*Note: This is not a religious debate. This is a scientific debate about my opinion of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Most reasonable people agree on a few principles:
1. That everything has a beginning and an end.
2. That by observing repeatable occurrences the laws of physics are true.
3. That "universal logic" is applicable to determining facts (Example: I cannot exist and not exist simultaneously)

I hope that we can all agree that evolution and adaptation do exist in nature. All living creatures (animals and plants alike) can adapt to conditions over time. My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species. Bacteria evolves into bacteria, fish evolve into fish, primates evolve into primates, etc.

Ok, I'll argue against my own statement above and say that species can evolve into other species. I'll say that humans evolved from an ape-like creature that evolved from a mammal that evolved from a reptile-like or amphibian-like creature (depending on if you believe that our origins are ocean based or land based) that evolved from bacteria that evolved from a single-cell organism. My issue with this is that 1. The single-cell organism would have had to have the ability to create itself. or 2. That organic life was created from inorganic materials. Both of these statements sound illogical because in order for something to be scientifically proven the conditions have to be tested and repeatable to be agreed upon as fact. As far as we know there is and has never been a new organism that created itself because that organism would first have to have the conscience to know that it is, in fact, creating itself. There has also never been any successful experiments that have proven that organic life can be created from inorganic materials.

[/font][/size]I look forward to everybody's opinion on this. Please don't use religion bashing or science bashing as the basis for your opinion because, honestly, you'll just come off as stupid.

Why should we care about your opinion?

It is customary to introduce yourself before starting to beat dead horses again.

(November 1, 2014 at 3:16 am)Rob216 Wrote:

---

*Note: This is not a religious debate. This is a scientific debate about my opinion of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Most reasonable people agree on a few principles:
1. That everything has a beginning and an end.
2. That by observing repeatable occurrences the laws of physics are true.
3. That "universal logic" is applicable to determining facts (Example: I cannot exist and not exist simultaneously)

I hope that we can all agree that evolution and adaptation do exist in nature. All living creatures (animals and plants alike) can adapt to conditions over time. My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species. Bacteria evolves into bacteria, fish evolve into fish, primates evolve into primates, etc.

Ok, I'll argue against my own statement above and say that species can evolve into other species. I'll say that humans evolved from an ape-like creature that evolved from a mammal that evolved from a reptile-like or amphibian-like creature (depending on if you believe that our origins are ocean based or land based) that evolved from bacteria that evolved from a single-cell organism. My issue with this is that 1. The single-cell organism would have had to have the ability to create itself. or 2. That organic life was created from inorganic materials. Both of these statements sound illogical because in order for something to be scientifically proven the conditions have to be tested and repeatable to be agreed upon as fact. As far as we know there is and has never been a new organism that created itself because that organism would first have to have the conscience to know that it is, in fact, creating itself. There has also never been any successful experiments that have proven that organic life can be created from inorganic materials.

[/font][/size]I look forward to everybody's opinion on this. Please don't use religion bashing or science bashing as the basis for your opinion because, honestly, you'll just come off as stupid.

---

1) Darwinian evolution doesn't say anything about origin of life. The closest to that would be the theory of abiogenesis.
2) Species are the same organisms at different points on the evolutionary line such that one is incapable of producing offsprings with it's evolutionary predecessor.
3) It has been proven countless times. Google it yourself.

(November 1, 2014 at 3:31 am)Minimalist Wrote: Why should we care about your opinion?

It is customary to introduce yourself before starting to beat dead horses again.

Why would you belong to a forum website that debates these sort of topics if you didn't care about anyone else's opinions? Isn't the point of this to consider other people's point of views so that we can have meaningful debates?

So you are, in fact, not arguing against Darwinian evolution at all. You're aware of that, right? You're arguing that abiogenesis is impossible (where have I read that phrase before....), and I don't accept your argument for it. A self replicating molecule does not need to be conscious and goal oriented.

As far as your premises are concerned, I don't consider 1 to be so evident, and 2 sounds nonsensical, strangely worded at least.

Your line of argument in the beginning, which you later duscard: "A has not been proven scientifically, therefore A cannot be true" is not valid. But were you really going to deny speciation?

It's 3:30am where I'm at, so I could be way off, but right off the bat there seems to be some confusion between the distinctions of organic chemistry and basic chemistry, and how each applies to life and non-life.

(November 1, 2014 at 3:32 am)Aoi Magi Wrote:

(November 1, 2014 at 3:16 am)Rob216 Wrote: *Note: This is not a religious debate. This is a scientific debate about my opinion of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Most reasonable people agree on a few principles:
1. That everything has a beginning and an end.
2. That by observing repeatable occurrences the laws of physics are true.
3. That "universal logic" is applicable to determining facts (Example: I cannot exist and not exist simultaneously)

I hope that we can all agree that evolution and adaptation do exist in nature. All living creatures (animals and plants alike) can adapt to conditions over time. My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species. Bacteria evolves into bacteria, fish evolve into fish, primates evolve into primates, etc.

Ok, I'll argue against my own statement above and say that species can evolve into other species. I'll say that humans evolved from an ape-like creature that evolved from a mammal that evolved from a reptile-like or amphibian-like creature (depending on if you believe that our origins are ocean based or land based) that evolved from bacteria that evolved from a single-cell organism. My issue with this is that 1. The single-cell organism would have had to have the ability to create itself. or 2. That organic life was created from inorganic materials. Both of these statements sound illogical because in order for something to be scientifically proven the conditions have to be tested and repeatable to be agreed upon as fact. As far as we know there is and has never been a new organism that created itself because that organism would first have to have the conscience to know that it is, in fact, creating itself. There has also never been any successful experiments that have proven that organic life can be created from inorganic materials.

[/font][/size]I look forward to everybody's opinion on this. Please don't use religion bashing or science bashing as the basis for your opinion because, honestly, you'll just come off as stupid.

1) Darwinian evolution doesn't say anything about origin of life. The closest to that would be the theory of abiogenesis.
2) Species are the same organism at different points on the evolutionary line such that one is incapable of producing offsprings with it's evolutionary predecessor.
3) It has been proven countless times. Google it yourself.

I am aware that Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of life. I do think, however, that it is important to consider the origin of life when we talk about evolution because how can we give validity to it without a starting point?

Addressing your 2nd point, I agree with what you said. The issue I have with it is that there is not (at least to my knowledge) any particular animal that has gone through the drastic biological changes that have occurred in the homosapien lineage. For example, it is said that the great white shark may have evolved from the megalodon which existed approximately 28 to 1.5 million years ago which is much longer than the 100,000 to 250,000 years that homosapiens are said to have existed. But the great white shark is basically the same thing as the megalodon except for its' size. I would just think that something that has had so much more time to evolve would show more drastic signs of said evolution.

Quote:The issue I have with it is that there is not (at least to my knowledge) any particular animal that has gone through the drastic biological changes that have occurred in the homosapien lineage.

Whales???

You just quoted one of the animal lineages with the smallest superficial change, that's not an argument, that's just bias.

Bah! To clear up what I mean- You seem to be equating anything that is organic as life, and anything that is not life as not organic (carbon based). Amino acids, for instance, are mainly composed of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. Amino acids are not organic life (or just life) but they are organic material.

(November 1, 2014 at 3:38 am)Alex K Wrote: So you are, in fact, not arguing against Darwinian evolution at all. You're aware of that, right? You're arguing that abiogenesis is impossible (where have I read that phrase before....), and I don't accept your argument for it. A self replicating molecule does not need to be conscious and goal oriented.

As far as your premises are concerned, I don't consider 1 to be so evident, and 2 sounds nonsensical, strangely worded at least.

Your line of argument in the beginning, which you later duscard: "A has not been proven scientifically, therefore A cannot be true" is not valid. But were you really going to deny speciation?

I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was arguing that a self-replicationg molecule needs to be conscious and goal oriented. That's not what I meant. I was simply referring to the origin of that single molecule and how the molecule came into existence in the first place.