Faith.

[Moral Orel]

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).

Ahh, but see you have it backwards. That's how you sneak abiogenesis into your argument. How life starts isn't simpler, that's why we don't have as much data to support it. How life evolves can be seen on the small scale right in the lab, which makes it much simpler. You just want to make the hard-to-show thing the simple thing, and the easy-to-show thing the complex thing. You're confusing simple life forms with it being a simple process, and complex life forms with it being a complex process.

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?

One thing at a time. Once you can understand how dishonest it is to talk about abiogenesis in this conversation, we can move on to something else. But as long as you want to keep talking about abiogenesis, and as long as you can't acknowledge your mistake, that's what we'll keep discussing.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

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.

I should have suspected you would quote mine. You've been nothing but dishonest throughout the entire thread. The clusters are the first step towards multicellularity. You conveniently left out the results of these clusters.....they divided into multicellular colonies.

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?

I provided you two studies that demonstrated that multicellularity is not a difficult evolutionary step. This is a repeatable test. You of course had to dishonestly quote mine and it was a hilariously bad attempt at that.

You can be shown thousands upon thousands of experiments explaining the facts of evolution and you'll continue to dishonestly move the goal posts and apparently you're willing to quote mine too. I'm starting to think you're a POE.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

Why pick on birds? The video specifically stated there are so many different organisms that it would be best to focus purely on one thing, and they specifically said they would focus on DOLPHINS. Yet you are not satisfied because they didn't give a comprehensive background on birds.

 

[dcalling]

Ahh, but see you have it backwards. That's how you sneak abiogenesis into your argument. How life starts isn't simpler, that's why we don't have as much data to support it. How life evolves can be seen on the small scale right in the lab, which makes it much simpler. You just want to make the hard-to-show thing the simple thing, and the easy-to-show thing the complex thing. You're confusing simple life forms with it being a simple process, and complex life forms with it being a complex process.

That part we disagree. Abiogenesis has to be simpler, because it is simple chemistry to construct the first RNA. The starting point is always the simplest, if you can't write hello world, you can't do multitier apps. If you want to study how electronic works, do you start with a simple 1 stage radio or from a color TV?
Edit: We can ignore this topic if you want to focus on evolution.

One thing at a time. Once you can understand how dishonest it is to talk about abiogenesis in this conversation, we can move on to something else. But as long as you want to keep talking about abiogenesis, and as long as you can't acknowledge your mistake, that's what we'll keep discussing.

Is this really your defense? For the past 10+ posts I am not even talking about abiogenesis any more, did I press you on how abiogenesis works in the last 10 post??

All I am asking is, 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?

Edit: Hold on I need to take a look at John's example again. He might got what you needed.

 

[dcalling]

I should have suspected you would quote mine. You've been nothing but dishonest throughout the entire thread. The clusters are the first step towards multicellularity. You conveniently left out the results of these clusters.....they divided into multicellular colonies.

I provided you two studies that demonstrated that multicellularity is not a difficult evolutionary step. This is a repeatable test. You of course had to dishonestly quote mine and it was a hilariously bad attempt at that.

You can be shown thousands upon thousands of experiments explaining the facts of evolution and you'll continue to dishonestly move the goal posts and apparently you're willing to quote mine too. I'm starting to think you're a POE.

I totally missed the second part, so that is my fault.

However the question stands, why is there no DNA analysts? If the DNA didn't change, then the multicellular behavior is not evolved, it is existing (since nothing is evolved), and it can be viewed as they simply found a previous unseen behavior of the cell.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I totally missed the second part, so that is my fault.

How could you miss it? It was literally the next sentence. That tells me you are extremely lazy and intentionally being dishonest when evaluating evidence sent to you.

However the question stands, why is there no DNA analysts? If the DNA didn't change, then the multicellular behavior is not evolved, it is existing (since nothing is evolved), and it can be viewed as they simply found a previous unseen behavior of the cell.

Here you go again, moving the goal posts. It's quite clear you aren't interested in having an honest discussion. You've demonstrated yourself to be extremely dishonest throughout this thread. You've quote minded and moved the goal posts repeatedly.

 

[Moral Orel]

That part we disagree. Abiogenesis has to be simpler, because it is simple chemistry to construct the first RNA.

No, actually, it isn't simple chemistry. We can't simply take the ingredients of DNA, mix them up in a vial and *poof* create life. It's also very difficult to know the precise ingredients that would have been present when life started. This means the first ingredients of life, such as RNA, as well as the surrounding ingredients that would have interacted with them to cause them to form the way they did.

Evolution on the other hand is very simple. DNA makes a mistake when it copies itself, just by a little bit. If it is beneficial, then that creature is more likely to have offspring than other creatures without that benefit. See? Simple explanation.

For the past 10+ posts I am not even talking about abiogenesis any more,

That's where you're being dishonest. You have mentioned abiogenesis repeatedly throughout most of the posts that I have replied to. I've already done a post that listed a few of them for you to see. In fact, I am responding to a post right now that you defended your use of abiogenesis in, and that was in response to the post directly before that that you brought up abiogenesis again. So don't tell fibs that you haven't brought abiogenesis into the conversation on numerous occasions and in recent post history. Own your mistakes.

Is this really your defense?

It isn't a defense of evolution to point out your dishonesty. I'm just letting you know that this ain't my first rodeo. I know the tricks and gimmicks. That's why the very first post I made stated a generality about creationists (which turned out to be totally true in this case) because I know exactly how this faulty argument goes, and that's exactly where it went.

 

[dcalling]

Here you go again, moving the goal posts. It's quite clear you aren't interested in having an honest discussion. You've demonstrated yourself to be extremely dishonest throughout this thread. You've quote minded and moved the goal posts repeatedly.

I am just trying to make it simple. At first I asked if you could construct a RNA, and you guys all said that is abigenesis, so I stopped that, and asked if anyone could provide a common DNA that can mutate naturally to both human and chimp DNA. No answer, (or the answer is that will take too long, count to a zillion, all the scientist agreed, or I am a liar). So I am trying to make it simpler again, just show how a single cell organism can mutate to multi-cell organism. If you want to call that dishonest, that is your standard.

 

[dcalling]

No, actually, it isn't simple chemistry. We can't simply take the ingredients of DNA, mix them up in a vial and *poof* create life. It's also very difficult to know the precise ingredients that would have been present when life started. This means the first ingredients of life, such as RNA, as well as the surrounding ingredients that would have interacted with them to cause them to form the way they did.

Of course it is chemistry, the ingredients alone with other variables (temperature etc). If it is not chemical reactions that combined all the elements together, what else can it be? Unless you want to attribute it to God.

Evolution on the other hand is very simple. DNA makes a mistake when it copies itself, just by a little bit. If it is beneficial, then that creature is more likely to have offspring than other creatures without that benefit. See? Simple explanation.

It is very easy to say "makes mistake little by little", the actual process is much more complex. Have you ever seen how a cell works? it is much more complex than any super computer we have. Has anyone actually proven that when the "little" changes accumulate together, there is a path to something totally different? So far the longest running evolution test says no.

That's where you're being dishonest. You have mentioned abiogenesis repeatedly throughout most of the posts that I have replied to. I've already done a post that listed a few of them for you to see. In fact, I am responding to a post right now that you defended your use of abiogenesis in, and that was in response to the post directly before that that you brought up abiogenesis again. So don't tell fibs that you haven't brought abiogenesis into the conversation on numerous occasions and in recent post history. Own your mistakes.

It isn't a defense of evolution to point out your dishonesty. I'm just letting you know that this ain't my first rodeo. I know the tricks and gimmicks. That's why the very first post I made stated a generality about creationists (which turned out to be totally true in this case) because I know exactly how this faulty argument goes, and that's exactly where it went.

You know full well what I mean, I stopped to use abiogenesis to disapprove evolution a long post ago. The only reason I have to mention it is because you guys keep bring it up. Did you see in any previous post I try to use abiogenesis to disapprove evolution? I am asking simple questions on evoltuion and so far only one was able to provide some actual counter.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

so I stopped that, and asked if anyone could provide a common DNA that can mutate naturally to both human and chimp DNA.

And you were asked to clarify what you were looking for because this is a nonsensical request. The question you are asking is incomprehensible nonsense. You were shown multiple DNA studies that demonstrates common ancestry. You just kept moving the goal posts because you are dishonest.

just show how a single cell organism can mutate to multi-cell organism. If you want to call that dishonest, that is your standard.

Two separate studies that demonstrated this was shown to you and what did you do? Quote mined. I'm not calling you dishonest for asking a question, I am calling you dishonest because you intentionally quote mined the study thinking I wouldn't notice and then had to back track when I called you out on it. Unless you want to acknowledge your dishonesty, this discussion goes no further. You have demonstrated you are a time waster, lazy and dishonest. Would you like to correct these and try to start over or should we end the discussion?

 

[dcalling]

And you were asked to clarify what you were looking for because this is a nonsensical request. The question you are asking is incomprehensible nonsense. You were shown multiple DNA studies that demonstrates common ancestry. You just kept moving the goal posts because you are dishonest.

Why is that nonsense? If you can't show how a common DNA can mutate naturally to both human and chimp, you have no real proof. I am not sure if you are just been dishonest or just don't believe in scientific methods, if you can't repeat a test of mutate some common set of DNA to both human and chimp, you have not proven humans and chimp have common root. It is like looking 2 guys and stating they must be brothers because they look alike. You don't see that?

Two separate studies that demonstrated this was shown to you and what did you do? Quote mined. I'm not calling you dishonest for asking a question, I am calling you dishonest because you intentionally quote mined the study thinking I wouldn't notice and then had to back track when I called you out on it. Unless you want to acknowledge your dishonesty, this discussion goes no further. You have demonstrated you are a time waster, lazy and dishonest. Would you like to correct these and try to start over or should we end the discussion?

I already said I missed the second quote, you can call me anything on that, it did happen. However you will not (or find yourself unable?) answer any of my questions.

If there is no DNA change, what is evolved? It simply means they find a new beheavor/property of the cell that was not observed before, if the DNA did not change, the cell didn't evolve. I have admited my mistakes, do you have the curtsy to either admit your mistake or present your evidence?

Edit: Also I admit I am lazy, I make mistakes. But truth is the truth, even when presented by someone who is lazy, making mistakes.

 

[dcalling]

Why pick on birds? The video specifically stated there are so many different organisms that it would be best to focus purely on one thing, and they specifically said they would focus on DOLPHINS. Yet you are not satisfied because they didn't give a comprehensive background on birds.

The reason I picked birds is because that is the first thing come to my mind. What about dolphins? Please summarize here.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Why is that nonsense?

Your question is phrased in a nonsensical way. Please describe in detail what would be satisfactory to you? You've demonstrated multiple times you don't know how to comprehend scientific evidence.

If you can't show how a common DNA can mutate naturally to both human and chimp, you have no real proof

The evidence for common ancestry demonstrated by DNA analysis has been shown to you countless times. ERVs, human chromosome 2 and a close analysis comparing genomes, humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA. These are irrefutable facts. You can do as many mental back flips as you want to try to make these facts go away....they will still be facts.

You know what else is evidence for common ancestry? The hominid fossil record. It falls into a perfect nested hierarchy and this test is REPEATED when we compare the genomes and guess what......nested hierarchy.

if you can't repeat a test of mutate some common set of DNA to both human and chimp, you have not proven humans and chimp have common root.

More incomprehensible nonsense. What on earth are you even asking here? How would one repeat a test of mutations for millions of generations? Genetic mutations are RANDOM. You don't understand evolution. You need to open up a biology textbook. Read it and then come back with questions: http://www.amazon.com/Miller-Levine...qid=1461814998&sr=8-1&keywords=miller+biology

 

[Moral Orel]

You know full well what I mean

True. I know what you really mean to do, and you've stated as much to let me know I've been right all along.

I stopped to use abiogenesis

False. I have only responded to posts that you talk about abiogenesis either by asking for its proof or by defending its use in this conversation. The one time I didn't was when I began examining what kind of proof you were looking for with the analogy of "a zillion", but you went right back to abiogenesis and now here we are.

We are at a point now that you're going to need to admit that all the talk you have started about an unrelated field of study was irrelevant to the topic at hand so that we can all see it is even possible for you to admit when you make a mistake. Short of that this entire conversation is nothing more than a dishonest attempt at imposing ignorance as argument.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The reason I picked birds is because that is the first thing come to my mind. What about dolphins? Please summarize here.

If you are commenting on a video, the first thing that comes to mind is not necessarily relevant. I don't care if the first thing you thought of was birds because you were responding to a video about dolphins. I think you didn't even watch the video and won't, even if I go through the effort of finding it again for you. Furthermore, you refuse to tell me what you would label a model that regularly makes accurate predictions and has confirming evidence yet cannot be observed on a grand scale. Unless you address everything in this post, which entails watching the video and limiting your criticism of it to the things it addresses, we're simply done. You've got plenty of other atheists to grapple with on this thread so you probably won't be missing me.

 

[dcalling]

True. I know what you really mean to do, and you've stated as much to let me know I've been right all along.

False. I have only responded to posts that you talk about abiogenesis either by asking for its proof or by defending its use in this conversation. The one time I didn't was when I began examining what kind of proof you were looking for with the analogy of "a zillion", but you went right back to abiogenesis and now here we are.

We are at a point now that you're going to need to admit that all the talk you have started about an unrelated field of study was irrelevant to the topic at hand so that we can all see it is even possible for you to admit when you make a mistake. Short of that this entire conversation is nothing more than a dishonest attempt at imposing ignorance as argument.

LOL your "can't prove a zillion" analogy is a complete fail, I have no idea why you can't even see that. I will avoid any other unrelated topic to prevent you from side track again. If you can't find a way to show how a single cell organism evolved to be multicultural organisms, how do you claim ToE is a theory?

 

[dcalling]

If you are commenting on a video, the first thing that comes to mind is not necessarily relevant. I don't care if the first thing you thought of was birds because you were responding to a video about dolphins. I think you didn't even watch the video and won't, even if I go through the effort of finding it again for you. Furthermore, you refuse to tell me what you would label a model that regularly makes accurate predictions and has confirming evidence yet cannot be observed on a grand scale. Unless you address everything in this post, which entails watching the video and limiting your criticism of it to the things it addresses, we're simply done. You've got plenty of other atheists to grapple with on this thread so you probably won't be missing me.

It does not matter, even if you have a machine that regularly predicts something, doesn't mean the model is always right. Look at how we proof geometry laws in highschool, does it do proof by saying "look there a million evidences and it must be right"? No, it proof it step by step so that it covers all possible permutations.

 

[dcalling]

Your question is phrased in a nonsensical way. Please describe in detail what would be satisfactory to you? You've demonstrated multiple times you don't know how to comprehend scientific evidence.

I already said it again, show me how to mutate some DNA to both human and chimp DNA naturally, or if that is too complex, show me how a single cell organism EVOLVES to multiple cell organism.

More incomprehensible nonsense. What on earth are you even asking here? How would one repeat a test of mutations for millions of generations? Genetic mutations are RANDOM. You don't understand evolution. You need to open up a biology textbook. Read it and then come back with questions: http://www.amazon.com/Miller-Levine...qid=1461814998&sr=8-1&keywords=miller+biology

Is this how you do proof? "I can't do this because it is too complex"??!! Are you serious? Do you even know what been scientific means?

Mutations are random, but if ToE is true, you should be able to find some common DNA that can mutate naturally to both human and chimp DNA right? Can you understand what am I asking? some common DNA by random mutation should be able to mutate to both human and chimp DNA. Yes there are a lot of possiblities, very complex, but you should be able to prove it by showing at least one of the paths assuming there is one.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I already said it again, show me how to mutate some DNA to both human and chimp DNA naturally

You're asking this as if I can control how DNA mutates. This is incomprehensible nonsense and shows that you are scientifically illiterate.

or if that is too complex, show me how a single cell organism EVOLVES to multiple cell organism.

Already cited two studies for you. You quote mined one of them and then claimed you missed the next part even though it was the very next sentence. You know this as I have already pointed it out to you several times. At this point you're a liar.

Is this how you do proof? "I can't do this because it is too complex"??!! Do you even know what been scientific means?

I never said this. Don't lie.

Do you even know what been scientific means?

I do. Science doesn't try to prove anything. This was mentioned to you during this thread but you've clearly ignored that and doubled down. This again, makes you dishonest.

some common DNA by random mutation should be able to mutate to both human and chimp DNA.

Are you saying you want millions of years of evolutionary history to repeat itself exactly the same in front of your eyes? Evolution does NOT have a goal in mind. We are just a result of evolution. You seriously need to buy that biology textbook I linked you or go sit in on an intro to biology lecture at your local university. I urge you to do this because you clearly have a severe lack of knowledge when it comes to how science is done and how to evaluate evidence. You should be pursuing knowledge and not spouting nonsense.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It does not matter, even if you have a machine that regularly predicts something, doesn't mean the model is always right. Look at how we proof geometry laws in highschool, does it do proof by saying "look there a million evidences and it must be right"? No, it proof it step by step so that it covers all possible permutations.

There are no proofs in science. Proofs are only in math and logic. There is no proof for evolution; there are only demonstrations and abundances of evidence. You don't know what you're talking about and you showed no interest in what I had to say. I'm kicking the dust off my feet and moving on. Bye.