Evolution of multicellularity observed.

[juvenissun]

Why do you think it shouldn't happen as observed?

The lab set up will not be observed in nature.

 

[juvenissun]

That's not good enough at all. That wouldn't hold up in any court of law.

If you were the judge, that would be way more than enough.

 

[46AND2]

I can pick up easily 10+ of mistakes on what you said. I won't elaborate it because I don't have time. What you said is beyond education.

Say just one thing which will greatly confuse you, and it shows how much you know: I think the earth is millions of years old, AND at the same time, is very very young.

It doesn't confuse me juve. It's nothing you haven't said a dozen times before. In fact, it's exactly the type of statement I had in mind when I wrote the last post. Can't you see that I structured my statement based on this very comment which you have expressed before? Think about it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If I have, I will present it. If I don't have strong one, I do have a bunch of weak ones. That is good enough for here.

Not wanting to goad here, but you have nothing or you would already have posted it. This prevaricating dishonesty is a common creationist tactic. I know what you are and I know what arguments you have. You're all bluster and assertion with nothing to support your claims.

 

[USincognito]

How many people in this thread work in biology or took it in school?

I took it in High School

How many people in this thread believe we formed from algae?

No one believes that. No one has concluded that based on the evidence either.

 

[USincognito]

Science believes we formed from algae. Otherwise, where would the "earlier animals" have appeared from?

Science doesn't "believe" any such thing, nor has science concluded that based on the evidence. Animals and fungi evolved from a common ancestor, but plants are a different branch of life.
Eukaryotes
Check out the phylogenetic tree on that link.

 

[USincognito]

Sure, but evolution is the idea that everything derived in series from a single celled organism, correct?

Yes, but the unicellular organisms from which animals and fungi evolved were not plants and specifically not algae.

 

[Romans 8]

Yes, but the unicellular organisms from which animals and fungi evolved were not plants and specifically not algae.

The point was that science believe humans and all living creatures evolved from microscopic biological matter. And where did this biological material originate from? Even today we cannot simply make dna from nothing. Or do we need to rely on speculation of life on other planets at this point?

 

[Speedwell]

The point was that science believe humans and all living creatures evolved from microscopic biological matter.

Still, it is better to be accurate when discussing such things. "Science believes we formed from algae" sounds too much like a typical sneering creationist one-liner and makes an unfavorable impression.

And where did this biological material originate from?

Not known.

Even today we cannot simply make dna from nothing.

Yes, we can.

Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia

Or do we need to rely on speculation of life on other planets at this point?

Certainly a possibility, but it doesn't answer the origin of life question.

 

[juvenissun]

It doesn't confuse me juve. It's nothing you haven't said a dozen times before. In fact, it's exactly the type of statement I had in mind when I wrote the last post. Can't you see that I structured my statement based on this very comment which you have expressed before? Think about it.

Sorry that I don't answer if you do not talk about scientific issues.

 

[Romans 8]

Still, it is better to be accurate when discussing such things. "Science believes we formed from algae" sounds too much like a typical sneering creationist one-liner and makes an unfavorable impression.Not known. Yes, we can.

Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia

Certainly a possibility, but it doesn't answer the origin of life question.

Your link clarifies my point when it says "Therefore, it is possible". This is a hypothesis only my friend.

 

[juvenissun]

Not wanting to goad here, but you have nothing or you would already have posted it. This prevaricating dishonesty is a common creationist tactic. I know what you are and I know what arguments you have. You're all bluster and assertion with nothing to support your claims.

You better ask me some linguistic questions. So I still can learn some.
Science and religion are not your thing.

 

[Romans 8]

Still, it is better to be accurate when discussing such things. "Science believes we formed from algae" sounds too much like a typical sneering creationist one-liner and makes an unfavorable impression.Not known. Yes, we can.

Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia

Certainly a possibility, but it doesn't answer the origin of life question.

Am I seriously arguing with a Christian whether or not God made our dna? lmao. How many "Christians" have no explanation as to who created us???

 

[Speedwell]

Am I seriously arguing with a Christian whether or not God made our dna?

No. You made the statement that humans cannot make DNA. I was just bringing you up to date on the science.

How many "Christians" have no explanation as to who created us???

We're not talking about who created us, but about how it went down.

 

[Romans 8]

We're not talking about who created us, but about how it went down.

So you believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all life then right?

 

[Speedwell]

So you believe that God created the heavens and the earth and all life then right?

Of course. Strange thing for an Anglican to believe, eh? I'll bet you're surprised.

 

[USincognito]

The point was that science believe humans and all living creatures evolved from microscopic biological matter.

No, science doesn't "believe" that. Science has concluded that based on the evidence. And while the evidence for universal common ancestry is good, it's not as good as the evidence for particular lines of descent.

And where did this biological material originate from? Even today we cannot simply make dna from nothing.Or do we need to rely on speculation of life on other planets at this point?

The origin of life on earth is still an unknown, but there's a lot of interesting work that has gone on over the last 50 years. Whatever the origin of life on earth, evolution isn't effected by it in the least. Here's a thought experiment - I'll list three origins for life on earth. You tell me how, if at all, they would effect evolution.
1. abiogenesis
2. panspermia
3. creation by God

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I will keep arguing in a wrong way. Which is, in fact, fine with me.

We know.

 

[Romans 8]

No, science doesn't "believe" that. Science has concluded that based on the evidence. And while the evidence for universal common ancestry is good, it's not as good as the evidence for particular lines of descent.



The origin of life on earth is still an unknown, but there's a lot of interesting work that has gone on over the last 50 years. Whatever the origin of life on earth, evolution isn't effected by it in the least. Here's a thought experiment - I'll list three origins for life on earth. You tell me how, if at all, they would effect evolution.
1. abiogenesis
2. panspermia
3. creation by God

Life cannot be created out of nothing. It's not possible my friend.

 

[USincognito]

Life cannot be created out of nothing. It's not possible my friend.

I didn't mention life being "created out of nothing". I asked a question. Can you answer it?
----------------------------
Here's a thought experiment - I'll list three origins for life on earth. You tell me how, if at all, they would effect evolution.
1. abiogenesis
2. panspermia
3. creation by God