Draco said:
|
You say, "We know that it happens. That is enough. You don't actually need to know how the process of converting codons into amino acids evolved for providing evidence for biological evolution ..." So you believe evolution happened... thats very similar to believing without seeing(the hard evidence that is)... Evolution is a theory.
|
The evolution of ribosomes is not known piece by piece. Refer to the detective analogy. This is a similar case.
Quote:
|
A theory is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
|
Not in the context of science. In the context of science the term 'theory' is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. There is no level of uncertainty implied in that term. Of course, any scientific theory will never be 100% certain, however we are far more certain that the theory of evolution is correct overall when compared to the current theory of gravity.
Quote:
|
So you are therefore relying on a lack of evidence to support your faith of evolution.
|
No.
In fact, you knowingly acknowledged that there is an ample amount of evidence for evolution by not replying to the evidence that I re-re-cited for you.
Quote:
|
The evidence of design in nature is vastly abundant than any evidence of transitional creatures in the evolutionary chain.
|
Such as what? What is your evidence for design that can not be explained by evolution? Remember, we are in the realm of biological evolution here. Prebiotic organic molecules are not in the realm of this discussion.
Quote:
|
That is why in most evolutionary charts, there is a missing link that demonstrates the hopeful monster that has not yet been found.
|
Name
one missing link. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory's validity.
Quote:
|
also the evidence that is required to prove biological evolution is very relevent to prove evolution as fact....
|
Biological evolution
is evolution, you moron. That's all we're talking about. We're talking about biological evolution. If you want to talk about abiogenesis, creation of the universe, or anything else for that matter, make another thread.
Furthermore, you have it backwards. Proof of biological evolution does not prove that the stars and planets somehow followed a similar process. They did, but proving biological evolution wouldn't prove that. Not to my knowledge, anyway.
Quote:
|
you must have this to prove that life can start on it's own....
|
Biological evolution does not require life starting spontaneously. God could have just as well done it. It wouldn't matter. However, if God did it, it still could not match the Biblical account. He would have had to have started life as a microbe
billions of years before humans came around.
Quote:
|
therefore it would have no meaning and would be useless....
|
Okay. I think we can agree on the fact that there is an 85% chance that drawing two random letters would be meaningless in the
English language.
Quote:
|
again, the pendulum is nonliving and goverend by the laws of physics...
|
As is the ribosome.
Quote:
|
basically gravity will tell you that the pendulum will stop in a certain position...
|
Negative. A pendulum never stops unless it means some sort of air resistance.
Quote:
|
a living organism has a mind and will to do as it pleases, if it wants to go right, forward, left or backward it will.
|
An organism is still bound to the laws of Physics. Free will is likely an illusion. I could argue this from a Christian and scientific standpoint. Notice how those two terms are distinct and unrelated.
Quote:
|
So, for nonliving matter, you can treat it as the pendulum...
|
So ribosomal interaction with DNA can be treated as the pendulum, since it is nonliving matter?
Quote:
|
it will not do anything on its own without external forces or defy the laws of physics... it would require an extrnal force...
|
Living organisms can't actually defy the laws of physics. And living organisms also require external energy to do anything.
Quote:
|
No, the tree being struck by lightining is not a chemical prosess... it is more along the lines of thermodynamics.... the burning is a chemical process...
|
Notice how I said the
ignition of the tree. If you want to pick at semantics, that's fine, just make sure I'm semantically incorrect first.
Quote:
|
what you fail to understand is that in order for something to stand for something it cannot be combined(like DNA)...
|
What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Talking. About?
In order for something to stand for something it can not be combined? What the fuck does that mean.
You're saying the elementary combinations that compose elements don't stand for anything? You're saying two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to an oxygen atom doesn't stand for water? You're saying that the combination of Carbon:Hydrogen:Oxygen in a 1:2:1 ratio doesn't stand for sugar? You're saying that Nitrogen:Hydrogen in a 3:1 ratio doesn't stand for ammonia?
Before you pick apart my semantics, you should at least clearly convey what you're talking about.
Quote:
|
so then why is the theroy of evolution considered as an answer? As I said above, a theroy has yet to be proven.... so why is evolution placed among facts?
|
Again, you know nothing about science. Get your terminology straight.
Quote:
|
so where did the matter come from? It couldnot have created itself?
|
We don't know. And it's not relevant for showing that biological evolution did indeed happen.
Quote:
|
Also, if all the matter in the universe came together into one single spot as a dense ball of matter how did the matter get pulled into that one spot if the universe has no middle and no edge?
|
The evidence indicates the universe started that way. Nothing actually pulled it there.
Quote:
|
The pot is nonliving, it cannot take responsibility...
|
Right. And we're not Gods, so we can not be held accountable by the standards of Gods.
Notice how you failed to reply to the relevant stuff.