mjordan2nd said:
|
The evolution of ribosomes is not known piece by piece. Refer to the detective analogy. This is a similar case.
|
so that means that you believe that evolution can happen even though you don't have the evidence... I see....
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
Science deals with the search for fact using tests and data do determine how things work... evolution does not fit into this, you cannot test evolution to see if it is true... evolution is technically a religion; a faith based system...
mjordan2nd said:
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.
|
that was not evidence... you said,"I don't know the evolution of this process. 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 how does that count for evidence? your beliefs are now considered as evidence?
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
My evidence for design.... well just look at the picture...
now how can evolution explain that?
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
I can't name one missing link... it does not exist....
the reason people use this in their argument is because the 'missing link' would help to prove that all animals came from a common ancestor....
mjordan2nd said:
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.
|
You said,"I suppose it would be nice to know the evolution of the process in order to develop a comprehensive theory of spontaneous generation, but as far as biological evolution goes it is irrelevant."
So how does spontanious generation not fit into evolution?
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
Yes it does, biological evolution feeds of life starting spontaniously... if not then saying God did it would contradict the bible, because the bible says that all life was created in 6 days(he rested on the seventh)...
so again... how is it that evolution does not require spontanious life? woulden't that point to a creator?
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
This was only put out there to prove to you that a random generation of something could not mean anything.... it would be as usless as a CD to a disk drive... the disk drive would not know how to read the CD...
Actually the ribosome is also governed by the cell it is in...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Negative. A pendulum never stops unless it means some sort of air resistance.
|
I was talking about knowing the position of the pendulum... not about outside forces... but if you want to talk about outside forces... the air resistance would cause it to slow, then eventually stop; gravity will then determine the resting position of the pendulum...
hope that makes things more clear for you....
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
All organisms are bound by the laws of physics, the only difference is that you or I don't need an outside force to move which seperates us from inanimate objects like the pendulum... basically, if you want to move you move...
mjordan2nd said:
|
So ribosomal interaction with DNA can be treated as the pendulum, since it is nonliving matter?
|
I mean that the ribosome could not form on its own from non living matter unless something outside knew what to do with the collection of matter and how to put it together.... so the ribosome could never form on its own and the DNA would never be read and translated....
mjordan2nd said:
|
Living organisms can't actually defy the laws of physics. And living organisms also require external energy to do anything.
|
I never said that living organisms could defy the laws of physics....
You create the force to do something, when you move there is no one around you making you move, you do it all by yourself....
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
mjordan2nd said:
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.
|
When I said,"In order for something to stand for something it can not be combined"... i was talking about the representation of that something...
I'll use one of your examples... Carbon:Hydrogen:Oxygen in a 1:2:1 ratio doesn't stand for sugar, it is sugar... to represent sugar we normally use
sucrose....
mjordan2nd said:
|
Again, you know nothing about science. Get your terminology straight.
|
You should look up evolution... it is a widely known
THEROY... you should also look up theroy while your at it....
mjordan2nd said:
|
We don't know. And it's not relevant for showing that biological evolution did indeed happen.
|
So how are you going to prove that evolution actually caused life to begin... or are you just placing your faith into the whole thing?
mjordan2nd said:
|
The evidence indicates the universe started that way. Nothing actually pulled it there.
|
So then where did the matter come from and how did it get so compact? there had to have been an outside energy source to build the pressure and heat up... right?
mjordan2nd said:
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.
|
No, unlike the pot we live and think independantly... everything you do comes straight from you and you only... you fit into the group of people who do not want to take responsibility for your own actions, you just want to do anything you want and not have to have any consequences... but when someone who is doing the same thing you are doing and it affects your life... you are the first to point out that person is doing wrong.... like if you went home one day and found all your stuff gone you would call the poliece and try to put them in jail...
they were living a live without consequences untill you called them out on it....