Who is more ignorant? Actually, I think it's the one who refuses to even bother trying to understand.

OUG has realised that there is a part of the chain of events needed to have life without the intervention of a god which is not yet well understood, which is still in need of a lot more research to obtain a high level of confidence regarding which mechanisms produced it.

An area where few lay-men or women understand it themselves or if they do have the skills to explain it in terms which are meaningful to other people without spacific background knowledge.

OUG has embarked on a point scoring exercise where he thinks something has been gained by highlighting that issue whilst at the same time declaring the idea of evidence to support his own already falsified beliefs out of bounds.

The difference is that science will eventually be able to explain the mechanisms involved (or accept that the theory was wrong in the light of evidence and accept a theory which fits the evidence better). The "and then magic happened" crowd will still need to accept on faith beliefs which have been increasingly falsified by evidence.

R0bert

OUG

Ludwig wrote: “Are you willing to come right out and espouse creation as fact…or do you think that there is some doubt and that autogenesis might just be possible?”

Your answer:

“[im asking evolution[ists] to please explain THEIR theory]
not wanting to verify my own beliefs of god creating it all,
i accept that as a base fact”

You seem to be accepting creationism as fact without feeling as though you need to proffer any sort of supporting evidence whatsoever, and yet you are demanding not only evidence of, but absolute proof of autogenesis and evolution from it all the way up to the world’s present compliment of species.

I’ve got to say; that seems totally unbalanced. Others have made this point on this thread.

Do you think that autogenesis just might have been possible?

Ludwig: “how could it [evolution] be real within a species [which you accept as being the case], where you presumably can see it leading to different forms, varieties and subspecies…but not within closely related groups of species?”

You offered no response.

Feral cats have become much larger in just a few generations. Cane toads also have become much larger and longer-legged at the front line of their march across northern Australia, compared to those that have are now long-established in southern Queensland.

Presumably you accept these forms of evolution as they have occurred within species.

So why can’t you acknowledge that within a somewhat longer timeframe, these sorts of changes can result in new species…and that evolution of the sort that you now accept as occurring within a species has indeed occurred throughout the history of life on earth?

It makes no sense at all to accept it at an intraspecific level but not beyond that.

Ludwig,

I am not going to respond to OUG any further. There is NO evidence that would convince him of the reality of evolution. Debating with him serves no purpose.

However, you may be interested to know that speciation – the splitting of one species into multiple species – has been observed among cichlids in the great lakes of Africa. See for example:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7213/full/nature07285.html (Subscription required)

For a more popular account see:

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1998/3/depthscichlidfishes.cfm

The interesting thing is that many of the different cichlid populations could interbreed and produce viable offspring; but they don't. Over time the genetic distance between them will increase to the point where they cannot interbreed. THIS IS SPECIATION HAPPENING BEFORE OUR EYES.

I have learned something from this interchange. Thanks to oug. I had never heard of protobionts before and will learn more about them.

The term, evolutionist, is problematical. Creationism is an ideology based on biblical literalism. Evolutionist is a term invented by creationists which makes it sound as if accepting evolution was also founded on belief. It is as unreasonable to call one who accepts evolution an evolutionist as it is to call one who accepts gravity a gravitationist.

In this discussion the question of the origin of life has been discussed. That is really not part of evolution. Evolution is the extinction of species and the creation of new species. That is fact as shown by the fossil record, changes in bacterial resistance and other evidence. The theory concerns the mechanisms of creation of new species and extinction.

Some of the statements that have been made show ignorance of the evidence.

eg. oug stated:

"darwins finches were all finches"

However, the whole point was that new species of finches arose from the original finches. With the absence of birds to fill different niches in the environment on the island new species of finches evolved. They were no longer a single species.

Dear oug,

Please read about the finches. All dogs are one species. All finches aren't.

Under one god,

Junk science was used to describe the theories of intelligent design and creationism.

When you only believe what supports your cause it is called faith, and is not to be confused with reason.

You can continue muttering to yourself, but don't believe for a moment that anyone takes you seriously.