Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

And Darwin's theory ends there: the Proof is the very Opposite of the Theory.

It would be for Your 'theory,' but 'Scientific Theory' has a different meaning You Sunday School Bimbo.
Look it up.

AGAIN (8, 9, 10?)
Scientific American.
I'm going to Force you to SWALLOW even with your 12 IQ.

""1. Evolution is only a theory It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification,
one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.
[......]"""

``

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1. Evolution is only a theory

It's pretty easy to tell who didn't go to college, or at the very least had zero scientific education, when they say things like this.

 

[Leo123]

Oh come on.

Life "from elements" is a completely unreasonable expectation.

Sorry, homey don't play.

I'm not even going to argue that point, and I'm not willing to sit around for 4 billion years.

So far we have created synthetic life forms that eat oil, kill cancer cells, and move little bits of undegradable plastics from one place to another.

These are major accomplishments.

You should be more appreciative.

Glad you agree that the primordial pond explanation is incorrect.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If life from elements is completely unreasonable, then how did life originate?

That isn't what he meant.

 

[scruffy]

Abiogenesis is the theory that life on Earth originated from non-living matter through natural processes.

Well duh. Where else are you going to get proteins from, if not from carbon and nitrogen?

Enzymes are catalysts, nothing more. They don't do anything unnatural, all they do is speed up the natural. One of the simplest biological catalysts (besides metal ions), is glycine - which is an amino acid that comes out of the Miller-Urey experiments in great quantities. If you mix glycine and nucleotides, suddenly you have RNA.

There's nothing mysterious about any of this, it's all just basic chemistry. You can replicate the experiments in your own home, it's not hard. Once you have RNA you get more enzymes, it's a positive feedback cycle which is part of the dynamics. The longer the RNA, the more new enzymes you get. And the more enzymes you get, the longer your RNA chains. The mathematicians call it "combinatorial explosion".

 

[scruffy]

Glad you agree that the primordial pond explanation is incorrect.

Now you're being ridiculous.

 

[abu afak]

It's pretty easy to tell who didn't go to college, or at the very least had zero scientific education, when they say things like this.

'Short quoting'/reading again @sshoIe?
You F***** MORON, that is just the MYTH that is being busted by Scientific American I am QUOTING.
Note the 'only' in Italics.
YOU ******* Idiot who converses with but can't refute pKnopf! I can/WILL destroy him in ONE post but you could go 20 pages because you are a low IQ Clown who doesn't know anything about Evo.
You F**** MORON.

Look at the/MY OPs immediately beneath this one you IGNORANT BLIND POS.
Get out of this Section you unread Idiot.
You are obviously a stranger to it and this debate.
`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Glad you agree that the primordial pond explanation is incorrect.

He also didn't do that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

'Short quoting'/reading again @sshoIe?
You F***** MORON, that is just the MYTH that is being busted by Scientific American I am QUOTING.
Note the 'only' in Italics.
YOU ******* Idiot who converses with but can't refute pKnopf! I can/WILL destroy him in ONE post but you could go 20 pages because you are a low IQ Clown who doesn't know anything about Evo.
You F**** MORON.

Look at the/MY OPs immediately beneath this one you IGNORANT BLIND POS.
Get out of this Section you unread Idiot.
You are obviously a stranger to it and this debate.
`

I quoted politicalchic, not you. Settle down, son.

Also, anyone can compile the evidence and lay it at pknopp's feet. Then he will shit on it and say it isn't evidence.

So I ask the question designed to separate the trolls from the honestly curious people.

Works every time.

 

[abu afak]

That's the theory. An unproven one but yes, the theory.

That's NOT a 'theory,' it's a fact.
Enough incremental change between diverging groups is the DEFINITION of Species, not a theory you Stupid Creationist POS.
You pimping for PoliticalChic?
Fort Fun Indiana See how easy that is FFI?
`

 

[pknopp]

That's NOT a 'theory,' it's a fact.
Enough incremental change between diverging groups is the DEFINITION of Species, not a theory you Stupid Creationist POS.
You pimping for PoliticalChic?
Fort Fun Indiana See how easy that is FFI?
`

I should base my opinions and beliefs based upon what others believe?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll agree that there are many people masquerading as scientists.

And many scientists who exceed scope.

Scientists are allowed to have religious and political opinions, but it's wrong to try to pass them off as "part of the science".

Many scientists are like rock stars, they get lucky once and suddenly they get all kinds of adulation, and then they come to believe that their opinions matter. Actors are the same way, I call it the "Hollywood syndrome". The ego gets in the way of the accomplishments.

Gould is an interesting character. He studied the social behavior of bees, and then tried to generalize to the social behavior of humans. But it doesn't work that way, we're a long LONG way from understanding social behavior.

I study brains, neural networks. One of the interesting things is that our human brains have a specific area that processes faces. Human faces - which is a part of our social behavior. But monkey brains process monkey faces, and rat brains process rat faces. To generalize from one to the other is WAY beyond our current understanding.

So, some deluded scientists come to believe that their job is to generate theories. It's not! Their job is to perform experiments. Science is experimental, theories are worthless without experiments to back them up.

Let's first eliminate the idea that you were brought up as a Marxist, as Gould was.

Next, is your career and/or funding based on you toeing the Leftist line?


If that doesn't apply to you, then you can be a scientist.
And.....if you are not anti-religion by bias, the same.

Sadly, more "scientists" today fall into those definitions. The Left is very well funded and connected.


I've given many examples. And if the shoe doesn't fit, don't try to wear it.

 

[abu afak]

I should base my opinions and beliefs based upon what others believe?

It's Not a mere belief, it's the Definition.
This isn't a poll you blazing Idiot.
You post NO CONTENT just idiotic gratuitous objection.
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

It would be for Your 'theory,' but 'Scientific Theory' has a different meaning You Sunday School Bimbo.
Look it up.

AGAIN (8, 9, 10?)
Scientific American.
I'm going to Force you to SWALLOW even with your 12 IQ.

""1. Evolution is only a theory It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the Theory of evolution, meaning the idea Wdescent with modification,
one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.
[......]"""

``

who'd you vote for?

 

[scruffy]

The basic position of creationists is "life is impossible without God".

But the minute they try to go beyond that, they demonstrate several forms of misunderstanding of the words that are in their very own Bible.

I think it's extremely arrogant to second guess God. Life is real, we're looking at it every day. In creationist terms, we're looking at God's handiwork.

But the creationists are arrogant, they think they know how God did it. Which is most certainly not the case. It is in fact the evolutionists who are much closer to discovering how God did it.

Creationists are trying to revive a whimsical capricious God from the Old Testament, based on words they don't understand.

The Bible says specifically "that" God did it, and it doesn't say even one word about how or when.

It is in fact the arrogant creationists who are engaging in silly wild ass guesses. Whereas the evolutionists are engaging in discovery, which is a much better strategy.

 

[pknopp]

The basic position of creationists is "life is impossible without God".

My position is it is all a theory.

 

[abu afak]

Not really.

Modern biology is molecular, it has nothing to do with fossils.


Darwin is a lot like Sigmund Freud.

Interesting in the 19th century, but mostly irrelevant today.

As I said....
You make MANY false claims Daily. Really too hard to refute them due to the number and so many other Ignorants/partisans.

"AI Overview

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is considered the Foundation of modern biology, as it provides the framework for understanding the diversity of life on Earth and how species change over time, essentially explaining the origin of all living organisms through a mechanism based on natural processes like variation and adaptation within populations.

Key points about Darwin's contribution to modern biology:

• Natural Selection:
  Darwin's central concept is that organisms with advantageous traits in their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on those beneficial traits to their offspring, leading to gradual changes in a species over generations.
• "Descent with modification":
  This phrase describes Darwin's idea that all species are descended from a common ancestor, with modifications accumulating over time through natural selection.
• Impact on scientific understanding:
  Darwin's theory revolutionized the way scientists view the natural world, providing a unifying explanation for the vast diversity of life on Earth
• `""

`

 

[scruffy]

My position is it is all a theory.

Well, the thing is, there is no competing theory.

There is no other theory that explains the 18 converging lines of evidence

If you have one, by all means let's hear it.

 

[scruffy]

As I said....
You make MANY false claims Daily. Really too hard to refute them due to the number.

"AI Overview

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is considered the Foundation of modern biology, as it provides the framework for understanding the diversity of life on Earth and how species change over time, essentially explaining the origin of all living organisms through a mechanism based on natural processes like variation and adaptation within populations.

Key points about Darwin's contribution to modern biology:

• Natural Selection:
  Darwin's central concept is that organisms with advantageous traits in their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on those beneficial traits to their offspring, leading to gradual changes in a species over generations.
• "Descent with modification":
  This phrase describes Darwin's idea that all species are descended from a common ancestor, with modifications accumulating over time through natural selection.
• Impact on scientific understanding:
  Darwin's theory revolutionized the way scientists view the natural world, providing a unifying explanation for the vast diversity of life on Earth
• `""

`

Sorry, I don't place much stock in the garbage on the internet.

 

[pknopp]

Well, the thing is, there is no competing theory.

There is no other theory that explains the 18 converging lines of evidence

If you have one, by all means let's hear it.

I don't pretend to know what is unknown.