Darwin destroyed in new book

[para bellum]

Would you be offended if I asked how life first came out of non-life?

No, the question is not offensive, it's not something that biological evolution speaks to.

There is no definitive answer, it may be the inevitable result when the conditions are right. I tend to the "series of chemical reactions" idea that gained prominence after the experiments of Urey and Miller.

Life - Origin, Evolution, Abiogenesis

Life - Origin, Evolution, Abiogenesis: Perhaps the most fundamental and at the same time the least understood biological problem is the origin of life. It is central to many scientific and philosophical problems and to any consideration of extraterrestrial life. Most of the hypotheses of the...

www.britannica.com

 

[AHZ]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

darwinian thought is a cynical immoral attempt to demoralize / dehumanize humanity.

it's quite evil.

 

[AHZ]

No, the question is not offensive, it's not something that biological evolution speaks to.

There is no definitive answer, it may be the inevitable result when the conditions are right. I tend to the "series of chemical reactions" idea that gained prominence after the experiments of Urey and Miller.

Life - Origin, Evolution, Abiogenesis

Life - Origin, Evolution, Abiogenesis: Perhaps the most fundamental and at the same time the least understood biological problem is the origin of life. It is central to many scientific and philosophical problems and to any consideration of extraterrestrial life. Most of the hypotheses of the...

www.britannica.com

how do you know its not God?

 

[scruffy]

So, which one was the final step in converting non-life into life?

There you go again, asking nonsensical questions.

You just don't get it.

There is NO SUCH THING as non-life.

Chew on that, then get back to us.

 

[scruffy]

This thread is about Darwinian evolution, not evolution in general.

Really?

What's the difference?

(this oughta be good)

I did not dispute the common descent idea. I’m merely asked for some details about it. I don’t know why that seems to frighten and anger people.

I’ll try again:

Did all life on earth descend from a single common ancestor or from several common ancestors? Provide evidence for either idea. I don’t know is a completely acceptable answer here.

Yeah really?

Says who?

You sound like that brain dead idiot Fauci.

"I don't know" was unacceptable for him too.

Describe the process by which the single, or the several common ancestors evolved from nonliving material?

There you go again.

You have many delusions.

 

[scruffy]

DARWIN'S BLUFF

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend​

The Myth was not the man. A new book
shows this in Darwin’s own words.

Darwin Was a Loser Before He Was Recast as a Legend – CEH

crev.info

View attachment 932377

Who fucking cares about Darwin?

Only religionists.

Everyone else left Darwin behind.

Darwin lives rent free in the religious mind.

 

[AHZ]

Really?

What's the difference?

(this oughta be good)



Yeah really?

Says who?

You sound like that brain dead idiot Fauci.

"I don't know" was unacceptable for him too.




There you go again.

You have many delusions.

he's trying to use an off topic charge to shut you down.

weaponization of government.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, the question is not offensive, it's not something that biological evolution speaks to.

That's pretty convenient to make that distinction. Cut out a part of evolution that you don't have an answer to. Really a case of special pleading. The formation of life necessarily comes at the beginning evolution, Darwinian, or otherwise. Why not just say "we don't know, yet."

There is no definitive answer, it may be the inevitable result when the conditions are right. I tend to the "series of chemical reactions" idea that gained prominence after the experiments of Urey and Miller.

Life - Origin, Evolution, Abiogenesis

Life - Origin, Evolution, Abiogenesis: Perhaps the most fundamental and at the same time the least understood biological problem is the origin of life. It is central to many scientific and philosophical problems and to any consideration of extraterrestrial life. Most of the hypotheses of the...

www.britannica.com

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with saying "we are just guessing about that part of evolution." Those three little words "I don't know," seem to be an anathema to those who promote Darwinism.

This question of the origin of life itself isn't answered by any of the theories, intelligent design included. The creationists claim to have the answer "God made life!" But they have no explanation for the formation of God, so they move the goal posts for themselves by making that claim.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There you go again, asking nonsensical questions.

You just don't get it.

There is NO SUCH THING as non-life.

Chew on that, then get back to us.

No such thing as non-life?

So you adopt the religion of American tribal people and others who believe that rocks, mountains, wind, rivers, and other inanimate objects are actually living beings?

 

[Hollie]

That's pretty convenient to make that distinction. Cut out a part of evolution that you don't have an answer to. Really a case of special pleading. The formation of life necessarily comes at the beginning evolution, Darwinian, or otherwise. Why not just say "we don't know, yet."

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with saying "we are just guessing about that part of evolution." Those three little words "I don't know," seem to be an anathema to those who promote Darwinism.

This question of the origin of life itself isn't answered by any of the theories, intelligent design included. The creationists claim to have the answer "God made life!" But they have no explanation for the formation of God, so they move the goal posts for themselves by making that claim.

There is an obvious distinction to be made between evolution and abiogenesis. Biological evolution presumes the existence of life, and it does not matter what the source of that life might be. It could be abiogenesis, or it could be panspermia (directed or otherwise), or it could be the miraculous intervention of one of more of the gods, or it could be some other source of which we are completely unaware. Evolution studies what has occurred to life ion the planet in the subsequent 3+/- billion years of its existence. It explains the origin and diversity of species, not the origin of life.

We know evolution happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no better scientific explanation for the diversity of living species.

Religionism IS NOT a scientific explanation and a religious explanation is not interchangeable with a scientific one

 

[AHZ]

That's pretty convenient to make that distinction. Cut out a part of evolution that you don't have an answer to. Really a case of special pleading. The formation of life necessarily comes at the beginning evolution, Darwinian, or otherwise. Why not just say "we don't know, yet."

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with saying "we are just guessing about that part of evolution." Those three little words "I don't know," seem to be an anathema to those who promote Darwinism.

This question of the origin of life itself isn't answered by any of the theories, intelligent design included. The creationists claim to have the answer "God made life!" But they have no explanation for the formation of God, so they move the goal posts for themselves by making that claim.

they can't say they don't know.

that ruins their totalitarianism and know it all attitude.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

how do you know its not God?

Maybe it was.

Do you think your god is too weak and stupid to have performed abiogenesis and evolution? I doubt it.

 

[para bellum]

That's pretty convenient to make that distinction. Cut out a part of evolution that you don't have an answer to. Really a case of special pleading. The formation of life necessarily comes at the beginning evolution, Darwinian, or otherwise. Why not just say "we don't know, yet."

Um, that's what I said. The answer is not known. I mentioned the theory that I favored, but that does not mean it's correct...

But you are making a false argument- that somehow biological evolution has an obligation to explain the origin of life, when it only addresses what came after.

Just because biology has not solved every riddle does not mean the riddles that have been solved are defective in some way. It just means there are still unwritten chapters in the story.

Something you said in your previous reply that I would address- the fact that there is genetic code that's shared by all organisms does not require a designer. A designer is an unnecessary addition, if natural processes can produce that result without any outside help.

The genetic code tells the story of evolution. Linnaeun taxonomy is useful, but it's giving way to a different system of classification based on clades, that offers a better descriptiion of a species.

I look for the simplest answers to all things. When the knowledge is lacking, I don't assign a supernatural cause for something I don't know. I just accept that I don't know that part.

Some things are not knowable with certainty. Abiogenesis is one of those things. Even if we do come up with a process that is a good answer, there is still no way to be certain that is the only answer...

 

[Seymour Flops]

One of

Um, that's what I said. The answer is not known. I mentioned the theory that I favored, but that does not mean it's correct...

But you are making a false argument- that somehow biological evolution has an obligation to explain the origin of life, when it only addresses what came after.

Just because biology has not solved every riddle does not mean the riddles that have been solved are defective in some way. It just means there are still unwritten chapters in the story.

Something you said in your previous reply that I would address- the fact that there is genetic code that's shared by all organisms does not require a designer. A designer is an unnecessary addition, if natural processes can produce that result without any outside help.

The genetic code tells the story of evolution. Linnaeun taxonomy is useful, but it's giving way to a different system of classification based on clades, that offers a better descriptiion of a species.

I look for the simplest answers to all things. When the knowledge is lacking, I don't assign a supernatural cause for something I don't know. I just accept that I don't know that part.

Some things are not knowable with certainty. Abiogenesis is one of those things. Even if we do come up with a process that is a good answer, there is still no way to be certain that is the only answer...

Fair enough. My question is whatever happened, why would it happen just once?

One of the main ideas in Darwin book was that geology had discovered that the earth features were caused by ongoing forces that could be observed in the present day, rather than floods, and other divinely called catastrophes. He believed that evolution via NS was the same and since we would know what to look for, we’d see it frequently.

Why would abiogenesis by a one time unique event?

 

[para bellum]

One of

Fair enough. My question is whatever happened, why would it happen just once?

One of the main ideas in Darwin book was that geology had discovered that the earth features were caused by ongoing forces that could be observed in the present day, rather than floods, and other divinely called catastrophes. He believed that evolution via NS was the same and since we would know what to look for, we’d see it frequently.

Why would abiogenesis by a one time unique event?

I would not expect it to be a unique event. I would expect it to be almost mandatory when conditions are right. The precursor molecules might not have evolved on earth, they could have been delivered when the solar system was forming. There have been amino acids found on asteroids, etc.

When we lived in a Ptolemaic solar system, we were special. But the more we learn, the less special we are. We look out into the universe today, we are not even a blip. I can imagine life evolving in all sorts of different forms throughout the universe. It would be weird to me if it was any other way, since it would make us special again, and that doesn't seem right to me...

Organics probably formed easily in early solar system

news.uchicago.edu

 

[AHZ]

Maybe it was.

Do you think your god is too weak and stupid to have performed abiogenesis and evolution? I doubt it.

im in it for the moral questions.