• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Evolution

Does evolution happen


  • Total voters
    70
ok, I was just trying to make sense of your post and figure out where your erroneous conclusions stemmed from. lets revisit them. I agree with your summation, macroevolution is basically evolutionary changes at or above the species level, while micro occurs without genetic isolation.

lets revisit your previous post


genetic isolation is a key point to the macro evolution definition, this is typically due to two divergent lines no longer being able to reproduce. Changes in isolated genes would be unique to that isolated population. This contradicts your "the entire species would have evolved on similar paths" part. When a population is isolated ti then goes on its own path due to its isolated mutations and isolated selective pressures.

In light of genetic isolation why would there be a repeat of accumulated mutations that occurred in a separate line to emerge yet again, especially when the occurrence of mutations part is random? There would be new mutations to select from, and new selective pressures working on them, all of this adds up to an emergence of something that would NOT be human since they would have taken an entirely different path due to the isolation of their genes and the circumstances.

New races of humans evolving out of primates is not what the theory of evolution would predict would happen. If that were to happen it would contradict the fundamentals of the process as we know it - what you are describing is not in any way congruent with the theory of evolution.

Geographic isolation can not explain why humans and other primates evolved from the same species or how humans evolved from the current set of primates. Evolution is a slow, slow process. As the theory goes, a gene mutation occurs and is then passed down from generation to generation until it consumes the entire species. As such, if humans began to evolve from primates, their genetic similarities would allow them to still mate and the genetics of primates or the genetics of humans would have become the primary makeup. In other words, if primates and humans lived in the same geographic regions (and as far as I know, they always have) then either the primates or the humans would have evolved into the same species. Since geographic isolation cannot account for the diverging genetic lines, the only logical conclusion is that humans and primates did not evolve from the same species.
 
Try to prove logically that stuff just magically poofed up here.

This comment shows that you are ignorant of what abiogenisis is. Nothing about it implies that stuff "magically poofed up". In fact, your comments also demonstrate a distinct ignorance of what "logical" means.
 
I am not into "bringing it downstairs".. yet. Very Rarely do.
Let's see you defend your Unbelievably weak BS here, in front of all concerned.

Well, you sure like to talk sht upstairs. I'll accept your concession on the personal challenge you iniated.

Yours, really just a Funny variant creationist theory.

I'm an atheist and a scientist. I'll presume your qualifications remain in the realm of "for all to see" or "kid".



The article I linked WAS a demonstration of abiogenesis!

Without bothering to look at your impressive "link", I will call BS. Demonstrating abiogenesis would be like demonstrating cold fusion or a cure for cancer, and there is no way I'd miss such a thing.
 
Last edited:
Well, you sure like to talk sht upstairs. I'll accept your concession on the personal challenge you iniated.
Sorry. Not letting you out of the debate Here. Upstairs. Too bad huh.

I'm an atheist and a scientist. I'll presume your qualifications remain in the realm of "for all to see" or "kid".
A "Gods must be crazy".. "scientist"?
Your theory is indeed/Ironically a "Dropped-from-space-Coke-Bottle" joke.

And again/Twice Now your reply DISHONESTLY drops the Meat of my post:
Yes, the second time BOLDED:
me TWICE and left off/not quoted by ecofarm said:
Again:
How did THEY, The 'Planters', "Someone like us", come to Life?
Where did Their "RNA" come from? (That they then "shot it" around the Universe.)
...
This is DESPICABLE and LOST posting tactics.
Truncating an opponents quotes, especially leaving off the Bolded Gist you Can't handle. Twice.

As well as Leaving off from my last:
me said:
"..Perhaps now your understand, after 2 of my posts and 1 of Paschendale's, the folly of your Nonsensical put-it-off theory and have No answer....
 
Last edited:
Without bothering to look at your impressive "link", I will call BS. Demonstrating abiogenesis would be like demonstrating cold fusion or a cure for cancer, and there is no way I'd miss such a thing.

Apparently you're a very bad scientist, then. The first experiment that showed abiogenesis working, in a limited form, took place in 1952. This newer one in 2008 was even more promising. Seriously, what kind of idiot just sticks their fingers in their ears like this?
 
Sorry. Not letting you out of the debate Here. Upstairs. Too bad huh.

Oh, I'm not interested in your "debate". I find it ignorant at best and likely dishonest. What I'm interested in are your personal attacks, and your likely lack of anything to back them up.

And again/Twice Now your reply DISHONESTLY drops the Meat of my post:
Yes, the second time BOLDED:

This is DESPICABLE and LOST posting tactics.
Truncating an opponents quotes, especially leaving off the Bolded Gist you Can't handle. Twice.

As well as Leaving off from my last:

What is despicable and lost is your attempt to change the subject. Abiogenesis obviously occured somewhere, unless you believe that life has always existed. I am discussing how life appeared on Earth, and I'm not interested in inventing answers for you outside what is known, reasonable or demonstratable.

If you woke this morning and found a Ferrari in your yard, would you presume that it came from somewhere else or that it spontaneously assembled in your yard. The same reasoning points towards life coming from outside the Earth. This simple rationale does not require genius but is apparently beyond you.

Apparently you're a very bad scientist, then. The first experiment that showed abiogenesis working, in a limited form, took place in 1952. This newer one in 2008 was even more promising. Seriously, what kind of idiot just sticks their fingers in their ears like this?

Do you understand the definition of 'demonstrate'. Demonstrate does not mean imply. Demonstrate does not mean "almost did it". And demonstrate does not mean "was modeled". Demonstrate means to actually do something, and we have never managed to actually do abiogenesis.




I don't get why people are so stuck on the idea that the Earth is the source of life. It's like I'm in ancient times and people are insisting, without conclusive evidence, that the Earth is the center of the universe.
 
Oh, I'm not interested in your "debate". I find it ignorant at best and likely dishonest. What I'm interested in are your personal attacks, and your likely lack of anything to back them up.



What is despicable and lost is your attempt to change the subject. Abiogenesis obviously occured somewhere, unless you believe that life has always existed. I am discussing how life appeared on Earth, and I'm not interested in inventing answers for you outside what is known, reasonable or demonstratable.

If you woke this morning and found a Ferrari in your yard, would you presume that it came from somewhere else or that it spontaneously assembled in your yard. The same reasoning points towards life coming from outside the Earth. This simple rationale does not require genius but is apparently beyond you.



Do you understand the definition of 'demonstrate'. Demonstrate does not mean imply. Demonstrate does not mean "almost did it". And demonstrate does not mean "was modeled". Demonstrate means to actually do something, and we have never managed to actually do abiogenesis.




I don't get why people are so stuck on the idea that the Earth is the source of life. It's like I'm in ancient times and people are insisting, without conclusive evidence, that the Earth is the center of the universe.

And yet, you are arguing the opposite. With zero evidence. You can demonstrate how 'life moves around' here on earth, but you have zero evidence to demonstrate how it could traverse space, and zero explanations, let alone evidence for how it arose elsewhere (that is, how the ferrarri got 'plopped' down wherever it first 'magically' appeared in the universe). Essentially, you argument rests on incredulity. You may be an atheist, and may possess a science degree, but your reasoning is as bad as any creationist.
 
Science doesn't work this way. Science is about falsifying hypotheses. We can never know with certainty any scientific hypothesis.

This, in my view, is drastically false from the science I know. Let me say some things.....

The four laws of Thermodynamics
Boyle's law
Couloumb's law
Ohm's Law
Newton's law of heat conduction
Ideal gas law

...and I will stop.

You see, these are laws, not theories. They all started as theories, but experiment after experiment after experiment showed that these "theories" hold true. Therefore, they can be conducted as scientific laws. If one were to apply for example the second law of thermodynamics throughout the course of the universe, as you should, since it is a law, you come up with a very "cool" ending to our universe. And once you take the possible time of life to exist, and divide it by the theoretical life of our universe, you get a number, and this number is so small, so miniscule, you can not but help to think......what if?

With my time with physics, or any science really, but physics in particular, there comes a point to possible explanation. I can set up an experiment, and I can see that one variable is directly proportional to the other. It turns out, the correlation coefficient turns out to be the mass of the object I was studying. That is nice and complete. But not every experiment has such a complete wholeness. Why does dark energy have the value that it does? Why is gravity the weaker of the forces?

What I am trying to say, is there is a clear limit to science. It can not tell us why certain numbers are where they are. We can think of a universe with a different value to the force of gravity, or to dark energy, or whatever. And there is this general trend, that if you were to deviate just slightly from these values, life would not be possible. So why? Why did the universe create values to countless variables, some that we have yet to find, and it all provided the possibility of life? It's funny, certain people will only look to mathematical probability when it is convenient. A lot of the criticism about probability is the very nature of the word. Probability is a measurement of likelihood, it never assumes impossibility. Of course, there have been mathematicians who have calculated that if a certain probability is calculated, you might as well call it impossible. The logic makes sense I suppose. But I am sure, the likelihood, of a system that creates itself in every step of the way, to allow life, is pretty improbable.

My point is this. With our current understandings from science, if you make a logical claim or belief that there is no creator, that our world around us is just made naturally and nothing else, you are practicing faith. Just, as if someone who looks around them, and sees the beauty that our Creator made.

Finally, to evolution. Evolution is not a law yet the last time I checked. And yet, people are criticized for not following the evolution hypothesis like it is a law. Of course, the very nature of the problem, it could never be put into a law unless you would be satisfied with microbiology. In microbiology, you can pass through generations upon generations of organism compared to let's say mammals. Which means, that the theory of evolution could be a law, it is just the very nature of having experiments to directly refute or prove evolution to be impossible.

It is in my view, that it is politically correct to follow Evolution. I remember being taught evolution in school, and no one talked about the criticisms at all. My father, who decided to become a Pastor at one point in his life, read book upon book upon book for six years, that talked about the evolution vs. creation debate. There really are some valid arguments on the other side. It is in my view, that if you sided against evolution you would be viewed as a pseudo intellectual, regardless upon the contents of your thoughts.

I believe the definition of the word coincidence is an illusion. And life sure needed a whole lot of coincidences in order for it to be here.
 
This, in my view, is drastically false from the science I know. Let me say some things.....

I believe the definition of the word coincidence is an illusion. And life sure needed a whole lot of coincidences in order for it to be here.

The argument from incredulity.
 
You see, these are laws, not theories.

Laws describe phenomena that occur, theories attempt to explain why these phenomena occur.

For example, the laws of gravitation state that gravitation occurs, while the theory of gravity posits that the force of gravity is what causes gravitation.

This is something many people don't really seem to get. Laws do nothing more than describe things that occur, but they never explain why things occur. While theories focus on why things occur.


That's the real difference between law and theory.
 
And yet, you are arguing the opposite. With zero evidence. You can demonstrate how 'life moves around' here on earth, but you have zero evidence to demonstrate how it could traverse space, and zero explanations, let alone evidence for how it arose elsewhere (that is, how the ferrarri got 'plopped' down wherever it first 'magically' appeared in the universe). Essentially, you argument rests on incredulity. You may be an atheist, and may possess a science degree, but your reasoning is as bad as any creationist.

We've found evidence of life on various things that were out there, and we've plenty of evidence of water elsewhere. Of course, that RNA on Earth came from somewhere else rests on the presumption that life outside Earth exists or existed (you expect me to prove that?). My "theory" is nothing more than common sense...

1. Life outside Earth.
2. Life on Earth.
3. Can't demonstrate how it happened.
4. Coulda happened elsewhere and got here on an asteroid or something. Hell, maybe someone like us launched RNA all over the place. These possibilities cannot be entirely discounted by an undemonstratable theory.

I have an MSc. I'll give my real name, and have - at this forum, but the forum doesn't like that. I'm almost done with my PhD (writing dissertation during field research). Attacking credentials as fake is weak, but reminds me of how little it takes to be unbelievably awesome in the internet world. And I'm an atheist, have been since I was ~13 and I'm 40. I actually know what the definition is, perhaps that confuses you. My visitor messeges has some basic info about me, if you're interested (hard to believe, I know, but it is all true!).


the theory of gravity posits that the force of gravity is what causes gravitation.

That's not circular? I get your point but, still, that doesn't look right. The only "theory of gravity" I've ever seen linked was some hokey website.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I'm not interested in your "debate". I find it ignorant at best and likely dishonest. What I'm interested in are your personal attacks, and your likely lack of anything to back them up.
Likewise.
Only I use logic you use Laughers .. like RNA shot around space by "someone like us" as Your inane abiogenesis, INSTEAD of attempting to tackle it.

What is despicable and lost is your attempt to change the subject. Abiogenesis obviously occured somewhere, unless you believe that life has always existed. I am discussing how life appeared on Earth, and I'm not interested in inventing answers for you outside what is known, reasonable or demonstratable.

If you woke this morning and found a Ferrari in your yard, would you presume that it came from somewhere else or that it spontaneously assembled in your yard. The same reasoning points towards life coming from outside the Earth. This simple rationale does not require genius but is apparently beyond you.

Do you understand the definition of 'demonstrate'. Demonstrate does not mean imply. Demonstrate does not mean "almost did it". And demonstrate does not mean "was modeled". Demonstrate means to actually do something, and we have never managed to actually do abiogenesis.
By all means please "demonstrate" YOUR theory that "someone like us" "shot" "RNA" around space.

I don't get why people are so stuck on the idea that the Earth is the source of life. It's like I'm in ancient times and people are insisting, without conclusive evidence, that the Earth is the center of the universe.
The sad part of your posts is that You SKIRT the problem abiogenesis by merely saying it came from "someone like us" somehwere else.
Incredibly, Not understanding this is just Put-Off of the problem with an added "shot around" for good/Worse/Funny measure.

As I have pointed several times and you probably now get, but are embarrassed, that's just Ingnorantly kicking the can down the road.
Not shedding any light on the problem whatsoever.
Me: "Where did Their RNA come from?"

You are funnily and Ironically using the Bushmen classic "The Gods must be crazy"/Dropped-from-space-coke-bottle as your abiogenesis.


EDIT: Note immediately below.
Short-quoting/non-response at a new low.
He's evaporated.
 
Last edited:
INSTEAD of attempting to tackle it.

What is this, football? Are you being paid by the terrestrial abiogenesis foundation? We all know the same about it. You tackle it, I'll watch.
 
The engines of evolution are genetic drift, selection pressure and mutation. For all intents and purposes, randomness is ever present. With selection, the randomness is related to the micro-environment that dominates. The world is filled with millions of micro-environments so if you frame your reference on the organism, then you'll find it in random environments subject to localized selection pressures.

If there are clear pressures influencing outcomes that are not random, then the process in which evolution is directed is not random. Does the wind blow in random directions or is it dictated by various natural laws? Evolution is not a random process.
 
Do you believe evolution happened and is happening? Do you think a higher power guides evolution or is it random?

This is a bad poll.

Evolution happens and it is guided by the influences of the natural world. That much is certain. Evolution is no more random any more so than why the wind blows in certain directions.
 
If there are clear pressures influencing outcomes that are not random, then the process in which evolution is directed is not random.

Evolution is NOT directed. There is no one directing it and the processes do not arise in response to direction. A mutation arises randomly. Whether the mutation is beneficial, neutral or harmful is often times dependent on the environment. For instance, if an individual develops a specific mutation near the EPAS1 gene then they'll be better able to regulate the hemoglobin in their blood while in low oxygen environments. If the mutation arises in a person living in a low altitude area, then the environment will not select for the mutation, however if the person lives in a high altitude area then the mutation will be selected. The environment in which the mutation arises is a random process. It is not directed.

You really should refrain from allowing intuition to guide your thinking on technical issues.
 
This is a bad poll.

Evolution happens and it is guided by the influences of the natural world. That much is certain. Evolution is no more random any more so than why the wind blows in certain directions.

But you understood the point. Really, nothing is random, just chaos that appears random.
 
That's not circular? I get your point but, still, that doesn't look right. The only "theory of gravity" I've ever seen linked was some hokey website.

No, it's not circullar because gravity is different than gravitation. The theory of gravity relates to the theoretical graviton.
 
You see, these are laws, not theories. They all started as theories, but experiment after experiment after experiment showed that these "theories" hold true. Therefore, they can be conducted as scientific laws.

Actually, we just don't use the word "law" anymore. Einstein's theories, Hawking's theories, all of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle... all of these are theories. Since the formalization of the scientific method, we just don't use the word "law" anymore. Theory does not mean guess. It means "experiment after experiment after experiment showed that these theories' hold true". That process does not promote theory to law, but rather hypothesis to theory. But this is a matter of semantics. E=MC squared is just as much a law as Newton's laws. They're just called different things. No scientific principle published in the last century has been called a law.

I believe the definition of the word coincidence is an illusion. And life sure needed a whole lot of coincidences in order for it to be here.

And you can assign a probability to those coincidences. And then you run that same probability on a huge number of planets throughout the universe and this one happened to roll all 6's. It's not really coincidence. It only looks that way if you limit your sample size to just Earth. It's really just probability.
 
Stating evolution didn't happen is like saying the earth is flat. It takes a very big disconnect from reality or religion to insist that the evidence doesn't point toward evolution. One can even argue that a religion, by definition, is a very big disconnect from reality.
 
Actually, we just don't use the word "law" anymore. Einstein's theories, Hawking's theories, all of quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle... all of these are theories. Since the formalization of the scientific method, we just don't use the word "law" anymore. Theory does not mean guess. It means "experiment after experiment after experiment showed that these theories' hold true". That process does not promote theory to law, but rather hypothesis to theory. But this is a matter of semantics. E=MC squared is just as much a law as Newton's laws. They're just called different things. No scientific principle published in the last century has been called a law.

I did not say just because a theory isn't a law means it is not true. And what you say is not really true...

In order to make a theory a law, you have to construct experiments that give you direct evidence that the theory holds true. How would you suppose scientists with current technology prove that time is relative?
 
I did not say just because a theory isn't a law means it is not true. And what you say is not really true...

In order to make a theory a law, you have to construct experiments that give you direct evidence that the theory holds true. How would you suppose scientists with current technology prove that time is relative?

No, you do that to show that a hypothesis is a theory. NO theory becomes law anymore. The word is just not used. To make it simpler, just put "theory" where you think "law" should go, and "hypothesis" where you think "theory" should go. That's the technical terms that scientists use.

Relative time is not a law. It was determined within the last century or so, after people stopped using the word law. Now it is a theory. Theory does not mean it is untested. An idea only becomes a theory after many many experiments with consistent results.

What I say really IS true. That's the terminology.

How did they prove that times is relative? Go read Einstein's experiments, and some of Hawking's. They can explain it far better than I.
 
We've found evidence of life on various things that were out there, and we've plenty of evidence of water elsewhere. Of course, that RNA on Earth came from somewhere else rests on the presumption that life outside Earth exists or existed (you expect me to prove that?). My "theory" is nothing more than common sense...

1. Life outside Earth.
2. Life on Earth.
3. Can't demonstrate how it happened.
4. Coulda happened elsewhere and got here on an asteroid or something. Hell, maybe someone like us launched RNA all over the place. These possibilities cannot be entirely discounted by an undemonstratable theory.

I have an MSc. I'll give my real name, and have - at this forum, but the forum doesn't like that. I'm almost done with my PhD (writing dissertation during field research). Attacking credentials as fake is weak, but reminds me of how little it takes to be unbelievably awesome in the internet world. And I'm an atheist, have been since I was ~13 and I'm 40. I actually know what the definition is, perhaps that confuses you. My visitor messeges has some basic info about me, if you're interested (hard to believe, I know, but it is all true!).

Why mention your credentials in this context unless you wish for them to be part of the debate?

Terrestrial Abiogenesis is still a very viable hypothesis. Now you are dismissing it because your still unsupported hypothesis is "common sense"? Is that how you approach your academic work as well?

I see where you are hinting that you might have a smidgen of evidence. But even if you turn out to have that much, once you back it up, it won't meet the level of support required for acceptance. Obviously.
 
Evolution is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators. There needs to be an option "Evolution Occurred and it is not random"
 
Last edited:
I did not say just because a theory isn't a law means it is not true. And what you say is not really true...

In order to make a theory a law, you have to construct experiments that give you direct evidence that the theory holds true. How would you suppose scientists with current technology prove that time is relative?

No amount of evidence and verification can make a theory into a law in scientific terms, you simply do not know what the words mean.

Theory in scientific terms means HUGELY SUPPORTED FACT in laymens terms.
 
Back
Top Bottom