Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[Anomalocaris]

Actually, there is nothing special about life such that evolution can only happen after life came into being.

Evolution through natural selection as a process happens all the time, everywhere, to minerals and chemicals. Evolution applies to geology just as much as it applies to biology.

Contempary scientific thinking regarding the origin of life sees pre-biotic evolution through natural selection (survival of the fittest) of particular species of complex chemicals and minerals as being the driving force behind the gradual assembly of raw material into life. Spontaneous appearence of life is in itself an act of evolution, just as spontaneous speciation that came after the first life.

---

Actually, there is nothing special about life such that evolution can only happen after life came into being.

Evolution through natural selection as a process happens all the time, everywhere, to minerals and chemicals. Evolution applies to geology just as much as it applies to biology.

Contempary scientific thinking regarding the origin of life sees pre-biotic evolution through natural selection (survival of the fittest) of particular species of complex chemicals and minerals as being the driving force behind the gradual assembly of raw material into life. Spontaneous appearence of life is in itself an act of evolution, just as spontaneous speciation that came after the first life.

Yes, but none of that means that evolution is based on the spontaneous appearance of life.

That's a little like saying gravity is not based on the earth going around the sun. No, but gravity does explain and predict the milieu of phenomenons which includes earth going around the sun, even had earth going around the sun not been the specific phenomenon that originally prompted the formulation of the theory of gravity.

Spontaneous appearance of life, in the sense of raw materials of life gradually being assembled stage by stage by trial and error until some of the resulting assemblage crossed that artificial threshold we call life, is part of the milieu of biological phenomenon a which can be explained, even predicted, by the mechanics of evolution by natural selection, even if evolution was not initially formulated specifically to explain or predict the spontaneous appearance of life.

[Brian37]

Evolution is a scientific fact, it is sad that this thread even exists at all. It should be as acceptable as your computer and cell phone. The ones trying to make it a debate are living the past.

[The Grand Nudger]

They're also, often, making a living -from the past.
(couldn't resist)

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, but none of that means that evolution is based on the spontaneous appearance of life.

That's a little like saying gravity is not based on the earth going around the sun. No, but gravity does explain and predict the milieu of phenomenons which includes earth going around the sun, even had earth going around the sun not been the specific phenomenon that originally prompted the formulation of the theory of gravity.

The earth going around the sun is part of the information we used to formulate the theory of gravity. Abiogenesis is not part of the information we used to forumulate the theory of evolution. Those of us aware of the basics of evolution (pretty much everyone here but Harris) get that the most likely abiogenesis scenario involves evolution of self-replicating molecules. The details of abiogenesis are not the point, trying to get through Harris's thick skull that scientific abiogenesis does not have to be true for evolution to be true is.

Spontaneous appearance of life, in the sense of raw materials of life gradually being assembled stage by stage by trial and error until some of the resulting assemblage crossed that artificial threshold we call life, is part of the milieu of biological phenomenon a which can be explained, even predicted, by the mechanics of evolution by natural selection, even if evolution was not initially formulated specifically to explain or predict the spontaneous appearance of life.

Well, if we ever run out of creationists to complain over dragging abiogenesis into an evolution conversation, we'll still have you.

[popeyespappy]

Oh really? Then please explain the distribution of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the genome of Hominidae. Use the Quran if you can.

Conjectures, conjectures, and only conjectures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zK81Zti...9&index=44

Sorry I’m just now getting around to responding to this, but discussions with creationists about evolution aren’t very high on my priority list lately. But since this video is just so far from accurate I felt it needed a response.

Harris, you really need to check your sources. Your video talks about fourteen instances of common ERVs. That is a serious misrepresentation of what the science is telling us. Geneticists believe there are at least 98,000 possible remnants of viral insertions that make up about 8% of the human genome. I say possible because it is possible that some of those remnants may not have occurred through viral insertions but are instead the result of other mutations.

Thing is that it really doesn’t matter if they are remnants of viral insertions or not. Even if every single instance got there through some other means their distribution is still exactly what we would expect to see if evolution were true. That is humans and mice have fewer genetic mutations in common than humans and gorillas. Humans and chimpanzees have more mutations in common than humans and gorillas or humans and mice. This is exactly how evolution predicts the genomes of related organisms should look. The further back in time the last common ancestor of any two organisms lived the more divergent their DNA should be.

You can scream and shout special creation all you want, but claiming there is no evidence for evolution is unadulterated pigshit.

[popeyespappy]

Thought I’d throw in a graphic in the hope that it might give the creationists a clue.



ERV group 1 is common to mice, rats, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans because all these mutations were part of the genome of the last common ancestor (LCA) of both Rodentia and Primates. Then the primate LCA line split from the rodent LCA line. After that point the line that would become the LCA of mice and rats began accumulating mutations that we are calling group 2. None of the group 2 mutations are found in primates, and none of the group 5 ERVs found in all primates are found in rodents. This type of distribution remains true all the way up the evolutionary tree. Mice have ERV groups 1, 2 and 3. Rats have groups 1, 2 and 4. Gorillas have groups 1, 5 and 6. Chimpanzees have groups 1, 5, 7 and 8. Finally humans have groups 1, 5, 7 and 9.

If this isn’t evidence for evolution then the rapture happening tomorrow wouldn’t be evidence for Christianity.

[Eel_LahjicK]

It's a scientific fact. If there is a debate about this, the creationist/<the person denying evolution> is debating from ignorance. Whether a God exists or not, can't be proven or disproven as of now, so you may debate or make your case about that to the best of your ability. From all my research and debates I've watched, theists can't seem to make a convincing enough argument to me, but that's just my opinion.

[OfficerVajardian]

I feel some of Harris's stuff should be put into the Atheist Forums: Wall of Shame (Post Edition).

[Whateverist]

Really? Like what?

[Bibliofagus]

And I'd like to add:

Given mutations, millions of years and billions and billions of creatures, you'd need a mechanism that actually actively prevents evolution from happening. Like a reset-button. What is it?

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one...”
Page 356, volume 2
A Guided Tour of the Living Cell
Christian De Duve.

This is not an answer to my question.