• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Evolution

Conscious Bob said:
Almost there...
Click to expand...

Ach I'm not being fair, as you're a good sport here's the answer.

Life has altered the Earth's chemical conditions which in turn has suppressed the spontaneous formation of new DNA molecules.

On Earth life itself prevents spontaneous life generation through being a contaminant, natural selection is therefore limited to only one existing type of DNA molecule, this has a major advantage and a major drawback...
 
Conscious Bob said:
Ach I'm not being fair, as you're a good sport here's the answer.

Life has altered the Earth's chemical conditions which in turn has suppressed the spontaneous formation of new DNA molecules.

On Earth life itself prevents spontaneous life generation through being a contaminant, natural selection is therefore limited to only one existing type of DNA molecule, this has a major advantage and a major drawback...
Click to expand...

And the proof is? Oh wait this is one of those lovely circular proofs, life exists, Darwin says that life must spontaneously form continuously, but it doesn't, so instead of accepting that as a possible problem, we ignore the problem by saying that existing life forms preclude the possibility of other life forms emerging. WOW! Stunning logic. Any one with a course in Logic under their belt want to demonstrate why a circular argument proves nothing? Or why you can't use a thing to prove itself.

By that logic gravity must exist.
 
Proof, you're breathing it. Our atmosphere would not exist unless there were organisms producing it and photosynthesis is one of a number of environmental factors life is responsible for. You've still to answer my DNA question...
 
OK lets skip the bit where either you or I say something about passing on information from one generation to the next and you say "A-ha!' and get to the bit where I say DNA is not proof of evolution. All DNA proves is preservation of the species. Let me counter with - what came first RNA or proteins?
 
FYI photosynthesis and oxygen is not a product of life. Or proof of evolution. Oxygen is a deadly noxious corrosive gas and it is impossible for life forms "evolved" to breathe any other gas to adapt to its existence. Oxygen would have been the equivalent of highly succesful total anhilation to all non-oxygen breathing organisms - as it still is today. Anaerobic bacteria can only live in the absence of oxygen.
 
Last edited:
Meadow337 said:
FYI photosynthesis and oxygen is not a product of life. Or proof of evolution. Oxygen is a deadly noxious corrosive gas and it is impossible for life forms "evolved" to breathe any other gas to adapt to its existence. Oxygen would have been the equivalent of highly succesful total anhilation to all non-oxygen breathing organisms - as it still is today. Anaerobic bacteria can only live in the absence of oxygen.
Click to expand...

Keep up dear, I never said it was proof of evolution, I said it was proof among other examples that life changes the environment. Now how about answering my DNA question?
 
Ok look its fun to debate these points and we can go around in circles all day but the bottom line is that all scientific theories are subject to a burden of proof beyond just putting forward ideas and nice sounding explanations (albeit illogical one's) for things the theory can't explain. The problem with evolution when you attempt to take it away from just being a nice thought exercise is that it doesn't explain what is actually observed to happen and what is observed to happen is that there is adaption of species to differing conditions whilst preserving the species. Evolution, on any scale, is an entirely unobserved phenomenon. If there was even the tiniest grain of actual provable truth to the theory some where there should be a provable transitional form, or sufficiently reproducible in an experiment to prove even some of the tenets of the theory but there aren't.

The famous experiment to 'prove' the spontaneous formation of life was proved to be a hoax and not one single attempt to produce a new species has succeeded.

It is there that I stick. Until proven, evolution is just a theory, and not one that stands up to what is observable in the world.
 
The problem with all the logical (and some not so logical) explanations for all the things that are observed to be in contradiction to the basic theory of evolution is that they all presuppose evolution to be an incontrovertible fact. The reason I compare it to Flat Earthers is that once you accept the notion of a flat earth to be incontrovertible you can logicise any number of theories to explain away all the observable things that contradict the idea the world is flat. And there were some very logical (once you accepted the basic premise) explanations for what happened at the edge of a flat world etc Supporters of evolution do the exact same thing. Instead of allowing what is clearly observed to act as a check and balance - like woah this just does NOT fit and let it lead to a better (and possibly entirely different theory) they just thumb suck some wonderful sounding new explanation for why this doesn't disprove the theory because they simply can not entertain the notion they might actually be wrong.

To me that is the mark of people who are exercising blind faith at the expense of the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top