The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: TerryDon79


The big bang theory is still just a THEORY, or has it now
climbed outside the realm of the mad scientist?
The mad theory never has adequately demonstrated
how nothing can synthesize into the laws of physics,
intellect & consciousness. Main stream Science
postulates the big bang started as a singularity that
was combined matter and energy in the universe
compressed into a single point and then expanded,
or exploded, to produce all the known LAWS of our
universe.

The chance that a collection of random atoms and molecules
can form Laws, or a cell - or even a turtle is preposterous to
me. Maybe it's a fascinating theory since it induces more
questions than answers, and some people love a merry-go-round.

a reply to: MrBlaq

Perchance you do not understand how the word theory is used in science?

" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]" From Wikipedia(yet I include the citations they use, least you try the "don't trust Wikipedia fallacy).

Lets make it clear, there is more evidence for the Big bang, than any deity, Alien, or such.

(1) National Academy of Sciences, 1999 (www.nap.edu...)
(2) "The Structure of Scientific Theories" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu...)
(2) Schafersman, Steven D. "An Introduction to Science" (www.geo.sunysb.edu...)

a reply to: MrBlaq

Gravity is also "just a theory". Do you deny its existence as well? How about cell theory? It's just a theory so cells must not exist.... Right?

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: TerryDon79


The big bang theory is still just a THEORY, or has it now
climbed outside the realm of the mad scientist?
The mad theory never has adequately demonstrated
how nothing can synthesize into the laws of physics,
intellect & consciousness. Main stream Science
postulates the big bang started as a singularity that
was combined matter and energy in the universe
compressed into a single point and then expanded,
or exploded, to produce all the known LAWS of our
universe.

The chance that a collection of random atoms and molecules
can form Laws, or a cell - or even a turtle is preposterous to
me. Maybe it's a fascinating theory since it induces more
questions than answers, and some people love a merry-go-round.

Are you a reincarnation or a clone? You folks can't even adjust your writing style. Zombies?

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: TerryDon79


The big bang theory is still just a THEORY, or has it now
climbed outside the realm of the mad scientist?
The mad theory never has adequately demonstrated
how nothing can synthesize into the laws of physics,
intellect & consciousness. Main stream Science
postulates the big bang started as a singularity that
was combined matter and energy in the universe
compressed into a single point and then expanded,
or exploded, to produce all the known LAWS of our
universe.

The chance that a collection of random atoms and molecules
can form Laws, or a cell - or even a turtle is preposterous to
me. Maybe it's a fascinating theory since it induces more
questions than answers, and some people love a merry-go-round.

Are you a reincarnation or a clone? You folks can't even adjust your writing style. Zombies?

Amazingly those who call others sheep bleat the same.

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
No, actually 'we' know no such thing. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Period. Zero. Nada. Zip.

"Absolutely no evidence"?
That's a bit hyperbolic, isn't it

originally posted by: Photoneffect
i.e. changes in phenotype that do not involve or rely on mutations to the underlying genotype, yet can be transmitted to subsequent generations.

reply by: rnaa
There is simply no such accepted evidence, none, zip, nada that there is any such thing as a permanent (i.e. evolutionary) epigenetic change.

Not accepted by you doesn't mean not accepted by actual scientists. What has been established is that trans-generational epigenetic inheritance happens. The extent to which it does is still being determined.

originally posted by: rnaa
And since that process, methylization/demethylization, is 'encoded' in the DNA, it is subject 100% to the standard genetic inheritance model. Methylated DNA is not a mutation, it is just a 'state' that DNA can take to suppress certain genes.

First, of course it's not a genetic mutation. That's the point - it's regulation and variation that is not caused by genetic mutation. Changes to phenotype that don't rely on changes to the underlying genotype. Etc etc...

Second, it's "DNA methylation". I don't know what 'methylization' is.

Third, it'd be nice if you cited a source or two supporting the claim that methyl groups are "encoded" in DNA. That notion seems to go against the very meaning of what an epigenetic mark is.

Just to be sure:

Epigenetic modifications are heritable changes in gene expression not encoded by the DNA sequence

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Methylation adds information not encoded in the DNA sequence, but it does not interfere with the Watson-Crick pairing of DNA - the methyl group is positioned in the major groove of the DNA. The pattern of methylation controls protein binding to target sites on DNA, affecting changes in gene expression and in chromatin organization, often silencing genes, which physiologically orchestrates processes like differentiation, and pathologically leads to cancer

www.ks.uiuc.edu...

originally posted by: rnaa
There are plenty of reports about it. You have heard about it haven't you? Clearly you haven't been reading mainstream science blogs or you would know just what the state of play in the field is.

I hate it when my laziness leads to misunderstandings. I should have been more clear about what I meant. The lack of mention pertains to the discussion in this thread and other threads on ATS, not the outside world.

I have 100's of links bookmarked so I know full well the extent to which it's covered.

originally posted by: rnaa
Reading New Age psuedoscience or anti-science reactionary religions blogs certainly aren't going to keep you well informed on the subject.

These things don't apply to me.

originally posted by: rnaa
People are hard at work trying to find out how it might fit into the MES; some are lobbying for an EMES, Enhanced MES, but since there is no real Evolutionary process involved here, I don't find it very difficult to discuss it within the MES.
l

It's been 30 years. And I have yet to read an article about epigenetics that says it plays no role in the evolutionary process.

originally posted by: rnaa
Frankly, I can't for the life of me figure out why ID'ers, or Creationists, or New Agers or who ever think that epigenetics is going to burn down the MES or cancel Evolution and the rest of Biology along with it. If they understood it on an even rudimentary level, they wouldn't dare. It just doesn't make sense.

I'm neither of those things. It's too bad you have to stoop to repeated ad hominem when someone disagrees with your cemented world view, or questions certain aspects of evolutionary theory.

There are several scientists calling for an extended synthesis, yes. And why do you think that is? Do you brandish them as IDers or Creationist thinkers for it?

It’s not about burning down the MES, or doing away with biology. I mean really, why are you being so dramatic? I’ve never come close to suggesting such a thing.

The MES is incomplete. It says nothing about alrernative systems of variation or inheritance other than the traditional Mendelian system. So every time you say evolution is the MES - which is mostly referring to genetic mutation, natural selection, and vertical inheritance - you are grossly oversimplifying evolution. And that’s my point.

a reply to: Barcs

Since you value youtube videos over scientific research papers, here is a short, but effective video about abiogenesis that goes over many of those experiments.

Seen it (or most of it, I don't last long when I'm noticing mythology being presented as being "scientific"). You have already demonstrated not to care to evaluate such information.

And even when I quote straight from the dictionary about the term "chemical evolution" being synonymous with the term "abiogenesis" (previously I also quoted wikipedia about it and Haldane & Oparin), you're still going to try to play your card of seperating the subject of the origin of life from "evolution"?

Interesting how you didn't play this card the last time I said something about this particular subject (when I included a response to that argument and quick switch in definition for the word "evolution" to something resembling the broad and vague definition "change over time", and now I don't spell everything out anymore opening up the door for you to argue that definition isn't vague and the most common definition for the word "evolution", I'm tired of having to spell everything out, if people can't figure out for themselves they shouldn't read your comments to avoid getting their heads filled with what's mentioned in my sig...I can't change the situation anyway; the twists are just endlessly repeated)
Quoting you:

Evolution simply means change or increase in complexity/knowledge over time, and we all know what chemical means.

What happened to 'evolution having no direction' (supposedly)? You'll save that for another time? Or did you cover that with the word "or"? And how does increase of knowledge have anything to do with evolutionary philosophies in particular the one I addressed in the comment you were responding to: so-called "chemical evolution" (quoting the dictionary and Dean Kenyon), a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" (quoting Huxley) a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting Haldane & Oparin).
Sigh, what else is new around these parts...I'm gonna have to work on my patience some more cause it's quite frustrating looking for someone who is both honest and reasonable in their commentary on ATS. Only 1, I only want to find 1, is that really so much to ask? I'm not thinking about those who've already figured out the most important facts/truths about reality. I'm hoping that there is anyone out there who is honest and reasonable and hungry for knowledge, recognizing both the need and value of learning* new things (* = increasing their knowledge, not "evolution"; sigh, almost unbelievable this conversation), discovering new important facts about reality, appreciative of and being able to recognize beneficial teaching. If you're out there, please do speak up in this subforum. I'm getting a bit desperate in my search, surely there must be a few of you left? I don't have any issues with what I would see as mistakes or flaws in reasoning, if I can tell they're honest mistakes, I welcome them, if my words can have any effect on someone's way of thinking about it. But these convsersations so far have been entirely fruitless in terms of me or others learning important things (except maybe me learning that the situation is even worse than I thought, but I don't see how that's going to help me communicate rationally with others).

Oh, I shouldn't be so disheartened, I have seen a few reasonable comments here and there (but then I often see the person making other comments elsewhere that defy all reason, maybe I should focus my search on honesty rather than logic or reason, I might have a better chance there, plenty of people here that are honestly expressing their views and arguments, no matter how unreasonable they are).

I wish Isaac Newton or someone like him was still alive and unaware of the facts that matter, that would make for such an interesting conversation. I think it's possible such people still exist, hard to find for a conversation though (I may also overlook them because of all the other types of responses I get).

Perhaps I should be glad no one watches the video with Isaac Newton in it, I'd actually have to justify my usage of the word "calculating" and "designer...science" at awkward disputable moments in that video (someone might argue about me changing what the original documentary said and using propaganda techniques rather than removing and correcting the twists of the original documentary and the way people think about how Newton reached his conclusions regarding realities/facts, in all fairness, I did want to use "reasoning" there but I couldn't quickly find the word in that documentary, and the grammar isn't right regarding those other words I swapped out compared to the original documentary which was spinning away nicely).

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: TerryDon79


The big bang theory is still just a THEORY, or has it now
climbed outside the realm of the mad scientist?
The mad theory never has adequately demonstrated
how nothing can synthesize into the laws of physics,
intellect & consciousness. Main stream Science
postulates the big bang started as a singularity that
was combined matter and energy in the universe
compressed into a single point and then expanded,
or exploded, to produce all the known LAWS of our
universe.

The chance that a collection of random atoms and molecules
can form Laws, or a cell - or even a turtle is preposterous to
me. Maybe it's a fascinating theory since it induces more
questions than answers, and some people love a merry-go-round.

Are you a reincarnation or a clone? You folks can't even adjust your writing style. Zombies?

I consider a more appropiate terminology to be "Don Quijote Windmill Giant" (for your or others' sake, a living straw man to fight and to bring up the usual game of explaining what a scientific theory is, so you or others can feel or appear more intellectually superior for understanding much better what a scientific theory is, giving a false impression of being right, and skip past the fact that none of the evolutionary philosophies even qualifies as a so-called "hypothesis", let alone a so-called "scientific theory"). But hey, that's mostly just a term I use for myself to understand what's going on here (and for me what stands for "chivalry" in the Don Quijote story equals "intellectual superiority" in my usage of the term).

Oh, (reading Barcs comment), and for people to conflate evolutionary philosophies that are referred to as "the theory of evolution" or just "evolution" (or in sentences using the verb "evolve") with what is referred to as "the theory of gravity" and pretend they stand on equal footing (evidence).

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
No, actually 'we' know no such thing. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Period. Zero. Nada. Zip.

I'm neither of those things. It's too bad you have to stoop to repeated ad hominem when someone disagrees with your cemented world view, or questions certain aspects of evolutionary theory.

I wish I could point you to another possible motive than defending a personal worldview. But I'm afraid it may have negative effects, if you look through all my comments here you might get some clues though and I'm not referring to just 1 particular possible alterior motive. Sorry if all of that was vague I just don't know of any better way to do it right now. It's like handling a rough diamond, make one crucial mistake and it's ruined (don't really want to run the risk of creating big cracks). Or was that a poor analogy and was I thinking of something else that could horribly go wrong, I think it was diamonds.

originally posted by: Barcs
That is exactly it and that's why creationists and science deniers constantly equivocate origin of life and evolution.

Interesting how Aronra starts of his video about abiogenesis/chemical evolution by talking about biological evolution. But I guess that's not actually equivocating "origin of life and evolution", so then it's OK to bring up the subject of biological evolution even when giving the video the title: "Abiogenesis" and with his fans or those who think like him about these subjects saying things like (quoting GetHyped from another thread):

Nothing to do with evolution.

When responding to someone talking about the same subject of the origin of life or abiogenesis/chemical evolution.

What a mindgame.

For more details about the AronRa video I refer back to this comment and the first 2 videos in this comment (provided the caveats in that comment are read and also pointing out that the channel where the first video comes from has 1 or 2 more detailed videos about the Miller Urey experiment that was redone in the Netherlands but you probably didn't hear much about because the results were not as hoped for).
And for those who want to find out what happens if you deny your own denial and continue to repeat or put forward the same bad arguments about a particular subject (such as AronRa or Barcs using that video and the reference to the Miller Urey experiment that is used in the video):

I almost typed Urey Miller because they remind me of Uri Geller. They also remind me of Trinitarian Bishop Berkeley. Philosophical tar-water (2:50). I hope Jack Szostak's glorified soap bubbles that he calls or views as protocells aren't brought up again in this thread.
The least AronRa could have done was point out some of the things mentioned in the video above about the Miller Urey experiment as he was pretending it's somehow a clue or evidence regarding a step in abiogenesis/chemical evolution. He didn't even do that, what a situation

Thinking about the interdependency of cell components and machinery may help some people to understand why a step by step process or chemical evolution/abiogenesis from so-called "simple to complex" is not possible. And why it's propagandistic to bring up an experiment in which left-handed and right-handed amino acids were engineered by chemical engineering techniques (requiring intelligence and knowledge of chemistry) and try to connect it to the topic of chemical evolution/abiogenesis or the origin of life by natural causes (the laws of nature, i.e. 'nature did it').

The whole AronRa video is an excercise in pretending that something that doesnt provide evidence for the supposed "steps" in abiogenesis/chemical evolution, can be twisted and warped to make it sound like it does (and every detail left out of the story that would suggest otherwise, such as the ones mentioned in the video I shared above but many others as well concerning the meteorites for example, details that even the scientists who have forwarded this research have admitted to in their papers, allthough in a rather deceptive manner turning the world upside down and shifting the burden of proof for them to prove that what they are finding actually was already on or in the meteorite before it landed on earth). I can't quite call it an excercise in 'bait and switch' but it's very similar. And before anyone wants to bring up arguments that influence the way people think but don't have much logic to stand on but still forces a response when someone cares about other people not being deceived, regarding the topic of meteorites I brought up, it doesn't even matter when one considers the subject of interdepency. Just pointing to some components of a cell (or "building blocks") and then pretending it has something to do with the topic of a step in abiogenesis/chemical evolution is like pointing to some silicon in a meteorite and claiming that therefore nature created computers that were seeded from outer space, long live modified neo-panspermia.

Regarding what AronRa says at 7:28 I would like to quote something from Isaac Newton (for whatever good it will do cause I'm not going to explain his usage of the term "natural philosophy" and "experimental philosophy" again, hoping people will figure it out for themselves how those terms may be misleading if you don't know what they stood for back then):

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

That would be described by the man in my video about Newton as "the greatest book of science ever written bar none, it is the most magnificent work, it is the most all-encompassing work, it is the most daring book of any scientific treatise ever written."

And completely twisted and dissed by Neil deGrasse Tyson (in order to promote his agnosticism), someone who claims or pretends to be a fan of Newton. It's great though, I can share this video cause it doesn't have any twists in it (the twists are in another video painting the 'god of the gaps'-argument on Newton, which he never used the way philosophical naturalists like Neil deGrasse Tyson does on a regular basis; I guess I now have to point out that Newton's usage of the term "Natural Philosophy" isn't the same as "philosophical naturalism"):

Well, ok whatever, I'll give some more clues cause I've gone there now...
From Scientist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

Guess why? Allow me to speculate a bit for a change...perhaps because of philosophers selling philosophies and so-called hypotheses (that didn't even qualify as hypotheses anymore) as so-called "science/scientia"/knowledge (the last word not used that much) or "philosophy" (but using that word as if it means "knowledge", listed as a synonym now on thesaurus.com, which I don't really want to get into what I think about that) back when that word was still popular and before these philosophers lost more and more of their credibility (giving the word "philosophy" a bad reputation) because of things like Bishop Berkeley telling everyone to drink tar-water for their health, published in what was viewed as a scientific paper called Siris: a Chain of Philosophical Reflexions and Inquiries Concerning the Virtues of Tar Water. (1744, and it only got worse from that point on; at least that's what I'm speculating, end of speculation. I hope Isaac isn't rolling over in his grave like he does whenever Tyson paints the 'god of the gaps'-argument on him in one of his speeches as he's promoting his agnostic Pontius Pitatus' way of thinking about things that are certain/true/factual/absolute/ correct, without error that stands in direct contrast to the way Newton went about acquiring science/knowledge about realities/truths/certainties/facts).

One last tiny thing I should have mentioned, in my video about Newton, he already refutes the philosophies involving:

The origin of life by natural causes, i.e. 'nature did it' a.k.a. "chemical evolution" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" a.k.a."the chemical evolution theory of life", a.k.a. "spontaneous generation", using most if not all the terms that have been used throughout history regarding the exact same subject that has been refuted by so many real scientists already that I'm glad I don't have to think hard to pick Newton's brief refutation of it.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: MrBlaq

Gravity is also "just a theory". Do you deny its existence as well? How about cell theory? It's just a theory so cells must not exist.... Right?

No. Gravity is a law.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

"Allelic frequencies of a population change with every new birth of an organism "

No they don't.

Yes they do. Let's say a hypothetical allelic frequency for A/a in a population is 80%/20%. If one child is born, with AA, Aa, or aa, it will cause a shift, albeit very small, in the allelic frequency of the population. Therefore, according to the definition of evolution, every birth is evolving a population. No mutation is required.

Every population IS evolving. You are obviously confusing a population with a single individual. Populations evolve. Individuals adapt to circumstance.

If the change in allelic distribution is evolution and every birth technically leads to the evolution of the population, then there is nothing to refute because that claim essentially says nothing. That's like saying "evolution is change", well, of course change happens, but that doesnt prove that genetic mutations could have culminated the diversity of life.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Thinking about the interdependency of cell components and machinery may help some people to understand why a step by step process or chemical evolution/abiogenesis from so-called "simple to complex" is not possible.

EXACTLY. Please, please please please, people, open your minds and think on this. Darwin himself said evolution would only be viable if gradual progression could culminate complex organs, yet we now know that each cell, organ, etc all have a complex network of interdependent components that are useless without all the pieces in play. If a clock is missing one gear, it will not function correctly.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: MrBlaq

Gravity is also "just a theory". Do you deny its existence as well? How about cell theory? It's just a theory so cells must not exist.... Right?

No. Gravity is a law.

Actually, what Newton was talking about is called "the law of gravity" but there's also something referred to as "the theory of gravity".
Your Cells and DNA—Living Libraries!:

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

- Be observable

- Be reproducible by controlled experiments

- Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

* = By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.

What counts for so-called "macroevolution" obviously also counts for what Haldane & Oparin referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" (quoting Huxley) a.k.a. "chemical evolution" or just "abiogenesis" (quoting dictionary.com and wikipedia) and even a.k.a. "spontaneous generation" (but that last term people have even more of an issue with acknowledging it's the same subject and philosophy/idea by pointing at the minor differences as if that negates that it's stll the same subject and core philosophy regarding the origin of life being promoted, 'nature did it').

Some more useful tips from Isaac Newton and his Principia Mathematica; also coming back to something I pointed out earlier about AronRa's video about abiogenesis and the many many so-called hypotheses (more accurately described as maybe-so stories or myths/false stories, described as "wishful speculations" and "just-so stories" in the video below) used to distract from and evade the logical correct conclusion (and possible argument) by inductive reasoning of design and a designer or designers of the biomolecular machinery and information processing systems we find in living cells, including unicellular living organisms:
Newton: Principia mathematica:

His work Principia mathematica (1687) is generally regarded as the most important work of the Scientific Revolution.
...
Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

That last thing happens a lot these days regarding the conclusion and argument of design and creation regarding the origin of life and the biomoleuclar machinery it's made up of; and a designer(s)+creator(s) for those particular designs and creations. It is perfectly describing what Aronra, Barcs and many philosophical naturalists (believers in 'nature did it') are doing when they constantly pretend to have evidence or indications regarding the so-called "steps" in so-called "abiogenesis". And then they present so-called "hypotheses" (that don't even qualify as one anymore) in order to evade that argument and logical conclusion by inductive reasoning I just described in detail.
I find Michael Behe's explanation regarding inductive reasoning quote good at the start between 5-13 minutes and in more detail after 30 minutes (first some background and comparison with what I just said above as well) and after 35 minutes it really starts (actually 38 miutes, but it's all important). As soon as I can find some 15 minutes videos of the same speech I'll cut out the confusing stuff about "irreducible complexity" and find a way to make the video much shorter and less distracting (less mental triggers like the phrase "irreducible complexity", which many people think has been answered).

Also note the usage of the phrase "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." used by Franklin M. Harold, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University (prominent evolutionary philosopher, one of the big boys for the inner circle rather than the general public like Dawkins); when referring to both aspects in so-called "chemical evolution" as well as "biological evolution" (acknowledging the overlap in thinking and storytelling that regularly gets twisted on ATS and in this thread).

originally posted by: whereislogic
Interesting how Aronra starts of his video about abiogenesis/chemical evolution by talking about biological evolution. But I guess that's not actually equivocating "origin of life and evolution", so then it's OK to bring up the subject of biological evolution even when giving the video the title: "Abiogenesis" and with his fans or those who think like him about these subjects saying things like "Nothing to do with evolution."

The only thing he mentioned about evolution is that we observe life to get simpler the further we go back in time based on fossils. He did this to lead into the first single celled organisms, so he could explain how they could have emerged. He wasn't equivocating evolution and abiogenesis. He was giving a brief explanation for folks that might not be familiar with it.

This is vastly different from how the average denier equivocates. They use one meaning of the term and then use it to argue against the other one. Sometimes they use evolution as some big overarching concept that includes everything from the big bang to human life and think that if one part can't fully be explained it debunks the entire thing including biological evolution.

I've heard the Miller Urey arguments ad nauseam. What about the other experiments that were mentioned?

Short on time at the moment, I'll be back.

a reply to: Noinden

Thank you for being fair, and civil.

Now to your points. We've known about DNA methylation and its effects for at least a couple of decades now. It's influence on a number of biological processes while maybe not completely understood have at least been verified.

I'm not in the field of personalized medicine to know, but it seems to me a precarious endeavor.

I think the question of whether or not we are complete manifestations of our genetic underpinnings carries with it some interesting implications and fodder for discussion. Philosophically speaking...

originally posted by: whereislogic
That question goes a lot deeper than you might have thought when you asked it. It has to do with the spreading of vagueness and confusion about these subjects, creating an environment in which it is more conducive for selling philosophies and myths/false stories as so-called "science" (or factual/true, etc.).

Perhaps.

I'll do my best to get thru the content

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: whereislogic
Interesting how Aronra starts of his video about abiogenesis/chemical evolution by talking about biological evolution. But I guess that's not actually equivocating "origin of life and evolution", so then it's OK to bring up the subject of biological evolution even when giving the video the title: "Abiogenesis" and with his fans or those who think like him about these subjects saying things like "Nothing to do with evolution."

He wasn't equivocating evolution and abiogenesis.

Repeating myself:

...that's not actually equivocating "origin of life and evolution"...

All you did was swap out "origin of life" with "abiogenesis"; when I used "origin of life" I was quoting you, now you swap again possibly to distract from you repeating what I said about it and rephrasing it into an excuse (in the sentences before and after that line) to do exactly what I expected you would do (as if it required an excuse even after me already saying the above and more below, bringing up similar or the same things). I just listed facts and the views of others regarding these facts (and part of your expected response, I just didn't want to finish your whole line of thinking and everything you brought up there in your dancing+distraction game because that would make my comment too long):

Interesting how Aronra starts of his video about abiogenesis/chemical evolution by talking about biological evolution. But I guess that's not actually equivocating "origin of life and evolution", so then it's OK to bring up the subject of biological evolution even when giving the video the title: "Abiogenesis" and with his fans or those who think like him about these subjects saying things like (quoting GetHyped from another thread):

"Nothing to do with evolution."

When responding to someone talking about the same subject of the origin of life or abiogenesis/chemical evolution.

And a nice pick again to go on a red herring debate and distract from the main points of my comment, I guess that's what you get for trying to spell everything out and try to bring up the twists and responses you expect someone is going to post while conveniently talking past the effect it has on the minds of those such as GetHyped who make such statements because that's what they've been conditioned with by those who like to twist people's understanding regarding the subject of so-called "evolution" or as I call it, evolutionary philosophies.

Also interesting how you avoid using the term chemical evolution for this subject for clarity that the phrase:

"nothing to do with evolution."

is only said by people who are not as well trained like others are in the art of dancing around the issue.

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Barcs
The only folks disagreeing or changing the definition are dishonest creationists/deniers.

Okay, let's see...

Definition 1:

originally posted by: Barcs
Biological evolution (aka theory of modern evolutionary synthesis) is about the change in frequency of alleles in a population, usually via genetic mutations and natural selection.

Definition 2:

originally posted by: Barcs
The increase of the frequency of a certain trait amongst a population, is what we are talking about and what science defines as biological evolution (or MS).

1 & 2 are technically different. Which is it - traits or alleles?

Alleles are variations of genes. Genes are not traits. But these terms are often used interchangeably without anyone noticing or giving a sh*t.

And a gene can be pleiotropic, meaning multiple unrelated traits can be influenced by a single gene. Or, a trait can be polygenic, meaning influenced by multiple genes at once. It's a tangled web that makes me wonder how we can know for sure what is being selected without having to wager a guess after the fact.

Does anyone know how it can be determined with any degree of certainty whether a population or organism has been shaped by drift versus natural selection? How can this measurement be achieved in the wild where it would be difficult to measure population sizes?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: whereislogic
Interesting how Aronra starts of his video about abiogenesis/chemical evolution by talking about biological evolution. But I guess that's not actually equivocating "origin of life and evolution", so then it's OK to bring up the subject of biological evolution even when giving the video the title: "Abiogenesis" and with his fans or those who think like him about these subjects saying things like "Nothing to do with evolution."

... how the average denier equivocates. ...Sometimes they use evolution as some big overarching concept that includes everything from the big bang to human life...

But as long as they don't do what I didn't quote from you there then you don't call them "average denier equivocates", am I understanding that right?
Notice who does what I did quote from you in the last line both on this website:
Cosmic Evolution - From Big Bang to Humankind:
As in this video where that website is referred to (stop the video at 5 minutes, the rest is confusing):

Oh, but they added "cosmic", I guess that must mean it's OK now cause "evolution" supposedly just means "change over time" (or you wanna try another similar switch of meaning?). Go ahead, continue the vague wordgame.

I know the subject of "evolution" when used on a subforum entitled "Origins and Creationism" includes all evolutionary philosophies that are phrased using all the various terminology I have used as examples so far, I'll make another short list to describe the 3 main varieties some of which have overlap, all of which are based on the same core philosophy of philosophical naturalism, 'nature did it':
- cosmic evolution
- chemical evolution
- biological evolution
- organic evolution
- molecular evolution
- and so on

Regarding what I left out of your quote, I think you're just setting up your next card to play in order to distract that you were and still will continue to capitalize on the ambiguity of language regarding the word and topic of "evolution" (and chemical evolution in particular, trying to disconnect the 2 cause the mythology is strong and obvious in chemical evolution; and once people begin to recognize what's going on regarding that topic by the same evolutionary philosophers that promote the philosophies concerning biological "macroevolution", and the whole twisting and conflating just any sort of change over time with evolution to pretend there's evidence, all of that stuff might be unraveled to someone who begins to see, chemical evolution is like a signpost and that's why people view things the way you described in what you said that I left out of the quote not to make things any worse for others).