Anti-Evolutionist Scientific Explanations On Human Origin-ALL VIEWPOINTS WELCOME

Hello everyone. Given that the "Fallacies of Evolution" thread has unfortunately failed for the anti-evolution forum members who posted there, as it was likely intended merely as a means of catharsis for Christian Fundamentalists, or other types of Theists who hold convictions for the morality of their choosing, and not true scientific discussion, I am presenting this thread in conjunction with the original seen here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution-redux.504291/

The anti-evolutionist posters of this previous forum either sadly refused multiple requests for presenting scientifically backed theories of their own, or simply stated they had no interest in anything other than pointing out the flaws in the theory of evolution.
I welcome all viewpoints and want to express that I, the thread's creator, will not ignore your posts due to bias. If any adequate interest is shown in this thread, I will return with key questions to begin the debate. Please keep in mind that we are beginning this thread with the assumption that the theory of evolution is false. Thank you.

 

there really isn't any debate.

The anti-evolution crowd believe in psuedo science, misrepresentations, speculation and religious faith. No amount of "debate" will change their minds since the opinions are not based on factual assessment but by religious motivations.

Facts bounce of their heads with wild abandon. this is the same phenomenon that can be seen in all denialists, be they evolution deniers, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers not to mention virutally every other kind of bigot.

 

What makes you think things will be different in this thread?

 

Seems to me that evolution is, provably, mostly correct.

In general, its pretty clear (and logical) that life began as single celled organisms, those colonized together into multi-celled organisims, the complex organisims, and then adaptation/mutation + time can quite rationally and does quite provably account for the plant and animal world we live in.

My two only real problems with ecolution are its very beginning, and the change of ape to man.

'In The Beginning' what prompted a conglomeration of proteins and etc. to 'act'; to move, search out food, grow and reproduce? The 'evolutionary' hypothosis on this: that certain chemical reactions that 'draw in' materials, prompted other reactions in a complex chain that at first mimicked acticity and then became activity over time, just isnt compelling.

And then theres us. Weak, hairless, uninstinctual, trauma and infection-prone, completely unsuited to survival our own natural environment, much less to competition with the other far more suited but far less sophisticated species we share it with. It makes sense that these weaknesses prompted our creativity to make tools and clothes which led to art and technology- necessity is the mother of invention, after all. But how did we survive the millenia between the emergence of necessity for these things and our ability to manifest them? Doesnt make any sense to me. I think it makes more sense that we had help.

God, ancient aliens, interdimensional interference, or maybe even some paradoxical space-time phenomenon. These all seem like just as good of hypothesis as the ones that 'evolution' poses in answer to these particular questions.

In short, theres a lot of ways that evolution and creation (or intelligent design) can both be part of our history, and imo, neither of them explains it all as well as both of them would together.

 

Here at least there is no excuse of the thread being "derailed" by questions because of the fact that I've welcomed all points of view. Which is the opposite of the other thread as that one was clearly intended for a specific group to merely vent their frustrations.

 

To be clear because the OP isn't. Are we discussing the origins of life, the theory that species evolve via random mutation and natural selection, the modern synthesis of Evolutionary theory or some other variant?

 

Crickets...

 

Evolution is the only scientific theory for life that can explain how we get complexity from simplicity and diversity from uniformity.
ID offers nothing comparable. It begins with complexity, a Supreme Being, and also ends there. The explanations offered by ID are not really explanations at all, they’re more like last resorts.

 

Evolution does NOT depend on the initial Spark, tho we can intelligently speculate how non-life turned into life since.
For first life see 'abiogenesis'.
Evolution exists regardless of that spark, and every day since

This is just plain false.

1. Man-from-Ape is Better documented/evidenced than most other species transitions.
I suspect it just screws up your religious beliefs.
Man being the ultimate 'immaculate' magic of 'god/aliens'/etc.

2. We/Genus Homo, weren't always "weak, hairless," etc, but our constantly better intelligence continues us to let us get less physically strong and command the environment without Having to hunt down Mammoths.

ID is stealth/respun Creationism. Period.
If you believe in ID you are a creationist.
Intelligent Design needs a designER/God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

"Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2]
It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which Avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer.[3]

The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who Reformulated their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to Circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.[4][5][6] Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank[7][8] – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.[9][10]

Advocates of intelligent design seek to fundamentally Redefine Science to accept Supernatural explanations,[11] arguing that intelligent design is a scientific theory under this new definition of science.[12]
The Unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is NOT science.[13][14][15]

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are NOT science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it Pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it Junk science.[19][20]......"

Overview
The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state endorsement of a religion. In the Edwards case, the Supreme Court had also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction".[24] In drafts of the Creation science textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivatives of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were Replaced with the words "intelligent design".[21] The book was published in 1989, followed by a "grass-roots" campaign promoting the use of the book to teach intelligent design in high-school biology classes.[25]....."
​

ID is BS: simple word substitution Creationism.

 

None of the current abiogenesis hypotheses predict that carbon-based life started as single cell organisms. All predict life began with self-replicating molecules (without cell walls) capable of mutation (and still remaining viable) and thereafter subject to natural selection. Most also predict external metabolism at first followed by internal metabolism (perhaps after tens to hundreds of million of years). It's a young area of science, and it is quite fascinating.

Well, the beginning of Darwinian evolution was after the origin of carbon-based life. The scientific disciple called abiogenesis is the study and research involving the origin of life from inorganic matter and energy. Perhaps you should spend some time studying in this area. I suspect your "problem" will dissipate.

As to recent evolutionary history of homo sapiens, that is another area you may wish to spend 100 or 200 hours of study. There's quite a bit of material published in this area. Again, if you do that I suspect your other "problem" will dissipate.

 

Yes Im familiar with abiogenesis and no Im not confusing it with spontaneous generation. By 'spark' i simply mean the instant in time that chemistry became biology and there was 'life' where there was not before (of course this instant would depend largely on the specific definition of 'life, but at some point, this minute but very important distinction occurred.')
I do not find abiogenesis completely compelling on its own.

And of course creationism = ID. I did not intend to infer otherwise.
And of course creationism/ID =\= scientific (yet) as it depends on untestable dynamics. I did not infer otherwise.

The questions that remain within abiogenesis and the probabilities associated with it require no less 'faith' at this point in its progress of study than some 'creationist' theories do.

Im not saying either is right or wrong. Im saying that what we dont yet know about abiogenesis is no more or less relevent to the discussion of our origins than what we dont yet know about the rest of the universe.

Im keeping an open mind on all sides of the issue.

 

The conflation of faith as "unevidenced belief" with faith as "justified confidence" is a false equivalence; a word trick often used to buttress religion.
In fact, you’ll never hear a scientist saying, "I have faith in evolution" or "I have faith in electrons." Not only is such language alien to us, but we know full well how those words can be misused in the name of religion.

 

(below emphases mine)

In the highlighted portion or your post you come to the heart of the issue. There is no distinct point that distinguishes non-life from life. The term Evolution generally refers to what happened after abiogenesis. I look at it as a continual evolution from quarks to dinosaurs and beyond. Consider an analogy to the color spectrum....

You can envision green as non-life (molecules, protein chains) and red as life (dinosaurs, humans). There is no distinct place where non-life and life separate, or as you put it, an "instant in time that chemistry became biology". Furthermore, as you point out, there is no "specific definition of life".

 

Help from whom?
An extraterrestrial race of superhumans? Who helped them progress from single celled somethings to become superhumans? And then who helped them progress from single celled somethings to become superhumans? And then who ...

 

one mans 'unevidenced belief' IS anothers 'justified confidence.' Its not up to you to decide which matters of faith are 'justifiable' for others and which aren't, and you just look pretentious in the effort.

 

Evolution has always been presented to me (officially- in educational settings) inclusive of life from non-life. While I did (do) see it as an entirely different dynamic or field of study, it never occurred to ne that it was being included incorrectly.
That makes total sense tho.
If abiogenesis is *not* a part of evolution (which makes more sense) then I officially retract abiogenesis as one of my 'problems' with evolution.
Thx for pointing that out

 

Thats the line of questioning that leads me to my belief that there may be more going on in our history than abiogenesis.
I dont *know* the answer (and abiogenesis is a 'good' hypothesis, but still just one of many possible), I just know that what we know about the forces of the universe pales compared to what we have yet to know. The possibilities are effectively endless.

 

TOE makes logical conclusions based on empirical (the one we can observe, measure with our instruments, experiment with) evidence.

Therefore it is a belief, a faith, a personal philosophy, an ideology and it cannot be argued from positions of physics, chemistry, genetics and similar, which have no use of the logic and absolutely no use of any kind of evidence.

In difference from physics, chemistry, genetics and similar the only practical usage of the TOE has been putting it in foundations of Marxist-Leninist ideology, in Nazi ideology and in such acts as Virginia Act of 1923. Nothing else.

The results of the practical usage of the TOE are known, - hundreds of millions tortured, raped, starved to death and killed. Obviously the adepts of the TOE cannot be reasoned to in any social or personal plane.

This is what ChemEngineer is pointing to.

He is understandably upset as the adepts of the TOE keep on coming to express their hatred and anger, looking for blood and suppression of any questions or any quest for knowledge, looking for ridiculing and mocking any knowledge not related to logical conclusions based on empirical (the one we can observe, measure with our instrument, experiment with) evidence or in other words not related to their particular set of beliefs and common ideology.

 

faith: the non-thinker's replacement for evidence and logic. Why? Because it's easier.

 

You cannot have a logical discussion when one side is totally illogical, and founded in mysticism.
You are free to believe in a tooth fairy, but you cannot convince me to.

 

Seems like a good time for you to define "life". Heads up: Good luck with that.

What exactly do you not find "compelling" about mundane and methodical scientific research into the origin of carbon-based life on the Earth? Is there some requirement that scientific research, regardless of the area of science involved, be compelling?

I do not understand this sentence. Please edit it for common comprehension of your intended audience.

Could you rephrase your word salad?

Good.

 

WTF is that? One Flew over the Cuckoos nest?
The quoted two sentences are totally off the wall/do not follow.

'Faith' (like gods/dogs/religions), is Belief withOut evidence and is a "personal ideology."
Acknowledging Evidence and logical conclusions, OTOH, is Justified/scientific.
Your definition is upside down, and a raging Perversion of the truth.
Committable babble.

Astronomy, a True science as well (Except according to your crazy Definition/defamation), uses mere observance of evidence. Evolution, beyond mere observance, uses many other sciences, such as archaeology, Biology/DNA, etc.
The NAS/National Academy of Sciences says Evolution is the central unifying tenet of Biology.

In fact, every new relevant Science of the last amazing 150 years has either been consistent with, or helped Confirm Evolution.

WTF2!
Evo only started 150 years ago, why don't you try pinning YOUR Inquisition, or Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Islamic conquest on it too.
What a Laughable smear attempt.

He, like you is trying to defend Ignorant Literal Genesis from the Truth by making Preposterous statements.
Lying for Jesus.

 

"Seems like a good time for you to define "life"."
Why would my personal definition make any difference?
Im not trying to specify 'when', within abiogenesis, chemistry becomes biology, and thats the only point at which the definition becomes important. Abiogenesis is the hypothosized process by which mineral originally transitions to plant or animal. The precise parameters to determine which part of the process are immaterial to the subject of whether or not the process as a whole actually happened. It either happened as hypothosized or not (or there is a dynamic missing).

"What exactly do you not find "compelling" about mundane and methodical scientific research into the origin of carbon-based life on the Earth?"
I dont find it compelling that the will to manifest a result of a desire (or instinct) originated from nothing.

"Is there some requirement that scientific research, regardless of the area of science involved, be compelling?"
Only if that research is to be established as fact and accepted to the exclusion of other ideas.

(reworded for you)
The questions that remain within abiogenesis (and the mathmatical improbabilities of the currently proposed process of abiogenesis relative to the age of the planet) require no less 'faith' at this point in abiogenesis' as-yet-unfinished/unproven progress of study than some 'creationist' theories do. In short- they both still rely on untested or unproven dynamics, and are unworthy of being accepted at the total exclusion of other proposed ideas.

(rephrased)
Im not saying that abiogenesis is right or wrong (correct or incorrect, proven or disproven). Im saying that what we dont yet know about abiogenesis could still prove or disprove it. In the same way, other things that we dont yet know about our universe may in the future lead to more likely propositions than abiogenesis, just like abiogenesis is currently a more likely proposition than, for example, God creating everything 6000 years ago.

 

No, there is an objective way to assess beliefs. If you can show it, then you know it.

 

The whole basis of ToE is that it works on populations. You can't have a population until a population of something exists. It also only works if the population consists of imperfect replicators. If the population replicated perfectly then evolution would not occur.