toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[ok doser]

Evolution, quite simply, is the study of the origin and development of species ...

from what?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Something is not true because of how many people believe it. Seems, again, that you don't understand science or logic.

Well, I understand enough of it not to equate the theory of evolution with the origins of life itself, unlike some.

Sure, a thing isn't necessarily true because a majority believe in it but science works independently of belief. It doesn't care what you believe, what I believe or anybody else. It deals in evidence that is tested to the point that it holds up to scrutiny and beyond. On a continual basis.

 

[7djengo7]

Hmm, where did I say that exactly?

Well, when you said "Evolution isn't about how life itself came into being," by your phrase, "life itself", did you mean life, or not?

Are species life? Yes or No?

See, the clue is in the term "evolution". At the basic level it describes how life evolves

How life evolves, or how species evolve? If species are not life, then which did you mean?

Is Darwin's book not on "the origin of species"? Are the species (on the origin of which, Darwin's book purports to have been written) life, or are they not life? Which is it?

By the phrase, "the origin of species", did Darwin not mean "the evolution of species"? If not, then please tell me what you would say is the difference between the origin of species and the evolution of species.

Also, what (if anything) do you imagine you mean by your nonsense phrase, "at the basic level"?

What does it describe at the level immediately after "the basic level"? And what does it describe at, say, the fifth level after "the basic level"? How many levels would you say there are in addition to whatever it is you are calling "the basic level"?

which obviously includes species.

What else, besides species, would you say it includes?

What it doesn't comment on is how life itself originated to begin with.

Darwin's book, On The Origin of Species, is supposed to be about how species originated, no? But you're telling me that it's not about how something you call "life itself" originated. You're telling me that species are not "life itself". Are species life? Yes or No?

"originated to begin with"??

You don't consider that phrase redundant? Could you really, in seriousness, say that something has somehow been, or can somehow be, "originated, but not to begin with"? Why, then, did you tack on the words "to begin with", as though you imagine you are, somehow, thereby, meaningfully modifying the verb, "originated"?

You make a common mistake that people tend to do on the subject of evolution when they don't really understand it.

No subject is called "the subject of evolution", just as no theory is called "the theory of evolution". Here, you're calling nonsense "the subject of evolution", just as you also call nonsense "the theory of evolution". And, indeed, nobody--neither you, nor I, nor Dawkins, nor Darwin--understands the nonsense y'all call "the subject of evolution" and "the theory of evolution", because nobody understands nonsense. But, your plight is that you've been deluded into thinking that you understand such nonsense; nay, you (like so many others of a mind with you) arrogantly plume yourself on that very delusion. What you're telling me is that I "don't really understand" nonsense, to which I reply: True, and neither do you.

You should ditch the sombrero, and acquire, and start wearing a thinking cap, instead.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Well, when you said "Evolution isn't about how life itself came into being," by your phrase, "life itself", did you mean life, or not?

Are species life? Yes or No?



How life evolves, or how species evolve? If species are not life, then which did you mean?

Is Darwin's book not on "the origin of species"? Are the species (on the origin of which, Darwin's book purports to have been written) life, or are they not life? Which is it?

By the phrase, "the origin of species", did Darwin not mean "the evolution of species"? If not, then please tell me what you would say is the difference between the origin of species and the evolution of species.

Also, what (if anything) do you imagine you mean by your nonsense phrase, "at the basic level"?

What does it describe at the level immediately after "the basic level"? And what does it describe at, say, the fifth level after "the basic level"? How many levels would you say there are in addition to whatever it is you are calling "the basic level"?



What else, besides species, would you say it includes?



Darwin's book, On The Origin of Species, is supposed to be about how species originated, no? But you're telling me that it's not about how something you call "life itself" originated. You're telling me that species are not "life itself". Are species life? Yes or No?

"originated to begin with"??

You don't consider that phrase redundant? Could you really, in seriousness, say that something has somehow been, or can somehow be, "originated, but not to begin with"? Why, then, did you tack on the words "to begin with", as though you imagine you are, somehow, thereby, meaningfully modifying the verb, "originated"?



No subject is called "the subject of evolution", just as no theory is called "the theory of evolution". Here, you're calling nonsense "the subject of evolution", just as you also call nonsense "the theory of evolution". And, indeed, nobody--neither you, nor I, nor Dawkins, nor Darwin--understands the nonsense y'all call "the subject of evolution" and "the theory of evolution", because nobody understands nonsense. But, your plight is that you've been deluded into thinking that you understand such nonsense; nay, you (like so many others of a mind with you) arrogantly plume yourself on that very delusion. What you're telling me is that I "don't really understand" nonsense, to which I reply: True, and neither do you.

You should ditch the sombrero, and acquire, and start wearing a thinking cap, instead.

Maybe if I just quote post #19 you'll finally get it because someone else is stating the obvious:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...of-life-quot&p=5356240&viewfull=1#post5356240

 

[User Name]

from what?

From previous ancestors, going back as far as can be determined based on the available physical evidence (anatomy, molecular biology, biogeography, fossils, direct observation...).

 

[Right Divider]

Well, I understand enough of it not to equate the theory of evolution with the origins of life itself, unlike some.

Atheistic materialist evolutionists disagree.

Sure, a thing isn't necessarily true because a majority believe in it but science works independently of belief.

I know that many people think that it works that way. But beliefs often bias scientists into problems, like believing that all life has a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR.

It doesn't care what you believe, what I believe or anybody else. It deals in evidence that is tested to the point that it holds up to scrutiny and beyond. On a continual basis.

Keep claiming the high group. Some of us know better.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Atheistic materialist evolutionists disagree.

Doesn't matter who they are. If anyone thinks that evolution explains how life itself came into being then they're just flat out wrong.

I know that many people think that it works that way. But beliefs often bias scientists into problems, like believing that all life has a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR.

So there's a global conspiracy amid the scientific community after all then? Get real.

Keep claiming the high group. Some of us know better.

I'm just claiming realistic ground. What you think you know as 'better' sounds as though it belongs in a tin foil hat.

 

[ok doser]

From previous ancestors ...

of the same kind?

 

[7djengo7]

Maybe if I just quote post #19 you'll finally get it because someone else is stating the obvious:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...of-life-quot&p=5356240&viewfull=1#post5356240

Are species life? Yes or No?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Are species life? Yes or No?

Is a chaffinch a form of life? Yes. Is a stag beetle a form of life? Yes.

Is evolution the cause of life or how it originated? No.

 

[User Name]

of the same kind?

From previous species, of course. A good example is the whale, whose ancestors were land-dwelling mammals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale#Evolution

 

[7djengo7]

Evolution, quite simply, is the study of the origin and development of species insofar as that can be determined based on various fields of study, not about the origin of life itself.

By "life itself", do you mean life?

Are species life? Yes or No?

(So far, Arthur "Artful Dodger" Brain has refused to answer that question.)

Is the origin of species the origin of life? Yes or No?

"Evolution" is a "study" that is "based on various fields of study"?? One of these "various fields of study" being biology?

What happened to the idiotic "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" shtick? Now, you've reversed it: "Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of various fields of study (among them, biology)."

 

[7djengo7]

Is a chaffinch a form of life? Yes. Is a stag beetle a form of life? Yes.

Is evolution the cause of life or how it originated? No.

Here, you're stonewalling against the question I asked you:

Are species life? Yes or No?

 

[Cntrysner]

Doesn't matter who they are. If anyone thinks that evolution explains how life itself came into being then they're just flat out wrong.

I agree that evolution doesn't explain how life came into being and never will. So, what do you believe in regards to how life came into being? If you have faith in scientific proof of anything you have to start with that question. If you don't have an axiom you have no grounds to speak from and are nothing more than a product of your own ignorance or hold to a lie for your own self interest because you deny the very basics of real scientific proof that requires a point of beginning. All you are displaying so far is that you are a coward.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Here, you're stonewalling against the question I asked you:

Are species life? Yes or No?

Of course. Is evolution the cause of life?

Nooooo.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I agree that evolution doesn't explain how life came into being and never will. So, what do you believe in regards to how life came into being? If you have faith in scientific proof of anything you have to start with that question. If you don't have an axiom you have no grounds to speak from and are nothing more than a product of your own ignorance or hold to a lie for your own self interest because you deny the very basics of real scientific proof that requires a point of beginning. All you are displaying so far is that you are a coward.

Well of course it doesn't as evolution isn't about how life came into being to start with. Thanks for the judgemental opinion (it's something I've gotten used to) but it's hardly cowardice or self interest to point out error where it comes to a misunderstanding of the topic at hand. What exactly do I have to gain from it? For the record I'm not an atheist and don't hold to any form of "organized religion", certainly not fundamentalism.

 

[Cntrysner]

Well of course it doesn't as evolution isn't about how life came into being to start with. Thanks for the judgemental opinion (it's something I've gotten used to) but it's hardly cowardice or self interest to point out error where it comes to a misunderstanding of the topic at hand. What exactly do I have to gain from it? For the record I'm not an atheist and don't hold to any form of "organized religion", certainly not fundamentalism.

You failed yourself again by not explaining how life began. So stop your avasionness and admit you have no foundation for which to speak from therefore you still display your cowardness.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You failed yourself again by not explaining how life began. So stop your avasionness and admit you have no foundation for which to speak from therefore you still display your cowardness.

Failure to meet your subjective expectations doesn't count as any failure as far as I'm concerned. Your accusations of cowardice mean squat. What "self interest" do I have exactly?

 

[Cntrysner]

For the record I'm not an atheist and don't hold to any form of "organized religion", certainly not fundamentalism.

Then what are you?

 

[7djengo7]

Are species life? Yes or No?

Of course.

I take that as "Yes, species are life."

Is evolution the cause of life?

Nooooo.

You just got done telling me that "Yes, species are life," and now you are telling me that "Nooooo, evolution is not the cause of life." So, you're telling me that evolution is not the cause of species.