Faith.

[Nihilist Virus]

No, no, no. You still think abiogenesis is a part of evolution, and it's not. I don't see a point in discussing anything else with you as long as you still don't understand that concept.

I've tried the analogy where we don't know where gravity comes from, yet we have a theory of gravity that makes accurate predictions, and he's just not getting it.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I've tried the analogy where we don't know where gravity comes from, yet we have a theory of gravity that makes accurate predictions, and he's just not getting it.

He prefers to move the goalposts to abiogenesis whenever you show how the predictions of evolution are tested. Oh well, hopefully the posts here are beneficial to someone else.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

He prefers to move the goalposts to abiogenesis whenever you show how the predictions of evolution are tested. Oh well, hopefully the posts here are beneficial to someone else.

Yep.

 

[dcalling]

No, no, no. You still think abiogenesis is a part of evolution, and it's not. I don't see a point in discussing anything else with you as long as you still don't understand that concept.

He prefers to move the goalposts to abiogenesis whenever you show how the predictions of evolution are tested. Oh well, hopefully the posts here are beneficial to someone else.

Yep.

I will simplify this for you guys, hopefully this helps.

If you can't even shown how a single cell organism (note, a cell, life has already began, not abiogenesis) evolves to a multi-cell organism in a testable, repeatable and verifiable way, how can you claim ToE is a theory?

 

[Moral Orel]

I will simplify this for you guys, hopefully this helps.

If you can't even shown how a single cell organism (note, a cell, life has already began, not abiogenesis) evolves to a multi-cell organism in a testable, repeatable and verifiable way, how can you claim ToE is a theory?

That isn't what you said that I responded to. Be honest with me, and more importantly yourself, and we can continue talking.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I will simplify this for you guys, hopefully this helps.

If you can't even shown how a single cell organism (note, a cell, life has already began, not abiogenesis) evolves to a multi-cell organism in a testable, repeatable and verifiable way, how can you claim ToE is a theory?

OK, so you've made concessions and we find ourselves agreeing that evolution is not testable and repeatable on grand scales. It still has corroborating evidence across the board in fields like embryology, anatomy, genetics, and etc. Also, it continues to make accurate predictions about biology, such as the invention of a vaccine that is only predicted to function if we place a virus on the evolutionary tree.

What would you label a model of a phenomenon that is confirmed to exist and makes accurate predictions and yet is not testable on grand scales? Most importantly, even if it is not a theory, haven't we still shown it to be true? After all, that's still how evidence works and there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence.

 

[dcalling]

That isn't what you said that I responded to. Be honest with me, and more importantly yourself, and we can continue talking.

It does feel like you can't even answer the simple question. You can't find one example where anyone even repeated testing on a single cell evolved to multi-cell organism, yet you claim ToE is a theory.

Just look at what you guys countering with, i.e. all (or most) scientists agree on this, how to prove zillion exists, fossil observation. None meet the true scientific method of how a Theory should be proven, it is laughable. I can tell you I am honest with myself or you, are you doing the same?

 

[dcalling]

OK, so you've made concessions and we find ourselves agreeing that evolution is not testable and repeatable on grand scales. It still has corroborating evidence across the board in fields like embryology, anatomy, genetics, and etc. Also, it continues to make accurate predictions about biology, such as the invention of a vaccine that is only predicted to function if we place a virus on the evolutionary tree.

What would you label a model of a phenomenon that is confirmed to exist and makes accurate predictions and yet is not testable on grand scales? Most importantly, even if it is not a theory, haven't we still shown it to be true? After all, that's still how evidence works and there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence.

Well, at least you are been honest

You are right on the part that "evolution" is observed and tested on the very limited scale, that all living organisms are able to adopt to the environment in some limited way. As I said early, in software engineer terms this is called a configuration change, i.e. programs that pre-configured to handle certain situations by adjust per-configured parameters.

Once the change is out of the pre-configured parameters, the program will crash (i.e. when mutation happens, most are bad ones that result in different deformations of the host and the host usually dies).

What evolution was suggesting (The original book by Darwin, "On the Origin of Species"), is that those minor changes will gather and eventually result in something totally different, i.e. fish gradually evolve to have legs and then have wings. What I am countering with is, that could never happen, and if you look back on the fossil records, you see fish, then something with short legs that still looks like fish, etc, but you never see the in betweeners where the legs are very short, then gradually got longer, that fill the void between them (evolution should be gradual right?). All that strongly indicates creation, i.e. species were created, then the creator gradually improves upon them (or modify them to try out how the result will look like), the step are much bigger than a slow evolution as suggested by ToE.

 

[Hoghead1]

It does feel like you can't even answer the simple question. You can't find one example where anyone even repeated testing on a single cell evolved to multi-cell organism, yet you claim ToE is a theory.

Just look at what you guys countering with, i.e. all (or most) scientists agree on this, how to prove zillion exists, fossil observation. None meet the true scientific method of how a Theory should be proven, it is laughable. I can tell you I am honest with myself or you, are you doing the same?

Incorrect. Evolution is a central tenet in modern science because it does thoroughly meet the scientific requirements for testing. Just look at what you are countering with: You, as a lay person, present yourself as far more intelligent and far more insightful than all those scientists. That is about the epitome of hubris.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, at least you are been honest

You are right on the part that "evolution" is observed and tested on the very limited scale, that all living organisms are able to adopt to the environment in some limited way. As I said early, in software engineer terms this is called a configuration change, i.e. programs that pre-configured to handle certain situations by adjust per-configured parameters.

Once the change is out of the pre-configured parameters, the program will crash (i.e. when mutation happens, most are bad ones that result in different deformations of the host and the host usually dies).

What evolution was suggesting (The original book by Darwin, "On the Origin of Species"), is that those minor changes will gather and eventually result in something totally different, i.e. fish gradually evolve to have legs and then have wings. What I am countering with is, that could never happen, and if you look back on the fossil records, you see fish, then something with short legs that still looks like fish, etc, but you never see the in betweeners where the legs are very short, then gradually got longer, that fill the void between them (evolution should be gradual right?). All that strongly indicates creation, i.e. species were created, then the creator gradually improves upon them (or modify them to try out how the result will look like), the step are much bigger than a slow evolution as suggested by ToE.

Your claim is incorrect. There are many transitional creatures, in fact a video was posted on this very thread showing such creatures (post #292 by JonFromMinnesota on page 15). If you refuse to scroll back and look or if you find the video unacceptable for some reason, you have to do nothing more than a cursory search on YouTube and watch another informative video on transitional forms. If you are skeptical about the evidence supporting the existence of any particular organism, you can research the organism on your own (presuming the video maker provided the name). You can feel free to completely reject any video that does not provide the name of an asserted transitional form, or if you're inclined, you can message the video maker and ask for a name if this occurs. The evidence for evolution is utterly overwhelming if you actually take the time to look.

 

[Moral Orel]

It does feel like you can't even answer the simple question. You can't find one example where anyone even repeated testing on a single cell evolved to multi-cell organism, yet you claim ToE is a theory.

Just look at what you guys countering with, i.e. all (or most) scientists agree on this, how to prove zillion exists, fossil observation. None meet the true scientific method of how a Theory should be proven, it is laughable. I can tell you I am honest with myself or you, are you doing the same?

in fact you can't even show me how an RNA can be formed natrually

Abiogenesis.

how RNA can be formed naturally

Abiogenesis.

So how does evolution starts with abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis.
You then briefly came to your senses, but then:

No its not, I am simply showing you that you can't even prove the simpler/easier part, and you claim you can prove the more complex part.

And then right back to calling abiogenesis a part of evolution. Ergo, dishonest. Your error has been pointed out, and you refuse to acknowledge it and persist in claiming that they are parts of a whole theory. They are two distinct things not to be confused with each other.
Creationists frequently try to confuse abiogenesis and evolution because abiogenesis doesn't have the data to support it that evolution does, and then they claim evolution is false because abiogenesis can't be supported nearly as well. I believe that is what you are doing. You going back to it yet again supports my belief. Even if I am wrong, it is still inappropriate to bring it up in a discussion about evolution because abiogenesis is not a part of evolution.

I'll expand on why I brought up this:

how to prove zillion exists

When you can show me that you can learn from your mistakes. Until then, I see no reason to bother.

 

[dcalling]

Incorrect. Evolution is a central tenet in modern science because it does thoroughly meet the scientific requirements for testing. Just look at what you are countering with: You, as a lay person, present yourself as far more intelligent and far more insightful than all those scientists. That is about the epitome of hubris.

Show me how does it meet the scientific requirements for testing? Can you show me one example (not even the complex ones) where a single cell organism evolved to multi-cell organism in a testable, repeatable, verifiable way? If not, are you changing the requirement for science?

 

[dcalling]

Your claim is incorrect. There are many transitional creatures, in fact a video was posted on this very thread showing such creatures (post #292 by JonFromMinnesota on page 15). If you refuse to scroll back and look or if you find the video unacceptable for some reason, you have to do nothing more than a cursory search on YouTube and watch another informative video on transitional forms. If you are skeptical about the evidence supporting the existence of any particular organism, you can research the organism on your own (presuming the video maker provided the name). You can feel free to completely reject any video that does not provide the name of an asserted transitional form, or if you're inclined, you can message the video maker and ask for a name if this occurs. The evidence for evolution is utterly overwhelming if you actually take the time to look.

go over that video, show me an sequence of 10 birds that are similar enough and have the wings slowly grow from nothing to full length.

And not only that, why call ToE a theory, when it is not proven with scientific methods? It is a hypothesis at best, no matter how strong you feel the evidence is, if it can't be repeated, tested and verified.

 

[dcalling]

Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis.
When you can show me that you can learn from your mistakes. Until then, I see no reason to bother.

I am using abiogenesis to show you that you can't even proven the simpler things, and yet you claim you have proven the much more complex.

And you have never once answered my question, If you can't even shown how a single cell organism evolves to a multi-cell organism in a testable, repeatable and verifiable way, how can you claim ToE is a theory?

If you are really honest with yourself, answer the question

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Show me how does it meet the scientific requirements for testing?

Evolution is tested in multiple different ways. It can also make predictions. For example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than we do. The prediction can be made that one of our chromosomes is fused. If we don't find that, common ancestry is wrong. But that is exactly what we found. This is an example of test that could falsify evolution. But it only made the evidence stronger. Evolution also predicts a nested hierarchy. This is seen in the fossil record and then tested with comparing genomes and guess what...it falls into a nested hierarchy.

Can you show me one example (not even the complex ones)where a single cell organism evolved to multi-cell organism in a testable, repeatable, verifiable way?

Every single pregnancy. Are you denying that a single celled zygote won't become a fully grown human?

 

[dcalling]

Evolution is tested in multiple different ways. It can also make predictions. For example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than we do. The prediction can be made that one of our chromosomes is fused. If we don't find that, common ancestry is wrong. But that is exactly what we found. This is an example of test that could falsify evolution. But it only made the evidence stronger. Evolution also predicts a nested hierarchy. This is seen in the fossil record and then tested with comparing genomes and guess what...it falls into a nested hierarchy.

Without a repeatable testable way to show how DNA can be fused naturally, it could also mean the fuse is designed, else this is just an assumption. do you deny this?

Every single pregnancy. Are you denying that a single celled zygote won't become a fully grown human?

This is not a valid evolution test. The cell is already designed (or evolved) to split and form a human. The valid test scenario will be to show how a known singled celled organism that is not capable of became multiple celled organism EVOLVED to have this ability. You know full well of it. Nice try

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Without a repeatable testable way to show how DNA can be fused naturally, it could also mean the fuse is designed, else this is just an assumption. do you deny this?

It's incredible how much you move the goal posts and spout nonsense to hold onto your deeply held beliefs. There is no evidence that chromosome fusion is not natural.

Here is a scientific, peer reviewed paper of human chromosome fusion
Full Paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf
Abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.short

Just searching "Human chromosome fusion" into google scholar brought back over 1 million results of peer reviewed research. Just in 2016 there are over 6000 results. The top one is a paper about chromosome fusion events in the evolution of butterflies. This isn't unique to humans. Are you able to provide published research for intelligent design? No.....because it's nonsense.

The valid test scenario will be to show how a known singled celled organism that is not capable of became multiple celled organism EVOLVED to have this ability.

Simple. The mutation of a single gene in yeast can evolve in a multicellular organism. Also single celled alga was shown to evolve into multicellular in the lab. Both of these experiments were done by the same researchers.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24535-alga-takes-first-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity

Do you need some help lifting the goal posts that you will surely try to move again?

 

[Moral Orel]

I am using abiogenesis

Don't. That has nothing to do with the conversation. And that's where you err.

 

[dcalling]

Don't. That has nothing to do with the conversation. And that's where you err.

I can confirm abiogenesis is separate from evolution, so we don't even know life starts (simpler) and yet you claim to know how life evolves (complex).

Just answer this question, If you can't even shown how a single cell organism evolves to a multi-cell organism in a testable, repeatable and verifiable way, how can you claim ToE is a theory?

 

[dcalling]

Simple. The mutation of a single gene in yeast can evolve in a multicellular organism. Also single celled alga was shown to evolve into multicellular in the lab. Both of these experiments were done by the same researchers.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24535-alga-takes-first-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity

Do you need some help lifting the goal posts that you will surely try to move again?

Read this from your link:

"To the researchers’ surprise, these clusters – the first step towards true multicellularity ..."

That means those are not multi-cell organisms, they are just clusters, and they break apart quickly as in the article. If they really evolve to different organisms, there must be new DNA, and that will be ground breaking, but no, nothing is noted, no new DNA is found, and it can only mean one thing, the cells themselves might be "sticky" in some way and they can stick together, that is it, nothing is evolved.

My Goal post has been the same to you and to everyone else for many posts now. Just answer this question, If you can't even shown how a single cell organism evolves to a multi-cell organism in a testable, repeatable and verifiable way, how can you claim ToE is a theory?