According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic

[xSilverPhinx]

Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment.

You get it.

Natural selection removes designs that don't work as well from a population, it's like one big filtering system.

On reflection:

"Evolution is a series of environmentally driven random iterations from an original generating enough varieties that at least one will survive that environment."

I don't like that definition very much.
Some of the many possible mutations occur, I'm not easy with calling it random, genes probably have reasons for changing the way they do.

Genes can be switched on or off by the cell's physiological environment as is in the case of epigenetics (DNA methylation and histone acetylation and deacetylation for instance) , but it's a little tricky ascribing purpose to genetic mutation. 

I don't like the "will survive either," I think it's more of  a might, unless you're being retrospective.

I agree. Once a species enters an extinction vortex it can be very difficult to rescue.

[Bad Penny II]

but it's a little tricky ascribing purpose to genetic mutation. 

Maybe for you but we believers know how it goes.

[xSilverPhinx]

but it's a little tricky ascribing purpose to genetic mutation. 

Maybe for you but we believers know how it goes.

The "believer's solution"?

[Arturo]

but it's a little tricky ascribing purpose to genetic mutation. 

Maybe for you but we believers know how it goes.

The "believer's solution"?

And that's the bottom-line, cause made up god said so.

[Dredge]

.There are many hypothesis surrounding abiogenesis, it's a bit too early to talk about facts yet.

I'm not talking about hypothesises about how abiogenesis occurred.  As an atheist you would believe it to be fact that the first life form arose from inanimate matter as a result of some natural, but mindless process, would you not?

I don't think you've been paying attention, or are just ignorant. Probably the latter. Or both.

WE ONLY HAVE HYPOTHESIS!!!!!11!!!One!

These must be the largest letters ever posted on any forum in the world - possibly in the entire universe.   How did you make them so big?  

Atheists have no choice but to believe that inanimate matter turned into life.  So surely it is regarded as a atheist fact, not an hypothesis.  

Abiogenesis is frontier science.

Abiogenesis doesn't qualify as any kind of science, because no theory arising from it can ever be put to the test.  

As I mentioned before, science studies naturalistic processes, not the supernatural. No matter what delusion you're under that science proves the existence of god, angels, demons or tooth fairies, it does not. All that is metaphysical speculation, in the relam of philosophy, not science.

I am not under the delusion that science proves the existence of God.  There is evidence, but not proof - not in this life, at least.

I ask again, have you ever heard of non-overlapping magisteria?

I am familiar with S.J. Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria", but it means nothing to me.  I much prefer Plato's Socrates' advice:  Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

[Dredge]

Design requires foresight and intelligence? Says who? You?

Er ... says everyone ... except maybe some children less than five years old.   Look the word up in a dictionary.
Inanimate matter cannot design anything, since to design is to employ intelligence, foresight, imagination and decision-making.  So evolution designs nothing, it's mindless.  There are evolutionists who admit that evolution can produce things that appear to have been designed, but never have I come across an evolutionist who claims that evolution actually designs.  You are the first.

A dialysis machine performs the same function as a kidney.  According to you, the biological equivalent of a dialysis machine can form as a result of some mindless "natural" process. 

xSilverPhinx: "Yes, it can.

The claim that a mindless process can design the equivalent of a dialysis machine is irrational, unscientific nonsense.  Only in the pseudo-scientific dreamworld of evolution can a mindless, aimless process produce a complex machine.  Try telling a mechanical engineer that any machine can be produced without intelligent design and he'd laugh at the perfect absurdity of such an idea.

[Dredge]

Great archtecture, like cathedrals, came before science got good enough (in Europe at least)  to design "gothic" arches or flying buttresses. Lots of stuff fell down before they got it right. We see the results of many iterations, many attempts, lots of "suck-it-and-see."

Reiteration is a natural process out of which design grew for humans - once they had formalised and "formularised" things. Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment. Humans do not have the time or resources to do it that way, but we do have the ability to transfer proven ideas into new constructs. Or to use them to derive theories that are an acceptable, pro-tem, explanations (to rational people)  for those things we do not, and maybe can never, have full knowledge of.

The blind, mindless process of evolution, that can neither think nor plan nor imagine nor design, somehow produces creatures that can!
 Such a belief amounts to a scientific and philosophical absurdity, in my opinion (for what it's worth - which is probably ... a lot).  Chicko agrees with me, by the way.

[Dredge]

Speciation is repeatedly observed and confirmed?

Yes.

Can you cite an example of speciation, please?

Examples were cited earlier in this thread. I'd rather you use your ATP and not mine to find them. Use the search function and ye shall find.

Now take the claim of "speciation" of the fruit flies that W.R. Rice and G.W. Salt bred in the late 1980s.  At the beginning of the experiement these fruit flies were Drosophila melanogastor;  after 35 generations, the alleged "speciation" occurred and the fruit flies became Drosophila melanogastor.  

Did you notice how - as a result of "speciation" - the species name changed?  No?  Well, neither did I.   The species name remained the same - because they're still the same species!   In other words, there was no speciation. 
This is how it works:  A new species gets a new name.  If the species doesn't change, the name stays the same.

Likewise with other fake claims of speciation - for example, when Green Warblers "evolve" into Green Warblers, E. coli "evolve" into E.coli and Peppered Moths "evolve" into Peppered Moths.   The moral of the story is, I have yet to see even one genuine example of speciation.  Maybe speciation is a myth.

[Dredge]

Ok, I'll try another angle:  Based on the available evidence, it would be fair to say that even the simplest living
Is it more logical to conclude that a complex machine that performs complex tasks is a result of design, or to conclude that it is a result of non-design?  (As far as I know, the only alternative to design is chance.)

Oh, for Pete's sake!  This has been exhaustively dealt with by so many writers, you must know our answer by now.  I suppose you've blanked it out of your mind, as christians tend to do.  I won't weary all the other members by going through it yet again.

Oh, sorry; I didn't realize that I'm posing a question that I already know the answer to.  But seriously, if I were an atheist, I would want to avoid answering such a question, too.
----------------
I also didn't realise that the "all the other members" are duty-bound to read every word of your every post.  See how little I know!

[Dredge]

Hmm, I suppose it could be argued that you fail at being a troll and at being a non-troll.

W...Wh...Wha...What?!  I fail at being a troll and a non-troll?!
 Wow, that is such a depressing thought that I cannot possibly face up to it.  Therefore I shall dream up some reason why it can't be true.   

[Dave]

The blind, mindless process of evolution, that can neither think nor plan nor imagine nor design, somehow produces creatures that can!

Make enough iterations over a long enough time period . . . We are talking probably more iterations than we will ever have counting numbers for over billions of years and anything that is possible is possible. And the process is ongoing, you are genetically different than any other human who ever lived or, possibly, will ever live in the future. Excepting pure clones the same applies to al living creatures. More individuals than can ever be counted producing those new iterations. Even forms of life that multiply by fission, duplicating their genes, evolve to survive - to our dismay in terms of disease.

Such a belief amounts to a scientific and philosophical absurdity...

You still have not understood what science is have you?

scientific
sʌɪənˈtɪfɪk/Submit
adjective
1.
based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science.
"the scientific study of earthquakes"
synonyms:   technological, technical;
2.
informal
systematic; methodical.
"how many people buy food in an organized, scientific way?"
synonyms:   systematic, methodical, organized, well organized, ordered, orderly, meticulous, rigorous, exact, precise, accurate, mathematical, regulated, controlled;

"Science" is a method, not a proof, not a measure of veracity - no matter how it is misused by such as yourself.

... in my opinion (for what it's worth - which is probably ... a lot).  Chicko agrees with me, by the way.

Yawwwwwn.

[xSilverPhinx]

Yawwwwwn.

I agree.

You know what they say about arguing with creationists?

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

I'm not going to waste further time repeating myself ad nauseam to a willfully ignorant person with only very limited understanding of science and no desire to change that.

[Bad Penny II]

Therefore I shall dream up some reason why it can't be true.   

It might be interesting if you documented the process.

Anyway that's not why I'm here, I just wanted to announce that I'm not you.
I was concerned that I might be so I instructed my wife to lock me in a cupboard for a day so I could confidently deny the association if a Dredge post was made while I was restrained.  She kept me constrained for three days because she's opportunistically scientifically rigorous.  To the point, I'm not you, if you were wondering too.

[Dave]

"Arguing with creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the pigeon is just going to knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around the table looking victorious."

    

[Bad Penny II]

What's the problem with acknowledging a link to apes anyway?