toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[Arthur Brain]

Did non-life evolve into life? Yes or No?

Did life start with non-life evolving into life? Yes or No?

If non-life evolved into life, then how ridiculous that something called "the theory of evolution" should not have "anything to do with the beginning of life itself"!

No. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life itself. Why this continually trips you and others up is somewhat baffling. Tell you what, you find a source that states that the theory of evolution explains how life itself came into being then post it. Good luck.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life itself. Why this continually trips you and others up is somewhat baffling. Tell you what, you find a source that states that the theory of evolution explains how life itself came into being then post it. Good luck.

Tell that to User Name.

If evolution is true, then it "must" have started at the beginning with the expansion of the singularity and it continued in an unbroken process from then until now.

At the start of the Big Bang, there was no matter. Then matter evolved when energy condensed to a slow vibration. The first matter in the universe was the elements hydrogen and helium. Clouds of hydrogen and helium condensed under gravity to evolve stars. The supernova explosions of these stars evolved the heavier elements which led to planets and organic chemistry. Then the most primitive life forms evolved out of the organic material. These proto-life forms evolved into larger, more complex creatures. Eventually, they produced us. We are living evolved matter--the universe come to life.

As Carl Sagan put it, "We are a way for the universe to know itself."

 

[Arthur Brain]

Tell that to User Name.

None of that actually states that evolution was the cause or origin of actual life itself. Same challenge to you as to Djengo, find a scientific source that in any way states that evolution is the actual cause of life.

Good luck.

 

[Stuu]

Did non-life evolve into life? Yes or No?

Did life start with non-life evolving into life? Yes or No?

If non-life evolved into life, then how ridiculous that something called "the theory of evolution" should not have "anything to do with the beginning of life itself"!

Define 'life'.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Define 'life'.

Read the conversation. :up:

 

[Stuu]

Read the conversation. :up:

I have. It doesn't.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

Did non-life evolve into life? Yes or No?

No.

Since non-life did not evolve into life, then what (if anything) evolved into life?

Did life start with non-life evolving into life? Yes or No?

No.

Interesting.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the actual origin of life itself.

The actual origin of what life itself? Of human life itself? Of monkey life itself? Of ostrich life itself? Of kangaroo life itself?

Tell you what, you find a source that states that the theory of evolution explains how life itself came into being then post it. Good luck.

find a scientific source that in any way states that evolution is the actual cause of life.

Good luck.

Easy. No need for luck. Here's the first sentence of the first non-wikipedia entry that came up when I searched the phrase, "origin of humans", on Google: Introduction to Human Evolution:

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors.

Here is an example of how easy it is to find a "scientific" source claiming that life originated by some "process of change" called "evolution": in this case, the life referred to is human life. Are they, or are they not, saying that life (in this case, human life ("people")) "originated"--came into being--by something they call "evolution"?

Are they not stating that "evolution is the actual cause" of life--human life?

Does what you call "the theory of evolution" have "nothing to do with the actual origin" of human life itself?

By the way, would you say that your beloved, go-to, crutch-like phrase, "life itself", is a scientific term? Biology is the scientific study of life, no? And, what branch of science would you say is the study of what you call "life itself"?

 

[7djengo7]

Define 'life'.

Stuart

Life is that which is not non-life. Do you disagree?

 

[7djengo7]

Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

As I said in the OP, If something is not about the origin of life, then how can it be about THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES???

Look what our local Darwinist, The Barbarian, tells us:

evolution tends to produce more species, not less.

The Barbarian is telling us that evolution produces species. Perhaps he could explain to us exactly how the production of species can somehow not be one and the same thing with the origin of life.

Oh, yeah...I neglected to mention that I got the OP quote from The Barbarian:

Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

What he calls "evolutionary theory" isn't about the origin of life (species), yet it, somehow, is about the production of life (species)?? How is the production of something NOT the origin of that thing??

I'm telling you people, the Darwin cheerleaders have built up, and weaponized, two centuries' worth of Western-civilization-destroying, pompous, "scholarly" gobbledygook on a foundation of nothing more than a self-damning, incoherent mess of a language game. And, as The Barbarian, and others, are learning, they can't win at their own language game when others, having observed its irrationality, refuse to play along at it with them. That's why The Barbarian has had me on ignore for a few months now: chagrin.

 

[Stuu]

Life is that which is not non-life. Do you disagree?

It's not up to me to disagree with what you think life is. But you don't seem very interested in biology.

Stuart

 

[Arthur Brain]

Since non-life did not evolve into life, then what (if anything) evolved into life?



Interesting.



The actual origin of what life itself? Of human life itself? Of monkey life itself? Of ostrich life itself? Of kangaroo life itself?




Easy. No need for luck. Here's the first sentence of the first non-wikipedia entry that came up when I searched the phrase, "origin of humans", on Google: Introduction to Human Evolution:

Human evolution is the lengthy process of change by which people originated from apelike ancestors.

Here is an example of how easy it is to find a "scientific" source claiming that life originated by some "process of change" called "evolution": in this case, the life referred to is human life. Are they, or are they not, saying that life (in this case, human life ("people")) "originated"--came into being--by something they call "evolution"?

Are they not stating that "evolution is the actual cause" of life--human life?

Does what you call "the theory of evolution" have "nothing to do with the actual origin" of human life itself?

By the way, would you say that your beloved, go-to, crutch-like phrase, "life itself", is a scientific term? Biology is the scientific study of life, no? And, what branch of science would you say is the study of what you call "life itself"?

So, you haven't found a source saying that the theory of evolution is about the origination of life itself then have you? Tailoring it towards searches about how life has evolved is not the same thing at all.

 

[ok doser]

... the origination of life itself ....

a phrase which you are unable to define

 

[7djengo7]

It's not up to me to disagree with what you think life is.

What idiot came up with that rule? That's a really stupid rule. Well, at any rate, I'll take your response as a "Yes, I, Stuu, disagree with you: Life is NOT that which is not non-life."

And, by thinking that, you're thinking that life IS that which is non-life, which is an extremely stupid thing to think. For, how can it ever be rational to think that life is non-life?? That's right: it can't ever be.

But you don't seem very interested in biology.

Because I think that life is that which is not non-life, I don't seem very interested in biology?? Why does that make me not seem, to you, very interested in biology??

Thinking that life is that which is not non-life is about the most elementary, basic thing one can think, biologically speaking, and yet, not only do you proudly refuse to think it, but you flat out deny it. That makes you, obviously, not even the least bit interested in biology.

 

[Stuu]

What idiot came up with that rule? That's a really stupid rule. Well, at any rate, I'll take your response as a "Yes, I, Stuu, disagree with you: Life is NOT that which is not non-life."

And, by thinking that, you're thinking that life IS that which is non-life, which is an extremely stupid thing to think. For, how can it ever be rational to think that life is non-life?? That's right: it can't ever be.



Because I think that life is that which is not non-life, I don't seem very interested in biology?? Why does that make me not seem, to you, very interested in biology??

Thinking that life is that which is not non-life is about the most elementary, basic thing one can think, biologically speaking, and yet, not only do you proudly refuse to think it, but you flat out deny it. That makes you, obviously, not even the least bit interested in biology.

Feel free to get back to me if you think of something worth discussing.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

Feel free to get back to me if you think of something worth discussing.

Stuart

Why do you believe that life is non-life?

If you're ever able to start thinking rationally, feel free to stop by. Until then, please stop trolling this thread that I started. Thank you.

 

[Stripe]

I have.

Then you'd know where it's at.

Try to join it. :up:

 

[Stuu]

join it. :up:

Clearly your response demonstrates I have.

Can you reference an answer to my question from earlier in the thread, or were you just playing to the adoring crowds?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Why do you believe that life is non-life?

If you're ever able to start thinking rationally, feel free to stop by. Until then, please stop trolling this thread that I started. Thank you.

I see you can't think of anything worth discussing. I should have realised that when I first read the OP.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

Clearly your response demonstrates I have.

Sensibly, sunshine. :up:

Can you reference an answer to my question from earlier in the thread, or were you just playing to the adoring crowds?

Neither.

Try joining the conversation. Sensibly.

 

[7djengo7]

So, you haven't found a source saying that the theory of evolution is about the origination of life itself then have you?

You just denied that human life is life, by denying that the origination of human life is the origination of life.

Arthur Brain thinks that human life is not life! Amazing.

Tailoring it

Tailoring what?

life has evolved

Since by "life has evolved", you pretend to not mean "life originated", then tell us what (if anything) you imagine you mean by "life has evolved".

Was Darwin's book titled On The Origin Of Species, or was it titled On The Evolution Of Species? Which?

Was Darwin's book on the origin of species, or was it on the evolution of species? Which?

Are species life? Yes or No?

Are species life itself? Yes or No?

When a chick hatches from an egg laid by a chicken, would you say that the chicken that laid the egg has evolved into the chick that hatched from it? Would you say that one, or both, of your parents evolved into you?

Your (Darwinism's) most fundamentally self-devastating, self-embarrassing problem is the very word, "evolve", itself, which is why you've been persistently committed to stonewalling and obfuscation at every turn in your postings on TOL. You will do whatever you can to weasel away from the challenge every time someone asks you to say what it is for something to evolve.

When something evolves, does it evolve into itself, or does it evolve into something other than itself?

You will never get human language to cooperate with your wishful, futile attempts to somehow cause your nonsense to be sense. And, frankly, I'm quite enjoying the spectacle of your frustration over that fact.

is not the same thing at all.

What is not the same thing as what?

By "life itself", are you referring to life? Yes or No? If you are referring to life, by "life itself", then to what life are you referring, by "life itself"? If you are not referring to life, by "life itself", then to what are you referring, by "life itself"?