How we know that evolution is real

I don't see how people can intelligently argue evolution while completely disregarding abiogenesis. Evolution is obviously a process that needed a starting point. Nobody can say what that starting point was or how it came to be but they are going to argue what it evolved into? That makes zero sense to me.

If the argument was simply there is evidence that some species have evolved over time...hey, no problem. I agree. But if someone is arguing evolution as the explanation of how all life came to be what it is now and they are doing so without a starting point, that's completely different. And things evolve based on need due to environment. So why would the same whatever it supposedly is that we started with evolve where some can only exist on land and some species can only exist in water? If it already existed in water, then why the need to evolve to a land animal and why wasn't that need the same for the species that didn't?

How does one thing splinter into millions of different species anyway, even if you ignore that it just popped into existence? These are answers that could theorized if a starting point was known. Without one, speculating on it seems about as unscientific as it gets. JMO
 
ShadBo said:
You don't need faith for something you can hold in your hand.
Click to expand...

You need faith to believe life formed from non-life, that gasses somehow came into existence and then transformed themselves into matter and then all that matter floating around somehow bonded but itself into a working universe; including a world to sustain the life that was created from non-life and that the world fortuitously had all the necessarily requirements to sustain that life. It certainly requires faith to have no idea what that life was or how it came into existence but still believe millions of species evolved from whatever it was. And all of this without any type of intelligence guidance.

If that was a religious explanation on how God and Earth came to be, atheists would still be laughing their asses off. But they have to hold tight to this because it is this or nothing. Btw I think Genesis is metaphorical and simply making the point that God was behind our creation. But the level of faith that science requires you to have in it when it comes to abiogenesis and evolution makes most religious beliefs seem mild.
 
skombolis said:
I don't see how people can intelligently argue evolution while completely disregarding abiogenesis. Evolution is obviously a process that needed a starting point.
Click to expand...

Actually, long term evolution really compliments abiogenesis. The process itself dictates that a living organism is born naturally from a non living organism, such as as a rock. And even then we aren't 100% sure whether soil "feels" or not. Given billions of years (a concept of time most still can't grasp) combined with every aspect of rock, water, heat, bacterial introduction to advanced multicelluar level, homeostasis and the continuation of different species who share DNA and proteins with completely other species.....Life is bound to adapt from primitive bacteria and evolve to our current state, as it will continue to and change unless we as humans change our biological clock with our modern technology (ie stop nuclear warfare). What creationists and anti-evolutionists should be focusing on is our sped up advancement in technology in just the last 200 years, let alone 6,000. What is evolution if not the advancement in survival?

Why is it obvious that it needed a starting point? It could have been inside and out over and over, continually changing but never ending (imagine your 80 years of life, and compare it to billions of years of life) And in the realm of the universe, who says what is right and wrong? Other than your own morals, dictated by not only society and rules, but at the core of your own feelings.
 
Last edited:
The Diplomat said:
Actually, long term evolution really compliments abiogenesis. The process itself dictates that a living organism is born naturally from a non living organism, such as as a rock. And even then we aren't 100% sure whether soil "feels" or not. Given billions of years (a concept of time most still can't grasp) combined with every aspect of rock, water, heat, bacterial introduction to advanced multicelluar level, homeostasis and the continuation of different species who share DNA and proteins with completely other species.....Life is bound to adapt from primitive bacteria and evolve to our current state, as it will continue to and change unless we as humans change our biological clock with our modern technology (ie stop nuclear warfare). What creationists and anti-evolutionists should be focusing on is our sped up advancement in technology in just the last 200 years, let alone 6,000. What is evolution if not the advancement in survival?

Why is it obvious that it needed a starting point? It could have been inside and out over and over, continually changing but never ending (imagine your 80 years of life, and compare it to billions of years of life) And in the realm of the universe, who says what is right and wrong? Other than your own morals, dictated by not only society and rules, but at the core of your own feelings.
Click to expand...
I am not really following. How does long tern evolution complement life forming from non-life? The major problem with that imo isn't the time but how it is even possible.

The highlighted portion I am lost on. I don't say that as an insult, simply pointing out I am not following what you are explaining. If all life today is a result of evolution, then there would have to be a starting point. I don't see that as a moral issue or socialization but simply following the process to its natural conclusion. Basically if we got here through evolution, one should be able to play the tape in reverse so-to-speak all the way back to the very first life form that evolved into something else

Maybe I am not following because I don't understand what your view on evolution is. Do you believe at some point life formed from non-life and that life evolved into all the living things there are today or is it something different?
 
skombolis said:
I am not really following. How does long tern evolution complement life forming from non-life? The major problem with that imo isn't the time but how it is even possible.
Click to expand...

Well, it was a reply to your statement that abiogenesis is disregarded, except it isn't. How would you define abiogenesis, and would you accept it as a natural phenomenon or a false case of scientific agenda?


The highlighted portion I am lost on. I don't say that as an insult, simply pointing out I am not following what you are explaining. If all life today is a result of evolution, then there would have to be a starting point.
Click to expand...

Not if you consider the elastic band concept, where the universe is continuously expanding and contracting over such a long period of time. The "big bang" is both a beginning and an end, restarting itself. The universe gets bigger and smaller like a heart, but on a much larger and slower scale.

I don't see that as a moral issue or socialization but simply following the process to its natural conclusion. Basically if we got here through evolution, one should be able to play the tape in reverse so-to-speak all the way back to the very first life form that evolved into something else
Click to expand...

You know we haven't gotten that far yet, but we are getting closer than we ever have been in terms of "playing the tape back." But even then, some things might not ever be possible (like literally rewinding history), so where does the conversation go from there?

Maybe I am not following because I don't understand what your view on evolution is. Do you believe at some point life formed from non-life and that life evolved into all the living things there are today or is it something different?
Click to expand...

Well, it's a very complex discussion and it's hard to say in so few words, but I do believe that in the "beginning" (in our planets current lifetime) there was a hot piece of rock perfectly in place (after other planets changed rotation and life had changed and died off over time), and ours cooled over time to allow water to build and then other bacteria to be birthed with the mixture of natural heat, the nutrients and atmosphere of our planet. I admit we're at a perfect stage for life now, but I won't dispute that the planet obviously was inhospitable for life at an earlier stage.
 
Evolution and abiogenisis are not the same thing.

You're correct when you say we aren't sure how life happened. We're working on it, we're not content to leave it up to a diety, but because we don't know yet does not in any way mean that evolution isn't the only explanation for all the various forms of life we have on the planet today, and that have ever been.

We do have a very good idea of what the first bit of life was, and through the study of DNA, there is no doubt that all life on this planet shares a common ancestor. We literally share DNA with every single form of life.

So no, it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution. It does take faith to believe we will some day answer the question of where we are from, but that is a faith reinforced by science's track record of giving us the best, and only explanations for the natural realm which we live in.

That is a very different type of faith than what you need to believe that a clearly man made story is actually divine revelation.
 
skombolis said:
If the argument was simply there is evidence that some species have evolved over time...hey, no problem. I agree.
Click to expand...
That's basically it, though. Evolution isn't an explanation of how life came to be, it's an explanation for how incredibly primitive forms of life evolved into a huge amount of diverse and complex species. Abiogenesis is by all means a hypothesis that fits well into the paradigm of understanding nature that's largely based on evolution, but it's speculative, since evidence is lacking. Abiogenesis is a different issue than evolution, and just an attempt to answer what happened at the starting point which the fossil evidence and the theory of evolution points back to, but it's not a neccesary baseline for it. Strictly speaking, if theogenesis created the first prokaryotes, that's not in any way incompatible with the theory of evolution. Believing in outright theogenesis fits badly with the general scientific mindset that will lead you to believe in evolution, but that's another matter.

Evolution isn't a theory for explaining how life started, just for how it evolved, and it's not predicated in any way on abiogenesis.

skombolis said:
And things evolve based on need due to environment.
Click to expand...
No. That's not a good way of understading it. Mutations happen, and mutated organisms that have strong abilities to survive and procreate will do so. Need doesn't cause or impact mutations. If an successfull organism has a mutation that will allow it to exploit an unexploited niche, it will probably have a future existing alongside its parent species. If a successfull organism has a mutation that allows it to be even more successfull than it's parent species in the same niche, it will probably eventually replace it, since they compete directly.

Need doesn't really factor into it.
 
ShadBo said:
Evolution and abiogenisis are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

"Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms."

How does this not pertain to evolution, though? The entire concept of evolution is about adapting, evolving and advancing. If life arises from non living matter, isn't that almost the basis for our current definition of evolution?
 
skombolis said:
I don't see how people can intelligently argue evolution while completely disregarding abiogenesis. Evolution is obviously a process that needed a starting point. Nobody can say what that starting point was or how it came to be but they are going to argue what it evolved into? That makes zero sense to me.

If the argument was simply there is evidence that some species have evolved over time...hey, no problem. I agree. But if someone is arguing evolution as the explanation of how all life came to be what it is now and they are doing so without a starting point, that's completely different. And things evolve based on need due to environment. So why would the same whatever it supposedly is that we started with evolve where some can only exist on land and some species can only exist in water? If it already existed in water, then why the need to evolve to a land animal and why wasn't that need the same for the species that didn't?

How does one thing splinter into millions of different species anyway, even if you ignore that it just popped into existence? These are answers that could theorized if a starting point was known. Without one, speculating on it seems about as unscientific as it gets. JMO
Click to expand...

Environmental adaptation, simple yo.
 
The Diplomat said:
"Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms."

How does this not pertain to evolution, though? The entire concept of evolution is about adapting, evolving and advancing. If life arises from non living matter, isn't that almost the basis for our current definition of evolution?
Click to expand...

I completely agree. But the question of how life started, and does evolution occur, are different questions. At least in the context of the post I was replying to and in this thread in general.
 
The Diplomat said:
Who wrote the Bible?
Click to expand...

oh you know those people who never seen or heard god but told some stories over quite a few years and obviously they are true, cause who makes stuff up or that?

what's not to believe!
 
The Diplomat said:
Well, it was a reply to your statement that abiogenesis is disregarded, except it isn't. How would you define abiogenesis, and would you accept it as a natural phenomenon or a false case of scientific agenda?




Not if you consider the elastic band concept, where the universe is continuously expanding and contracting over such a long period of time. The "big bang" is both a beginning and an end, restarting itself. The universe gets bigger and smaller like a heart, but on a much larger and slower scale.



You know we haven't gotten that far yet, but we are getting closer than we ever have been in terms of "playing the tape back." But even then, some things might not ever be possible (like literally rewinding history), so where does the conversation go from there?
Click to expand...

He is talking about the origin of life on earth, not the origin of the universe. Elastic bands don't help with that. All Chemistry is destroyed in the reverberations. Even if like in my thread posted yesterday the universe doesn't complete a crunch, it still gets to a Bose-condensate phase. Everything is destroyed, and life has to start again in the next cycle .
 
ShadBo said:
We do have a very good idea of what the first bit of life was, and through the study of DNA, there is no doubt that all life on this planet shares a common ancestor. We literally share DNA with every single form of life.

So no, it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution. It does take faith to believe we will some day answer the question of where we are from, but that is a faith reinforced by science's track record of giving us the best, and only explanations for the natural realm which we live in.

That is a very different type of faith than what you need to believe that a clearly man made story is actually divine revelation.
Click to expand...

No, literally speaking, it is not true that we share DNA with every single from.

"NASA has discovered a completely new life form that doesn't share the biological building blocks of anything currently living on Earth in the ancient 800,000 year-old poisinous, arsenic waters of Mono Lake in California."

Here's a source but since the ignorami itt won't read it and if they do won't understand it.
http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life

I can't wait to see the response though. Every evolution denying post ITT shows how poorly most people are educated about how science works despite myriad efforts to change that. I call that willful ignorance.
 
So God can turn water into wine, have a virgin give birth, part the Red Sea, send manna from heaven, turn the rivers to blood, but apparently he can't create evolving life forms. That's just out of his league.
 
LucasWithLidOff said:
So God can turn water into wine, have a virgin give birth, part the Red Sea, send manna from heaven, turn the rivers to blood, but apparently he can't create evolving life forms. That's just out of his league.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you have read Mein Kampf, but Hitler made a good point about The Church. He said throughout history the Church foolishly went against science, but it was right in doing so in the big picture, for its own survival. It is a good model for any institution. If it just changes every year, what good is it? If it is just a slave to science and progress. It needs to be a rock. When shit goes down, when the world falls apart. Like The Walking Dead. When all the science is stripped away, what is the rock? Science thinks it has power. Religion has real power. Politics. They don't bow to nerdy scientists, they exploit them for their own ends.

"The youths at the universities ... could pose you entrapping questions or give baffling answers. We never set much store by them or their affected superiority, remembering that they were only at their books, while we were commanding men."

-Churchill
 
Canuck said:
Too bad its just a theory.
Click to expand...

So is gravity.

If you let go of an object and it falls, that's data (a fact). If you predict it will always do so (say because of a mysterious force called gravity) its a theory.

In fact, there's nothing but theories in science. If you want proof, you go to mathematics or logic (formal systems). However, they can tell you nothing about the real world.

2 unicorns + 2 unicorns = 4 unicorns (math proof). However, math can't tell you if unicorns exist or not.

Oddly enough, even what are called "Laws" in science are theories (just another name for it). And some of the laws have already been shown to be wrong.

Newton's Law of Gravity for instance is wrong (now superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity).

Newton's 2nd Law: F=ma is wrong at relativistic speeds (need F=dp/dt).

Newton's 3rd Law (for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction force) is wrong for moving electric charges (Maxwell's equations).

Science has nothing but theories, and they're often modified in time. If you automatically discount theories better turn off your computer, because it was designed completely on theories.
 
JonesBones said:
I don't know if you have read Mein Kampf, but Hitler made a good point about The Church. He said throughout history the Church foolishly went against science, but it was right in doing so in the big picture, for its own survival. It is a good model for any institution. If it just changes every year, what good is it? If it is just a slave to science and progress. It needs to be a rock. When shit goes down, when the world falls apart. Like The Walking Dead. When all the science is stripped away, what is the rock? Science thinks it has power. Religion has real power. Politics. They don't bow to nerdy scientists, they exploit them for their own ends.

"The youths at the universities ... could pose you entrapping questions or give baffling answers. We never set much store by them or their affected superiority, remembering that they were only at their books, while we were commanding men."

-Churchill
Click to expand...

images
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,401
Messages
55,417,897
Members
174,763
Latest member
ThroughTheDakr

Share this page

Back
Top