UyiIredia:


Go back to school if you need me to explain what a code is. It only goes to show your ignorance on the matter. And did I talk of codes only. What about mutations being unable to make anything.

plaetton:


Why is it impossible to determine the origin of life?

The theory of evolution has been vigorously tested over the past 150yrs, without, I might add, to any refutations, not a single.
The science of genetics has confirmed every evolutionary scenario predicted by the theory of evolution 150 yrs ago, and is enjoying wide applications in genetic engineering, medicine , agriculture and industry.

So, you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about.

UyiIredia:


it will be a miracle. . . the day u stop $hììting in your pants.

Emmalot121:
link.

plaetton:


What link?

You think I learned this from the internet?

plaetton:


Why is it impossible to determine the origin of life?

The theory of evolution has been vigorously tested over the past 150yrs, without, I might add, to any refutations, not a single.
The science of genetics has confirmed every evolutionary scenario predicted by the theory of evolution 150 yrs ago, and is enjoying wide applications in genetic engineering, medicine , agriculture and industry.

So, you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about.

AlfaSeltzer:


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

sinequanon:


Theory of Evolution vs Theism is a false dichotomy.

What I am really after here is for some Darwinist to demonstrate that they apply their own experience to their belief, and don't just swallow what they have been told (brainwashed with) -- by..

1. Noticing behaviours around them in their everyday lives, like the seagull behaviour.

2. Having the presence of mind to question it.

3. Asking how the Theory of Evolution applies.

Emmalot121:
Evolution is not science. It is impossible to determine the origin of life. It cannot be tested or the entire scenario repeated. It, unlike religious origin can be changed or manipulated.

EvilBrain1:


First of all,the ToE doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. It only deals with how life behaves and changes once it exists. Its a common misconception that many people have but its important you understand that.

Also, I would be very careful before proclaiming that something is impossible for science. If you look at the historical trend you'll see that its not in your favour. Simple things like cell phones would have looked like powerful witchcraft just a hundred or so years ago and the pace of technology is only increasing.

Plus we're already well underway to deciphering the origin of life. Its possible that that problem could even be solved in our lifetime. Watch the video. Its a bit outdated, but it will give you a fair idea of where the research is heading.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQLyqWaCbA

Kay17:



Predators are naturally smart. In my opinion, it can be accounted for intelligence. The seagulls have the ability to manipulate their environment and especially where there are rewards, the trait is useful and valuable enough to be passed on to the subsequent generations.

plaetton:

Kindly mention any extraordinary claims made here.
Is that the theory of evolution has withstood 150 yes of vigorous scientific testing, without any contradictions?
Or is it that the modern science of genetics, nonexistent 150 yrs ago, confirms the predicted outcomes of the theory?

labimide:


Actually, there is something called evolution of behaviour.

labimide:
But before you start talking about that, you want to know if the said behaviour is a FAP (fixed action pattern), learned behaviour or an imprint. After which you talk about the genetic content of the behaviour. Providing answers to relevant questions on the above leads us into the evolution of the behaviour.

UyiIredia:


What's there to dismantle ? Only fools will see anything to it. Random mutations spoils things and has never been seen to make a new feature and natural selection can't make a damn pin. It is over hyped by evolutionists blind to the facts. EvilBrains post there was just one case of evolutionary storytelling.

sinequanon:


And what else do you think the thread is about?

I don't mean to be rude, but are you yet another person who didn't understand the OP?



ok, go and do that, then answer the OP.

AlfaSeltzer:


both.

Firstly the theory of evolution adapts to new discoveries and changes through the years. This is not a bad thing because that's how science works. Example the theory of evolution used to affirm that life started via a single molecule that somehow came alive with the right combination of chemicals. Today the theory has evolved and is saying that it does not deal with the origin of life.

Genetics is complicated. There are confirmed predicted outcome of evolution theory but there are also outcomes that contradicted the theory. Infact, most of the changes to evolution theory was due to discoveries in genetics. Example, genetics showed that evolution of present species are not vertical like in "family tree" representations that we are used to. Rather there are many horizontal links between species. Genetics has shown that we share more than 70% of our dna with sea sponges. Same amount we share with some species of monkeys. But sea sponges are not considered our cousins. How come?

davien:
you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution.
The basics of genetics are all the same... we all use ATP as energy,we use
DNA for heredity, we all have 20 amino acids to make up
proteins and many many more similar things. This is the
same with single celled organisms.
For you to be closely related would mean not only your genetics but physiology,
anatomy,
behaviour,
vestige(once useful structures),
avatism(re-occurent feature that lay dormant but expresses itself from time to time in a population like humans with semi-functional tails etc) are closely the same or convergent...

AlfaSeltzer:


Firstly the theory of evolution adapts to new discoveries and changes through the years. This is not a bad thing because that's how science works. Example the theory of evolution used to affirm that life started via a single molecule that somehow came alive with the right combination of chemicals. Today the theory has evolved and is saying that it does not deal with the origin of life.

Genetics is complicated. There are confirmed predicted outcome of evolution theory but there are also outcomes that contradicted the theory. Infact, most of the changes to evolution theory was due to discoveries in genetics.

Example, genetics showed that evolution of present species are not vertical like in "family tree" representations that we are used to. Rather there are many horizontal links between species. Genetics has shown that we share more than 70% of our dna with sea sponges. Same amount we share with some species of monkeys. But sea sponges are not considered our cousins. How come?

AlfaSeltzer:
Genetics has shown that we share more than 70% of our dna with sea sponges. Same amount we share with some species of monkeys. But sea sponges are not considered our cousins. How come?

labimide:
The point is, there is a lot to learn before passing any judgement.

EvilBrain1:


Actually, in his Origin of the Species, Darwin was very clear that his theory didn't address where the first life came from. The man did really good science and it is amazing how much he got right at the first attempt.



Genetics has lead to a lot of surprises and new discoveries, but that is mainly because of the way scientists used to classify animals. Before, taxonomy was based mainly on anatomy morphology which lead to some mistakes due to things like convergent evolution where 2 unrelated species end up with similar features. Now that we can look directly at DNA, we've been able to rearrange the family tree and fix those problems. But the core theory of evolution hasn't changed that much since we added Mendelian inheritance and genetic drift to it.



As far as I know those horizontal links are mostly seen in unicellular life that shares DNA and the occasional hybrid species. There's also viral DNA that gets incorporated into that of higher animals such as humans.

Also, sea sponges are our cousins. Cucumbers are our more distant cousins. All living things known to man descended from a common ancestor and we share DNA even with bacteria.

EvilBrain1:


[size=16pt]What the hell is wrong with you people?[/size] How many times does someone have to explain natural selection to you before you get it? Why can't you read a book or watch a YouTube video and comprehend like a [size=16pt]normal person?[/size] I'm tired of repeating this stuff! What the hell!

Look, all living things reproduce. All living things have offspring that are similar to their parents but different in tiny ways that makes each individual unique. Some of those differences favour survival, some make no difference, and some are disadvantages. All living things have more offspring than the environment can support meaning that many or most will die off before adulthood and they all have to compete to survive. Nature selects those who have traits that favour survival and kills off those who don't. Therefore any population of living things will gradually slowly change in appearance, physiology and behaviour as nature and death molds them to fit their environment.

Once upon a time a seagull was born with a type of [size=16pt]brain touch[/size] that made it behave wierdly and keep running along the ground [size=16pt]for no good reason[/size]. Somehow, food inexplicably kept coming out of the earth and the seagull [size=16pt]ate very well[/size]. Because of its constant good diet the seagull grew big and strong and had plenty of seagull babies many of whom also inherited the brain touch. The seagull's babies survived more than those of his mates because of the highly proteinaceous food he kept bringing home. [size=16pt]Soon there were plenty of young brain touched seagulls running along the ground and eating the food that strangely kept coming out.[/size] The next time there was a drought, many seagulls starved and died but the brain touched seagull's offspring flourished, outcompeted the others and became dominant. Meanwhile even among the brain touched seagulls, some ran in subtly different ways that brought out more or less food. Those whose running style brought out more food out competed those whose brought out less and became dominant. And so, over a long period of time, nature and death continued to shape the seagull population until we ended up with a bunch of birds all of whom can tapdance expertly to attract worms. And that's when some stupìd Christians showed up and claimed it was because of Jesus. It wasn't because of Jesus.

Please note that there is no intelligence or planning involved here. The seagulls have no clue what they are doing, they're just following instincts they were born with. The fact that they exist is solely due to their ancestors having survived and passed on those traits. Also nature doesn't know or care what is happening because it is not intelligent or conscious. Nature is not trying to evolve better seagulls. Its just that the nature of living things and the laws of the universe mean that evolution and increasing complexity are inevitable.

[size=16pt]Understand?[/size]

EvilBrain1:


Actually, in his Origin of the Species, Darwin was very clear that his theory didn't address where the first life came from. The man did really good science and it is amazing how much he got right at the first attempt.

sinequanon:


That is why Darwin's theory of evolution is only an hypothesis that is being hyped as a proven fact.

Look at the reaction in most of the posts in this thread towards learning from your own environment. Most of the posters didn't even understand the point!

Evilbrain gave a totally generalized description of Darwin's hypothesis, but failed miserably at critiquing its application to the OP.

For him, the hypothesis itself is proof of itself, and he felt that he could substitute ANY OLD RUBBISH (a bird with a "brain touch", running around for no good reason!) into the hypothesis to make it stand up to a specific test. And he was serious. He really believed that some neural glitch appeared in the brain of some seagull and made it stamp on the ground for several minutes at a time, without knowing why. And this crazy behaviour was an advantage to a creature that is vulnerable on the ground and whose main diet is seafood.

A number of other posters were the same. They help to demonstrate why Darwin's hypothesis has not been properly tested. They accept ANY OLD RUBBISH as validation! The thread has done its job in discovering that the motives of most atheists are political, but dressed up in ignorant bandying of scientific terms and hypotheses.

The psychology is that validation is in fact irrelevant for them. That is why they believe that regurgitating the assertions in Darwin's hypothesis is an answer to the OP -- count how many posters did just that. As long as there is something, ANYTHING, there that refutes a god, they are prepared to believe it. That is why I think hard atheism is a very weak position when assessing scientific hypotheses.

labimide:


A theory is not an hypothesis. A theory is proven.

sinequanon:


[s]You probably still don't understand...

Anyway, I actually see what is happening, here. You are someone who accepts everything that your "superiors" have told you. If it is in a science book or video, it is unquestionable. Just like a Christian takes what is in the Bible to be unquestionable.
[/s]

sinequanon:

So because it is LABELED a theory, it is proven.
"Darwin's Theory" is a title. I used the title. My point is that the assertion by that title is only an hypothesis.

AlfaSeltzer:


See the lies of evolutionist staring them back in the face. A book that was not addressing the origin of species, called itself what!? THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
Go figure.

EvilBrain1:


Origin of species =/= Origin of life. Extant species originate from previously existing extinct species. Australian marsupials radiated from a common ancestor species. So did Primates. The bonobo species didn't exist 5 million years ago. It evolved from an ancestral species via the process of natural selection.

Or are you one of those geniuses that think all current species have been around all along and that human beings were riding T. rexes to battle during the late Cretaceous?

Language comprehension fail.

AlfaSeltzer:


See the lies of evolutionist staring them back in the face. A book that was not addressing the origin of species, called itself what!? THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.
Go figure.

labimide:


Are you sure? Your delivery comes across as confidence, but then the content of what is written betrays you. Please that's not an insult.

Do you understand the concept of fitness and selection?
Convergent & divergent evolution?
Micro- & macroevolution?
Stabilizing, directional & diruptive selection?
Conjuntion & nondisjunction?
Allopatric & sympatric speciation?

The point is, there is a lot to learn before passing any judgement.

Granted that mutation is often random & often disruptive in effect. But mutation is jst one out of many factors that drive evolution. Even at that, some induced mutation can be targeted (ref: gene therapy/gene transfer/recombinant DNA Technology).

Concerning evolution by natural selection, please consider the evidence before you say natural selection cannot do anything. There is a force behind natural selection, and that is 'survival'. And trust me, 'survival is real'.

...There's a lot to talk about, but my fingers are tired.

plaetton:


You are the one throwing code and code like it was your new christmas gift from santa.
I just want you to explain what a code means to you, that way, we can rightly understand where you are coming from.