I think it’s quite obviously accurate.
Well, that proves it!
If I win, will I grow a tail?
The one debate where we all lose.
Here, let me help:
Why are there no crocoducks?
Why are there still monkeys?
What about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
I can’t debate evolution unless I know if evolution is taking the pro or con position.
Stating a proposition for debate would be a good idea, folks.
For those not already in the know, this was started in response to some of the views Silverstreak Wonder expressed in the “Tell us what you know about the theory of evolution without using anything but your own brain.” thread.
Not taking the bait, I have already been told it is illegal to discuss the origin of life as part of evolution, now it somehow is not important to it and people bringing it up will be silenced so I assume idea is make another offense so we can get rid of this guy, right? Not taking the bait.
Have a good discussion without me just as they did in original thread, it was ok to give opinions once I was gone. I had given my knowledge of it, and that TOE included the origin of life, and was told I cannot have that opinion, so why would it be any different in this thread? Bye.
It must be hard to post with that cross weighing you down.
Whoa, it’s illegal? I mean, I can understand the origin of life being silly to bring up in a discussion about evolution, what with the two having nothing to do with each other, but *illegal]/I]?
Maybe because you grossly misrepresented evolution, and then threw a fit when you were informed that you were wrong? You presented nearly zero knowledge of evolution in that other thread, and demanded that your wholly ignorant opinion of the subject be taken as fact. Not very conducive to any kind of discussion, much less a good one.
This is nonsense. There is nothing “illegal” about pointing out irrelevancies such as abiogenesis in a thread about evolution.
You were told to stop hijacking a thread about the understanding of evolutionary theory with off-topic attacks on the theory, itself. If you wish to post in this (rather undefined) thread that you cannot separate the origins of life from the developments of living species, you are free to do so, here.
[ /Modding ]
If you want, assert any origin you like for the first lifeform on earth - we will leave that assertion intact and we can then get on with debating whether or not it can be determined that everything alive today descended from it.
…Or we could just dissect and discuss some of the rather strange and inaccurate things you said in that other thread. There’s plenty to talk about, nobody is trying to chase you away, so please don’t play the martyrdom card too soon.
Math is HARD!
There is no legitimate debate. Each and every objection to the truth of evolution (as opposed to the various proposed mechanisms within the field of evolutionary biology) is based on ignorance/misunderstanding, deception or equivocation. Or a combination of the three.
Yes, but in all fairness to Silverstreak Wonder, plenty of people have already debated it without using their brains, so it may have been an attempt to utilize an untapped resource.
If you’re still around, you should realize two things:
-
In that other thread, the reason that a moderator advised people to not debate that topic there, was that thread was about something else and the posts were off-topic.
-
The reason people told you that you shouldn’t bring up the question of the origin of the first life in an evolution thread is that evolution doesn’t address the origin of the first life.
There is no general prohibition on bringing up abiogenesis in a discussion about evolution, it’s just that you’ll be told that the two are in separate fields of study.
There were two things I considered mistaken in your (first) post in that thread:
- The topic of the thread was to explain the theory of evolution as far as you could remember by heart. The origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution. “The theory of evolution” has a commonly accepted meaning; you can think what you like about it, but you can’t just claim it means something that it doesn’t.
Abiogenesis is certainly connected to the topic of evolution, since the life needs to come from somewhere and we know the universe isn’t eternal, but it’s just not part of what is commonly understood as the theory, firstly because the origin of life has no bearing on evolution itself - evolution assumes there is life and that’s it - and secondly, because there is no commonly accepted theory of the origin of life (though there is plenty of interesting research in that direction).
- You actually did not address evolution at all in your definition. Your definition was a description of an hypothesis for abiogenesis, and only abiogenesis. As such, it’s completely separate from the accepted definition of evolution.
You’re ofcourse free to state your opinions, but I get ticked off when people try to redefine commonly accepted terms to set up straw men - and then spend the rest of the thread viciously attacking those straw men instead of the reasoned arguments and corrections people provide. Especially since after all that thread I still don’t know what your objection to evolutionary theory is or even if you have one - all you’re doing there is attacking some vague concept of abiogenesis. If you want to attack abiogenesis, don’t do it in a debate about evolution - or at least make some points that do address evolution.
It seems you don’t know the difference between views based on evidence and reasoning and opinions based on who knows what. There is a forum called “In My Humble Opinion.” If you want to give your opinions about evolution with nothing to back them, go right ahead. Here you need to do a bit better. Are you unable to give reasons, or are you just unwilling?
As for abiogenesis, Darwin, whom I assume you’ve never read, does not even try to give the way life began. He called evolution descent with modifications, accent on the descent.
Evolution is the mechanism by which most of us advanced beyond pond slime.