The watchmaker

[nPeace]

It was rather clear. If you did not understand you should have asked questions.

First off it might help if you understood what scientific evidence is in the first place. The concept is simple, scientific evidence is an observation that supports a scientific theory or hypothesis. That all life uses DNA and RNA is evidence for common descent since there are other possible means of passing on genetic traits. If life arose twice we might see two different methods. Three times, there could be three different methods.

Also in the same vein there is the chirality of life's amino acids and sugars.

It has now become even more vague.
All you did was add one vague statement onto another... twice.
So now there are three vague statements.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has now become even more vague.
All you did was add one vague statement onto another... twice.
So now there are three vague statements.

What was "vague"? Instead of making false claims you should be asking questions. It would help if you could realize that you are wrong. Then you might have a chance to learn instead of erecting a defensive wall of cognitive dissonance every time you run into facts that you do not like.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

You find a watch on a deserted beach. You pick it up, and notice all the intricate parts. That's an interesting watch...

The watch is meaningless. The beach is meaningless. The concept of time is meaningless. This post is meaningless. Yet here I am writing it. I guess that's humanity for ya. Always trying to find meaning when there is none.

 

[nPeace]

What was "vague"? Instead of making false claims you should be asking questions. It would help if you could realize that you are wrong. Then you might have a chance to learn instead of erecting a defensive wall of cognitive dissonance every time you run into facts that you do not like.

I'm not speaking Dutch SZ. You do understand what vague means, don't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not speaking Dutch SZ. You do understand what vague means, don't you?

Yes, it means that you are bearing false witness against your neighbor again.


What part did you not understand? What part will you not let yourself understand?

 

[Jose Fly]

I am still here. I have gone nowhere.
I see no point in someone repeating something over and over.
It seemed to me, a way to avoid answering my question and just pushing yours.
After a while I simply ignore, but I have gone nowhere.
Deal with me as you want me to deal with you, is all I ask.

If I answer your questions, answer mine.
Don't come back and repeat a question, and ignore mine.
That's what you did.

Ok, this is just bizarre. I don't know why you creationists try to pull stuff like this when everything is simply a matter of record.

Post #330 is where you and I started in this thread. As we can see, that was where I asked you to back up your claim that you can "easily disprove evolutionary theory".

In Post #333 you dodged, made more empty assertions, and challenged me to provide evidence.

In Post #335 I pointed out your evasion and again asked you to "easily disprove evolutionary theory" as you'd claimed.

In Post #336 you again dodged and claimed that we all knew your assertion was true.

In Post #337 I again noted your dodging and again asked you to back up your claim.

In Post #338 you bizarrely claimed you'd already done so, but didn't say where or what that disproof was.

In Post #339 I asked where you had done what you claimed.

In Post #340 you implied that I'd missed it (but still didn't say where or what this disproof was) and accused me of badgering you.

In Post #344 I again noted your dodging and asked you to show where you'd disproven evolutionary theory.

In Post #345 you claimed you'd already answered, but again didn't say where or what that answer was.

In Post #347 I summed up your evasion.

In Post #349 you linked back to your Post #333 and asked what I understood it to be.

In Post #351 I described #333 as a series of empty assertions and asked if that post constituted your disproof of evolutionary theory.

In Post #353 you didn't answer and asked why I keep questioning you.

In Post #355 I answered that I wanted you to stop acting like a guilty defendant on the stand, and just answer questions and back up your claim ("easily disproving evolutionary theory").

In Post #356 you dodged again and accused me of distracting.

In Post #357 I pointed out that you failed to back up your claims.

In Post #359 you bizarrely asked how I would know if all I read were assumptions.

In Post #360 I pointed to the record and noted that you had failed to back up your claim of being able to "easily disprove evolutionary theory" and also failed to back up your claim that you had already done so.

In Post #361 you ended the exchange.

Then we began our discussion of transitional fossils, with me asking you over and over and over and over to simply give your definition of "transitional fossil" and you dodging every single time.

Shall we walk through that as well?

With or without your response, I show you why I dismiss the so-called evidence for evolution theory.

We all know why you dismiss it....you're a Jehovah's Witness.

That's the problem you will have with Jehovah's Witnesses.
They reason. Even their young ones reason with the highly educated - and do a splendid job of leaving them speechless.

Were you able to show them that your evidence is verifiable - concrete - flawless?
You see the problem?

How utterly bizarre.

You could clear this up very easily. All you have to do is show us how you can "easily disprove evolutionary theory" (or show where you did previously) and tell us what you think "transitional fossil" means.

You've made quite a series of claims about both, so how about backing them up?

 

[nPeace]

So is your response to my question, that because all living things carry RNA-DNA that it is evidence for common descent from one ancestor?
You are not very clear, so forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth.

Since there are other possible ways for genetic information to be passed on, and we do not see it, yes that makes that evidence for common descent. Though it is not the only evidence.

Reproduction is an ongoing process which we came and found.
It is not evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.

All living things depend upon carbon dioxide, oxygen, energy, phosphorus, hydrogen, nitrogen...
We do not use that to say it is evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.
Why not?

This is not evidence that verifies anything about common descent.

Hardly. And you clearly did not understand why that was evidence for common descent. Go back and reread the post since you made a nonsensical response to it.

It's vague.
How many times should I read it?

That all life uses DNA and RNA is evidence for common descent since there are other possible means of passing on genetic traits. If life arose twice we might see two different methods. Three times, there could be three different methods.

Also in the same vein there is the chirality of life's amino acids and sugars.

Sigh...

Reproduction is an ongoing process which we came and found.
It is not evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.
In other words the fact that organisms with a genetic code reproduce, and genes are passed on does not automatically equal all life descended from one common ancestor.

All living things depend upon carbon dioxide, oxygen, energy, phosphorus, hydrogen, nitrogen...
We do not use that to say it is evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.
Why not?
All life carry DNA-RNA. It is expected that these genes would be passed on.
Put a male and female on the moon. They will have offspring with DNA-RNA.
How did they get it? Reproduction - the action or process of making a copy of something.

This is not evidence that verifies anything about common descent

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sigh...

Reproduction is an ongoing process which we came and found.
It is not evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.
In other words the fact that organisms with a genetic code reproduce, and genes are passed on does not automatically equal all life descended from one common ancestor.

So you did not understand your error from the start. The subject was not reproduction but DNA.

All living things depend upon carbon dioxide, oxygen, energy, phosphorus, hydrogen, nitrogen...
We do not use that to say it is evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.
Why not?
All life carry DNA-RNA. It is expected that these genes would be passed on.
Put a male and female on the moon. They will have offspring with DNA-RNA.
How did they get it? Reproduction - the action or process of making a copy of something.

This is not evidence that verifies anything about common descent

Forget your fixation with reproduction. You are only misleading yourself.

Once again, there could be other sources of genetic information besides DNA, those organisms would reproduce too but they would not have DNA. Since we see only DNA that fact alone is evidence for common descent.

Your problem was partially in your dishonest quote mine of the very first post. The sentence that you edited out appears to be now confirmed. You do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Ok, this is just bizarre. I don't know why you creationists try to pull stuff like this when everything is simply a matter of record.

Post #330 is where you and I started in this thread. As we can see, that was where I asked you to back up your claim that you can "easily disprove evolutionary theory".

In Post #333 you dodged, made more empty assertions, and challenged me to provide evidence.

In Post #335 I pointed out your evasion and again asked you to "easily disprove evolutionary theory" as you'd claimed.

In Post #336 you again dodged and claimed that we all knew your assertion was true.

In Post #337 I again noted your dodging and again asked you to back up your claim.

In Post #338 you bizarrely claimed you'd already done so, but didn't say where or what that disproof was.

In Post #339 I asked where you had done what you claimed.

In Post #340 you implied that I'd missed it (but still didn't say where or what this disproof was) and accused me of badgering you.

In Post #344 I again noted your dodging and asked you to show where you'd disproven evolutionary theory.

In Post #345 you claimed you'd already answered, but again didn't say where or what that answer was.

In Post #347 I summed up your evasion.

In Post #349 you linked back to your Post #333 and asked what I understood it to be.

In Post #351 I described #333 as a series of empty assertions and asked if that post constituted your disproof of evolutionary theory.

In Post #353 you didn't answer and asked why I keep questioning you.

In Post #355 I answered that I wanted you to stop acting like a guilty defendant on the stand, and just answer questions and back up your claim ("easily disproving evolutionary theory").

In Post #356 you dodged again and accused me of distracting.

In Post #357 I pointed out that you failed to back up your claims.

In Post #359 you bizarrely asked how I would know if all I read were assumptions.

In Post #360 I pointed to the record and noted that you had failed to back up your claim of being able to "easily disprove evolutionary theory" and also failed to back up your claim that you had already done so.

In Post #361 you ended the exchange.

Then we began our discussion of transitional fossils, with me asking you over and over and over and over to simply give your definition of "transitional fossil" and you dodging every single time.

Shall we walk through that as well?


We all know why you dismiss it....you're a Jehovah's Witness.


How utterly bizarre.

You could clear this up very easily. All you have to do is show us how you can "easily disprove evolutionary theory" (or show where you did previously) and tell us what you think "transitional fossil" means.

You've made quite a series of claims about both, so how about backing them up?

What does this mean to you?
Post #333
Are you denying that the evidence is asserted? Then please provide me with one piece of unassuming evidence

This was your previous response
Post #351
A series of empty assertions that anyone with access to the internet can make.

I asked a question, and you bagged it as an assertion.
I didn't know a question was an assertion, but we learn something new all the time.

This was my response
If that's all you got from it then.... why do you keep questioning me?
Do you want more assertions?

That was the process, that continued.
Hence why you claim that I ran away, because your focus was on what you wanted, and still is.

 

[nPeace]

So you did not understand your error from the start. The subject was not reproduction but DNA.




Forget your fixation with reproduction. You are only misleading yourself.

Once again, there could be other sources of genetic information besides DNA, those organisms would reproduce too but they would not have DNA. Since we see only DNA that fact alone is evidence for common descent.

Your problem was partially in your dishonest quote mine of the very first post. The sentence that you edited out appears to be now confirmed. You do not understand the concept of evidence.

Why would they reproduce and not have DNA?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would they reproduce and not have DNA?

By using a different genetic material. I do believe that I linked an article for you early on in the conversation. DNA is not the only possible way that genetic information could be passed on. If life arose more than once those other life forms could use a different genetic material. That is why DNA itself is evidence for common descent.

 

[nPeace]

By using a different genetic material. I do believe that I linked an article for you early on in the conversation. DNA is not the only possible way that genetic information could be passed on. If life arose more than once those other life forms could use a different genetic material. That is why DNA itself is evidence for common descent.

I don't consider that a proper answer.

By using a different genetic material.

Could you please answer the question in a way that I can understand that you are answering the question, and not just making statements that do not directly address the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't consider that a proper answer.

Why not? It is very clear. There is nothing factually wrong with it that I can see. It seems that you can't find anything wrong with it either except for the fact that you do not like it.

Could you please answer the question in a way that I can understand that you are answering the question, and not just making statements that do not directly address the question.

Not really. And my answer does directly address the question. Put your cognitive dissonance in check please.

You do know what DNA is, right? It is four nucleotides on a dexoyribose and phosphate skeleton. If it had four different nucleotides it would not be "DNA" but it could still do the same job.

 

[nPeace]

Why not? It is very clear. There is nothing factually wrong with it that I can see. It seems that you can't find anything wrong with it either except for the fact that you do not like it.



Not really. And my answer does directly address the question. Put your cognitive dissonance in check please.

You do know what DNA is, right? It is four nucleotides on a dexoyribose and phosphate skeleton. If it had four different nucleotides it would not be "DNA" but it could still do the same job.

I will not ask you any more questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will not ask you any more questions.

Why not? Just because you do not like the answers?

DNA may be the only molecule that will work for life, if that is the case then DNA alone would not be evidence for common descent. But that does not appear to be the case:
https://asunow.asu.edu/content/molecular-alternatives-dna-rna-offer-new-insight-lifes-origins

 

[Subduction Zone]

A bit more on what is sometimes called "XNA":

"

12Xenonucleic acids (XNAs) (see also Wikipedia) may be what you're looking for.

XNAs are nucleic acids related to DNA, some of which can store information for organisms in the same way that DNA does for life as we know it. These six are

• HNA (anhydrohexitol nucleic acid)
• CeNA (cyclohexene nucleic acid)
• LNA (locked nucleic acid)
• GNA (glycol nucleic acid)
• PNA (peptide nucleic acid)
• TNA (threose nucleic acid)

Of these, the latter four are perhaps the best-studied.
"

https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/36222/alternatives-to-dna

 

[Subduction Zone]

@nPeace , the fact that life is the product of evolution does not refute the Gospels. Even though Genesis and Exodus are allegory at best it does not mean that your religion is false. But your belief in the creation myth has caused you to react in some very non-Christian fashions. You have falsely accused others of "speculation" for example in an attempt to insult them. You do not appear to know what a hypothesis is and why they are tools for finding new concepts in the sciences. You expect others to answer questions for you in self contradictory ways and refuse honest attempts to answer your questions for you. These are not good traits. You are better than this. Don't let your unjustified fears keep you from learning. There are countless Christians that accept reality and still believe in Jesus. You can do the same.

 

[Jose Fly]

What does this mean to you?
Post #333
Are you denying that the evidence is asserted?

That doesn't make sense. The evidence is presented (e.g., via a link or cite) and then it's a matter of whether or not the evidence supports the position being discussed.

Unless you're arguing that when we say, give a link to a paper that describes a fossil, that "evidence is asserted" because you can't physically hold the fossil in your hands and see it with your own eyes?

If that's the case, then.......um......

Then please provide me with one piece of unassuming evidence

Lol....and just who judges? You? Lol....you're about the most biased a person can be on this subject. Being a Jehovah's Witness means some very strict requirements are in place, are they not?

This was your previous response
Post #351

A series of empty assertions that anyone with access to the internet can make.

I asked a question, and you bagged it as an assertion.
I didn't know a question was an assertion, but we learn something new all the time.

??????? You asked what I made of your previous post and I told you; it was a series of empty assertions. For example, you stated in that previous post:

However, evolution is not based on solid evidence. It is based on evidence that is gathered in support of it. Evidence that has not, and cannot be verified... and please, I am not referring to adaptation, which does not refute creation evidence.​

Note what's missing.....any back up at all for those claims. I mean, are you expecting everyone here to just take your word for it that everything you said is true? No need to back any of it up, it's so simply because you say so?

That was the process, that continued.
Hence why you claim that I ran away, because your focus was on what you wanted, and still is.

Um...yeah, because what I wanted was some support for your claims (that you could "easily disprove evolutionary theory", that you'd already done so, and that there are no transitional fossils) and answer simple questions (what do you mean by "transitional fossils"). And notice what you still haven't done? That's right, you still haven't done any of those things....at all.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sigh...

Reproduction is an ongoing process which we came and found.
It is not evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.
In other words the fact that organisms with a genetic code reproduce, and genes are passed on does not automatically equal all life descended from one common ancestor.

All living things depend upon carbon dioxide, oxygen, energy, phosphorus, hydrogen, nitrogen...
We do not use that to say it is evidence that all life descendant from one UCA.
Why not?
All life carry DNA-RNA. It is expected that these genes would be passed on.
Put a male and female on the moon. They will have offspring with DNA-RNA.
How did they get it? Reproduction - the action or process of making a copy of something.

This is not evidence that verifies anything about common descent

It's quite simple:

All life has DNA.
The more closely related one organism is to another, the more similar their DNA will be.
All living things share similar DNA, in line with predictions of nested hierarchies in evolutionary theory (i.e: apes share more DNA with mammals than with insects, insects and mammals share more DNA with each other than with plants, etc.)
This relationship is further confirmed by the fossil record, which shows a clear and unambiguous lineage of nested hierarchies that matches evolutionary predictions.
The only known method that exists of living things producing other livings things with similar DNA is reproduction.

Take all of these facts into account, and common ancestry is the only rational conclusion.

 

[nPeace]

I have even been accused of trying to insult people, by speaking the truth.
A man speculates - since he could do nothing more - throughout an entire video, and I have committed a grave sin - actually to quote "react in some very non-Christian fashions" by comment on it.
Ha Ha Ha I really would like to know if the man wasn't speculating, what he was doing.

Actually the accusation seems to be made because of my, quote, "belief in the creation myth"
nPeace you really must let go of that creation myth, and embrace this modern day myth. After all new is better than old.
Ha Ha

What else have I been accused of?

You do not appear to know what a hypothesis is and why they are tools for finding new concepts in the sciences. You expect others to answer questions for you in self contradictory ways and refuse honest attempts to answer your questions for you. These are not good traits. You are better than this. Don't let your unjustified fears keep you from learning.

Honestly, this is the funniest post I have had since coming on RF.
Perhaps I should assume the person means well.

When people acquire knowledge which they feel supports their world view, they all of a sudden get puffed up, and feel more important than others.
So they look down on anyone who challenges their "superior" knowledge.
They make statements such as, "You don't understand what you are saying. You don't know science. Anyone with a computer can type information... You don't know/understand this or that, or the third.

They fail to realize that they don't have more of a brain than anyone else, and that most people with a brain can take up a computer, and learn most anything.
Funny... most of them learned that very way. Ha Ha

Because of that pride these individuals think that when someone asks questions. it's because they are totally ignorant.
They use that misguided understanding as an ego builder, not realizing that asking questions is a form of reasoning.

So I asked the question, and of course they think I am asking because I don't know the answer - Why would I need to go to atheist to get the answers to questions that anyone can easily get the answers to if they don't already know.

My questions only lead to vague answers, and condescending remarks, when I respond - I'm use to that.

I won't even bother to mention the last one I asked, and the answer given. My my.

However, that aside, I started by asking for evidence that supports the idea for LUCA, and this is where I will continue. (Font styles are mine)

LUCA is not thought to be the first living organism on Earth, but only one of many early organisms, all but one of which died out. LUCA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era). The composition of LUCA is not directly accessible as a fossil, but can be studied by comparing the genomes of its descendants, organisms living today. By this means, a 2016 study identified a set of 355 genes inferred to have been present in LUCA. This would imply it was already a complex life form with many co-adapted features including transcription and translation mechanisms to convert information between DNA, RNA, and proteins. Some of those genes, however, could have been acquired later by horizontal gene transfer between archaea and bacteria.

[It is thought to have been, yet it has been, and has descendants. No need for me to touch the inference bit.

I'm not going to mention everything, since for one thing, I don't disagree with everything, as some may assume to the contrary. Hopefully, I won't miss anything important.]

...................
Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in his book On the Origin of Species in 1859, saying, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent, all the way back to the last universal common ancestor, by developing testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and constructing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

[Since Fly brought up gene sequencing...]

Comparison of the DNA genetic sequences of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of DNA sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant.

What is DNA sequencing?
Sequencing DNA means determining the order of the four chemical building blocks - called "bases" - that make up the DNA molecule. The sequence tells scientists the kind of genetic information that is carried in a particular DNA segment. For example, scientists can use sequence information to determine which stretches of DNA contain genes and which stretches carry regulatory instructions, turning genes on or off. In addition, and importantly, sequence data can highlight changes in a gene that may cause disease.

Sequencing the genome is an important step towards understanding it.

[They can aid scientists with further research. They cannot confirm anything about a LUCA.

Since Phylogenetic comes up fairly frequently, it caught my attention.]

Phylogenetic bracketing is a method of inference used in biological sciences. It is to infer the likelihood of unknown traits in organisms based on their position in a phylogenetic tree. One of the main applications of phylogenetic bracketing is on extinct organisms, known only from fossils, going all the way back to the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). The method is often used for understanding traits that do not fossilize well, such as soft tissue anatomy, physiology and behaviour. By considering the closest and second-closest well-known (usually extant) organisms, traits can be asserted with a fair degree of certainty, though the method is extremely sensitive to problems from convergent evolution.

Method
Extant Phylogenetic Bracketing requires that the species forming the brackets be extant. More general forms of phylogenetic bracketing do not require this and may use a mix of extant and extinct taxa to form the bracket. These more generalized forms of phylogenetic bracketing have the advantage in that they can be applied to a wider array of phylogenetic cases. However, since these forms of bracketing are also more generalized and may rely on inferring traits in extinct animals, they also offer lower explanatory power compared to the EPB.

Levels of inference
The extant phylogenetic bracket approach allows researchers to infer traits in extinct animals with varying levels of confidence. This is referred to as the levels of inference. There are three levels of inference, with each higher level indicating less confidence for the inference.

[So they study the living and the dead using inference based on their position assumed for them in a phylogenetic tree.

Right back to the starting point - The Phylogenetic Tree.]