Faith.

[Moral Orel]

LOL your "can't prove a zillion" analogy is a complete fail, I have no idea why you can't even see that.

Only because I didn't finish explaining it. You went back to arguing for the appropriateness of using abiogenesis in your argument, so I stopped.

I will avoid any other unrelated topic to prevent you from side track again.

Is that what you consider admitting a mistake? Accusing me of getting sidetracked because you repeatedly brought up an irrelevant subject? If you don't think you've made a mistake, then we haven't gotten past the point of you thinking that abiogenesis is related to evolution. So please, explain why you think these two different theories are related any more than say, evolution and atomic theory.

 

[dcalling]

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.

Something can only be a theory if it is scientificly proven, that is been testable, repeatable and verifiable, just a lot of evidences only makes something a hypthosis, which is what I said all alone about ToE.

 

[dcalling]

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

I know you don't control DNA mutation. However it is another totally different matter to observe DNA mutation in a lab. if the mutation from some common DNA can happen naturally to both human and chimp DNA, each of those steps should be observable in some lab in a repeatable, testable way.

I don't understand which part you don't understand this.

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.

I already asked you the question, if there is no DNA change in those cells, their ability to form a group is not evolved, it is just some preciously not observed behavior. Why is it so hard to understand? They didn't evolvo to anything new, they just stick in certain contains which we have not observed before.

I never said this. Don't lie.

Here is your first sentense "You're asking this as if I can control how DNA mutates. This is incomprehensible nonsense and shows that you are scientifically illiterate." I take that means it is too complex to do.

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.

So ToE is not a theory but a hypthoesis?

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.

NO. Why did you fail to understand me? It does not need a million years. Show me a computer model of how a given DNA and its mutation permutations in a naturally possibly way. There will be a lot, but our computers will be powerful to crunch those, as long as we are advanced enough to have a model.

 

[bhsmte]

Something can only be a theory if it is scientificly proven, that is been testable, repeatable and verifiable, just a lot of evidences only makes something a hypthosis, which is what I said all alone about ToE.

Clearly, if you use the term "proven" you know very little about science.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

However it is another totally different matter to observe DNA mutation in a lab.

You really think genetic mutation hasn't been observed in a lab? Do you know how we know it's random? Because of repeatable experiments. The Luria-Delbruck experiment won a Nobel Prize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment
Paper: http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/l/slmd-43.pdf

They didn't evolvo to anything new

Define what you mean by new. This will demonstrate to me whether you understand evolution or not.

Here is your first sentense "You're asking this as if I can control how DNA mutates. This is incomprehensible nonsense and shows that you are scientifically illiterate." I take that means it is too complex to do.

Twisting my words to mean what you want them to mean. This is more dishonest behavior.

So ToE is not a theory but a hypthoesis?

Science doesn't deal in proofs. Only math does. This was explained to you before by more than one poster. Repeating your mistake makes you dishonest.

Show me a computer model of how a given DNA and its mutation permutations in a naturally possibly way.

I can provide this for you. However, i'm going to see if you'll do the research yourself. You've demonstrated that no evidence will convince you because you have to hold onto your deeply held beliefs.

Start here: https://scholar.google.com/ and report back. Demonstrate to us you are even interested in having this conversation.

 

[dcalling]

You really think genetic mutation hasn't been observed in a lab? Do you know how we know it's random? Because of repeatable experiments. The Luria-Delbruck experiment won a Nobel Prize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luria–Delbrück_experiment
Paper: http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/l/slmd-43.pdf

All that observed is micro changes, did we ever able to observe one species changed to another species in a lab? If not, how could you claim the board claim of ToE is true?

Define what you mean by new. This will demonstrate to me whether you understand evolution or not.

I already said again and again, did they test the culture to see if new DNA is present? if not, how can they claim anything is evolved?

Twisting my words to mean what you want them to mean. This is more dishonest behavior.

I quoted your directly.

Science doesn't deal in proofs. Only math does. This was explained to you before by more than one poster. Repeating your mistake makes you dishonest.

I know, what I mean by proof is they have to be repeatable, testable and verifiable, even though the model could be totally wrong.

I can provide this for you. However, i'm going to see if you'll do the research yourself. You've demonstrated that no evidence will convince you because you have to hold onto your deeply held beliefs.

Start here: https://scholar.google.com/ and report back. Demonstrate to us you are even interested in having this conversation.

I found this, however the link expired a long time ago, else I bet if you check out the source code, it is using some much simplified model istead of a real life mode, because the real life model is too complex to be modeled at this point.
Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees

 

[dcalling]

Clearly, if you use the term "proven" you know very little about science.

When I say proven, I mean it has to be testable, verifiable and repeatable.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

All that observed is micro changes, did we ever able to observe one species changed to another species in a lab?

And there it is. You don't understand evolution at all. Evolution takes places in populations NOT individuals. We cannot go any further until you understand the subject you are arguing against.

 

[bhsmte]

And there it is. You don't understand evolution at all. Evolution takes places in populations NOT individuals. We cannot go any further until you understand the subject you are arguing against.

Exactly!!

He keeps exposing, that he does not understand the TOE and has constructed his own strawman version of it.

 

[Hoghead1]

All that observed is micro changes, did we ever able to observe one species changed to another species in a lab? If not, how could you claim the board claim of ToE is true?



I already said again and again, did they test the culture to see if new DNA is present? if not, how can they claim anything is evolved?



I quoted your directly.



I know, what I mean by proof is they have to be repeatable, testable and verifiable, even though the model could be totally wrong.



I found this, however the link expired a long time ago, else I bet if you check out the source code, it is using some much simplified model istead of a real life mode, because the real life model is too complex to be modeled at this point.
Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees

Yes, "macro-evolution" has been observed in the lab, with bacteria.

 

[dcalling]

Yes, "macro-evolution" has been observed in the lab, with bacteria.

We do observe DNA can mutate to a certain degree, but have we able to repeatly test/verify that things can mutate to totally different species? How about from single cell organism to multi cell organism?

 

[dcalling]

And there it is. You don't understand evolution at all. Evolution takes places in populations NOT individuals. We cannot go any further until you understand the subject you are arguing against.

So the question I asked is "All that observed is micro changes, did we ever able to observe one species changed to another species in a lab?"

The changes does happen in individuals. The hypothesis is that some individuals in the population mutate to some degree, and the ones with good (can fit the environment better) mutations survive the natural selection.

So when the environment is favorable, we should see germs/cells etc mutate to all different flavors, and yet today, the longest running germ experiment after 60k generations is no new species. What does that say to you? What that confirm about my first statement?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So the question I asked is "All that observed is micro changes, did we ever able to observe one species changed to another species in a lab?"

Yes. The easiest organism to use in the lab is fruit flies. There are over 1500 species of fruit flies that are very diverse in appearance, behavior and breeding habit. And before you say the same old PRATT "But it's still a fruit fly" you should understand that every organism ever born was the same species as its parents. Evolution takes place in populations over generations.

The hypothesis is that some individuals in the population mutate to some degree, and the ones with good (can fit the environment better) mutations survive the natural selection.

This isn't a hypothesis, it's an observed fact.

What does that say to you?

That you don't understand evolution. Remember that text book I linked to you earlier? You should buy it, read it and understand it. It will go a long way in helping you stop using an argument from incredulity fallacy.

 

[dcalling]

Yes. The easiest organism to use in the lab is fruit flies. There are over 1500 species of fruit flies that are very diverse in appearance, behavior and breeding habit. And before you say the same old PRATT "But it's still a fruit fly" you should understand that every organism ever born was the same species as its parents. Evolution takes place in populations over generations.

They are still fruit flies, they didn't became different species, and you observed it excatly right. If you can't even show me how we have tested, repeated and verified how a single cell evolves to multi cell organism, how can you claim anything else? Never mind that you keep avoid the question about how come we can't show the DNA mutation pass from one DNA to both human and chimp, yet we claim human and chimp are from a common ancestor by observation alone, with out repeatable, verifiable and testable part.

That you don't understand evolution. Remember that text book I linked to you earlier? You should buy it, read it and understand it. It will go a long way in helping you stop using an argument from incredulity fallacy.

LOL you keep telling me that I don't understand evolution. You can't even answer the question, after 60k generations no new species is produced by the long term e.coli test, and you still claim we have repeated, tested and verified on evolution of WHAT? If you really know why don't you just answer the question instead of avoiding them? Have you even thought about this before?

 

[Hoghead1]

They are still fruit flies, they didn't became different species, and you observed it excatly right. If you can't even show me how we have tested, repeated and verified how a single cell evolves to multi cell organism, how can you claim anything else? Never mind that you keep avoid the question about how come we can't show the DNA mutation pass from one DNA to both human and chimp, yet we claim human and chimp are from a common ancestor by observation alone, with out repeatable, verifiable and testable part.



LOL you keep telling me that I don't understand evolution. You can't even answer the question, after 60k generations no new species is produced by the long term e.coli test, and you still claim we have repeated, tested and verified on evolution of WHAT? If you really know why don't you just answer the question instead of avoiding them? Have you even thought about this before?

He's right, you know. No, you don't understand evolution. It has been demonstrated in the lab with bacteria. There is no doubt about that. Frankly speaking, observations in nature are in many ways superior to the lab, as one is in the real world. There is plenty of evidence out there. Also, you and others keep harping on wanting to see evidence either "lifeless" matter or some sort of primordial soup produces life, yet you hold up teh Bible and say God created the first man out of mud or dust. Now, isn't that just as weird as life coming from some primordial soup? I sure think so. Now, where is your evidence here? Stop pointing the finger at the other guy and look to your own position. Judge not, that you be not judged. Frankly, I think Gen. 2 is a great metaphor for evolution, for God creating out of a primordial soup.

 

[dcalling]

He's right, you know. No, you don't understand evolution. It has been demonstrated in the lab with bacteria. There is no doubt about that. Frankly speaking, observations in nature are in many ways superior to the lab, as one is in the real world. There is plenty of evidence out there. Also, you and others keep harping on wanting to see evidence either "lifeless" matter or some sort of primordial soup produces life, yet you hold up teh Bible and say God created the first man out of mud or dust. Now, isn't that just as weird as life coming from some primordial soup? I sure think so. Now, where is your evidence here? Stop pointing the finger at the other guy and look to your own position. Judge not, that you be not judged. Frankly, I think Gen. 2 is a great metaphor for evolution, for God creating out of a primordial soup.

Hi Hoghead,

the part has been observed is those bacteria change, but they never change to other species.

Real science requires things to be testable, repeatable and verifiable. It is one thing to do this for small mutations (or what we can parameter changes/small refactors in the software world), and totally another for big steps, and so far there is NO evidence of new species able to mutate from old ones. It is my hypothesis that this kind of jumps will not be able to do naturally.

Just an example, the longest running evolution germ test, e.coli evolution, after 60k generations, the only thing new is some germs are able to digest some new acid, but that is it, nothing new is evolved, they are still e.coli. Until we can at least repeat/test/verify (which we have done nothing) on those big changes, ToE can't be claimed as theory, but hypothesis.

Please let me know which part of what I said is wrong, or if you have evidences otherwise. All our claims has to be either based on repeatable/testable/verifiable facts or faith, right? If something is not repeatable, testable, verifiable and someone believes in it, it is called a faith, be if it is the Bible or ToE.

 

[Hoghead1]

Hi Hoghead,

the part has been observed is those bacteria change, but they never change to other species.

Real science requires things to be testable, repeatable and verifiable. It is one thing to do this for small mutations (or what we can parameter changes/small refactors in the software world), and totally another for big steps, and so far there is NO evidence of new species able to mutate from old ones. It is my hypothesis that this kind of jumps will not be able to do naturally.

Just an example, the longest running evolution germ test, e.coli evolution, after 60k generations, the only thing new is some germs are able to digest some new acid, but that is it, nothing new is evolved, they are still e.coli. Until we can at least repeat/test/verify (which we have done nothing) on those big changes, ToE can't be claimed as theory, but hypothesis.

Please let me know which part of what I said is wrong, or if you have evidences otherwise. All our claims has to be either based on repeatable/testable/verifiable facts or faith, right? If something is not repeatable, testable, verifiable and someone believes in it, it is called a faith, be if it is the Bible or ToE.

Yes, they did change into another species of bacteria.

 

[dcalling]

Yes, they did change into another species of bacteria.

LOL why did you say that? Is white man another species of human? Or is eskimos another species of human because they can produce certain vitemins by themselves? They didn't change into another species, they are still e.cloi.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Is white man another species of human? Or is eskimos another species of human because they can produce certain vitemins by themselves?

You don't understand evolution and you make it so blatantly obvious. No, they are not separate species because we are still able to produce fertile offspring. You don't even know the most basic definition of a species.

They didn't change into another species, they are still e.cloi.

And a cheetah is still a cat. You should really open a book instead of being proud of your ignorance.

 

[dcalling]

You don't understand evolution and you make it so blatantly obvious. No, they are not separate species because we are still able to produce fertile offspring. You don't even know the most basic definition of a species.

And a cheetah is still a cat. You should really open a book instead of being proud of your ignorance.

I used the example to answer his question, after 60K generations e.coli still looks like e.coli, acts as e.coli, some of them are able to digest some acid, nothing special, i.e. they didn't mutate to be multi-cell, they didn't mutate to became anything else, and in fact their evolution seems to not going anywhere, with 60k evolution in a favorable environment.

It is a very strong evidence, that some gene sequences can only mutate to certain permutations of themselves, and once the allowed natural permutation is done, they can't became anything new.

And I kept calling on evidences, that repeatable, testable, verifiable evidences that some common DNA can mutate to both human and chimp DNA, or some single cell organism can evolve to multi-cell organism, and yet there is NONE.