Generally speaking - a fact is something that is known to be true.
The truth or actual existance of something, as opposed to the supposition of something, or a belief about something. Ideally - there should be empirical evidence to support a claim, but this may not necessarily be the case for something to still be a fact.



This statement of mine is purely subjective. I don't claim it as fact, and, as a fact - I have never claimed it as fact. It's just an opinion. While this claim may be true, I have no evidence to support it - other than the experience I have of the claims of "third parties". And any "evidence" of this nature is unacceptable as a premise toward claiming "fact".



A "fact" is something that should hold true for all people at all times, (for the sake of this discussion), and should not rely on a consensus of popular opinion. If there is a fact within DNA research and evolution that fits this criteria - I would then consider the validity of Evolutionary theory. Now - it should be noted here that the issue is of Abiogenesis, Uniformitarianism, and premises without empirical evidence to support it - not whether or not organisms mutate.



Well - here's a start. If you would like to amend or qualify my "definition" of fact then do so, but I agree - lets agree on the semantics first - then let's examine evolution as it holds up to "fact" or "faith-based". I look forward to it.

I'm not sure this topic is the place for open conversations about good questions - it looks more like the place for promoting our own ideologies/worldviews/beliefs(both religious and secular).

<BASELESS CONJECTURE> As I said earlier, I think the 'standard' presentation of darwinian evolution is incomplete - one of the areas that I think it is incomplete was touched on in sail2awes post. I don't believe that 'random mutation' is the one and only source of 'new genetic material'. Maybe it was in the beginning. - I think its quite possible that life evolved to 'deliberately' (so to speak) introduce new genetic material. (And Eljay, I don't disagree with your claims about 'evidence of new genetic material', I just don't think its a surprising nor meaningful issue at this point in the history of genetics.)</BASELESS CONJECTURE>

Sexual reproduction does not introduce new genetic material, but it does introduce new combinations of genes. It is not just a particular gene which may confer a survival advantage, but the particular combinations of genes. In this way, sexual reproduction speeds up the process of finding new gene combinations which might confer a survival advantage.

Oh, and AFAIK most (or all?) asexual creatures have some method of moving genes between organisms - so its not like they are stuck in a permanent rut. But sexual reproduction may give an advantage in terms of 'trying out' a greater mix of gene combinations, faster.

Eljay, I hoped so much that you would give me a working definition of fact that I could accept.

I would love to accept your definition as stated in the first paragraph of attempts. But it has huge problems. To you it's generally known to be true that God created the world, whereas for me it is generally known to be true that God did not create the world. Which "general" knowledge is superior to the other? Neither. This part is useless, therefore.

I could go for the part that it is not absolutely necessary to have empirical evidence to support a claim that something is a fact. You could keep your God, I could keep my evolution, without any further arguments, or despite any amount of further arguments. Again, no tie-breaker there.

Actual existence, not a supposition, not a belief -- careful, you're denying your righ to believe in God.

That's paragraph 1.

Paragraph 2:

"True for all people for all times" -- again, no tie breaker. Evolution certainly is true for all people at all times, it affects us all -- and in your books God functions much the same way. Worse, we both deny the other's right to claim the named particular truths here.

"Now - it should be noted here that the issue is of Abiogenesis, Uniformitarianism, and premises without empirical evidence to support it - not whether or not organisms mutate." -- this excerpt makes no sense to me, it uses words I don't understand, and it restricts the definition of "fact" to a specific area of thought, it goes away from a generality in the definition. I am not sure what you are saying there, and if you like, you can explain the meanings of the words Abiogenesis andUniformitarianism, in easy, laymen's terms, but it seems that you are forbiddig me to come up with ideas and facts related and integral to DNA and evolution, since the "issue" is Abiogenesis and Uniformitarianism, as you claim here, but which are clearly not the issues. You diminish, without any further ado, my reliance on mutation, which is nothing but a forceful, forced and entriely unfair and illogically conceived castration of my ideology. As an illustrative example, and nothing more, to accent what I object to, and without intending to bring this into the topic: With the same token I could tell you that you could argue for the existence of the Holy Trinity but the issue is the numerical possiblity, and please don't bring the ideas of Jesus or the Holy Spirit into the picture. You see that would be unfair and unjust to place that restriction on an argument for them. It's like bindig one arm of a fighter to his back and not his opponent's. By trying to trick me into staying away from using mutation in the arguments, you cut off the penis of my arguments, and it is an unfair and ucalled-for request. Why should I not talk about mutation? That is a preposterous claim on your part when you challenge someone to prove to you that Evolution is based on facts.

Please do not muddle the issues. Stay with the topic, I ask you, which at the moment is trying to find a definition for what constitutes a "fact".

End of your paragraph two.

I am sorry, I cannot help you in finding the definition, beyond the extent of my saying why I can or can't accept any instances of it as you come up with them. I thought we'd divvied up the job: You state the definition, I state the argument that Evolution is based on facts, you attempt proving my argument wrong, I prove why your counter-argument is wrong. I hope you can agree to this road plan.

But this does not deny my right to believe in God - because I don't extend the criteria of needing "facts" to justify His existance, nor his claim of being the Creator (done so throuh inspiration). I'm not claiming that the existance of God is "fact". I'm more interested in your having facts that He does not exist. Or is that merely a belief on your part? I don't deny you your beliefs - those come from life expereince, study and observation, and your personal grasp of logic. But the matter we're discussing here is "fact".

Do either of us have "facts" to support our beliefs which do not stem from subjective observations and interpretation of our world view? I don't claim to have any. Do you?



Abiogenesis is the idea that life began from the primortial "ooze". That lifeless material somehow became life. This is an "a priori" of evolutionary theory. (a postulate - if you will, as there is no evidence of it, and it has not, and likely will not be recreated in a laboratory) Think of it as the "genesis 1" of evolutionary theory. Though there are a number of evolutionists who do not adhere to this premise, but actually state no claim about the origin of life - just that it didn't involve a "Creator" - known to most as "God".

Uniformitarianism is the theory that the same geological process that occured in the past - occurs today. Thus, by interpreting occurances in the present - the observations can be extrapolated into the past as having occured this way - and this can be accepted as fact.

And of course - empirical evidence is simply catogorising something by observing it, rather than drawing conclusions by establishing a theory on it. Isometric dating would be an example of non-empirical evidence, as it relies solely on a theoretical occurance based upon the uniformitarianistic observations of radioactive decay in elements observed in the present.

so - the point being, that if you are refering to evolutionary theory as the mere observation of daughter organisms mutating into something that is different from the parent organism, then we have a different understanding of what evolutionary theory is, and are not in disagreement. I don't deny that organisms "evolve" - as it were. Although, I am waiting for the evidence that this "evolving" involves the adding of information to DNA - to me - a prerequisite to support the Darwinian concept of the "tree of species evolution".
Simply put - the justification of the claim that man and Apes share the same ancestor. To date - there is no evidence of any information being added to any DNA in any genome that has been, or is being studied. This is the "brass ring" on the carousel of evolutionary biologists throughout the world - for whoever can demonstrate that this can occur in a laboratory, will have a Nobel Prize with their name on it, and will grace the cover of every magazine in the world - not to mention Time magazines "person of the millenium".



So then give me a definition of "fact" that I can live with, and then demonstrate how it supports evolution. And from this point on, there's no need to introduce the concept of God or creation. I've already given in to the opint that Creationism is not supported by "fact" as I've stated it. Judeo/Christianity is a faith based concept. A philosophical theory - not a scientific one.

However - I contest that Evolution is nothing more than a faith based philosophy as well, as there is nothing about it which can be demonstrated scientifically - so it isn't science, and it has at is base core - Uniformitarianism - which can be demonstrated as false through simple scientific demonstration. As with Christainisty and Creationism - belief in evolutin is based solely on faith in the subjective interpretation of one's world view, and how it relates to what is being observed.

A classic example of this are fossils. They exist - we both can agree on this as fact. But how they originated, and how old they are... immpossible to prove by either theory. It all depends on what one's world view is; what they are willing to believe.

I would say asexual reproduction works very well for simple organisms that fill a specific nitch. However sexual reproduction is much better for more complex organisms. When an organism is made from sexual reproduction, it's immune system becomes a mix of it's parents. This gives it the advantage of having a different immune system. If bacterias and viruses have become adapted to the parents, it won't be so adapted to the offspring.
Also, the chance for genetic mutation and other adaptations doubles through sexual reproduction.

Experiments have been done that prove "life" can come from an organic soup. Put the elements thought to be on the Earth before life in a sealed container. Add energy like electricity. And presto, you get self-replicating organic molecules. Tends to turn the inside purple.
This experiment has been done dozens of times. Works everytime. Now, we've never had something crawl out, but we've never let the experiment run for a few billion years either.
However, we have seen through this experiment, that over time, the molecules become more complex (information is added).
To say "abiogenisis", as Eljay has defined it, hasn't been proved, is simply untrue.

Also, there are many ways to date fossils to a high precision. Anyone who denies this is simply denying the facts.

Someone keeps asking for an example where DNA information is added.
I have one. One that we can all agree is true, verfiable, and w/o question.
Victims of Downsydrome. Downsydrome is where the DNA incorrectly replicates and adds a chromosome. Adds a chromosome, as in adds information. Granted, this additional information spells genetic garbage, but it IS added information, nonetheless.
Since mutations are random, one would expect most of them to be harmful. However, if one conceeds that mutations do indeed add information, one must conclude that occasionally, given enough time, this information added by a mutation would be helpful to the species. And given enough mutations, you have a different species.

I'll take that Nobel Prize now. No, wait, they don't give those for stating the well known....oh well.

I haven't actually seen this experiment. The only question i have is what if they are wrong with the chemicals they thought were on the earth it would make the whole situation wrong. because if the premise is wrong then it doesn't matter what the result is. it is still wrong. I know they are likely using research and hypothesis but that doesn't mean that they are still correct. Sometimes the research of the past turns out to be wrong.

so wish we had access to time travel. the whole debate would be over. go back in time see what was on the planet at the time collect a sample then come back. then that would open a whole another paradox of did we start the process. but that is a whole another thread. i guess we really could say one day the world will know for sure. could be in this lifetime. could not. no one knows for sure when that day will come.

Goog said:



Eljay said:



You just quoted me where I said I can't help you find a definition. Right away you ask me to find a definition.

That's your job, not mine, to find a definition for the word "fact" that we can both live with.

We'll pick up and continue when you've done that successfully.

Thanks.

Many believe in the words their individual religion or faith teaches them and many believe in what evolution offers.

Then there are many who believe both are compatible and then there many who believe they are incompatible.

In the end regardless in what one believes the planet will continue to spin and go around the sun. The people will continue to live and die. Life as we know it may change a little over the centuries, but in a whole.

What is important (in my opinion) is we keep a open mind on different idealogies and see how we can as a people move forward to make our lives more comfortable not only four ourselves but for others.

Good luck Minglers on your search of truth and happiness.

How can utting anything in a sealed container demonstrate the way life began in the environment it exists in.

You call this "proof" - do you think we're all idiots?

You can do better than this - really, can't you? Or are you just willing to believe anyone or anything that supports your world view, despite the total unacceptability of the premises presented.

Do you know anything about dating methods? Precision isn't even considered part of the equasion. In order to have precision - one needs verification. Impossible to do when dating fossils. If you aren't aware of that, you need to do a little more research.

And where is the documentation for this? Or should I just take your word for it?

I gave you one. Refute it if your unsatisfied - else just admit you're not prepared to continue the discussion, and conceed your defeat to being able to show Evolution is a fact.

You are absolutely correct. It would be impossible to know for a certainty w/o time travel. However, postulations can be made that seem to make sense. What elements are needed to make DNA? What elements are commonly found in asteroids and commets? It would seem likely that if what is needed to make DNA can be found in asteroids and commets now, the early Earth would've had them too.
Organic molecules can be found throughout space. They're easy to make. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that under the right circumstances, like on an early Earth, these molecules would organize into self-replicating machines. Which is the very beginings of life. Not to mention, just plain bio-chemistry.

well...I don't think EVERYONE is an idiot...

oh....I'm sorry. That was too easy.
So....if self-replicating molecules can be made of some pretty basic elements, your counter was what exactly?

Quite easy. First off - your "self-replicating molecules" from your example were "discovered" - (as opposed to made) from materials believed to be on Earth before life. Hmmm... that's a stretch right there. Looks like a premise built on sand to me. Also - before this is accepted as "fact" - I wait for that time-travelor to return with verification.

Any high school math student would get that right.

Yeah....riiiight. Sorta like "discovering" a poop in the toilet you were sitting on.
I don't know what to tel ya, Eljay. You deny that humans know for a certainty the decay rate of radiactive isotopes and other well accepted methods of dating. You deny the well accepted facts that genetics shows how information is added all the time. I was pretty sure that Downsydrome was well known enough to show that. You refuse to allow yourself to even understand or acknowledge that self-replicating molecules can be MADE, artificially, in a lab, with some pretty basic elements.
I don't know what else to tell ya. I've poked holes in all your pet beliefs. If you still want to keep believing, well jolly well good for you.

Unless you've got some OTHER silly unscientific nonsense you'd like me to poke holes in, I think we're done here. Don't you?