell organism...never existed.

The universal ancestor is not an entity, not a thing. It is a process characteristic of a particular evolutionary stage

So, the process of evolution is observed, but is not based on an empirical entity that can be seen at all, not even in the genetic sequence.

And darn, he can't find either..

The universal ancestor does have an evolutionary history, but that history is physical, not genealogical.

So do we come from single cell organisms or not? There is no empirical evidence that we do.

BTW, those were two peer reviewed papers from secular scientists that I posted, because people like to read peer reviews. And they were not Creationists, just some scientists trying to find out what is going on.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Barcs

Then you should probably tell that to the very non-scientific people who still believe in Darwinism, because several of them argued that on this thread.

If you say Darwinism is dead, the students on your side didn't get the memo.

So the rest of my response that directly answers your concerns with evolution is cannon fodder? Why do you keep ignoring people's main points in their responses? You asked questions, they were thoroughly answered and the scientific studies you quoted did not prove any of your points.

Darwinism didn't die. It evolved into modern evolutionary synthesis. NOBODY claims that Darwin's theory was perfect and absolute. Creationists treat it like it's a bible. The theory has changed immensely since Darwin initially proposed it. When people use terms that are outdated by 150 years it only exemplifies their agenda. Nobody uses the term "Darwinism" except creationists. It's a misnomer. Originally there were more than one theory of evolution and Darwinian evolution was one of them. The term doesn't apply today.

Barcs, please read Peter Vlar's comment about Darwinism. Abiogenesis was a construct within the paradigm of Darwinism. As much as you seem to be trying to say that since we have learned so much more about evolution that those original concepts don't apply any more in that sense. However, as much as one likes to say there were other evolution concepts, it is always Darwin's ideas that are still quoted in the textbooks for children in school.

And in textbooks, they still teach the embryonic fraud as if it were fact. And these are things that no matter how you try to get around it or mask it, if Darwinism or Naturalism as it was also called, that is the basis. Of course you know more now, we all know more now.

But all of the current ideas are still just naturalism, which is what it was called then.

Whoa whoa whoa.... I never said ANYTHING about abiogenesis period let alone it being a tenet or construct of " Darwinism". You're taking something from what I wrote and completely twisting and bastardizing it. Hypothesis for how life began such as abiogenesis and panspermia have nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis and panspermia is a completely seperate field of study based on entirely different principles than evolutionary biology, anthropology, paleontology etc... I don't know how you got from my post that abiogenesis is a part of Darwinism or any facet of modern evolutionary synthesis but it is most certainly not the case.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Barcs

Then you should probably tell that to the very non-scientific people who still believe in Darwinism, because several of them argued that on this thread.

If you say Darwinism is dead, the students on your side didn't get the memo.

So the rest of my response that directly answers your concerns with evolution is cannon fodder? Why do you keep ignoring people's main points in their responses? You asked questions, they were thoroughly answered and the scientific studies you quoted did not prove any of your points.

Darwinism didn't die. It evolved into modern evolutionary synthesis. NOBODY claims that Darwin's theory was perfect and absolute. Creationists treat it like it's a bible. The theory has changed immensely since Darwin initially proposed it. When people use terms that are outdated by 150 years it only exemplifies their agenda. Nobody uses the term "Darwinism" except creationists. It's a misnomer. Originally there were more than one theory of evolution and Darwinian evolution was one of them. The term doesn't apply today.

Barcs, please read Peter Vlar's comment about Darwinism. Abiogenesis was a construct within the paradigm of Darwinism. As much as you seem to be trying to say that since we have learned so much more about evolution that those original concepts don't apply any more in that sense. However, as much as one likes to say there were other evolution concepts, it is always Darwin's ideas that are still quoted in the textbooks for children in school.

And in textbooks, they still teach the embryonic fraud as if it were fact. And these are things that no matter how you try to get around it or mask it, if Darwinism or Naturalism as it was also called, that is the basis. Of course you know more now, we all know more now.

But all of the current ideas are still just naturalism, which is what it was called then.

Whoa whoa whoa.... I never said ANYTHING about abiogenesis period let alone it being a tenet or construct of " Darwinism". You're taking something from what I wrote and completely twisting and bastardizing it. Hypothesis for how life began such as abiogenesis and panspermia have nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis and panspermia is a completely seperate field of study based on entirely different principles than evolutionary biology, anthropology, paleontology etc... I don't know how you got from my post that abiogenesis is a part of Darwinism or any facet of modern evolutionary synthesis but it is most certainly not the case.

I don't think I said you said it, what I said was that there are some people on this thread. You weren't the one who talked about it. And also when someone questioned about scientists, I said there was one. I didn't say your name because you hadn't done so in this thread, but I was giving you a bump.

From what I am gathering is this...you guys are no longer concerned about the origin of life so therefore you only need to study evolution as it is occurring now. Hence, study about the small, adaptive mutations in present species?

Small, adaptive changes in present species lead only to small, adaptive mutations in species. Those adaptations reverse. This is what you guys are telling me, that evolution isn't concerned with the grand picture of where life originates, only what it does now?

Is this then how it works now..."just simply accept that you are primate, now concern yourself only with the small traits you inherited from your parents. but let's never talk about where your original ancestors came from, just the several million years ago". Is that it?

Let's talk about evolution except that...let's talk about evolution except where life orginates...let's talk about evolution except when there might be an Intelligent Designer, but let's never talk about it? Is this is it?

Is that it? Accept that I am a primate without origins and wasn't designed at all, just a random, adaptive. mutated species?

I know what evolution is and you guys have went on and on and on about how I don't know and yet you have consistently again and again said nothing leading toward evolution. But hey, the origin of life no longer matters at all in the current climate, but let's teach children they are primates descended from some ape/human hybrid, and let's force them to believe it without question.

Is that evolution today? Nothing more than just trying to discover why there are mutations? EVERY peer review I have posted has cited Darwin. But if Darwin isn't important any more then please tell your Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris and others to please shut up about it. Oh no, you've added more to Darwinism, you understand Darwinism so much better now, we've evolved past that understanding. No, you guys have just given up on it because it failed in the expectation to say where life originated. So let's not talk about it any more.

The question is now this, was Darwin wrong?