The truth is despite many many years of researching and experimenting scientists still do not have a âworkableâ explanation of how life could start. In fact some scientists are now suggesting life must have originated from outer space, which is called panspermia. An example of this comes from Sir Fred Hoyle, who accepted the impossibility of life arising spontaneously by chance and published a book, Evolution from Space. Then there is the much lauded, revered and very vocal advocate of evolution, Richard Dawkins. He also, when interviewed by Ben Stein, was asked to explain how life could have started. He could not explain this by reference to physical or biological causes so resorted to and conceded that a possible explanation was that the first life came here from somewhere else. Outer space.
No one has been able to set up an experiment and make one type of organism evolve into a new type of organism (unless one deliberately removes genetic information or inserts genetic information from another organism, neither of which is true evolution).
"Or a very elaborated hoax upon mankind? "
You kidding, right?
To be this self-centered and ignorant in a philosophy forum is astonishing.
Who on earth said anything about mankind when it comes to evolution like we are something special.
Evolution is not a exercise to create humans.
It is not a hoax against the creator.
Based on the main activity in evolution, I say it is the survival instinct of the Universe.
The creation of a higher level consciousness through trial and error against the reality of an unforgiving environment.
Here on Earth, now, it is us.
For how long ? who knows.
What is next ? who cares if it is not us.
Will we fight ? no difference.
One thing is for certain - maybe two - denial of evolution is hindering our survival because this can explain many of our problems and help to find solutions.
If there is a creator, what if it does not like you?
There are several workable explanations, but no proof. Three and a half billion years later, scattered all over the globe, evidence becomes pretty hard to collect.
Not having every single datum nailed down doesnât invalidate the preponderance of evidence for the case.
Creationists make out that science is an all-or-nothing proposition; that if they can shed some doubt about one little piece of the puzzle, the whole theory falls apart.
It doesnât. And they havenât. Theyâre mostly making a lot of noise over their own misconceptions and distortions.
(Itâs as if they thought they were in court and all they had to do was convince one juror out of twelve that there is reasonable doubt. Science doesnât work that way. It works by piling up numbers, observations, measurements, descriptions, statistics, more numbers, specimens, diagrams, experimental findings, patterns, adjustments, corrections, and some more numbers.)
Itâs one suggestion been kicking around quite a while. Itâs possible, I suppose.
Does that possibility affect the process of evolution in some way? If so, how?
Whether this is true depends on what you mean by âtype of organismâ. Beetles are unlikely ever to turn into orchids and, in the time-span available to experimenters, fruit flies wonât grow into beetles - even if they had some tangible motivation to do so.
In what way does this reflect on a 25-million-year process?
Itâs not supposed to be. But the genetic information, the way itâs organized and accessed, sheds a good deal of light on the means and method of âtrueâ evolutionary processes.
There is no chef.
What caused the cake and the pie? The chef or the oven? If merely the oven, shouldnât we see cake-pies or pie-cakes in development? Which led to which? How did one ever evolve into the other?
Can a conversation get more ridiculously ignorant?
Evolution is not âScienceâ. Evolution is a principle theorized as A cause of life in all of its forms. Evolution is worshiped by atheists as the First Cause of life, their âGodâ.
[quote=âJames S Saintâ] There is no chef.
What caused the cake and the pie? The chef or the oven? If merely the oven, shouldnât we see cake-pies or pie-cakes in development? Which led to which? How did one ever evolve into the other?
Can a conversation get more ridiculously ignorant?
Evolution is not âScienceâ. Evolution is a principle theorized as A cause of life in all of its forms. Evolution is worshiped by atheists as the First Cause of life, their âGodâ.
K: wrong as usual⌠I donât in any way shape or form âworshipâ evolutionâŚ
that is what you do⌠I think evolution answers the question how we got
here better then any other wayâŚit is not the âcause of lifeâ⌠and
evolution doesnât even say how life got started⌠that part is unknown and most
likely will stay unknownâŚevolution is simply a means to resolve the question
of, how did we get here⌠in fact, given the choices offered, evolution is by far
the most logical way we got here⌠using Ockhamâs razor, evolution makes
the best sense of all the theories of how we got hereâŚ
You wouldnât know it one way or another. You simply love to hate those other guys.
There you go. End of argument.
To you, what doesnât fall into that category?
âWrong as usualâ. That is not what Occamâs Razor is about. And even if it was, the "God did it" ontology is far, far, far simpler than the "for unknown reasons, it kept changing microscopically until it just became what it is in all of its variety and nuances".
we have evidence for evolution and no, zero evidence for
god⌠you donât have any evidence for god, so how can you
bring in god into a conversation about science? You canâtâŚ
as far as being the simplest explanation for evolutionâŚ
it isnât the simplest⌠to accept god as an explanation is to
accept all kinds of stuff like heaven and hell and angels
and sin and guilt, the bible, the list goes on and on of things
that must follow if you accept god⌠I donât accept the idea of god,
so I donât have to worry about all that crap that goes with the belief
in godâŚit is not simple to believe in god⌠very complicated stuff
and confusing stuff⌠like the trinity, to give one exampleâŚ
Exactly wrong. You have speculation of Evolution and zero evidence for the lack of God.
The truth is that you donât know one from the other because you havenât the sense to define either in any meaningful way. And when pressed, you merely invent a strawman to satisfy your habit of hate.
I mean, we can prove evolution in a few days with bacteria. Then it becomes âmicro vs macoâ evolution. Then we show macro using dogs and other bred pets. Then itâs some other objection . . . at which point itâs more a matter of not really getting it.
So, this is the crux.
Compare a positive to a negative.
If one tiny doubt can be manufactured in the case for a science, all of that science falls.
If no incontrovertible proof is found against the claim for a deity, all of religion stands.
Try this instead:
On on side,
pile all of the evidence that supports evolution.
Next to it, pile all of the proofs that any specific observation in evolutionary biology is untrue or incorrect.
Then, on the on the other side,
pile all the evidence that supports the factuality of Abrahamic religions.
Next to that, pile all the specific proofs that negate individual claims within those religions.
Before wading in to evaluate the quality of each datum, it might be useful to compare the individual piles for size and weight.
You know, just to be fair.
Where did you get this obsession? What made you think it defines or limits the concept of evolution?
I didnât say that. Evolution is demonstrated in bacterial cultures, routinely, every day. Itâs not international news (!!!)
What they wonât demonstrate is your idee fixe about speciation.
I said you canât get them to mate.
Ingesting fragments of chromosome from other bacterial strains in the same culture medium can also be construed as modifying the species, and thus evolving.
What they will not do, for you or anyone else, is reproduce sexually to recombine their DNA.