How did we get here? (UK sees huge decrease in belief in 'evolution')

Guardian ^ | 15 Aug 06 | Harriet Swain

[Dimensio]

If Darwin's theory (a) does not explain how life arose, and (b) there are no empirical examples where a new species has developed from another one, what good is it?

Your question employs a false premise. There exist empirical examples of speciation. Moreover, the theory has been used to make successful predictions of genetic patterns and has even been used to predict the geographical location of a transitional fossil.

[xzins]

Didn't you say that the theory of evolution does NOT teach that life comes from non-life?

[xzins]

I think you've still got it wrong.

"Life does not come from non-life" means that elemental, mechanistic processes does not lead to life.

I had assumed you were familiar with the discussion. Sorry.

Car don't put themselves together....such design requires an intelligent actor to do that. Humans, far more complex than autos, also require an intelligent actor, imho.

[Dimensio]

"Life does not come from non-life" means that elemental, mechanistic processes does not lead to life.

Please demonstrate that "Life does not come from non-life".

[Boxen]

"Didn't you say that the theory of evolution does NOT teach that life comes from non-life?"

That is precisely what said. However, this does not mean that life cannot come from non-life. "I do not know" is the most I can say regarding abiogenesis.

[xzins]

Pasteur's experiments did a fair job of it.

[Free Baptist]

"The Theory of Evolution has never said that [life comes from non-life]."

Then from where does life come, according to the Theory of Evolution?

The Theory of Evolution has turned itself into a belief system; a ... religion, and the scientists (the "scholars union") are the mullahs.

[Dimensio]

Pasteur's experiments did a fair job of it.

Please explain how Pasteur's experiments demonstrate that there exist no conditions wherein life can emerge from "non-life".

[xzins]

Then you are correct. I should not have said that you agreed with me; not on the basis of evolution not teaching that life comes from non-life.

Now, however, evolutionary spokespersons do teach that evolution does not teach that life comes from non-life.

Evolutionary spokespersons used to teach that evolution does say that life comes from non-life. They did so in a variety of ways. I guess that was just early propaganda by association.

[Dimensio]

Then from where does life come, according to the Theory of Evolution?

The theory of evolution makes no statement on the origin of the first life forms.

The Theory of Evolution has turned itself into a belief system; a ... religion, and the scientists (the "scholars union") are the mullahs.

Please demonstrate this claim to be accurate.

[RightOnline]

"The Theory of Evolution has never said that it did."

No weaseling allowed.

If the theory of evolution never said that, then how does it explain the origins of life? How did inorganic matter become organic matter?

Color me "STILL waiting".

[Dimensio]

If the theory of evolution never said that, then how does it explain the origins of life?

The theory of evolution has never attempted to explain the origins of life.

[Dimensio]

Evolutionary spokespersons used to teach that evolution does say that life comes from non-life.

Please provide references to support this claim. I have seen this claim made repeatedly, but my requests for substantiation have always been unanswered.

[RightOnline]

Uh huh. Well then.......if there is no God, how do you explain it?

How you can "evolve" if there is no starting point?

[Free Baptist]

"The theory of evolution makes no statement on the origin of the first life forms."

Why not?

The religious nature of Evolutionary scientists is demonstrated by the sidelining and marginalizing of the many qualified scientists who are qualified to speak on the subjects involved and don't come to the same conclusions. By the way...EVERYTHING academic is either a faith system or spawned by a faith system or concurs with a faith system.

[xzins]

As many know, Huxley popularized the terms abiogenesis and biogenesis in supporting this work of Pasteur as sound examples of bioligical experimentation. His conclusion was: "Thus the evidence, direct and indirect, in favour of Biogenesis for all known forms of life must, I think, be admitted to be of great weight."

[Dimensio]

Uh huh. Well then.......if there is no God, how do you explain it?

To which deity, out of the thousands worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you assume a lack of involvement of that particular deity?

How you can "evolve" if there is no starting point?

Individuals do not evolve. Populations evolve.

[xzins]

I have answered these claims repeatedly with examples from textbooks used in the 60's. I encourage you to get copies of them and read the presentations on evolution.

[Tribune7]

Excellent!!

[Dimensio]

Why not?

The mechanism of the process of evolution requires the existence of reproducing life in order to occur. As such, this mechanism could not itself produce life.

The religious nature of Evolutionary scientists is demonstrated by the sidelining and marginalizing of the many qualified scientists who are qualified to speak on the subjects involved and don't come to the same conclusions.

Please provide a reference of how and when this has occured.

By the way...EVERYTHING academic is either a faith system or spawned by a faith system or concurs with a faith system.

You are employing a fallacy of equivocation.