Dogmatic Evolution is a Religion

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...and religion encourages a very closed mind.

Don't click that link.

This means you.

http://www.panspermia.org/

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay I won't click that link.

But I assume it's about Michael Jackson and Peter Pan.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Darwin is a starting point. I'm not a big fan of his mutation argument. I think there has to be more going on for rapidly adaptive speciation to take place. This is my opinion and current belief. Scientists in Darwin's time knew next to nothing about genomics. They did the best they could.

If you really dig into Panspermia/CA you find some other explanations to help explain what we currently call speciation. It has to do with one aspect of DNA. If you are interested, dig into the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here we were all thinking that you were sincere in your earlier posts! Why didn't you just jump to the last two?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Darwin is a starting point. I'm not a big fan of his mutation argument. I think there has to be more going on for rapidly adaptive speciation to take place. This is my opinion and current belief. Scientists in Darwin's time knew next to nothing about genomics. They did the best they could.

If you really dig into Panspermia/CA you find some other explanations to help explain what we currently call speciation. It has to do with one aspect of DNA. If you are interested, dig into the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, fine. If there's any instance of speciation you're unhappy with, by all means mention it here.

[Mr. Now]

arahant,

It seems like you assume that I reject all of Darwin because I call out the origin-of-life piece as unscientific. In reality, I never say one negative thing about speciation per se.

Also, many real Darwinists correctly point out that strictly speaking, Darwin did not publish any origin-of-life theories in scientific journals or books. I thank these posters for clarifying the facts. The idea of life from non-life just kind of bag-attached to the pop view of Darwin's specific ideas on speciation.

Darwin did mention origin-of-life, along with many other related things, in private letters.

[KeysrSoze]

The only thing this thread proves is that panspermiatism can be as rabidly dogmatic as religion and encourages a closed mind.

[Mr. Now]

Really?

http://www.iscid.org/brig-klyce-chat.php

Our guest speaker today is panspermia theorist, Brig Klyce. Brig is the writer and creator of the internet's most comprehensive website on panspermia. Brig has actively studied evolution, the origin of life, and panspermia since 1980. In 1995 this activity became his full-time occupation. Today he conducts, promotes and publicizes research pertaining to the strong version of panspermia, which he would like to rename 'Cosmic Ancestry'. He has given many lectures and radio interviews, and presented papers on Cosmic Ancestry at colleges, universities and science conferences from NASA's Ames Research Center in California, to Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

[ QUOTE ]

bertvan
after life is in existence, do you believe random mutation and natural selection plays any role in its furether development>

Brig Klyce
Absolutely, bertvan. Even if random mutation cannot compose new programs, it can help optimise them for specific species, environments, etc.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Rduke55]

Yikes! That guy is off his rocker.

[ QUOTE ]
Cosmic ancestry finds a similar inadequacy in the darwinistic account of evolutionary _progress_ (not adaptation or microevolution). A logical extension of panspermia is to suppose that the genetic programs for such advances also come from space on the same vehicles.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Phil, no. In the version of panspermia that I advocate, the origin of life from nonliving chemicals is impossible. A cell is irreducably complex, I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Now we know that life didn't have to originate here. In cosmic ancestry, is didn't have to originate ever, but always existed... But without better scientific evidence, I think we can doubt that life ever originated.

[/ QUOTE ]

(emphasis mine)

[ QUOTE ]
Bacteria are the life-form that forms spores that are apparently immortal. They could survive billion-year inter-galactic trips, if necessary. Other forms of life haven't shown this capability. But bacteria (and viruses, which could - not survive but - persist through such voyages) could contain all the genes for everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not think we have evidence of a time when the programs did not exist. So who wrote them? contains an assumption that I do not make -- that they had to originate.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes! the genome is totally dynamic and changing. But without new genetic programs from somewhere, these internal dynamics reach an evolutionary limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's exhibiting an English major's understanding of biology (no offense to english majors intended)

[Mr. Now]

Yes, most of us have no problem with something having "no end", or the infinity concept.

It's the "no beginning" we can't quite get our heads around.

Why can't you accept a theory of life that asserts "no beginning" or "always"?

Does your actual reason have anything at all to do with theology ?

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't you accept a theory of life that asserts "no beginning" or "always"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should I accept that? It's just speculation, it has no evidence or proposed mechanism. What advantage does that idea have over the current one?

[ QUOTE ]
Does your actual reason have anything at all to do with theology ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you're getting at here.

[CORed]

Why is origin of life from non-life elsewhere and its being transported to earth somewhere more likely than origin of life from non-life on earth?