Proof that evolution is the only answer

originally posted by: kamebard
a reply to: ColeYounger

Stop conflating the two: abiogenesis =!= evolution

Although there is a very good article about how the energy (and information complexity) is a driving force for life - in that life, and complex systems evolve as a result of there being enough energy in a system...

Without understanding where life comes from then evolution is redundant
Stop trying to separate the two

a reply to: Raggedyman

Ahh look who it is. Long time no snicker.

You have yet to prove evolution is redundant (actually its got a secure job) or that the two have to be made be paired. When you do that, you can have a say.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: kamebard
a reply to: ColeYounger

Stop conflating the two: abiogenesis =!= evolution

Although there is a very good article about how the energy (and information complexity) is a driving force for life - in that life, and complex systems evolve as a result of there being enough energy in a system...

Without understanding where life comes from then evolution is redundant
Stop trying to separate the two

Creation wise:
* Without understanding where my car comes from means how it works is redundant.

* Without understanding where my computer comes from, means how it works is redundant.

* Without understanding where football comes from, means how it works is redundant.

* Without understanding where my guitar comes from, means how it works is redundant. Or how music works.

* Without understanding where language comes from, means how it works is redundant.

Do you not see how asinine such thoughts are?

Who cares how life came about when speaking of evolution, the science of evolution starts with life already here and make no claims on where or how life came about.

That science calls Abiogenesis deals with how life came about. Not how life evolves.

Two different lines of inquiry and science.

But you have been told this many many times in the past.

What do you call someone who doesnt learn or has not the capacity to learn?

Master Coomba
(Here come the Padawan response comments)

a reply to: Noinden

I remember asking for empirical evidence, I didnt see any or was offered none, you here to remedy that issue...

See the OPs evidence, "I believe"


Science requires, repeatable observable and testable, evolution is by definition a faith, you can have a say.

originally posted by: Padawan Raggedyman
a reply to: Noinden

I remember asking for empirical evidence, I didnt see any or was offered none, you here to remedy that issue...

See the OPs evidence, "I believe"


Science requires, repeatable observable and testable, evolution is by definition a faith, you can have a say.

Padawan, any scientific theory around is to explain natural phenomena.

If there is a theory of evolution, then it means it tries to explain said natural phenomena. To explain the change of life over time that will eventually change said life form into another species that cannot procreate with the species they used to be.

Use google and you will find heaps of evidence on evolution.

If you dont believe me then jump off the top of a high rise building and tell me the 'theory' of gravity does not exist.

Guess Padawan gives in.

Master Coomba

a reply to: coomba98

Honestly don't bother replying to ragga he has said he will never accept it. many ats members have wasted many hours showing him evidence...He doesn't even understand most of it.
Check his history.

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: coomba98

Honestly don't bother replying to ragga he has said he will never accept it. many ats members have wasted many hours showing him evidence...He doesn't even understand most of it.
Check his history.

Yeah i know. Just up for some entertainment.

Would not be like that to someone like chr0naut as his not offensive in his responses. Bit dense on the atheism stanse but thats normal when speakimg to people. Nobody knows everything and we only know what we know.

Coomba98

a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour we have supplied the evidence and you ignored it. That is on you.

a reply to: AshFan

This is just a base of reference for the loonies.

You couldn't even let me make a post first?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: kamebard
a reply to: ColeYounger

Stop conflating the two: abiogenesis =!= evolution

Although there is a very good article about how the energy (and information complexity) is a driving force for life - in that life, and complex systems evolve as a result of there being enough energy in a system...

Without understanding where life comes from then evolution is redundant
Stop trying to separate the two

Aren't you the one who over the course of literally dozens of threads, stomped their feet and pouted while chastising me for trying to explain science to you with the rebuttal of insisting that I not try to tell you what to believe? Yet here you are demanding that science acquiesce to your myopic views and incorporate separate scientific disciplines because you insist that they belong together all the while ignoring some of the very basic aspect of both fields of study. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds does it?

Not that you care or are even reading at this point of my reply but for the sake of others who may actually be interested in learning somethIng, what separates the 2 areas of study is that hypotheses like abiogenesis and Panspermia are chemical processes and as yet, there is supporting evidence but nothing entirely concrete to support one hypothesis over another. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis on the other hand, is a Scientific Theory and is supported by mountains of repeatable data that can be, and has been, independantly reproduced. In some cases by scientists who wanted nothing more than to prove someone else's work wrong while peer reviewing it.

You do not need to know how the first life originated to know and understand how allele frequencies, over time, change on population wide scales. That doesn't mean that knowing how life first emerged wouldn't be beneficial for several disciplines and give a well rounded, big picture. But one isn't required to understand the other. So please stop trying to force the two areas of study together into one comprehensive scientific discipline. It's joy necessary. It's not redundant.

And before you start ranting about concepts you don't understand, like empirical evidence, maybe you could give a simpleton like me some examples of empirical evidence you would be willing to accept. That will save us all a lot of time posting things you won't read and we can just post clear, concise informTion that conforms to your guidelines, that you won't read. Wouldn't that be so much easier?

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: kamebard
a reply to: ColeYounger

Stop conflating the two: abiogenesis =!= evolution

Although there is a very good article about how the energy (and information complexity) is a driving force for life - in that life, and complex systems evolve as a result of there being enough energy in a system...

Without understanding where life comes from then evolution is redundant
Stop trying to separate the two

Aren't you the one who over the course of literally dozens of threads, stomped their feet and pouted while chastising me for trying to explain science to you with the rebuttal of insisting that I not try to tell you what to believe? Yet here you are demanding that science acquiesce to your myopic views and incorporate separate scientific disciplines because you insist that they belong together all the while ignoring some of the very basic aspect of both fields of study. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds does it?

Not that you care or are even reading at this point of my reply but for the sake of others who may actually be interested in learning somethIng, what separates the 2 areas of study is that hypotheses like abiogenesis and Panspermia are chemical processes and as yet, there is supporting evidence but nothing entirely concrete to support one hypothesis over another. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis on the other hand, is a Scientific Theory and is supported by mountains of repeatable data that can be, and has been, independantly reproduced. In some cases by scientists who wanted nothing more than to prove someone else's work wrong while peer reviewing it.

You do not need to know how the first life originated to know and understand how allele frequencies, over time, change on population wide scales. That doesn't mean that knowing how life first emerged wouldn't be beneficial for several disciplines and give a well rounded, big picture. But one isn't required to understand the other. So please stop trying to force the two areas of study together into one comprehensive scientific discipline. It's joy necessary. It's not redundant.

And before you start ranting about concepts you don't understand, like empirical evidence, maybe you could give a simpleton like me some examples of empirical evidence you would be willing to accept. That will save us all a lot of time posting things you won't read and we can just post clear, concise informTion that conforms to your guidelines, that you won't read. Wouldn't that be so much easier?

No..

Without understanding where life comes from then evolution is redundant
Stop trying to separate the two

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Neighbour we have supplied the evidence and you ignored it. That is on you.

Neighbour, I have been shown NO empirical evidence EVER...

Please, do your best

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: coomba98

Honestly don't bother replying to ragga he has said he will never accept it. many ats members have wasted many hours showing him evidence...He doesn't even understand most of it.
Check his history.

Why does the Paddy need to be told the obvious

Do you have some empirical evidence, not assumption, faith, serious empirical evidence

You know, real science

a reply to: coomba98

At least he provides opposing evidence and views.
Raggedyman doesn'tprovide anything.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Paddy? don't get that.Anyhow....
Go to the thread you made asking that question it was explained to you there.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: coomba98

Honestly don't bother replying to ragga he has said he will never accept it. many ats members have wasted many hours showing him evidence...He doesn't even understand most of it.
Check his history.

Why does the Paddy need to be told the obvious

Do you have some empirical evidence, not assumption, faith, serious empirical evidence

You know, real science

Why does the Origin of Life have to be connected or addressed to answer Evolution?

The discovery of and understanding of the Transcription processes solidifies Evolution. There are a lot of aspects and points that are connected in Evolution, however Transcription is enough answer in itself to put to rest the process, as it is the 'beginning'.

Environmental factors, Genes, Cell damage, Diet, and even Sleep can alter ones Transcription Errors at various rates. Ultimately if a mutated cell is created, it will divide and a bio-genesis of that cells DNA can override your entire system and replace the whole organism ultimately with new DNA cell by cell. This is also an explanation to the nature of Cancer, another evolution supporter, as Transcription Errors creating unusable cells, as opposed to an advantageous cell, is what Cancer is.

It's very often pointed out that these Errors are rarely positive, and this seems to be ignored by the religious community, as they claim the scientists put Evolution on a 'Holy Grail' of perfectness. It's very rigorous, and millions of mutations over thousands of decades and hundreds of decedents, with the majority of the probable mutations resulting in death, it's hardly glorified. Anyway, to deny Evolution at that extent, makes me wonder why Cancer isn't questioned more as a real disease or not? We've viewed these changes in both cases with DNA.

If you're against Evolution, smoke Marijuana. Not joking. It improves your "DNA Repair'', your body's natural ability to maintain DNA and be less susceptible to it changing. This is why it 'fights cancer' so well, because on a smaller level your body is able to destroy it, and change it back into a 'conforming cell' before it forms into anything noticeable. This would also include cells that would potentially have positive benefits however, as your natural systems repair only tries to keep a 'DNA conformity' and doesn't distinguish between what's positive or negative. The trait would be washed out by your immunity system and you would not Evolve, and pass that trait down to your children and multiply.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Theres a plethora of evidence for evolution. The fact you lean towards fairytales that contradicts said science is tantamount to your unintelligible position.

Padawan, science is not something you would understand.

Hocus-pocus hogwash is what your brain understands.

Master Coomba

a reply to: coomba98

Why does the Origin of Life have to be connected or addressed to answer Evolution?

Easy, ignorant people at first, absolute stupidity once explained.

Coomba98

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: coomba98

Honestly don't bother replying to ragga he has said he will never accept it. many ats members have wasted many hours showing him evidence...He doesn't even understand most of it.
Check his history.

Why does the Paddy need to be told the obvious

Do you have some empirical evidence, not assumption, faith, serious empirical evidence

You know, real science

Evidence:



LOL... HA... ROFL

originally posted by: AshFan

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TheKnightofDoom
a reply to: coomba98

Honestly don't bother replying to ragga he has said he will never accept it. many ats members have wasted many hours showing him evidence...He doesn't even understand most of it.
Check his history.

Why does the Paddy need to be told the obvious

Do you have some empirical evidence, not assumption, faith, serious empirical evidence

You know, real science

Evidence:

LOL... HA... ROFL

Sorry Ash
You will need to search the word empirical, I use two words, empirical evidence

You will need to develop comprehension skills first
Off you go