Faith.

[bhsmte]

No all over the world, there are scientists who believe in God. And remember, truth might hold in the hands of the minority.

Of course there are scientists who believe in God, but these same scientists (and many other non scientist Christians) see no issue with believing in a God and accepting the mountains of evidence for evolution.

For you, it appears believing in a God, means evolution must be denied, which puts you in the minority of Christians.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You totally miss quoted me. Read my original "Again, gravity is repeatable, testable and confirmable, abiogenesis is not. It is very clear. Unless you have other evidences that I am not aware of."

I didn't reject gravity. What I said about Einstein is that part of his theory (on quantum coupling) was proven wrong. Please read the other's statements carefully. I hope you were not intentional.

If you say that Einstein has a hypothesis about gravity, you're implying that his ideas on it are not worthy of being labeled as a theory. Hence, you reject the theory of gravity.

You keep moving the goalposts. First, the criteria for a thing being a theory is that it must be repeatable and observable. That's actually correct, so evolution is a theory. But then you reject evolution as a theory because you say that we don't know the origin of life to begin with. By that logic, you must reject the theory of gravity because you don't know where gravity came from. I did not see you address that point. Instead you reject gravity because Einstein's model does not mesh well with quantum mechanics, and then you top it off by denying that you rejected the theory of gravity. Baffling.

Regardless, I need to know why you accept germ theory since you keep pounding on the fact that we don't know where life (and hence germs) came from. So why do you wash your hands? We don't know where germs came from so our theory on them is a hypothesis at best.

 

[dcalling]

Of course there are scientists who believe in God, but these same scientists (and many other non scientist Christians) see no issue with believing in a God and accepting the mountains of evidence for evolution.

For you, it appears believing in a God, means evolution must be denied, which puts you in the minority of Christians.

The Mountains of evidence of evolution, yet we don't know how RNA is created, that made the mountains of evidence of evolution only "supporting" evidence, not actual proof.

All I am saying is, ToE is not a theory because it is not proven, it is a hypothesis. To put ToE as theory is unscientific, else whatever science you believe in is psudo science.

For example, if I see that sever guy looks simlar, and assume they are related, it is only a theory, it is not proven till I check their DNA out. You have mountains of evidence that something looks simlar, but no hard evidence or proof how things happens.

There are places where it might be evidence of evolution (i.e. maybe something's skin color changed), but it could well be that the genes are mutating withing the allow parameters (in software engineer terms those are called configuration changes, vs new feature).

 

[bhsmte]

The Mountains of evidence of evolution, yet we don't know how RNA is created, that made the mountains of evidence of evolution only "supporting" evidence, not actual proof.

All I am saying is, ToE is not a theory because it is not proven, it is a hypothesis. To put ToE as theory is unscientific, else whatever science you believe in is psudo science.

For example, if I see that sever guy looks simlar, and assume they are related, it is only a theory, it is not proven till I check their DNA out. You have mountains of evidence that something looks simlar, but no hard evidence or proof how things happens.

There are places where it might be evidence of evolution (i.e. maybe something's skin color changed), but it could well be that the genes are mutating withing the allow parameters (in software engineer terms those are called configuration changes, vs new feature).

All I am saying is, people who are far more qualified to know the evidence and the theory, disagree with you and they forget more about evolution and science, than you or I will ever know.

Why do you think that is?

 

[dcalling]

If you say that Einstein has a hypothesis about gravity, you're implying that his ideas on it are not worthy of being labeled as a theory. Hence, you reject the theory of gravity.

You are confusing theory of Gravity and Theory of Relativity. Theory of Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all things with energy are brought toward each other, which is repeatable and verifiable, so I never rejected theory of Gravity.

If you are interested in the part where Einstein is wrong, read the debate on quantum coupling, which is out side the scope of our discussion.

You keep moving the goalposts. First, the criteria for a thing being a theory is that it must be repeatable and observable. That's actually correct, so evolution is a theory.

This is where we differ.
How is ToE repeatable and verifed? If the initial stage of evolution, the forming of RNA is not verifiable, how is the rest of evolution verifiable? If only a part of something is not verified, the whole thing is not verified.

Also read the long term evolution of e.coli, after 60k iterations, no new species is created. We can talk about the repeatable parts again when you actually have evidence.

But then you reject evolution as a theory because you say that we don't know the origin of life to begin with. By that logic, you must reject the theory of gravity because you don't know where gravity came from. I did not see you address that point. Instead you reject gravity because Einstein's model does not mesh well with quantum mechanics, and then you top it off by denying that you rejected the theory of gravity. Baffling.

So you don't agree that gravity can be repeated and verified?? You don't need to know the how, but it must be repated and verified. Can you create RNA less repeatly create RNA?

Regardless, I need to know why you accept germ theory since you keep pounding on the fact that we don't know where life (and hence germs) came from. So why do you wash your hands? We don't know where germs came from so our theory on them is a hypothesis at best.

We can easily repeat and verify germs by using microscops, how do you repeat and verify ToE? For a theory to be proven, you have to be able to repeat and verify the theory. None of us were able to create some totally new species by doing DNA mutation, all we are doing is we have shown that we can adjust their parameters and given them new features within some pre-configured range, and we can't create totally new things, not even in gems.

 

[dcalling]

All I am saying is, people who are far more qualified to know the evidence and the theory, disagree with you and they forget more about evolution and science, than you or I will ever know.

Why do you think that is?

They are biased. How can someone claim something is a theory when it can't be verified? Isn't that simple? What you are asking is like the guys hundreds years ago, "how can you claim the earth is round when all those people far more qualified to know the evidence and the theory, disagree with you"? You can't ignore the simple facts, the initial stage is not verified, the whole theory can only be a hypothesis.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are confusing theory of Gravity and Theory of Relativity. Theory of Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all things with energy are brought toward each other, which is repeatable and verifiable, so I never rejected theory of Gravity.

If you are interested in the part where Einstein is wrong, read the debate on quantum coupling, which is out side the scope of our discussion.



This is where we differ.
How is ToE repeatable and verifed? If the initial stage of evolution, the forming of RNA is not verifiable, how is the rest of evolution verifiable? If only a part of something is not verified, the whole thing is not verified.

Also read the long term evolution of e.coli, after 60k iterations, no new species is created. We can talk about the repeatable parts again when you actually have evidence.



So you don't agree that gravity can be repeated and verified?? You don't need to know the how, but it must be repated and verified. Can you create RNA less repeatly create RNA?



We can easily repeat and verify germs by using microscops, how do you repeat and verify ToE? For a theory to be proven, you have to be able to repeat and verify the theory. None of us were able to create some totally new species by doing DNA mutation, all we are doing is we have shown that we can adjust their parameters and given them new features within some pre-configured range, and we can't create totally new things, not even in gems.

A new species of fruit fly was spawned within 22 generations or so. Look it up. Why is e. coli not evolving into a new species over 60K generations? I haven't looked that up, but if it's true it's because it's already fit for its environment. Like sharks.

Again, explain WHY you accept germ theory as being repeatable and observable despite not knowing where germs come from and yet you reject evolution, even though it is repeatable and observable, simply because you don't know where RNA came from.

I mean, yes, if evolution is an accurate model, then there had to be an initial life form. But for there to be an initial life form, there had to be a planet, right? So... do we need to have a theory about planetary formation in order to have evolutionary theory?

Bonus points: name the fallacy you're using.

 

[bhsmte]

They are biased. How can someone claim something is a theory when it can't be verified? Isn't that simple? What you are asking is like the guys hundreds years ago, "how can you claim the earth is round when all those people far more qualified to know the evidence and the theory, disagree with you"? You can't ignore the simple facts, the initial stage is not verified, the whole theory can only be a hypothesis.

False, people can ignore the facts, as this thread shows.

 

[dcalling]

A new species of fruit fly was spawned within 22 generations or so. Look it up. Why is e. coli not evolving into a new species over 60K generations? I haven't looked that up, but if it's true it's because it's already fit for its environment. Like sharks.

If you can submit a link that this will indeed be evidence on your side. I did some google search and didn't find it.

Again, explain WHY you accept germ theory as being repeatable and observable despite not knowing where germs come from and yet you reject evolution, even though it is repeatable and observable, simply because you don't know where RNA came from.

I mean, yes, if evolution is an accurate model, then there had to be an initial life form. But for there to be an initial life form, there had to be a planet, right? So... do we need to have a theory about planetary formation in order to have evolutionary theory?

Bonus points: name the fallacy you're using.

I think I found out where our real differences are, i.e. when I talk about evolution I am talking in the atheist sense, i.e. there is no God and all material must be generated physically in nature via some physical/chemical process that has be to repeatable and verifiable. In that sense germ theory is repeatable and verifiable, but evolution is not.

However if you narrow evolution to DNA mutation and natural selection, that is acceptable. The problem is evolution is very broad, how excatly do you repeat a chimp to human event? The only way to do that is use a computer model, show the exact event of DNA sequence changes that is allowed by nature events, that eventually changed chimp DNA to human DNA, that we don't have.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You are confusing theory of Gravity and Theory of Relativity.

Gravity is a phenomenon. The theory of general relativity is the explanation for this phenomenon. Gravity is a fact, the theory of general relativity explains these facts. Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the explanation of facts.

How is ToE repeatable and verifed?

There are literally thousands of experiments that have been conducted for evolution in the last 150 years. Evolution also has predictive powers. For example, Neil Shubin's team accurately predicting where they'd find Tiktaalik. Also, the human genome project accurately predicting that human chromosome number 2 would be a fused chromosome to explain the anomaly of why chimpanzees have 1 more pair of chromosomes than us. Want another test? Take any genome of two different species and put them side by side and compare. They will fall into a perfect nested hierarchy, exactly what evolution predicts.

Can you create RNA less repeatly create RNA?

Yep. Self replicating RNA http://www.cell.com/chemistry-biology/abstract/S1074-5521(13)00426-2

 

[dcalling]

False, people can ignore the facts, as this thread shows.

If you can not even observe simple statements, you might not aware you are talking about yourselves.

Don't you agree that science must be repeatable, testable and conformable? If you don't, then we can stop here because you don't believe in science, and if you do, show me a computer model that shows how Chimp DNA mutates to Human DNA in a natural way, then you have made ToE a theory.

 

[bhsmte]

If you can not even observe simple statements, you might not aware you are talking about yourselves.

Don't you agree that science must be repeatable, testable and conformable? If you don't, then we can stop here because you don't believe in science, and if you do, show me a computer model that shows how Chimp DNA mutates to Human DNA in a natural way, then you have made ToE a theory.

Educate yourself on the TOE, if you can stand learning the facts. Then, get back with us.

 

[dcalling]

Gravity is a phenomenon. The theory of general relativity is the explanation for this phenomenon. Gravity is a fact, the theory of general relativity explains these facts. Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the explanation of facts.

Gravity can be verified, the theory of relativity was also verified, repeated and tested (part of it).

Now how do you test Evolution? See my post above, do you have a computer model that shows what's the sequence of changes that happens naturally to change a Chimp DNA to human DNA?

There are literally thousands of experiments that have been conducted for evolution in the last 150 years. Evolution also has predictive powers. For example, Neil Shubin's team accurately predicting where they'd find Tiktaalik. Also, the human genome project accurately predicting that human chromosome number 2 would be a fused chromosome to explain the anomaly of why chimpanzees have 1 more pair of chromosomes than us. Want another test? Take any genome of two different species and put them side by side and compare. They will fall into a perfect nested hierarchy, exactly what evolution predicts.

on wiki, Tiktaalik is a "possible" link, it is a hypothesis.

As for Chromosome number 2, do you have a repeatable test that shows how the original ones were fussed? Where is the repeatable, testable part?

Yep. Self replicating RNA http://www.cell.com/chemistry-biology/abstract/S1074-5521(13)00426-2

That is totally different than create RNA out of raw materials. Did you see the word "by evolution"? it is not created from raw material, it is created out of existing RNA, which is parameter adjusting, not creation.

 

[dcalling]

Educate yourself on the TOE, if you can stand learning the facts. Then, get back with us.

You can throw insults anyway you want, but you can't get over the fact that you are ignoring science. Show me the testable, repeatable and verifiable part, and we can talk, else empty insults won't make you right.

Please go research the topic, did you see the others debating with me? At least they are finding actual facts, not empty threats.

 

[bhsmte]

You can throw insults anyway you want, but you can't get over the fact that you are ignoring science. Show me the testable, repeatable and verifiable part, and we can talk, else empty insults won't make you right.

Please go research the topic, did you see the others debating with me? At least they are finding actual facts, not empty threats.

Not interested in playing pigeon chess.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

See my post above, do you have a computer model that shows what's the sequence of changes that happens naturally to change a Chimp DNA to human DNA?

This is a strawman. You don't understand evolution if you think this is how it works. Please demonstrate what you think evolution means and then ask appropriate questions.

on wiki, Tiktaalik is a "possible" link, it is a hypothesis.

Then why is it in a museum and the research is peer reviewed? You can see the fossils for yourself and you can read the research. It was a verified prediction of what the fossil would look like and where it would be found. This prediction was made using the theory of evolution.

As for Chromosome number 2, do you have a repeatable test that shows how the original ones were fussed? Where is the repeatable, testable part?

You haven't demonstrated that you know how scientific research works or what evolution is.
Can you describe what the genetic markers are? Do you know what telomeres and centromeres are?

Let's look at more genetic evidence. Of the 208,000 ERVs found in the human genome, only 84 aren't shared with chimps. Can you describe in your own words what endogenous retroviruses are? You have to demonstrate you understand the material you are rejecting out of hand.

That is totally different than create RNA out of raw materials. Did you see the word "by evolution"? it is not created from raw material, it is created out of existing RNA, which is parameter adjusting, not creation.

You're confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The two studies have nothing to do with each other. Once again, demonstrate you understand what you're talking about before you reject it out of hand.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you can submit a link that this will indeed be evidence on your side. I did some google search and didn't find it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

I think I found out where our real differences are, i.e. when I talk about evolution I am talking in the atheist sense, i.e. there is no God and all material must be generated physically in nature via some physical/chemical process that has be to repeatable and verifiable.

Again you show you do not know what evolution claims to be. Please summarize what you think the theory states.

In that sense germ theory is repeatable and verifiable, but evolution is not.

Nothing that you said above is relevant to this bizarre conclusion.

However if you narrow evolution to DNA mutation and natural selection, that is acceptable.

When was it something else??????

The problem is evolution is very broad, how excatly do you repeat a chimp to human event? The only way to do that is use a computer model, show the exact event of DNA sequence changes that is allowed by nature events, that eventually changed chimp DNA to human DNA, that we don't have.

We have evidence that it occurred.

EVOLUTION is observable and repeatable. CERTAIN EVENTS in the history of evolution have already occurred, leaving evidence. You can say that the evidence regarding human evolution is not compelling, but evolution still is occurring and is observable in organisms with shorter lifespans.

 

[dcalling]

Not interested in playing pigeon chess.

It is pretty straight forward, you either agree that a theory should be testable, repeatable and verifiable or not.

 

[dcalling]

This is a strawman. You don't understand evolution if you think this is how it works. Please demonstrate what you think evolution means and then ask appropriate questions.

Evolution: species change over time due to random DNA mutation, natural selection keeps the changes that can best adopt to the environment. I am simply asking do you have the repeatable verifiable experience that can show how a chimp (or anything related) evolve to human.

Then why is it in a museum and the research is peer reviewed? You can see the fossils for yourself and you can read the research. It was a verified prediction of what the fossil would look like and where it would be found. This prediction was made using the theory of evolution.

It is peer reviewed, and it is only given the possiblity that this is part of the evolution stage, by observation, not repeatable and not testable.

You haven't demonstrated that you know how scientific research works or what evolution is.
Can you describe what the genetic markers are? Do you know what telomeres and centromeres are?

genetic markers are DNA's without gene, and telmoerers and centromeres are unique chromosomal proteins, contains specific dna sequences. Now let's see do you know why they help genetic mapping?

Let's look at more genetic evidence. Of the 208,000 ERVs found in the human genome, only 84 aren't shared with chimps. Can you describe in your own words what endogenous retroviruses are? You have to demonstrate you understand the material you are rejecting out of hand.

This one is new to me, after reading from wiki, looks like ERVs are virus RNAs that got into our DNA and will keep replicating through our DNA. Likely once one of our ancestors got infected by this it will stay with us forever.

I didn't research if out of 208000 ERV we only share 84 with chimps, but correct me if I am wrong, isn't this shows that we and chimp are not related at all? else we will see much more sharing right?

You're confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The two studies have nothing to do with each other. Once again, demonstrate you understand what you're talking about before you reject it out of hand.

abiogenesis is required for a Godless evolution (from simplest materials to man). Do you agree?

 

[dcalling]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm

Out of the article: "Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists." It is most likely just DNA mutation within the allow parameters, nothing new is produced.

When was it something else??????

Maybe I extended my assumption. Do you think the evolution path from chimp to human is verifiable? Evolution certainly covers it right?

We have evidence that it occurred.

EVOLUTION is observable and repeatable. CERTAIN EVENTS in the history of evolution have already occurred, leaving evidence. You can say that the evidence regarding human evolution is not compelling, but evolution still is occurring and is observable in organisms with shorter lifespans.

The major thing is, are those events repeatable and testable? Does they cover all aspect of Evolution?