Why Darwinian Evolutionists Hate Mathematicians

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Talk about being obtuse. Nothing in the CNN piece you provided a link to indicates that Richard Dawkins thinks The Origin of Species explains how life began.

You're right. Only an idiot would think Origins leads to evolution as an explanation of life and evolution as an explanation of life leads atheism.

What was I thinking? 

[Carl]

Unknown. My money is on abiogensis.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm

That is your privilege but you must also then be honest to admit it requires a faith equal to or greater then one who believes in Creation.

[The Night Owl]

http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm

That is your privilege but you must also then be honest to admit it requires a faith equal to or greater then one who believes in Creation.

An excellent point. Yes, it takes faith to believe that abiogenesis is what started life on Earth but I don't believe that abiogenesis is what started life on Earth. I'm just guessing that abiogensis is the explanation because recent discoveries seem to point to that conclusion. Hopefully the mystery will be solved in my lifetime.

[Carl]

An excellent point. Yes, it takes faith to believe that abiogenesis is what started life on Earth but I don't believe that abiogenesis is what started life on Earth. I'm just guessing that abiogensis is the explanation because recent discoveries seem to point to that conclusion. Hopefully the mystery will be solved in my lifetime.

Okay,but since evolution then is a process stemming from what cannot be explained,utilizing mechanisms that also cannot be explained (the sudden mutation of an entire species over what amounts to a blink of an eye in the evolutionary time frame) why is that also not looked at with a bit of skepticism?
It takes the same level of faith to accept evolution as an irrefutable fact as it does Creation.
You can believe what you want but if you are even remotely honest about the matter you will admit to that.

[The Night Owl]

Okay,but since evolution then is a process stemming from what cannot be explained,utilizing mechanisms that also cannot be explained (the sudden mutation of an entire species over what amounts to a blink of an eye in the evolutionary time frame) why is that also not looked at with a bit of skepticism?
It takes the same level of faith to accept evolution as an irrefutable fact as it does Creation.
You can believe what you want but if you are even remotely honest about the matter you will admit to that.

There is no science to suggest that the time frame for evolution is too short.

Evolution is a fact... or at least as factual as anything can be in science. To put it bluntly, modern biology doesn't make sense without evolution.

[Carl]

There is no science to suggest that the time frame for evolution is too short.

Evolution is a fact... or at least as factual as anything can be in science. To put it bluntly, modern biology doesn't make sense without evolution.

Now wait a minute..a fact is something that can be provable,demonstrated and replicated.
Show me how that applies to the whole of the theory of evolution.
I ask you again to prove by that means  how a reptile suddenly began to bear live young,grow hair/fur and have milk glands.
You can`t but somehow have to believe it happened.
That takes faith.

Your statement regarding it is as factual as science can do in light of that shows again it is a matter of faith,you make the argument against yourself.

[Duke Nukum]

If you can get people to believe in "science" you can get them to believe in anything.

[MrsSmith]

Quote from: Carl on Today at 05:53:04 pm
What is then the origin of life?

Unknown. My money is on abiogensis.

That one is easy...life arose from the building blocks of life, with no supernatural help.  After coming to life, it managed to remain alive, with no supernatural help.  It managed to invent RNA & DNA with no supernatural help. It actually invented reproduction with no supernatural help.  It invented a way to change it's offspring to better survive environmental changes, with no supernatural help.  This extremely "rational" explanation is the basis for the theory of evolution, because even those that accept no supernatural help are smart enough to know that you must have life before the theory of evolution can be considered rational.

The minor fact that this beginning of life is clearly irrational never seems to click with those "rationalists."

Just as they ignore "minor" problems...like tetrapods leaving fossils older than the species they supposedly arose from.  It all fits together so nicely if you're careful to read only the propaganda on talkorigins and ignore the facts that don't fit...
 

[TheSarge]

If you can get people to believe in "science" you can get them to believe in anything.

The hell of it is that the Evolution Fanatics aren't engaging in science...just rhetoric.

And when you ask them a tough question about their failed theory they automatically label you a fundamentalist religious zealot.

That's all they've got.

[TheSarge]

There is no science to suggest that the time frame for evolution is too short.

But there is proof to support the fact that early Earth atmosphere...back to the time when we were supposed to have come out of the "primordial ooze"...couldn't even support simple amino acids.

Evolution is a fact... or at least as factual as anything can be in science. To put it bluntly, modern biology doesn't make sense without evolution.

That's because modern biologists are more religious fanatic than scientist.  Modern biology doesn't make sense WITH evolution.

Because it's not proven.  Every time Evo fanatics claim they've found their missing link...it's factually proven to be either a hoax.

[TheSarge]

SO I assume they have done this in a laboratory?

They've tried many times to recreate in the lab what they claim happens in the wild.

And surprisingly they have a lot of trouble.

[Doc]

Just to refresh memories........from my OP........

"Most people believe that the scientific theories and theses of their particular time are the right ones, and what remains for scientists to do is to expand and develop wondrous new technologies from their absolute understanding of nature's laws, mechanisms, and structures........many scientists believe that they live in the age of ultimate enlightenment, and become so committed to a particular theory that they spend entire careers desperately defending a concept, even as new discoveries rapidly destroy it."

Continues to apply well in this instance.........

As does this........

"When a scientist tells you that 'the science is settled' in regard to any subject, he or she has ceased to be a scientist, and has become an evangelist for one cult or another.  The entire history of science is very simply that nothing is ever settled...........new discoveries are being made on a continuous basis, and are constantly setting aside that which was held as commonly true".

doc

[The Night Owl]

Just as they ignore "minor" problems...like tetrapods leaving fossils older than the species they supposedly arose from.  It all fits together so nicely if you're careful to read only the propaganda on talkorigins and ignore the facts that don't fit...
 

I suppose if one views evolution as you do, as a ladder, then the discovery of the 385 million year old footprints is a huge problem. Fortunately, scientists don't view evolution as a ladder. They view it as a tree.

[The Night Owl]

As does this........

doc

It goes without saying that science is never settled in an absolute sense. Settled science can always be overturned by a new discovery.

The theory of evolution is about as settled as anything can be in science. In a way, the theory of evolution is a more settled than the theory of gravitation, something which no one doubts.

[Chris_]

It goes without saying that science is never settled in an absolute sense. Settled science can always be overturned by a new discovery.

The theory of evolution is about as settled as anything can be in science. In a way, the theory of evolution is a more settled than the theory of gravitation, something which no one doubts.

Horsecrap........

doc

[The Night Owl]

But there is proof to support the fact that early Earth atmosphere...back to the time when we were supposed to have come out of the "primordial ooze"...couldn't even support simple amino acids.

You've been misled by creationist websites.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

[Carl]

It goes without saying that science is never settled in an absolute sense. Settled science can always be overturned by a new discovery.

The theory of evolution is about as settled as anything can be in science. In a way, the theory of evolution is a more settled than the theory of gravitation, something which no one doubts.

I will ask this again since you ignored it either deliberately or otherwise.

Now wait a minute..a fact is something that can be provable,demonstrated and replicated.
Show me how that applies to the whole of the theory of evolution.
I ask you again to prove by that means  how a reptile suddenly began to bear live young,grow hair/fur and have milk glands.
You can`t but somehow have to believe it happened.
That takes faith.

Your statement regarding it is as factual as science can do in light of that shows again it is a matter of faith,you make the argument against yourself.

Please answer in any way that can show how science has proved beyond any dispute..to the point where evolution is regarded as a fact and unchallengeable.
It is the religion of humanists and why they refuse to acknowledge that it is as flawed a theory as any there ever was.

Its sole purpose is to remove God from the equation and nothing more.
Just the points made here by a handful of laymen that can`t be answered should be sufficient to leave "science" with a skeptical view but they won`t hear of it.

Why is that TNO?

[MrsSmith]

I suppose if one views evolution as you do, as a ladder, then the discovery of the 385 million year old footprints is a huge problem. Fortunately, scientists don't view evolution as a ladder. They view it as a tree.

Even with a tree, you can't have a branch growing without any connection to the trunk...and then have the connecting bit show up later.    Don't let it worry you, though...there is absolutely no reason to begin to doubt a "rational" theory just because the ancestor of some creature doesn't show up until AFTER that creature is out walking around.  (By the way, with that theory in mind, you might manage to watch the birth of your great-great grandmother, TNO.)  

[MrsSmith]

Horsecrap........

doc

Come on, doc...it's exactly the same.  Never mind that we can see gravity work...and it's completely impossible to see the origin of life or the first tetrapod walking around a few million years before it's grandparents...it's PROVEN.  SERIOUSLY!!   

[The Night Owl]

Please answer in any way that can show how science has proved beyond any dispute..to the point where evolution is regarded as a fact and unchallengeable.

Evolution has been observed both in the laboratory and the wild. What more do you need?

[Carl]

You've been misled by creationist websites.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Do you read what you link to or do you hope that providing a link alone will lend credibility and no one will bother to look?

Miller/Urey Experiment

By the 1950s, scientists were in hot pursuit of the origin of life. Around the world, the scientific community was examining what kind of environment would be needed to allow life to begin. In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system

 

The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.

In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.

If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life.

 

For all that and 50-60 years later they still can`t suggest a mechanism that somehow brought all the principles together and let there be true organic life much less how it went from a group of living cells (or single cell) to constantly create new genetic material that is needed for evolution to work.

Yet you say it is as settled as anything can be.

[Carl]

Evolution has been observed both in the laboratory and the wild. What more do you need?

Absolute nonsense,show me any discovery of an animal in a transitional stage..a dog for instance that has genetic material no other species of dog or any other animal has.
A new and entirely different animal.

[The Night Owl]

Come on, doc...it's exactly the same.  Never mind that we can see gravity work...and it's completely impossible to see the origin of life or the first tetrapod walking around a few million years before it's grandparents...it's PROVEN.  SERIOUSLY!!   

Yes, we can see gravity work and we have a theory about how it works but there are large holes in our knowledge about why it works.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity

[The Night Owl]

Yet you say it is as settled as anything can be.

You need to slow down. What I wrote is that the theory of evolution is a settled science. Abiogensis, which has to do with the origin of life, is not a settled science and I haven't suggested that it is.

[The Night Owl]

Even with a tree, you can't have a branch growing without any connection to the trunk...and then have the connecting bit show up later.    Don't let it worry you, though...there is absolutely no reason to begin to doubt a "rational" theory just because the ancestor of some creature doesn't show up until AFTER that creature is out walking around.  (By the way, with that theory in mind, you might manage to watch the birth of your great-great grandmother, TNO.)  

I don't understand what you're trying to say.