The Truth about Evolution

[Stoday]

So, if you want to talk about abiogenesis, then please start a new thread since it is off topic.

For once, I agree with hemodoc.

What a shame, then, that he should contradict himself in the very next post (a response to cariad) by discussing the probability of abiogenesis.

[Stoday]

You state that evolution does not start with a single cell because by the time we get to a cell with DNA we are a long way down the evolutionary road.  That is a contradictory statement.

It’s only contradictory if you assume that a single cell with DNA is the starting point. Do you believe that to be the case?

Please tell us when and where evolution starts in your understanding?  Not debating, simply trying to understand your concept of evolution since you continually state that I am incorrect in my understanding.

Evolution starts from when life starts. By life I mean an entity that is capable of self-replication.


You continue to refer to Fred Hoyle. I do not regard him as any sort of authority because he got it so spectacularly wrong by advocating the steady state universe theory. That was incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. I therefore regard any views of Fred Hoyle to be speculation; they can’t stand by themselves ex cathedra, they need to be shown to be valid.

[cariad]

Thank you for answering the question, Peter, I feel like I have a much better sense of where you are coming from now. I can honestly say that I have not heard that particular take on Christianity before, and the cultural anthropologist in me finds it interesting. I do, however, have to say that it is clear to me that we are basing our arguments on entirely different premises, and therefore I see little hope that we are going to really get anywhere with further discussion. I feel obligated to defend the science I studied for so long, especially when I see inaccurate or misleading statements, but I can assure you that I will never be converted to your belief system, and I have no desire to see you give that belief system up. Your beliefs are part of who you are, I completely respect it, but it is like we are arguing using different systems of logic. I cannot answer the endless "well, what came before that?" question any better than you can, and trying is futile.

A few clarifications from your post: evolution is an English word that is not always used in the strictly scientific sense. I could say "This conversation has evolved from a discussion on natural selection to a discussion on intelligent design" which is correct usage, but I would not be referring to changes in allelic frequency over time. And to be honest, I don't care what a particular scientist calls his paper, it doesn't make it a paper on evolution.

Beneficial mutations are a fleeting part of the theory of evolution that are quite difficult to demonstrate.  The real impact of natural selection is to weed out those individuals who have harmful mutations that we in the medical field called birth defects.

I don't know how you strictly define birth defect, but if I can impart nothing else to the people of IHD, let me clarify this: the real impact of natural selection is to drive adaptation to the environment. As I said before with the malaria/sickle-cell example, one environment's negative mutation is another environment's positive one. No thinking human wants to be afflicted with sickle-cell anemia, but from an evolutionary perspective, sickle-cell is a great bargain. You will probably live into your forties, you won't die from malaria which can kill a person very early in life, and you will likely get to reproduce. There are other, less famous examples, of the same concept. The phrase "weed out" suggests that natural selection is the force that is killing individuals - natural selection is only concerned with whether or not you reproduce and pass along your genes, it is basically irrelevant to speak of one individual dying  - all that matters is did that individual reproduce. What most people think of with birth defects - say missing an arm -  do not necessarily decrease an individual's fitness, and may be congenital, not genetic.

As for animals "changing into" other animals, that is a gross oversimplification of the process. It is not like a lion suddenly gives birth to a house cat, animals do not change into other animals, their genes change over time and through speciation, they diverge from other descendants of the same ancestor. Beneficial mutations may be rare, but when you are talking about large populations and thousands or millions of years, they can and do accumulate. Negative mutations are also considered rare - the majority of mutations are neutral from an adaptive view.

Dating is a field that continues to advance and clarify the fossil record. No one has ever argued that it is perfect, just as texts continually emphasize that theories are hotly debated. No one is trying to hide the fact that there is still much to learn and uncover.

As for DNA being like a language, I don't see that. It is a useful heuristic device when teaching kids about DNA ("It's an instruction booklet!" "Nucleotides are the letters and codons are the words!") but from what I know of linguistics (not cultural linguistics, but straight, hard-core linguistics) it does not behave like a language.

While I enjoy talking about evolutionary theories, I have really burned out on defending its very existence. This has taken up a great deal of my time, and I think for my sanity I need to move on, at least from this particular tangent.

[Hemodoc]

Dear Cariad, there are many issues to look at in the points that you brought up, but if you have had enough, then that is fine, I will not push it.

God bless,

Peter

[Chris]

Does this mean I can get caught up on these post since they are so long? Not just the responce, but all the quotes space that takes up space to go to the next thread makes me want to stop reading everyday. 

[Hemodoc]

So, if you want to talk about abiogenesis, then please start a new thread since it is off topic.

For once, I agree with hemodoc.

What a shame, then, that he should contradict himself in the very next post (a response to cariad) by discussing the probability of abiogenesis.

Dear Stoday, Rocker had placed the issue of abiogenesis outside of the discussion of evolution yet resorted to abiogenesis as her answer to where evolution starts.  I have never made an artificial separation between abiogenesis and evolution as they are actually viewed as a continuum in my mind, and in the context of what was taught in the recent past.  If people are going to deal with evolution, we do need a starting point.  However, getting life from non-life has proved much more challenging to science with the gap of an acceptable explanation for this alleged event getting farther away all the time.

The second issue is that of micro-evolution vs macro-evolution.  Variations within a kind vs a new kind.  You can breed a dog into large dogs and small dogs, and it will still be a dog.

That is the problem that I have with evolution, it does not have a plausible starting place and it does not have a plausible mechanism for the alleged changes despite many imaginative theories.  For example, the neutral theory of evolution does not have a valid explanation for the acquired genetic load of mutations and genetic errors that would far exceed the rare alleged beneficial mutations. How can you end up with the higher information in the higher orders of animals and plants from rare beneficial mutations while accumulating a large genetic load of errors at the same time?

On top of that there are so many wonders of creation that defy explanation without intelligent input and design.  Arctic Terns that have a guidance system that allows travel to precise locations over thousands of miles, dolphins and bats with sonar systems more sensitive than ours, electrical sensing systems in sharks, the wonder of the eye and ear, etc.  The driving force of evolution is random mutations.  No mutations, no evolution by natural selection. I do not see any creative power in random mutations that could develop any of these phenomenal wonders of nature no matter how many billions or trillions of years you give the process. Genetic drift acts only on existing genes and likewise has no creative power.  Those are the two greatest proposed mechanisms of evolution today.  I just don't see creativity coming about by these mechanisms and being able to go from simple one celled organisms to complex higher animal forms. Yes, we do see variations in the kind, but we do not see new kinds from another, that has never been observed.  Instead the fossil evidence is that of stasis, or simply staying the same despite the propaganda that they teach our kids in public school to the contrary.

I found an article today on these issues that looks at the difficulties with these theories for anyone interested in looking at the other side of the evolution issue. 

Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution?

Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos program "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue," stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable mutations." While this may be the current popular theory, real science disagrees. The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality--the God-created reality--where living things and their genomes were created "very good" and have degenerated from there. Genetic science demonstrates that the absolutely essential ingredient for the origin of life is an infinite Intelligence. Of all the origin stories, only one contains this essential ingredient--Genesis 1.

http://www.icr.org/article/3466/

[Stoday]

That is the problem that I have with evolution, it does not have a plausible starting place and it does not have a plausible mechanism for the alleged changes despite many imaginative theories.  For example, the neutral theory of evolution does not have a valid explanation for the acquired genetic load of mutations and genetic errors that would far exceed the rare alleged beneficial mutations. How can you end up with the higher information in the higher orders of animals and plants from rare beneficial mutations while accumulating a large genetic load of errors at the same time?

The answer is very simple: in the population, the rare beneficial mutations accumulate but the adverse mutations die out.

If an individual benefits from a beneficial mutation, it spreads throughout the population from one generation to another. If an individual suffers from an adverse mutation, then the individual dies before passing the gene on or is less likely to pass it on. Whichever, the gene does not propagate through the population as it would if it were beneficial or benign.

[Stoday]

The driving force of evolution is random mutations.  No mutations, no evolution by natural selection. I do not see any creative power in random mutations that could develop any of these phenomenal wonders of nature no matter how many billions or trillions of years you give the process.

Dear Hemodoc,

The usual claptrap regurgitated again. You have had answers to this issue but rather than say why the answers are wrong you repeat your original falsehoods. You also choose to distort what evolution says so that you can make a case against it.

The driving force of evolution is not random mutations. The driving force is the survival of the fittest for its environment. The means by which it does this is by random mutations. No one has suggested that mutations by themselves can bring about evolution.

[Hemodoc]

The driving force of evolution is random mutations.  No mutations, no evolution by natural selection. I do not see any creative power in random mutations that could develop any of these phenomenal wonders of nature no matter how many billions or trillions of years you give the process.

Dear Hemodoc,

The usual claptrap regurgitated again. You have had answers to this issue but rather than say why the answers are wrong you repeat your original falsehoods. You also choose to distort what evolution says so that you can make a case against it.

The driving force of evolution is not random mutations. The driving force is the survival of the fittest for its environment. The means by which it does this is by random mutations. No one has suggested that mutations by themselves can bring about evolution.

Dear Stoday, survival of the fittest is usually not used anymore because it is difficult to prove it is not a tautology, instead natural selection is preferred.  What is selected is random mutations that may be of benefit but when a creationist asks for examples of those alleged beneficial mutations, the list is quite short and not without dispute.  Natural selection is dependent on these alleged beneficial mutations that then offer a survival advantage.  It is a wonderful concoction of late that evolutionists do not admit that random mutations are at the heart of evolution by natural selection, but in fact, experiments have concluded that mutations are not directed.

Mutations are Random

The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.

In addition, experiments have made it clear that many mutations are in fact "random," and did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful. For example, if you expose bacteria to an antibiotic, you will likely observe an increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance. In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg determined that many of these mutations for antibiotic resistance existed in the population even before the population was exposed to the antibiotic — and that exposure to the antibiotic did not cause those new resistant mutants to appear1.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

Natural selection is not a creative force, it selects.  Since most mutations are either neutral or harmful, natural selection has nothing to work with if there is no random beneficial mutation.  It is dependent on random mutations that change the genetic code in one of various manners.  Indeed many aspects of natural selection such as weather, earthquakes, floods, famine etc are also random, undirected events adding another layer of randomness to the equation. 

All of these mechanisms can cause changes in the frequencies of genes in populations, and so all of them are mechanisms of evolutionary change. However, natural selection and genetic drift cannot operate unless there is genetic variation—that is, unless some individuals are genetically different from others. If the population of beetles were 100% green, selection and drift would not have any effect because their genetic make-up could not change.

So, what are the sources of genetic variation?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIBMechanismsofchange.shtml

Genetic Variation

Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.

There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:

Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.

Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.

Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIICGeneticvariation.shtml

[Hemodoc]

That is the problem that I have with evolution, it does not have a plausible starting place and it does not have a plausible mechanism for the alleged changes despite many imaginative theories.  For example, the neutral theory of evolution does not have a valid explanation for the acquired genetic load of mutations and genetic errors that would far exceed the rare alleged beneficial mutations. How can you end up with the higher information in the higher orders of animals and plants from rare beneficial mutations while accumulating a large genetic load of errors at the same time?

The answer is very simple: in the population, the rare beneficial mutations accumulate but the adverse mutations die out.

If an individual benefits from a beneficial mutation, it spreads throughout the population from one generation to another. If an individual suffers from an adverse mutation, then the individual dies before passing the gene on or is less likely to pass it on. Whichever, the gene does not propagate through the population as it would if it were beneficial or benign.

Actually, you are failing to address a very large and mostly unspoken problem of genetic load or acquired level of mutation over time.  In fact, 99% of all species known are now extinct.  In fact, many with diabetes do not die before they pass the gene on as well as many other harmful mutations.  Here is an article showing that the risk of extinction is actually greater when you have new deleterious mutations.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410240

[Hemodoc]

You state that evolution does not start with a single cell because by the time we get to a cell with DNA we are a long way down the evolutionary road.  That is a contradictory statement.

It’s only contradictory if you assume that a single cell with DNA is the starting point. Do you believe that to be the case?

Please tell us when and where evolution starts in your understanding?  Not debating, simply trying to understand your concept of evolution since you continually state that I am incorrect in my understanding.

Evolution starts from when life starts. By life I mean an entity that is capable of self-replication.


You continue to refer to Fred Hoyle. I do not regard him as any sort of authority because he got it so spectacularly wrong by advocating the steady state universe theory. That was incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. I therefore regard any views of Fred Hoyle to be speculation; they can’t stand by themselves ex cathedra, they need to be shown to be valid.

Stoday, those are interesting points.  First, when did life appear if you can tell me?  I am unaware of any readily proven proposition on this issue.  They all have fatal flaws, but we are now back to abiogenesis again.

Second, Sir Fred Hoyle correctly calculated the chances of life appearing and his math is not in question.  It was the discovery of the red shift that brought an end to the steady state theory of the universe, not his calculations on the issue of spontaneous formation of life from non-life.  Since the only proposed creative force of evolution is through random mutations of various types, his calculations continue to speak of the difficulty of your position.  Interestingly, the first place that we heard of the expanding heavens is in the Bible where multiple verses speak of stretching out the heavens.  God makes this claim for Himself.

[paris]

Sorry Chris!  You still have a lot of quotes to read or pass over   

I know, I am off topic --- so now back to the subject!

[dwcrawford]

I posted on the God thread just now that the  two seem to be so similar and I was under the impression that Rocker started this thead so that the God thread could stay on topic.  My question was and is "can you find anything in Epoman's writing or rules about staying on topic and that, in face, if you can't then I'm sure it can be found in the bible.

All of the pasting of articles and scientific or religious papers is taking up so  much space I didn't even know Chris has posted in here.  There really might be some things you'd like to read if you could find it.

I recall get called down for not keeping on topic once when I posted some for another thread in the "word association".  Why have the rules been so relaxed. 

Is there anything in the rules about lengths of posts including the quote/cut/paste etc?  I don't know.  I don't read rules but try to follow them when I'm told about them.  Well, sometimes.

[fc2821]

 

[Hemodoc]

I posted on the God thread just now that the  two seem to be so similar and I was under the impression that Rocker started this thead so that the God thread could stay on topic.  My question was and is "can you find anything in Epoman's writing or rules about staying on topic and that, in face, if you can't then I'm sure it can be found in the bible.

All of the pasting of articles and scientific or religious papers is taking up so  much space I didn't even know Chris has posted in here.  There really might be some things you'd like to read if you could find it.

I recall get called down for not keeping on topic once when I posted some for another thread in the "word association".  Why have the rules been so relaxed. 

Is there anything in the rules about lengths of posts including the quote/cut/paste etc?  I don't know.  I don't read rules but try to follow them when I'm told about them.  Well, sometimes.

Dear Dan, as far as copy and pasting and quoting, haven't you seen the lengthy posts that Epoman had on the other thread?

Re: Is there a GOD? - ding! ding! ding ding geeeeet reaaaaaady toooooo rummmmble!!!!
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2006, 03:39:38 PM »

Quote from: hyperlite on June 10, 2006, 02:12:03 PM
hahahaha Catholics ARE Christians. A Christian is anyone that believes in Jesus Christ. Catholics are a type of Christian. Just like Protestants, and Orthodox Christians, and Evangelists...etc. Some of these "terms" can be broken down further too. Like Protestants can be broken down into Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Calvanists...etc

Epoman: Nobody is saying that we evolved from apes. That is a hugely common misconception. We did however evolve from a similar ancestor, that does not exist anymore. Evolution usually occurs through the splitting of species. So a common ancestor (probably way way way before humans and monkeys or gorillas or whatever) would have been divided somehow, whether it be geographically or through a disease or one of another million possibilities. This separation would have caused this common ancestor to diverge genetically. Now it doesn't work like "the trees were tall, so their babies were born taller"...its actually that due to random mutations, the babies that were born taller were able to survive and carry on their genes... so the same would have happened. Maybe in one part of the world, the smarter "ape-like creatures" survived, whereas in the other part, the more limber, and stronger ape-like creatures survived...and you have to remember this happened over millions of years. We've seen so much evolution over the past couple of hundred years, that this is not that much of a surprise. Look at how tall people are now. Look at skin colours. Look at the ability of humans to learn...

Evolution is a proven fact, through examining genetic codes, and the genomes of animals. Take the influenza virus for example. It evolves every year...

Now I don't know if God exists or not. I think thats the point. We're not supposed to know for sure, we have to have faith. That's why the notion of God is still around, and always will be. If you believe, then hes there. If you don't believe and need proof, then you'll never get it, because you shouldn't need proof to know that he's there. It's the perfect way to make people believe.

I also think that the reason humans need a God, is because it is part of our genetics. That's why everywhere in the world, each society has some sort of God or religion. It's a survival tool. The holes we can't explain, God fills those in for us. It's part of our cognitive behaviour to need a God. It hurts to try and think that out of nothingness, something was created randomly. Or even there never was nothingness, and there has always been something there. Or things like infinite. To think that the universe goes on forever. Mind boggling. But that's because I'm using a human brain to try and grasp these ideas. My brain isn't "hard-wired" to do so. I like the idea of a God starting everything, because it's simple, and it explains everything.

And if I'm going to burn in Hell for thinking this way, well then so be it. I don't believe in a Hell, so I'm not really scared. I think that when I die, theres going to be nothingness. Just like when I go to sleep and can't remember my dreams from the night before. It's as if that time between when I was awake, went to sleep, and then woke up again, never really happened. Or if I drink too much and can't remember what happened the night before (   ) there's a void...a nothingness. Is that depressing? no because I have tomorrow to look forward to. I don't need an eternal afterlife. All I need is to make the most of the time I've got here on Earth.

And as for religion, I like the idea of a church, because it is somewhere I can go, the people are nice, the message is relatively uplifting, and the morals are good. Its a good setting to raise a family, and live an honest and fulfilling life. But that doesn't mean I buy it all. In the back of my head, I try to be a good person because of the whole "heaven and hell" thing, even though I don't really believe it. But what's the harm in that? Although, the main reason I dont break the law, is because I'm afraid of the judicial system, I still have a conscious...where does that come from? probably from my Christian up-bringing. So yeah, I'll take my kids to church...But I'll also teach them the wonders of science...

And as for Jimmy Hoffa, he's probably living it up right now with Tupac, Elvis, and JFK


With the intelligence humans have and the power that our brain is capable of and the complexities of the human body, I don't see how anyone could think that we evolved.

You said:

Quote
I think that when I die, theres going to be nothingness. Just like when I go to sleep and can't remember my dreams from the night before. It's as if that time between when I was awake, went to sleep, and then woke up again, never really happened. Or if I drink too much and can't remember what happened the night before (   ) there's a void...a nothingness. Is that depressing?


Yes, I find it very depressing, when you have your first child you will understand, until then you will not, believe me your views on everything change when you become a parent. I would hate to have your beliefs and know that once I or my son dies, we will never see each other again. I like the fact that in my belief I know that even after our deaths my son and I will re-unite. With your beliefs you will NEVER know the secrets of the universe, you will not be able to ask questions that have pondered man since the the beginning of time and get factual answers. In my belief I will be able to get answers to all my questions.

With your belief you have EVERYTHING to lose. If you are wrong you will go to hell, If you are right then you have lost nothing. But in my belief I have everything to gain, If I am correct I have a paradise to look forward to when I die, if I am wrong then I have lost NOTHING, I will simple cease to exist and be void. Think about it for a second. If there is a GOD (which obviously I believe there is) then by you not having faith, and believing in evolution then you are basically denouncing GOD and therefor forsaking him. Which will not allow you to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Report to moderator     Logged
- Epoman
Owner/Administrator
13+ Years In-Center Hemo-Dialysis. (NO Transplant)
Current NxStage & PureFlow User.

Dan, it looks like there is no prohibition against long posts since Epoman's posts were quite long.  I thought you wanted to see people speak their mind.  This subject is a very complex subject with a simplistic set of teachings to school children that does not represent the actual data in science publications today.  What is taught is schools in of only historical interest but Darwin's gradualism is dead as a door knob when you look at the data.  He proposed that there would be a graded series of transitional fossils found proving his theory of slow gradual accumulation of new traits.  This is not what is found in the fossil record at all:

The Question of Transitional Forms and Stasis

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionary paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the nineteenth century. Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:

Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.41

Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record:

When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…42

Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states:

If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.43

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_04.html

Dan, if you also notice in the quote from hyperlite, it is the so called God thread, but what are they talking about?  Yup, evolution.  If anything, it is this thread that was not needed, but since it is here, Epoman would say let it stay.

[paris]

Epoman did OWN the site. He could do anything he wanted to.   Epoman created this site and look how it has evolved.   

[fc2821]

evolved, tht's it.  Key word.  Thngs evolve. To develop or achieve gradually.

[tyefly]

 

[rocker]

Epoman did OWN the site. He could do anything he wanted to.   Epoman created this site and look how it has evolved.   

   Good one, Paris.

  - rocker

[fc2821]

     Why are we aruging this issue in the other thread?  Just a question.  Isn't this the place?

[dwcrawford]

do you think it is possible that there are egos so big in here that they need at least two places to cut and paste?

[Hemodoc]

do you think it is possible that there are egos so big in here that they need at least two places to cut and paste?

O come on Dan, is that really necessary to this discussion?  Do people really want to discuss these issues or just slap each other on the back for agreeing with each other and mock all of my responses. I have participated on other websites with very interesting discussions on both sides of this issue about the data involved avoiding such pointed comments like yours which add nothing.  It is a shame that insults and personal issues keep the discussion from going forward on this thread as well as the other one in question.  We have only touched on the surface of these issues of an incredibly complex and interesting topic.  Much that Rocker states in her opening statement as facts are actually not supported by the evidence such as the fossil records which do not in fact show that organisms change over time, just the opposite. 

In any case, still waiting for those that actually want to discuss this topic but it appears there is no great interest in a real discussion of the issues at the level of the actual data.

[dwcrawford]

do you think it is possible that there are egos so big in here that they need at least two places to cut and paste?

O come on Dan, is that really necessary to this discussion?  Do people really want to discuss these issues or just slap each other on the back for agreeing with each other and mock all of my responses. I have participated on other websites with very interesting discussions on both sides of this issue about the data involved avoiding such pointed comments like yours which add nothing.  It is a shame that insults and personal issues keep the discussion from going forward on this thread as well as the other one in question.  We have only touched on the surface of these issues of an incredibly complex and interesting topic.  Much that Rocker states in her opening statement as facts are actually not supported by the evidence such as the fossil records which do not in fact show that organisms change over time, just the opposite. 

In any case, still waiting for those that actually want to discuss this topic but it appears there is no great interest in a real discussion of the issues at the level of the actual data.

[rocker]

Dear Rocker, your statement is contradictory because of your own statements that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Abiogenesis is a different discipline than evolution.  As is chemistry, geology, etc.  All of these sciences, together, give us a coherent worldview.  It is that worldview that I stated in the beginning of this thread.  You seem to be under the impression that if you can somehow "prove" that abiogenesis didn't happen, that brings "evolution" crashing down.  It does not.  Whether or not abiogenesis happened, or whether we know how it happened, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether we see a change in populations of organisms over time.

I know that you see the Bible that way (everything in it must be true), but I don't see human knowledge that way.  If humans are wrong about one thing, that doesn't mean to me that we must be wrong about everything.

  I have used the current abiogenesis terms in all of my posts making note of the current political correct manner

"Politically correct"?

in which origins and evolutionary change are artificially separated which is a change from my training in the 1980s.  Yet, when I ask you to tell us when evolution started, you go and quote theories from abiogenesis of which the RNA world is one of the theories.  You also go back to amino acids. 

It was you who suggested that the first organism was an incredibly complex cell.  You were corrected on that, as a cell is a long way down the evolutionary path.  You expressed confusion.

Rocker, it is contradictory to tell me not to conflate abiogenesis with evolution, yet you went right to it as the start of your evolution beginnings.  Yet, that is not surprising at all since EVERY book by evolution advocates does the same thing.  So, if you want to talk about abiogenesis, then please start a new thread since it is off topic.

Abiogenesis is not evolution.  Evolution does not depend on abiogenesis.  If aliens came from space and dropped a truckload of cells into the primordial soup, the study of how life evolved from there would not change.  If God started by dumping a handful of worms into the ocean, the study of how life evolved from there would not change.

You cannot "disprove" evolution by expressing skepticism about abiogenesis, or chemistry, or geology, or cosmology, even though all of these sciences tie into the generally accepted scenario.

If you wish to continue attacking abiogenesis, please feel free.  But it says nothing about evolution.

[dwcrawford]

]"Some people say we evolved from apes, well they can bite my ass."[/b]

Yes, that is what I think.  I think your attitude, your perceived superioity, you refusal to listen to other people, your need for two threads to ruin, your contant and obscessive cut and paste all combine to irritate people and they want to shut you up.  I made an extra effort to talk to you but you consider yourself so far above me that you continue to bully people when you have a few folks in this discussion who are far more intelligent than you are.  Yep.  That's what I think.

So come on now Peter.