15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[magnifier661]

Nobody alive observed them.

There are equivalents of pictures, records, etc., for the carbon based molecules.

Lol bro come on... The life of "history" is much different than life 3 billion years before history ever existed.

If we start going down that road, then one could argue that Alexander the Great never existed.

 

[Denny Crane]

Lol bro come on... The life of "history" is much different than life 3 billion years before history ever existed.

If we start going down that road, then one could argue that Alexander the Great never existed.

History.

 

[Further]

Lol bro come on... The life of "history" is much different than life 3 billion years before history ever existed.

If we start going down that road, then one could argue that Alexander the Great never existed.

That's why in science you make predictions, then do experiments to see if the predictions hold up. Prediction says if universe is expanding since Big Bang, stars at certain distances should average specific color. We do the measurements, they do. Predictions suggest there should be background radiation in the cosmos in a fairly homogeneous pattern. We do the measurements, they do. Enough of the predictions end up matching reality perfectly, and we end up with a picture of history billions of years ago that is just, if not more reliable knowing who your great grandparents were.

 

[magnifier661]

History.

Ahhhh okay, so a computer, let's say, has all the components for function, but until a program and operating system is installed, it's just a paper weight.

 

[magnifier661]

That's why in science you make predictions, then do experiments to see if the predictions hold up. Prediction says if universe is expanding since Big Bang, stars at certain distances should average specific color. We do the measurements, they do. Predictions suggest there should be background radiation in the cosmos in a fairly homogeneous pattern. We do the measurements, they do. Enough of the predictions end up matching reality perfectly, and we end up with a picture of history billions of years ago that is just, if not more reliable knowing who your great grandparents were.

Yes I agree, but the slippery slope is when a prediction is made without the ability of observation. That becomes the science of gaps. I think you know where I'm coming from bro.

Cosmology and most the empirical evidence supports the expansion and contraction. But as I said above, I am not trying to discredit the Big Bang, not evolution. I am merely pointing out the insanity of science accepting DNA or RNA coincidentally programed itself by chance.

The question remains... Life has never been observed to program itself from a non life. All life observed has evolved or been created by already encoded, organisms.

 

[crowTrobot]

I am merely pointing out the insanity of science accepting DNA or RNA coincidentally programed itself by chance.

the theory says that DNA is "programmed" by environmental selection, NOT by chance. If you'd drop your anthropocentric assumptions and make an effort to grasp what the theory actually says, you'd see it's not all that implausible that DNA, and complexity and order in general can be the result of mindless processes.

 

[magnifier661]

the theory says that DNA is "programmed" by environmental selection, NOT by chance. If you'd drop your anthropocentric assumptions and make an effort to grasp what the theory actually says, you'd see it's not all that implausible that DNA, and complexity and order in general can be the result of mindless processes.

Interesting, I would like the empirical evidence that has been observed to support this theory. Can you link me?

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting, I would like the empirical evidence that has been observed to support this theory. Can you link me?

Link

 

[magnifier661]

Link

Lol

 

[Natebishop3]

Not one of those questions proves that the God from Christianity, or Judaism or Islam created us though. Does it raise questions about evolution? Sure. We still do not know all the answers about where we came from, but as we advance as a society, it seems like the answers given to us by religion become less and less plausible, while science just keeps rolling with the punches.

My theory is simple; there are some things about life that are unexplained. Could there be a power that's beyond our knowing? Yes. Absolutely, but I look at Christianity the same way I look at any other religion concocted by man since the beginning of time. Religion is a way to control the populace and make money. It fears knowledge and tries to prevent people from asking questions about where we come from.

The fear of death is a powerful weapon. People do not want to think that this is the end. Once you die, that's it. You're gone. You're worm food. We need to know that there's something beyond this life, otherwise what's the point? Why follow the rules? Why do what the government says? Before you start to say that people don't need the church to tell them right from wrong, just take a look at the entire demographic of people in this country who hate gays simply because it's a "sin." People are sheep. They follow the word of those in power, whether it's from a church or from a government, they do what they're told. They don't want to make waves.

I think if aliens landed tomorrow and proved to us that they had created human life, and then followed that up by telling us that there is no life after death. That this is the end. We would see society take a drastic turn. I'm not saying that everyone would just freak out and start killing each other, but I think there would be some pretty significant changes to how people behave.

 

[Wheels]

All I know is... If there is no hope after life... Then I'd spend a lot less of my precious limited time on earth trying to prove people wrong who choose to believe in something more. Seems like someone who believes there is nothing else gets the short end of the stick in these debates if they are right

 

[Further]

All I know is... If there is no hope after life... Then I'd spend a lot less of my precious limited time on earth trying to prove people wrong who choose to believe in something more. Seems like someone who believes there is nothing else gets the short end of the stick in these debates if they are right

I don't speak for others, but although I don't believe in god or an afterlife, I also don't really actively think about it. There are some big potential pitfalls to disbelief, and just as the religious must have faith in their god, an atheist like myself has to have some faith in mankind that even without some outside force compelling an ethical life, that mankind will generally ascribe to a societal morality even without pressure. I don't steal, kill, hurt others, or do other things that most would agree are wrong. Why, it's not because of god, it's not because of government, it's because of values I was brought up with. It's because I have but one life and would like to be proud of how I lived it.

Most of us, religious or atheist don't actively think about their ethical nature continuously. You don't steal a specific jacket you see hung up at a restaurant because you think of Jesus, but because you have a morality that that was honed by your upbringing and social pressures, of which the church certainly is a factor. But if you came to a falling out with your church, or even became an atheist, my guess is you still wouldn't steal that jacket.

As far as how I spend my time, I'm not actively thinking about getting all my living done at this very second because I could be worm food tomorrow. I like thinking about this subject, so I discuss it. Right now, I'm waiting for the dryer to finish so I can put on my bike shorts and go for a ride. And if you recall, this thread did not start with an atheist challenging the views of the religious (although it could have, everyone is guilty) it began with an fundamentalist challenging the atheists.

 

[crandc]

Further - you post is great except the thread started with challenging science, not atheism. Not the same!

I am always happy to discuss science with anyone who is interested. OdenRoyLMA2 is not interested in science. People interested in science pose thoughts and questions in their own words. They don't copy/paste and then smugly say they have trumped all the world's scientists. People interested in science don't start with a conclusion, nor do they declare that they, with no scientific training, know more than all the world's experts in a field. Yes, I am aware people can be wrong even in their area of expertise, but the fact remains that those who have spent their lives studying/practicing a field are far more likely to be right than those who never even took, say, biology 101.

OdenRoyLMA2 uses words and concepts without the slightest indication of even knowing what they mean. OdenRoyLMA2 did not bother to fact check the original post, nor did he/she/they/one bother to run a Google search to see if any of the unanswerable questions have been answered. OdenRoyLMA2 does not know the difference between science, philosophy and religion. OdenRoyLMA2 is shockingly ignorant of logic. Even if someone could, most improbably, disprove everything learned in 200 years of biology, biochemistry, astronomy, archeology, geology, and related fields, that would not constitute one iota of proof that their interpretation of the bible is literally factually true. This was raised in the Dover trial about 10 years ago. The judge, a conservative Christian appointed by George W. Bush gave the creationists every chance to show evidence for their so-called "theory" and they just kept repeating "evolution can't explain the eye" - even after the pro-science side related evidence for evolution of eyes starting with Origin of Species. OdenRoyLMA2 references Darwin, Dawkins, Gould et al but gives no indication of having ever read a word they wrote (copying/pasting quotes torn out of context and posted on anti science web sites is not reading). OdenRoyLMA2 accuses scientists of presenting "just so stories" but gives not a single such citation. BTW, does OdenRoyLMA2 know what a "just so story" is and the origin of the term?

OdenRoyLMA2 turns reality upside down. First OdenRoyLMA2 says can you prove species were not designed. If I claim OdenRoyLMA2 is an ax murderer and baby raper can he/she/they/one prove otherwise? Can I go around saying OdenRoyLMA2 is an ax murderer because the poster has not proven otherwise? Clearly, no, it is the responsibility of those propounding a view to prove it. Creationists are the ones who have to prove design, and they have never done so in any court case. OdenRoyLMA2 turns reality upside down by saying that "god did it bible says so end of story" creationism is science and should be taught as so, but "it's a natural process that can be discovered" is religion.

OdenRoyLMA2 conflates unknown with unknowable. Until the 1930s it was not known why the sun was hot. Every known method of combustion would have burned out in a few centuries. Creationists used this as "proof" that science was wrong, that their version of the bible was literally true, that the universe could not be more than a few thousand years old or the sun would have gone out. Then nuclear fusion was discovered, and it was clear that the sun (and other stars) could not only burn for billions of years, but our sun was only at the midpoint of its "life". There were certainly many problems facing our species in the 1930s but the sun going out was not one. In fact the discovery of nuclear fusion also gave an explanation for stellar evolution. The source of the heat of the sun was unknown for millions of years of human existence but clearly not unknowable. There are many things unknown (but most of the list is actually known) including origin of life, origin of consciousness, nature of dark matter and dark energy and why the Blazers started playing like shit midseason, but the fact that they are unknown does not make them unknowable. As Bill Nye said, let's go and find out. To find out we need science and discovery, not mindless copying and pasting.

And now I have spent more time on this than it deserves so I'm out.

 

[crowTrobot]

Interesting, I would like the empirical evidence that has been observed to support this theory. Can you link me?

I think the important thing is to first try to understand how the theory of evolution (by natural selection) is suppose to work, and that it's not at all a random process. If you do that you might see that something like the genetic code could (at least in principal) be the result of mindless processes. Unless you understand how the theory works the evidence for DNA evolving without "design" isn't going to mean much to you.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think humankind eventually will travel out into the stars, find some lifeless smoldering rock, crash a few ice comets into it, then sprinkle a few amino acids into the mess, sit back and see what springs forth. The excitement wouldn't be to create life in our own image but to see what images spring up on their own. That is what a god would do. It would be the greatest reality show ever. And you wouldn't send your son down to tell them what to do, or burn a bush here and there. You would observe from a distance and just watch. Watch them grow, evolve, figure it out from themselves.

 

[MarAzul]

I think humankind eventually will travel out into the stars, find some lifeless smoldering rock, crash a few ice comets into it, then sprinkle a few amino acids into the mess, sit back and see what springs forth. The excitement wouldn't be to create life in our own image but to see what images spring up on their own. That is what a god would do. It would be the greatest reality show ever. And you wouldn't send your son down to tell them what to do, or burn a bush here and there. You would observe from a distance and just watch. Watch them grow, evolve, figure it out from themselves.

I think a colony of termites from the Pantanal have as much chance getting to the Stars as we do. We aren't really in the game, perhaps they will be.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think a colony of termites from the Pantanal have as much chance getting to the Stars as we do. We aren't really in the game, perhaps they will be.

If we don't blow ourselves up first we'll eventually get there.

 

[PapaG]

The way I see it is powers of two.

1 cell divides makes 2. 2 cells divide make 4. 4 cells make 8. And so on.

Mags seems to think it's linear. That a mutation can only occur one at a time. After the first cell divides, you can have 2 new mutations. Then you can have 4. And so on.

2 to the 32nd power is a number in the billions. When you consider the billions of years life has existed and cells divide, you get number more like 2 to the "holy shit that's a really huge number."

Which is why if it is random mutation, that there should be literally billions of fossils from new species that couldn't survive for more than a few dozen generations.

Instead, you Evo Fundamentalists make a linear species case when trying to build a "fossil record." This approach to actual science is as faith-based as those who believe in Genesis.

 

[Further]

Which is why if it is random mutation, that there should be literally billions of fossils from new species that couldn't survive for more than a few dozen generations.

Instead, you Evo Fundamentalists make a linear species case when trying to build a "fossil record." This approach to actual science is as faith-based as those who believe in Genesis.

That's just silly and obviously a statement whose purpose is to get under certain peoples skin. I ain't biting.

 

[crowTrobot]

Which is why if it is random mutation, that there should be literally billions of fossils from new species that couldn't survive for more than a few dozen generations.

Instead, you Evo Fundamentalists make a linear species case when trying to build a "fossil record." This approach to actual science is as faith-based as those who believe in Genesis.

Do you really think you have a better handle on what the fossil record should look like if evolution were true than working scientists?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This video proves that most fossils are fakes.

[video=youtube;NwrqBLw0e4E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwrqBLw0e4E[/video]

 

[barfo]

I think humankind eventually will travel out into the stars, find some lifeless smoldering rock, crash a few ice comets into it, then sprinkle a few amino acids into the mess, sit back and see what springs forth. The excitement wouldn't be to create life in our own image but to see what images spring up on their own. That is what a god would do. It would be the greatest reality show ever. And you wouldn't send your son down to tell them what to do, or burn a bush here and there. You would observe from a distance and just watch. Watch them grow, evolve, figure it out from themselves.

How are you going to get any alien poontang if you don't violate the Prime Directive once in a while?

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

I think the important thing is to first try to understand how the theory of evolution (by natural selection) is suppose to work, and that it's not at all a random process. If you do that you might see that something like the genetic code could (at least in principal) be the result of mindless processes. Unless you understand how the theory works the evidence for DNA evolving without "design" isn't going to mean much to you.

How about you reply to the actual question, rather than trying to slight of hand to a different answer. Are you in politics?!?!

Simple questions needs a simple answer. I said, show me one empirical observation of life being able to form without the use of another living organism.

 

[crowTrobot]

How about you reply to the actual question, rather than trying to slight of hand to a different answer. Are you in politics?!?!

Simple questions needs a simple answer. I said, show me one empirical observation of life being able to form without the use of another living organism.

You're mixing subjects again. I don't have much interesting to say about abiogenesis.

I was just responding to your statement about DNA being programmed by "chance". If (hypothetically for your sake) DNA evolved it would most likely have been gradually over hundreds of millions of years, with hundreds of millions of tiny (non-random) environmental adaptations. And it would have started from something much simpler that if you saw today you wouldn't think was so impressive, and gradually increased in complexity. Obviously scientists don't claim that the first self-replicating organism started out with a full modern DNA double-helix, or anything remotely close to that, which is what your objections are implying (straw man).

 

[magnifier661]

You're mixing subjects again. I don't have much interesting to say about abiogenesis.

I was just responding to your statement about DNA being programmed by "chance". If (hypothetically for your sake) DNA evolved it would most likely have been gradually over hundreds of millions of years, with hundreds of millions of tiny environmental adaptations. And it would have started from something much simpler that if you saw it today you wouldn't think was so impressive, and gradually increased in complexity. Obviously scientists don't claim that the first self-replicating organism started out with a full modern DNA double-helix, or anything remotely close to that, which is what your objections are implying (straw man).

No it's quite simple. And ignoring this because you can't prove it is stupid.

I haven't argued that once DNA or RNA is already formed, the mutations can occur and change the organism. And there have been countless observations to prove this claim.

What can't be proven is a living organism has never manifested from a non life soup. And you can choose to say silly things like "I'm not concerned with abiogenesis" all you want. If you don't have the answers, just say so...

So you agree that abiogenesis is a theory that can't be observed currently? <--- glad I finally was able to answer from your straddling of the fence. Way to dodge around the entire question still.

 

[Wheels]

I don't speak for others, but although I don't believe in god or an afterlife, I also don't really actively think about it. There are some big potential pitfalls to disbelief, and just as the religious must have faith in their god, an atheist like myself has to have some faith in mankind that even without some outside force compelling an ethical life, that mankind will generally ascribe to a societal morality even without pressure. I don't steal, kill, hurt others, or do other things that most would agree are wrong. Why, it's not because of god, it's not because of government, it's because of values I was brought up with. It's because I have but one life and would like to be proud of how I lived it.

Most of us, religious or atheist don't actively think about their ethical nature continuously. You don't steal a specific jacket you see hung up at a restaurant because you think of Jesus, but because you have a morality that that was honed by your upbringing and social pressures, of which the church certainly is a factor. But if you came to a falling out with your church, or even became an atheist, my guess is you still wouldn't steal that jacket.

As far as how I spend my time, I'm not actively thinking about getting all my living done at this very second because I could be worm food tomorrow. I like thinking about this subject, so I discuss it. Right now, I'm waiting for the dryer to finish so I can put on my bike shorts and go for a ride. And if you recall, this thread did not start with an atheist challenging the views of the religious (although it could have, everyone is guilty) it began with an fundamentalist challenging the atheists.

Thanks for the response Further. I wasnt necessarily thinking of you with this. You seem to be able to have respectful dialog with others on the subject.

I was referring more towards those on both sides who spew unnecessary vitriol for hours a day on the subject. To me, thats what seems like a waste of already limited time on earth. (again not you)

 

[crowTrobot]

I haven't argued that once DNA or RNA is already formed, the mutations can occur and change the organism. And there have been countless observations to prove this claim.

In the theory of evolution by natural selection the selected mutations FORM DNA/RNA (form all parts of living organisms), they do not just change what already exists. Under the right circumstances scientists observe that complexity IS increased, and they can extrapolate backwards to the complex features of organisms we observe today having much simpler plausible non-complex beginnings.

What can't be proven is a living organism has never manifested from a non life soup.

Science actually isn't concerned with "proof", only finding explanations that best fit the evidence. If you want to justify belief in God by arguing scientists can't directly observe what happened before humans existed, good for you. It's just not a very compelling or interesting objection to evolution (or abiogenesis). If anyone ever invents a time machine I'll call you.

 

[magnifier661]

In the theory of evolution by natural selection the selected mutations FORM DNA/RNA (form all parts of living organisms), they do not just change what already exists. Under the right circumstances scientists observe that complexity IS increased, and they can extrapolate backwards to the complex features of organisms we observe today having much simpler plausible non-complex beginnings.



Science actually isn't concerned with "proof", only finding explanations that best fit the evidence. If you want to justify belief in God by arguing scientists can't directly observe what happened before humans existed, good for you. It's just not a very compelling or interesting objection to evolution (or abiogenesis). If anyone ever invents a time machine I'll call you.

Call it what u want, but until it's observed or backed through testing or mathematics, it's just a educated guess.

And I'm still missing where I said evolution is not possible. You keep bringing this up like I say it's impossible. You have me confused.

 

[noknobs]

What can't be proven is a living organism has never manifested from a non life soup. And you can choose to say silly things like "I'm not concerned with abiogenesis" all you want. If you don't have the answers, just say so...

So you agree that abiogenesis is a theory that can't be observed currently? <--- glad I finally was able to answer from your straddling of the fence. Way to dodge around the entire question still.

I hope some day even you can see the laughable hypocrisy and double-standard in your statements and questions.

You love to attack science for not knowing EVERYTHING, and then when anyone questions religion with the same level of critique, you sit back and simply say, "faith", like that's supposed to mean something.

Science at least tries to find answers, instead of religion which pretends it already knows the answers, since afterall, it was written in some man-made book thousands of years ago by people who weren't even sure the world was round. Of course THEY would know the origins of life, the purpose of life, what comes after life, and all the answers to the universe...

 

[magnifier661]

I hope some day even you can see the laughable hypocrisy and double-standard in your statements and questions.

You love to attack science for not knowing EVERYTHING, and then when anyone questions religion with the same level of critique, you sit back and simply say, "faith", like that's supposed to mean something.

Science at least tries to find answers, instead of religion which pretends it already knows the answers, since afterall, it was written in some man-made book thousands of years ago by people who weren't even sure the world was round. Of course THEY would know the origins of life, the purpose of life, what comes after life, and all the answers to the universe...

Please explain my hypocrisy... I believe in evolution. I believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old. And I believe in science. What I don't put my bet on are theories that can't be observed.

My science hat is black and white. My spiritual side is about faith. I don't like mixing the two.