Question for evolutionists

[CFM]

Oh wonderful, another self-declared victor on an anonymous chat site who cannot discuss the thread topic.

You mean the topic is "Francis"?

 

[Into the Night]

Not exactly but close. A mutation provides an adaptation that improves the likely hood of survival or procreation and thus is naturally selected. Natural selection is what causes biological evolution, genetic mutations and reproductive mortality are the mechanism that make natural selection work. Natural selection and time (usually lots and lots of time but not always) cause biological evolution to happen, which in turn creates speciation.

How do you reconcile natural selection allowing random mutations in the first place? Natural selection tends to NOT allow random mutations, yet you have to have random mutations for natural selection to select from. Paradox.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

It is quite possible to prove a negative, but you can't use open sets to do it. In this case, however, your claim on the fallacy is valid. Attempted proof of a negative using open sets is also the fallacy known as the Argument of Ignorance.

If a set is closed, and you have examined each and every element of the set, you can indeed prove a negative. Example: If you have a bag of marbles of different colors except black, and you have examined each and every marble in the bag, you can conclusively prove there were no black marbles in the bag.

If a set is open, you can't examine each and every element in the set, so it is not possible to prove the negative. This is why it is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist, or whether any god or gods does not exist. It is also why it is not possible to prove any theory about a past unobserved event False or True. Such a theory is necessarily not falsifiable. It therefore cannot be a theory of science, which is a set of falsifiable theories by definition.

Covered in the post you responded to:

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

You mean the topic is "Francis"?

Sure Francis, whatever you need.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

How do you reconcile natural selection allowing random mutations in the first place? Natural selection tends to NOT allow random mutations, yet you have to have random mutations for natural selection to select from. Paradox.

Perhaps you should define what you call a "mutation".

 

[Into the Night]

BTW, we don't have to "disprove" Creation. If "Creation" is not, in principle, falsifiable in some manner, then it simply isn't science. Which is a problem for Creationism as the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. The theory of biological evolution is easily falsifiable in principle, it just hasn't been done yet.

The Theory of Evolution states that 'higher order life' evolved from 'lower order life'. This is about a past unobserved event. It is not possible to test such a theory. The Theory is falsifiable. It is not a theory of science.

Does evolution itself happen? Yes (that's why we have the word!). We can evolve new species of dogs, cats, plants, and all manner of critters. We can watch some of this take place naturally, such as Darwin did. Did it create 'higher order life' from 'lower order life'? No way to tell.

 

[Into the Night]

Speaking of evolution! LOL!

Ouch!

 

[domer76]

How do you reconcile natural selection allowing random mutations in the first place? Natural selection tends to NOT allow random mutations, yet you have to have random mutations for natural selection to select from. Paradox.

Who in the fuck taught you that? Some Bible school?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

The Theory of Evolution states that 'higher order life' evolved from 'lower order life'. This is about a past unobserved event. It is not possible to test such a theory. The Theory is falsifiable. It is not a theory of science.

Does evolution itself happen? Yes (that's why we have the word!). We can evolve new species of dogs, cats, plants, and all manner of critters. We can watch some of this take place naturally, such as Darwin did. Did it create 'higher order life' from 'lower order life'? No way to tell.

Darwin saw that? Or Gregor Mendel with his crossbred peas. I'm still not convinced you actually "get" evolution if you actually believe you have seen it happen in your lifetime. You do not just "evolve" new species of dogs. Crossbreeding is not evolution.

 

[Into the Night]

Why limit the discussion to mammals? Mammals inherited their circulatory system from ancient reptiles, which got their from even more ancient amphibians, which got theirs from even more ancient fish and down the line to the worm-like ancestors of fish and so on. There are great books on this subject. Why would you expect anyone to type it all out for you here when it’s pretty obvious you aren’t really open-minded about this? Especially given that if you were sincerely curious, you could go to the library....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah. Check out a few books on plumbing.

You will find that you can't move any fluid without a separation of pressurized areas and unpressurized areas. That's a circulatory system when the fluid's purpose is to nourish cells.

You MUST:
1) have a device or mechanism for increasing pressure somewhere.
2) have a passage to conduct that pressurized fluid somewhere.
3) have a region of unpressurized fluid to act as a return path.

That IS a circulatory system, whether the 'blood' is hemoglobin, hemolymph, or sap.

The purpose of the blood is to nourish the tissues. The purpose of the circulatory system is to move the blood. You don't need one without the other. One element of the system alone would accomplish nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

all evolution results from accidents which failed to be sterile.......

So this presupposes there are examples of blood or blood like fluids without a circulatory system, or presupposes a circulatory system without anything like blood.

Do you have examples of such an organism?

 

[DarthPedant]

The trouble with any of these books, lectures, websites, etc. is that they are just opinions and arguments in and of themselves. They are written by people just like you. They may be quite wrong. Even school and college textbooks have been wrong from time to time.

Just because someone bound some written paper together or put up a website doesn't make it automatically True.

The question posed at the beginning of this thread is a valid one for discussion here. Copping out to point at the arguments of others is not a valid reference. That's just lazy thinking. It simply means you can't present an argument of your own on the matter.

By that definition, anything any of us say or cite or quote or whatever is ‘just an opinion’, right? Which we all can summarily dismiss without investigation: I think this is lazy, too.

Why bother to walk you through several semesters worth of college and graduate level biology, genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, etc., if you’re just going to dismiss everything as mere opinions? Don’t you and the OP have some responsibility to educate yourselves if you really care about this issue? Is my unwillingness to give the OP free science lessons when it is clear he has an ideological axe to grind really that unreasonable?

I’m happy to recommend some great books. If you think this is lazy of me, so be it, but 1) I’ve read every book I ever recommend, so I’m not THAT lazy, and 2) I don’t see you busting the OPs chops for pasting in ICR links and arguments as ‘just opinions’, so I’m thinking this might be a double standard based on some sort of tribalism. But I’m new here and don’t know you, though, so I could be wrong. But you don’t know me either, so accusing me of ‘lazy thinking’ and being ‘unable’ to present an argument just because I’m not convinced that the OP sincerely wants to listen to one is rather odd and belligerent of you.

If you or the OP cared about this subject, there are resources for you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fentoine Lum]

By that definition, anything any of us say or cite or quote or whatever is ‘just an opinion’, right? Which we all can summarily dismiss without investigation: I think this is lazy, too.

Why bother to walk you through several semesters worth of college and graduate level biology, genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, etc., if you’re just going to dismiss everything as mere opinions? Don’t you and the OP have some responsibility to educate yourselves if you really care about this issue? Is my unwillingness to give the OP free science lessons when it is clear he has an ideological axe to grind really that unreasonable?

I’m happy to recommend some great books. If you think this is lazy of me, so be it, but 1) I’ve read every book I ever recommend, so I’m not THAT lazy, and 2) I don’t see you busting the OPs chops for pasting in ICR links and arguments as ‘just opinions’, so I’m thinking this might be a double standard based on some sort of tribalism. But I’m new here and don’t know you, though, so I could be wrong. But you don’t know me either, so accusing me of ‘lazy thinking’ and being ‘unable’ to present an argument just because I’m not convinced that the OP sincerely wants to listen to one is rather odd and belligerent of you.

If you or the OP cared about this subject, there are resources for you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skip it, you're a thinker posting to believers; moot.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

So this presupposes there are examples of blood or blood like fluids without a circulatory system, or presupposes a circulatory system without anything like blood.

Do you have examples of such an organism?

See earlier posts, open circulatory systems were previously mentioned. Due diligence time son.

 

[Ralph]

Actually, science is just a set of falsifiable theories. The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. The Theory of Natural Selection (the theory that Darwin created) has been falsified.

No theory of science is ever proven. Not amount of supporting evidence will ever prove anything. A single piece of conflicting evidence will destroy a theory. Science does not use supporting evidence.

You bring up not the Theory of Evolution, but the Theory of Abiogenesis. This too is not falsifiable. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. The only way to test them is to go back in time to see what actually happened. That's not possible.

The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is not falsifiable? Then simply present the experiment using the Scientific Method that verifies vertical evolution....like coming from dead matter, reanimation of life after death. Truth: Every time someone claims that evolution is true and attempts to prove it via the scientific method, it is falsified....or it would not be a theory but a fact.

There are several main tenants of Evolution that does not allow evolution to stand by ignoring their scientific falsifications. creation from nothing, Abiogenesis (life comes from dead matter.....when Pasteur's experiment proved that LIFE can come only from preexisting LIFE.


One of the most important tenants of Darwinian cultism is the false claim that creatures survive and evolve due to survival of the fittest. Supposedly Survival of the fittest weeds out the possibility of mutation and deformity.



Here is the entire theory.....You can't simply run from the demanded fundamental TENNATS of a theory....like the Universe coming from nothing (as Hawking claimed) self creation. Abiogensis (which indeed has been falsified by Louis Pasteur's scientific experiment that proves that Life can come only from preexisting Life.


Here is the BS taught as truth to our children.


Once upon a time billions of years ago everything that has ever existed came from a little ball of energy called the COSMIC EGG. It was heated (no one knows how) to trillions of degrees. It became so hot that not even matter could exist. For some reason, no one knows where that energy came from....or why it suddenly exploded.. BUT ITS THE TRUTH UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE THAT ITS NOT.


In that explosion only 2 things were created, HYDROGEN AND HELIUM. There was no carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, nickel...iron, etc., These 2 gases expanded equally and evenly throughout space (black matter) in all directions. Thus the universe was mainly composed of Hydrogen...suddenly, no one knows how or why, these 2 gasses began creating STARS. Then galaxies created themselves, Our own solar system created itself from space debris. LIFE EVOLVED (one of the main tenants of evolution ABIOGENSIS) on this planet and this microscopic abiogenesis life evolved into man...eventually.


According to evolutionary naturalists.....we have come from 2 types of gas all the way microbiological life.


Can we then conclude that Hydrogen Gas is an odorless, colorless tasteless gas....given enough time will morph into human life?
''

 

[Fentoine Lum]

The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is not falsifiable? Then simply present the experiment using the Scientific Method that verifies vertical evolution....like coming from dead matter, reanimation of life after death. Truth: Every time someone claims that evolution is true and attempts to prove it via the scientific method, it is falsified....or it would not be a theory but a fact.

There are several main tenants of Evolution that does not allow evolution to stand by ignoring their scientific falsifications. creation from nothing, Abiogenesis (life comes from dead matter.....when Pasteur's experiment proved that LIFE can come only from preexisting LIFE.


One of the most important tenants of Darwinian cultism is the false claim that creatures survive and evolve due to survival of the fittest. Supposedly Survival of the fittest weeds out the possibility of mutation and deformity.



Here is the entire theory.....You can't simply run from the demanded fundamental TENNATS of a theory....like the Universe coming from nothing (as Hawking claimed) self creation. Abiogensis (which indeed has been falsified by Louis Pasteur's scientific experiment that proves that Life can come only from preexisting Life.


Here is the BS taught as truth to our children.


Once upon a time billions of years ago everything that has ever existed came from a little ball of energy called the COSMIC EGG. It was heated (no one knows how) to trillions of degrees. It became so hot that not even matter could exist. For some reason, no one knows where that energy came from....or why it suddenly exploded.. BUT ITS THE TRUTH UNTIL YOU CAN PROVE THAT ITS NOT.


In that explosion only 2 things were created, HYDROGEN AND HELIUM. There was no carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, nickel...iron, etc., These 2 gases expanded equally and evenly throughout space (black matter) in all directions. Thus the universe was mainly composed of Hydrogen...suddenly, no one knows how or why, these 2 gasses began creating STARS. Then galaxies created themselves, Our own solar system created itself from space debris. LIFE EVOLVED (one of the main tenants of evolution ABIOGENSIS) on this planet and this microscopic abiogenesis life evolved into man...eventually.


According to evolutionary naturalists.....we have come from 2 types of gas all the way microbiological life.


Can we then conclude that Hydrogen Gas is an odorless, colorless tasteless gas....given enough time will morph into human life?
''

Who ever said anything came from dead matter? Where do you people get this stuff?

 

[Into the Night]

why did the first creature to have an umbilical cord, have an umbilical cord?......did it accidentally forget to lay its egg?......oh wait, eggs don't have umbilical cords.......

Yes they do! The umbilical cord of a chick is attached to the yolk. The yolk is not a cell or nucleus of a cell, but a food source for the chick. Same thing for lizards, frogs, etc.

If, when the chick starts to peck its way out of the shell, you carefully help it and remove the shell from around the top of the chick, then carefully remove the chick, you will see a hairlike umbilical cord attached from the base of the chick to the eggshell membrane (where the yolk used to be). This cord not only provides nourishment for the chick, but also attaches to the shell itself so oxygen penetrating the shell allows the chick to obtain oxygen.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Yes they do! The umbilical cord of a chick is attached to the yolk. The yolk is not a cell or nucleus of a cell, but a food source for the chick. Same thing for lizards, frogs, etc.

If, when the chick starts to peck its way out of the shell, you carefully help it and remove the shell from around the top of the chick, then carefully remove the chick, you will see a hairlike umbilical cord attached from the base of the chick to the eggshell membrane (where the yolk used to be). This cord not only provides nourishment for the chick, but also attaches to the shell itself so oxygen penetrating the shell allows the chick to obtain oxygen.

Again, someone covered that above, but thanks anyway. I think the original belly button ref might be in relation to would you people expect Adam/Eve to have belly buttons. Or Jeebus either for that matter.

 

[domer76]

The Theory of Evolution states that 'higher order life' evolved from 'lower order life'. This is about a past unobserved event. It is not possible to test such a theory. The Theory is falsifiable. It is not a theory of science.

Does evolution itself happen? Yes (that's why we have the word!). We can evolve new species of dogs, cats, plants, and all manner of critters. We can watch some of this take place naturally, such as Darwin did. Did it create 'higher order life' from 'lower order life'? No way to tell.

That shows your massive ignorance on the topic. Evolution has no "direction". What Creationist site is giving you this pseudo-science?

 

[domer76]

Darwin saw that? Or Gregor Mendel with his crossbred peas. I'm still not convinced you actually "get" evolution if you actually believe you have seen it happen in your lifetime. You do not just "evolve" new species of dogs. Crossbreeding is not evolution.

His ignorance of evolution is astounding. That's what Bible-based homeschooling will get you.