Question for evolutionists

[Into the Night]

Yours certainly don’t.

No theory will product anything, so yes, mine won't either.

[Into the Night]

See again, you prove you don’t know even something as fundamental as a scientific theory.

A theory of science is a falsifiable theory. That's really pretty simple. That's all it is.

Biological evolution by means of natural selection is a scientific theory.

No, it WAS a scientific theory. It has been falsified. It is no longer a theory at all. It is now just a fallacy (a paradox).

Creationism is religion and has nothing to do with science. It is not a scientific theory.

No one ever said otherwise. The Theory of Creation is a nonscientific theory, just like the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is an unproven scientific hypothesis. It is not a scientific theory.

WRONG. A hypothesis does not explain anything. The Theory of Abiogenesis explains how life began on Earth.
A hypothesis stems from an existing theory, not a theory from a hypothesis. An example is the null hypothesis, used to test a theory.

You really need to try studying some science dude.

Already have, dude.

You have no idea how funny you are.

Insult fallacy.

[Into the Night]

Sorry Thaichi but that’s a philosophical belief. Not a scientific one. Science only explains the factual basis of naturally occurring events or phenomena.

Learn what a 'fact' is. A fact is not a Universal Truth or a proof. It is also not a theory.
Science doesn't explain anything. Theories explain, no science itself.

You seem to be getting into the use of 'supernatural'. Perhaps you had better define 'supernatural' and 'natural'.

It has nothing to say about other philosophical beliefs or faith.

Philosophy is not a belief. It is a knowledge system, just like science is. Like science, it is not itself knowledge.
Faith (or the circular argument, the other name for faith), appears everywhere. ALL theories, whether scientific or otherwise, begin as circular arguments (or arguments of faith). What takes a theory of science beyond the simple circular argument is the test of falsifiability. In addition, the theory must be both internally and externally consistent.

For you to deny faith is to deny ever theory ever created, including every theory of science. It is also to deny the existence of mathematics and logic, for all began through faith.

It would be erroneous to say religious beliefs and scientific understanding are incompatible. That would be an utterly false dichotomy.

That it would Science has nothing to say about any god, gods, or spirits. Science is agnostic.

They are though non-overlapping magesteria.

WRONG. The circular argument, or the argument of faith, pervades ALL of it.

[Into the Night]

I see... so why then have a vast number of predictions based on evolutionary theory been independently verified?

They aren't. Self fulfilling prophecies are not verifiable.

Why are most of the applied life sciences in part or are wholly based on evolutionary theory?

They aren't. Biology has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Why are thousands upon thousands of independent scientists wrong but you are right?

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Consensus is not a proof. It is not used in science either.

It boils down to this, as a Biologist,

I don't believe you.

unless you can provide a workable scientific alternative to model speciation,

Already did.

your arguments are simply a waste of our time.

Our time? Are you schizophrenic now? How many personalities do you have? No, dude. You only get to speak for you. You are not dictator over the entire field of biology.

[Into the Night]

Yeah it is a pretty dumb argument. A circulatory system is useless without blood? The lymphatic system is a circulatory system. It doesn’t use blood.

Is it? Please describe it's path of circulation.

[Into the Night]

Sure we do. Circulatory systems evolved before hemopoetic circulatory systems as endothelial systems that overcame the time constraint barriers of simple diffusion.

Do you have an example?

That occurred over 600 million years ago.

How do you know? Were you there?

Around 550 million years ago an endothelial system evolved in an ancestral vertebrate to optimize flow dynamics and barrier functions and/or to localize immune or coagulation functions.

How do you know? Were you there?

Endothelial heterogeneity evolved as a core function of endothelium from the outset reflecting its role in meeting the diverse needs of body tissues.

This doesn't say anything.

[Into the Night]

Many people find sciencing to be really difficult.

Science is not a verb. It is a noun. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

[Into the Night]

I understand religion far more than I want to.

Really? Define 'religion' for us then! Let's see what you know.

[Into the Night]

Yeah, the mutations are random, but natural selection is simple cause and effect.

Mutations cannot be random as long as the Theory of Natural Selection is True.

[Into the Night]

The basic problem with anyone claiming that "MUTATIONS" cause evolution is the documented fact that mutations do occur but when something is MUTATED that simply means that an error has happened within the dna code, SOMETHING IS TAKEN AWAY BY MUTATION NOT ADDED.

Something can be subtracted or added in any mutation.

Take for example.....inbreeding causes mutation. Is that evolution?

Yes.

Hardly...all you get is deformity.

A deformity is evolution, nevertheless.

Why? Because the original DNA chain was corrupted.

That's what mutations do.

Nothing evolves by mutation....especially in a MACO example of life. Some point to germs mutating(micro)...….and becoming resistant to treatment. But are they really mutating or ADOPTING because they already possess the required DNA signature to adapt when required and it lies dormant until required?

Really? That means you are saying a chihuahua can become a german shepherd when threatened.

Every life form has the ability to adapt to a changing environment.....if such were not true mankind would have been wiped from the face of the earth the first time he came into contact with a simple virus.

Are you saying our immune system exists in an amoeba?? What about exposure to UV-B light? That is damaging, but we do not adjust to it. Tanning doesn't help. That only helps against UV-A light. Either frequency band destroys the amoeba.

You seem to be discarding the role of genetics.

[Into the Night]

Because I have fact and testable empirical observations that can and have been independently verified to back my assertions up and you don’t.

No, you don't.

Observations are not 'testable'. They simply are. You still don't understand what the word 'fact' means. It is not a Universal Truth. Stop using it as one. Buzzword fallacy. Observations don't need to be verified. They simply are. It is not possible to 'verity' an observation due to the problems observation has with phenomenology (a branch of philosophy).

You have made observations. That necessarily means interpreting what you sensed. Other's interpretations are not going to be the same as yours.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You do bring up a significant problem with the Theory of Abiogenesis. Assuming it to be True for a moment, let's look at what is required for it to succeed:

* It must produce, out of nonbiological materials, biological materials. This must be by random, naturally occurring events.

Organic molecules occur quite often. Molecules are not random. They follow very specific rules.

* The new cell must survive. This is in a world where no cell has survived before. This means that the world around the cell must also, by random naturally occurring events, become hospitable enough to support the new cell.

This is a false assumption. You assume that a cell has to exist before life exists. No such requirement has to happen. Are viruses alive? They reproduce but they are not cells.

* The same thing must happen at least twice. The cell must have something to eat in order to reproduce. The result will be two cells. Now there is nothing to eat but each other. Therefore, independent abiogenesis events must happen much more than twice. Photosynthesis can't be used because that is a complex structure requiring many cells.

Cells don't require something to eat to reproduce. Like all chemical reactions they require energy. But you have assumed that reproduction can only occur when a cell exists. That is circular reasoning. You have used your conclusion to form your assumption.

* The cell must be able to mutate (copy itself improperly). The fuzzy copy must be able to survive as well. Any further deviation means the daughter cell is destroyed. This ability to mutate must be inheritable or the Theory of Evolution cannot take place.

I am unsure what you are arguing here. We have tons of evidence of cells mutating and then passing the mutations on to other generations.

There are a LOT of random events here, that must line up in perfect sequence or there is no life or evolution possible. The odds are so high it would be like winning on every blackjack table in Las Vegas sufficient to break the bank combined.

First of all your statement of odds makes no sense. Second you have presented no math. Random events occur all the time. You are again making false assumptions in that you are assuming that evolution is creating a desired outcome. It does no such thing. Evolution simply takes whatever random event occurs and tests it against the current environment to see if it gives a distinct advantage or disadvantage. The outcome is not the best possible outcome but the best of the limited available choices.

In my opinion, the Theory of Abiogenesis has a lot of problems.

The biggest problem being you don't understand the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. They are 2 separate things.

There is a further argument, regarding the research of possible Abiogenesis. Say we actually DO manage to synthesize a functioning cell in a laboratory from nonbiological materials. Is this evidence of Abiogenesis, or Creation? The cell WAS created by us, after all.

Circular reasoning yet again. You simply assume that if someone gathers the right components and then something happens to the components they they are performing a creation. That is nonsense.

[PostmodernProphet]

Because I have fact and testable empirical observations that can and have been independently verified to back my assertions up and you don’t.

I'm sorry.....did you think an atheist's opinion is the new scientific method if another atheist agrees with him.......you observe a whale's fin and think its empirical proof it evolved from a lizard.......instead its empirical proof that God had a good idea........

[PostmodernProphet]

He had to throw in some fancy looking words to make it 'sound' scientific.

when he says "homologies" he simply means that he believes the bone in a whale's fin proves that a whale evolved from a lizard instead of it being proof that God wanted a whale to have a fin with structural support...........

[PostmodernProphet]

Are viruses alive? They reproduce but they are not cells.

no....and they do not reproduce.....