Destroying the theory of evolution in one post

[Darwinian]

Yes, but living organisms can reproduce with almost no effort and make life immediately.

It may seem like no effort but the process is extremely complex. This is thanks to over 3.5 billion years of evolution.

It is the same as the reason why science hasn't been able to even make a single seed of any sort.

Just because science can't create a seed doesn't mean anything. There are lots of things that science was unable to do but now it can. All this means is that we are still learning. That's the whole point. And when science does create a self-replicating system, what will you say then?

The seeds that grow our food did not evolve into a seed it was created.

No it wasn't. Prove it!

[bodhitharta]

Yes, but living organisms can reproduce with almost no effort and make life immediately.

It may seem like no effort but the process is extremely complex. This is thanks to over 3.5 billion years of evolution.

It is the same as the reason why science hasn't been able to even make a single seed of any sort.

Just because science can't create a seed doesn't mean anything. There are lots of things that science was unable to do but now it can. All this means is that we are still learning. That's the whole point. And when science does create a self-replicating system, what will you say then?

The seeds that grow our food did not evolve into a seed it was created.

No it wasn't. Prove it!

Are you saying it took 3.5 billion years for life to reproduce as it does today? There is no evidence whatsoever that producing living organisms varied at all from the way they do today.

When science does "create" a self-replicating system and I hope they do, it will prove that self-replicating systems are "CREATED".

I say the seed was created because it follows a design and the design follows a purpose. Even grass has a purpose, they found that out in mid-America just before the great depression occured when they ruined the top soil and it blew away(also known as the dust bowl).

[Darwinian]

What you are doing is to apply pattern seeking and anthropic principles to the natural world. When you do this you will obviously come to the conclusion that everything has been designed and has a purpose.

There is no evidence to support the theory that a seed has been designed and neither is there any reason to suspect that it has been, apart from the above point.

And if science does 'create' a self replicating system it will show once and for all that given the correct circumstances, life will arise by itself as a natural consequence of the laws which govern our Universe.

By the way.. Is this you?

[youtube]AYJarXva76M[/youtube]

[bodhitharta]

What you are doing is to apply pattern seeking and anthropic principles to the natural world. When you do this you will obviously come to the conclusion that everything has been designed and has a purpose.

There is no evidence to support the theory that a seed has been designed and neither is there any reason to suspect that it has been, apart from the above point.

And if science does 'create' a self replicating system it will show once and for all that given the correct circumstances, life will arise by itself as a natural consequence of the laws which govern our Universe.

By the way.. Is this you?

[youtube]AYJarXva76M[/youtube]

Yes, that is me In that video I was talking about sexual evolution which has also never been explained but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe if everyone agreed to stop having sex that humans wouldn't cease to exist in a single generation?

Also you seem to not understand your own application of anthropic principles when you suggest that mutation "favours" or nature "selects"

We all know that nature doesn't select anything. Biological viability has been termed natural selection to give it an anthropic tone.

[Darwinian]

Yes, that is me In that video I was talking about sexual evolution which has also never been explained but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm sure that someone on this forum will explain this to you in due course

Let me ask you this: Do you believe if everyone agreed to stop having sex that humans wouldn't cease to exist in a single generation?

What's this got to do with anything? If everyone agreed then alternative methods would be found like artificial insemination for example.

Also you seem to not understand your own application of anthropic principles when you suggest that mutation "favours" or nature "selects"

I'm not sure that I used these terms but if I did it's only because that's the language I use. I use the words favour and select in an evolutionary sense and not in the sense that you imply.

When evolution 'favours' one mutation it simply means that it gives its recipient an advantage and increases the probability that it will pass its genes on to the next generation. Not that it has somehow made a decision.

We all know that nature doesn't select anything. Biological viability has been termed natural selection to give it an anthropic tone.

See above..

[bodhitharta]

Yes, that is me In that video I was talking about sexual evolution which has also never been explained but that has nothing to do with this conversation.

I'm sure that someone on this forum will explain this to you in due course

Let me ask you this: Do you believe if everyone agreed to stop having sex that humans wouldn't cease to exist in a single generation?

What's this got to do with anything? If everyone agreed then alternative methods would be found like artificial insemination for example.

Also you seem to not understand your own application of anthropic principles when you suggest that mutation "favours" or nature "selects"

I'm not sure that I used these terms but if I did it's only because that's the language I use. I use the words favour and select in an evolutionary sense and not in the sense that you imply.

When evolution 'favours' one mutation it simply means that it gives its recipient an advantage and increases the probability that it will pass its genes on to the next generation. Not that it has somehow made a decision.

We all know that nature doesn't select anything. Biological viability has been termed natural selection to give it an anthropic tone.

See above..

Thank you for your conversation, it's getting late here so I'm about to hit the hay.(God willing) I'll be back on this forum tomorrow afternoon. Once again, thank you!

[Darwinian]

You're welcome..

And evolution is still looking pretty healthy to me

[leo-rcc]

If you can disprove evolution through natural selection in one post, don't waste your time posting here but publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal, there is a Nobel prize waiting for you.

[Purple Rabbit]

@bodhitharta

Now that you have had your one post, where exactly did you destroy evolution?

[lukec]

Are you saying it took 3.5 billion years for life to reproduce as it does today? There is no evidence whatsoever that producing living organisms varied at all from the way they do today.

There is, actually, quite a lot of well-researched evidence. The fossil record (regardless of what you have been told, because I know you haven't done any actual research or you would know this) shows quite clearly that not all organisms have been around for all of geological time. There are clear patterns of development, and these are so well documented that they can use fossil data to date rocks and use this information to find oil (for example).

When science does "create" a self-replicating system and I hope they do, it will prove that self-replicating systems are "CREATED".

Right. So, basically what you're saying is that we will have created life, much like god, so it wouldn't have taken divine power at all? I really think you need to check out the primordial soup theory a bit further, it's quite interesting and makes a fair bit of sense. Obviously I don't know if it's correct, since I wasn't there, but there are various experiments that show that basic building blocks of life could've easily come about in the early ages of our planet's history.

I say the seed was created because it follows a design and the design follows a purpose. Even grass has a purpose, they found that out in mid-America just before the great depression occured when they ruined the top soil and it blew away(also known as the dust bowl).

You see a purpose in it because you choose to. Grass holding firm the loose soil is not a "purposed" thing like nails holding down a board. The "purpose" of grass is to propagate grass DNA. Nothing more. The grass that does this best spreads.