The coming Ice Age

[whatthe?]

So when do you start looking at change over time? Eventually you have to get back to the begining, to the first change over time. Thats origins. When you stated earlier that man and ape are from a common ancestor, thats origins. When you speak of evolution and state it's not interested in origins, that's dishonest. So no matter how many times you say it, evolution has everything to do with origins.

 

[ZedMikey]

So when do you start looking at change over time? Eventually you have to get back to the begining, to the first change over time. Thats origins. When you stated earlier that man and ape are from a common ancestor, thats origins. When you speak of evolution and state it's not interested in origins, that's dishonest. So no matter how many times you say it, evolution has everything to do with origins.

The problem is that we are using the word "origin" differently.

I would not call the divergence of homo from the other apes the "origin" of man. Since origin implies a distinct event, in my interpretation of it, and the evolution of homo from our ape ancestors did not happen at a unique point in time. It was a span of time. Using your definition of origin, evolution does deal with the origin of man.

As I explicitly said, though, evolution still does not care about the origin of life, the universe, the laws of physics, etc.

 

[whatthe?]

We're also using the word evolution differently. You're talking what is generally referred to as evolution with a small e, change over time, not the Theory of Evolution. The problem with change in allele frequency from one gen to the next is what generation are you starting at? Eventually you get back to the common ancestor that all life evolved from, where did that come from? Oh wait, we're looking at evolution we don't care. We'll just pull the first amino acids, proteins, alleles, what ever out of thin air and start from there. Sorry, the Theory of Evolution deals with origins.

 

[ZedMikey]

We're also using the word evolution differently. You're talking what is generally referred to as evolution with a small e, change over time, not the Theory of Evolution. The problem with change in allele frequency from one gen to the next is what generation are you starting at? Eventually you get back to the common ancestor that all life evolved from, where did that come from? Oh wait, we're looking at evolution we don't care. We'll just pull the first amino acids, proteins, alleles, what ever out of thin air and start from there. Sorry, the Theory of Evolution deals with origins.

The Theory of Evolution (capitalized to make you happy) is still just the change in allele frequency over time. Where did the first common ancestor to all life come from? Well... since the answer to that question doesn't involve the change in allele frequency of a population over time... the Theory of Evolution doesn't say and it doesn't care.

The origin of that first common ancestor is a matter for the scientific field of abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis =/= evolution. Abiogenesis (a field I know much less about than evolution) has a lot to say about the origins of that first common ancestor to all life.

Say it with me one more time... the Theory of Evolution (again capitalized just for you) only deals with the period of time in which life already exists. It has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of life from non-life. Nothing at all. That is abiogenesis... not evolution. Abiogenesis is not a part of the Theory of Evolution.

I might even go so far as to say that evolution only deals with the period of time in which life exists and reproduces via DNA... but I'm not completely sure that is an accurate statement. I'll look into that.

 

[Jaydog]

I think the theory only deals with correct things, if for instance something is found to be missing or wrong, it is automatically not part of the Theory of Evolution :D

 

[Jaydog]

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, the theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life.

I thought the original book that Darwin wrote was about the origin of species, as with Kenyon he wanted to know where it all began, but he didn't have the technology that we have today, so his suppositions were credible until recently.

 

[ZedMikey]

I think the theory only deals with correct things, if for instance something is found to be missing or wrong, it is automatically not part of the Theory of Evolution :D

And you're lack of understanding of the scientific method shines brightly again, Jay! :fawkdancesmiley: (I will get back to AGW... I just haven't had a chance to dig through your links, yet.)

The scientific theory of evolution as originally proposed by Darwin has always been about the change of a population over time. It has never been about the origin of life from non-life. Darwin had his speculations about the origins of life, but they were never part of his theory of evolution. This remains true today. The theory of evolution still has nothing to do with the emergence of life from non-life. As I have said before, that is abiogenesis, which has never been a part of the theory of evolution (screw the caps... they are completely unnecessary).

 

[monstaru]

I dunno if it has been stated, but the salinity in the oceans is changed greatly by the great conveyor belt at the equator and the northern hemisphere(in the north Atlantic), by the influx of fresh water from the larger rivers(equator)and the melting polar ice cap(north atlantic).Now this phenomenon is lowering the temperature of the ocen by degrees each year.In the event that this happens by degree's in months it could effect the polar nature of the planet like it did in the late 1800's in Europe.

history repeats itself,period.:D
cheers, b

 

[ZedMikey]

...the great conveyor belt at the equator...

But can a plane take off in the direction opposite the motion of the conveyor belt?!

 

[Jaydog]

And you're lack of understanding of the scientific method shines brightly again, Jay! :fawkdancesmiley: (I will get back to AGW... I just haven't had a chance to dig through your links, yet.)

The scientific theory of evolution as originally proposed by Darwin has always been about the change of a population over time. It has never been about the origin of life from non-life. Darwin had his speculations about the origins of life, but they were never part of his theory of evolution. This remains true today. The theory of evolution still has nothing to do with the emergence of life from non-life. As I have said before, that is abiogenesis, which has never been a part of the theory of evolution (screw the caps... they are completely unnecessary).

:redneck:


Like I stated before, the scientific method is great when no bias is used, but we all know that isn't the case when it comes to Origins, or the Theory of Evolution, there is more dogmatic religion within it's rank than anything else, which is just plain sad, Kenyon was one of the leading scientist in the field of evolution, after his research he was blacklisted, and lost his job at the university he was working at, he fought and got it back, but only with the exception that he couldn't ever discuss his finding with the students, now that doesn't sound like good science to me, that sounds more like the Catholic church.

 

[monstaru]

But can a plane take off in the direction opposite the motion of the conveyor belt?!

why not, the wind does.:fawkdancesmiley:cheers, b

 

[ZedMikey]

:redneck:


Like I stated before, the scientific method is great when no bias is used, but we all know that isn't the case when it comes to Origins, or the Theory of Evolution, there is more dogmatic religion within it's rank than anything else, which is just plain sad, Kenyon was one of the leading scientist in the field of evolution, after his research he was blacklisted, and lost his job at the university he was working at, he fought and got it back, but only with the exception that he couldn't ever discuss his finding with the students, now that doesn't sound like good science to me, that sounds more like the Catholic church.

Do you have links to backup your info on Kenyon? From what I can see, his university troubles stemmed from teaching creationism in biology classes, not from being blacklisted for his research.

 

[CrustyJeep]

Like I stated before, the scientific method is great when no bias is used, but we all know that isn't the case when it comes to Origins, or the Theory of Evolution, there is more dogmatic religion within it's rank than anything else, which is just plain sad, Kenyon was one of the leading scientist in the field of evolution, after his research he was blacklisted, and lost his job at the university he was working at, he fought and got it back, but only with the exception that he couldn't ever discuss his finding with the students, now that doesn't sound like good science to me, that sounds more like the Catholic church.

He was trying to teach "creation science". There is no such thing.

 

[Jaydog]

Do you have links to backup your info on Kenyon? From what I can see, his university troubles stemmed from teaching creationism in biology classes, not from being blacklisted for his research.

I saw an interview with him about the dogma that surrounds evolution science, I think it might be on youtube, I'll see if I can find it.

He was trying to teach "creation science".

I don't believe that was the case, IIRC he was showing that through his research life could not have started without some sort of outside help, being God, gods, aliens or whatever.

There is no such thing.

There used to be "no such thing" as a round earth, cars, and airplanes too, but as a scientist sometimes research points you in a direction that most people might find objectionable, like a lot of flat earthers. :D

 

[CrustyJeep]

I don't believe that was the case, IIRC he was showing that through his research life could not have started without some sort of outside help, being God, gods, aliens or whatever.

That's not scientific! Science says, "how the hell does that work? Let's figure it out". Science doesn't go all Luke Skywalker and say, "I can't do it, it's too hard, waaaaa!"

There used to be "no such thing" as a round earth, cars, and airplanes too, but as a scientist sometimes research points you in a direction that most people might find objectionable, like a lot of flat earthers. :D

Holy crap, do you read what you write? :rofl:

 

[whatthe?]

I don't believe that was the case, IIRC he was showing that through his research life could not have started without some sort of outside help, being God, gods, aliens or whatever.



:D

Which is why evolutionists won't touch it and state "Here's life, now we can study it. Don't ask us how it started, we made a arbitrary decision to start life at this point so our theory can survive. We can't comment on changes that happened pre RNA or DNA that got us to this point."

 

[ZedMikey]

Which is why evolutionists won't touch it and state "Here's life, now we can study it. Don't ask us how it started, we made a arbitrary decision to start life at this point so our theory can survive. We can't comment on changes that happened pre RNA or DNA that got us to this point."

"Evolutionists" don't talk about the origin of life from non-life because that's what "abiogenesists" talk about. Life from non-life has nothing to do with the allelic frequency of a population... therefore, it has nothing to do with evolution.

"Gravitationists" and their Theory of Gravity (that's funny... see what I did there?) don't talk about the origins of life, either... they must be avoiding something so their theory can survive.

 

[Jacob]

Which came first...the chicken or the egg?

 

[ZedMikey]

Which came first...the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Chickens evolved much much later than the first eggs.

 

[CrustyJeep]

The egg. Chickens evolved much much later than the first eggs.

But what laid the first chicken egg? A chicken or a cat?

 

[Damnyankee]

Excessive snow wheeling---yes!

most important information in this thread right here!!!!!!!:awesomework:

 

[whatthe?]

"Evolutionists" don't talk about the origin of life from non-life because that's what "abiogenesists" talk about. Life from non-life has nothing to do with the allelic frequency of a population... therefore, it has nothing to do with evolution.

"Gravitationists" and their Theory of Gravity (that's funny... see what I did there?) don't talk about the origins of life, either... they must be avoiding something so their theory can survive.

"Gravitationists" do need to talk about how gravity first came to be, it's "origins" (see what I did here?). Or are they another group that just gets to say "Poof, it's here" Maybe there is the science of pre-gravity and its their job so gravity doesn't have to be hassled with details of "origin".

 

[ZedMikey]

But what laid the first chicken egg? A chicken or a cat?

It most certainly wasn't a cat... that's ludicrous. Everyone knows a chicken laid the first cat egg.

 

[whatthe?]

:redneck::haha:

 

[CrustyJeep]

"Gravitationists" do need to talk about how gravity first came to be, it's "origins" (see what I did here?). Or are they another group that just gets to say "Poof, it's here" Maybe there is the science of pre-gravity and its their job so gravity doesn't have to be hassled with details of "origin".

So since gravitationists won't tough the origins of gravity, the theory is clearly stupid, right?

 

[ZedMikey]

"Gravitationists" do need to talk about how gravity first came to be, it's "origins" (see what I did here?). Or are they another group that just gets to say "Poof, it's here" Maybe there is the science of pre-gravity and its their job so gravity doesn't have to be hassled with details of "origin".

Oooooh... you almost got it. But not quite. Sorry.

So, let me see if I understand you here. You are saying that evolutionary theory must explain the origin of life from non-life... because it talks about life. So, then, must it explain the origin of non-life, since it then talks about non-life?

 

[whatthe?]

So since gravitationists won't tough the origins of gravity, the theory is clearly stupid, right?

No, the difference is gravity still works if you don't explain its origins. The Theory of Evolution (the caps are back) doesn't if it has to explain how life began, how nothing evolved into something.

 

[CrustyJeep]

No, the difference is gravity still works if you don't explain its origins. The Theory of Evolution (the caps are back) doesn't if it has to explain how life began, how nothing evolved into something.

I believe the theory of evolution works just fine without discussing abiogenesis. What does the way in which an amphibious species evolved from a water borne species have to do with the way the first self replicating molecules came into existence?

Or maybe I should add, how are we able to breed flowers in colors never found in nature if evolution doesn't work?

 

[whatthe?]

Oooooh... you almost got it. But not quite. Sorry.

So, let me see if I understand you here. You are saying that evolutionary theory must explain the origin of life from non-life... because it talks about life. So, then, must it explain the origin of non-life, since it then talks about non-life?

A theory that explains how the great diversity of life we have now came from a single DNA or RNA replicating it's self with modification over time can't explain how the RNA or DNA came to be in the first place is a flawed theory.

 

[CrustyJeep]

A theory that explains how the great diversity of life we have now came from a single DNA or RNA replicating it's self with modification over time can't explain how the RNA or DNA came to be in the first place is a flawed theory.

And around we go.

A theory that explains that you're going to fall on your face if you trip on something that can't explain how the force that causes you to do so came into existence is a flawed theory. Quit using it.