The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

By George I think you got it. There is no testable hypothesis to show any gradual change in individual life or in species.



You merely gainsaid one thing from my post and ignored the rest.

This is typical for believers and scientism.



The sad part of it is you want to explain your beliefs to me without any evidence.

Where is your evidence for a gradual change?

You will continue to ignore everything I say. I'm done. Go back and read my posts. They contain several dozens pieces of evidence. Then you merely claim you provided evidence while ignoring mine such as ALL OBSERVABLE CHANGE IN LIFE OF ALL TYPES IS SUDDEN!! But you can't even see that this is evidence because you see what you believe.

You will ignore it yet again.

You post so much nonsense in your posts that I simply refuse to deal with it all. And no, we can observe slow change all of the time. But since you won't ask proper questions why should I give you proper answers?

 

[gnostic]

My intent is certainly not to "bolster the beliefs of the creationist community" but rather to point out that science derived from observation alone is not science at all.

What I didn’t say in my last reply, is that observations are more than just “seeing”.

The observations of evidence include quantitative measures, measuring, comparing evidence against each other, studying the properties of evidence, and any other testing that can be done. These types of observations provide the necessary data (information) about the evidence.

Experiments are confined in the labs, in a controlled environment. But sciences deal with studying the real world, and as pointed out to you in post 1184, not every evidence can be achieve through lab experiments, such as his examples with astronomy and paleontology, where evidence must be discovered.

You are trying to limited sciences to experiments.

What you don’t understand that lab experiments are observations too.

And you are wrong about Abiogenesis about there being no experiments done.

Lab experiments have already been done by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1952 (which I have already mentioned in my last reply to you), Joan Oró in 1961 with using number of chemicals to form adenine (one of nucleotide bases in nucleic acids). There were also more recent experiments using different chemicals than Miller-Urey experiment, like experiments by Jim Cleaves and Jeffrey Bada.

But like I said, evidence aren’t confined in the lab, such as findings of whole bunch of organic matters from the Murchison meteorite in 1969, including 60 different types of amino acids, of which 17 of them that can form into known proteins.

Your ignorance is assuming that only lab experiments are evidence used in sciences. It the most blatant mistakes that you have made, based on false assumption and false interpretation of what “observation” mean.

Your ignorance is also forgetting that experiments are also observations!

 

[gnostic]

By George I think you got it. There is no testable hypothesis to show any gradual change in individual life or in species.

By George, you keep repeating the BS of creationists, making the very same mistakes as creationists.

Studying of fossils evidence showed that that more complex organisms, changes are more gradual than organisms like bacteria.

Humans are not bacteria, and the modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens, which is subspecies of Homo sapiens) did not simply out of nowhere.

Earlier humans, like the Homo heidelbergensis were the ancestors of the Homo sapiens. The Homo heidelbergensis evolved from one of species of the Homo erectus (that “one” being Homo egraster, the African Homo erectus), and so on.

Homo heidelbergensis is seen as transitional species between Homo egraster and Homo sapiens.

From Homo egraster to Homo sapiens, those changes occur over 1.6 million years, which isn’t so “sudden”.

Why do you insist on bringing up misinformation, cladking? Why make the same silly mistakes as that of creationists?

 

[rational experiences]

Rational humans as human is human spirituality. Life. Support of life states I am a human. The highest human argument of human intelligence.

Any other thinker just a human should be motivated to support rational ideas about how a planet is needed. A heavens balanced is needed. Nature's natural status is needed is and was lying to humans.

Theism is the human liar.

Humans gave their human self permission to think how and why they do.

They never needed to theory about self presence. A human. They wanted to.

The basic advice science is a chosen human subject theories irrationally.

As your human consciousness first does not exist before you do.

So a human wondering why humans don't just accept natural presence has to assess why. As your ideas are irrational as human ideas.

In life we are from human sperm ovary. Which is not human conscious.

Two first humans began human consciousness owned human awareness human consciousness.

We know we never were the first consciousness. We do know human consciousness is first human as we own it.

Two parents were. Human and conscious first.

The only factual argument in life human is the human ego claiming my human advice is more rational or more intelligent than your human ideas.

My group human allows me to state the claim.

The status was given to humans thinking. Status human given to machine use.

The whole time two other humans not you had sex created your human life. Consciousness before you as human.

In science the human advice is first.

A lot of scientists don't use natural they infer natural human science self presence first. To theory. Not I am just a human first.

Then you would have to just accept human self presence is first.

Science irrationally says everything else was first. As a human giving everything a status of order by their choice.

A natural human just lives eats drinks survived has human relationships. We get told we are not intelligent humans as we don't theory.

I look at science except science in medical trying to assist life health and see you for your egotistical non intelligence status.

A human is first was the biblical advice by a human against satanic science theists.

Natural humans said O earth was one God first. Heavens it's own first was second.

Garden nature third. Humans lived in the garden. Basic human planet advice. Said by humans as humans for humans by human awareness.

Only human theists inferred reactive history not human. Named it gods science. Status said by humans.

Rational human advice stated basic real human advice. God first a planet heavens the second body not first but it's self purpose a heavens was first.

Stating natural order by human observation as intelligent human advice. I am a human just accept your place in natural first.

Human spiritual advice accept you are first. A human.

Science who claim everything else is first displaces natural human presence.

For ego status. Just a human the whole time.

From thinking a human theory by the time you allow natural human life body thoughts to just express its human nature your thoughts had travelled somewhere else.

What human theorising did to your head.

How do you teach a scientist irrational belief is not accepting self is just a human first?

It became a form of human spiritual conditioning.

 

[cladking]

You post so much nonsense in your posts that I simply refuse to deal with it all.

You don't deal with anything at all because you can't see it even in all caps and three inch red letters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't deal with anything at all because you can't see it even in all caps and three inch red letters.

No, if you can have a proper discussion. Limit your claims. And listen to the responses all of your claims will be answered.

You have yet to try.

 

[cladking]

incredible

 

[Subduction Zone]

incredible

Not really. Just facts. You have made false claims and did not like when they were dealt with.

 

[rational experiences]

When a parent organism or parents organisms make offspring, through fertilisation and then through cell division, then the offspring will inherit the gene information (RNA or DNA) from one parent if it is asexual reproduction or gene information from both parents if it is sexual reproduction.

It is a biochemical reaction, which is nevertheless chemical reaction.

That the nature of life.

One of your mistaken assumptions is thinking that “life” equals “consciousness”.

The fact of matter is that some organisms have consciousness, but some don’t.

And some of those “don’t” have consciousness, would include such eukaryotes like fungi, plants, algae, as well as prokaryotes like bacteria and archaea.

(If you don’t already know, there bacteria don’t have cell division, rather it is binary fission. But since you brought up “life (consciousness)”, I think I will focused on animals that have consciousnesses, to compare against those that don’t have consciousnesses.

Consciousness is an emergence property, and for organisms like humans, consciousness is the emergence property of the brain. Without brain there are no consciousness.

My points are that life don’t alway have consciousness to be a “living” organism.

That’s mistake number one.

Unfortunately you whole post are full of mistakes, but I am not going to focus on “experiments” or “theory”, both of them are examples of your ignorance on basic science.

Mistake number two.

Let re-examine the same part I quoted from your reply, but let focused on what I highlighted in bold, ignoring the “(consciousness)” part, which I have already covered about your first mistake.

You wrote:

“...life (consciousness) arose from simpler chemical interactions but this hardly makes all the assumptions and interpretations of "Evolution" to be "known science".”​

First, “...life arose from simpler chemical interactions...”

I am assuming here, you are talking about “origin of first life”, right?

Then you equating this “origin” or “life arose” with the other half of your sentence, regarding to “Evolution”.

You are exactly like creationists, we deal with constantly at RF, who cannot learn from this mistake, no matter how many times they have been corrected.

The “life arose” is all about “Abiogenesis”, which is a very different field to “Evolution”. How “life arose” isn’t the study of Evolution.

Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, hence you are correct that it is not “science”, yet, but Evolution is all life that already existed, and still existing if that life haven’t gone extinct.

And Evolution is about changes in the population of organisms - biodiversity - that occurred at genetic-level, over a period of time, which are measured in generations, not by merely by numbers of years.

This change can be triggered by one of five different mechanisms:

1. Natural Selection
2. Mutation
3. Genetic Drift
4. Gene Flow
5. Genetic Hitchhiking

I am not going to explain what each of these evolutionary mechanisms are, so look them up yourself.

The point is that these mechanisms all fall under the umbrella of Evolution. And every ones of them have been tested.

And the points are that Evolution work with life that have already existed, and if they are extinct, life still existing today. Evolution is about WHAT organisms have changed enough for speciation to occur, WHY and HOW did they change, as well as finding out the WHERE and WHEN.

Evolution has been tested, and the number of evidence and data, support the finding, so Evolution is “science”, which actually lead to your third mistake.

The problem is that you have mistaken Abiogenesis (how “life arose”) with Evolution (studies of adaption, biodiversity and speciation of populations of species).

Your 4th mistake is that like other creationists here at RF, is that Abiogenesis isn’t just about first life, but also how cell first formed, and cells been made of many parts, like the origin of 3 essential biological macromolecules that exist in all life:

1. Proteins
2. Nucleic acids (eg RNA & DNA)
3. Carbohydrates

How these macromolecules formed, is part of understanding how organic matters formed, for without these biological macromolecules, cells, genes and chromosomes won’t exist, and without these organic matters, life cannot exist.

And there already have been some experiments to cause chemical reactions, that convert inorganic matters into one of these macromolecules.

For instance, the Miller-Urey experiment (1952) was the earliest experiment to replicate amino acids from what inorganic compounds might exist in the early Earth’s environment. There are over hundred of different types of amino acids, but only 20 to 23 of them exist naturally and are building blocks for proteins.

In 1952, 9 out of the 20 amino acids were successfully produced them from this experiment, and stored in vials. In 2007, they discovered there now 20 amino acids.

Other experiments have been performed in the decades that followed. Some experiments added a couple more inorganic compounds that might existed in the Earth’s atmosphere, like carbon dioxide, or carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide that may existed due to volcanic activities.

While Abiogenesis may not be science at stage, these experiments demonstrated that Abiogenesis is a “falsifiable” hypothesis.

That’s your fifth mistake, because you said that “life arose” is nothing but “assumptions and interpretations”.

If you can find evidence or you can perform a successful experiment, then Abiogenesis isn’t just “assumptions and interpretations”.

I will leave for now, because it is very late. So good night.

You forgot human sex.
You forgot to say any animal I look at is here today only because animals had sex too.

As we are human consciousness first we versus theistic egotism in our own consciousness. Human.

As even if you were just one human....wait a minute you are only one human. As if you theoried as one self for self the self answer first is for self.

Self tells self self is lying and wrong as ego is referenced secondary to natural form. By the I want to hence I will motivation.

Cult group mentality is science first. Historic is natural human family first owning historic no science practice. And no scientific thesis either. Just natural humans.

Science theorisng was chosen.

Ignored as relative human advice.

So you ask machine theists knowingly using earths heavens by thesis earths gas state...earth physical body not by form a gas body. Heavens is supporting bio life why they theory against life.

As surely one self owning self would not theory against one self. Yet you prove you do by group cult agreement.

Lots of egotists. Self in self natural form is meant to ignore ego.

Why we said the brotherhood had destroyed life.

Earth uses water evaporation cooling it's gas status. Natural cause effect.

Warning about heavens law as God status as burning gas owner is first.

Science today is one science. One science maths used once only as one only form once. Has one machine. Maths begins as number one each number is only one number itself.

One science the status.

That imposes water cooling. For machine reactions. Water control by man in science is by machine.

It overheats as you don't control ground water evaporation. You turn off machine by choice. If you don't turn off machine by controlled man choice atmosphere causes radiating effect makes it blow up.

As atmosphere owned by God we said owns the controls.

Why you seek God claiming I will learn how science can control the atmosphere. Between body changes from lower to higher cells. Science said evolved by atmospheric conditions.

The saviour theory humans mainly water depend on ice saviour melt water replacement. In heavens.

Science cannot use human bio atmosphere saviour. Water replaced. Bio uses it.

Jesus theme is not just about Phi.

My proposal theist says lowest cell would remain as first body as unchanged but no evolution acceptable. So I am seeking first lowest cell as my claim I will give evolution change of the cell direct to machine.

I believe Phi patterns evolved first cells.

In life mind human man before theorising says he is first. The man body life. His claim by theism says my life body man wont change. Theory however is not about humans. As a whole human.

Why human psyche confession is always involved first. Intention.

Why you think the link God is by bio cell evolved remains it's cell first yet changes its cell.

Man compares biology man to woman as first natural first observation. Female cell evolved of man body and higher than my body.

Science maths says female maths falsely first. As theist. Is not even thinking human. Yet thought about human first.

What lying means.

Intention notified.

You based a whole modern time thesis on a belief. First cell not changing. Not on any real life condition whatsoever as all cells you look at are natural first.

Natural no machine is the real science first status in humans self history. A human. To be a human. As man was first before machine.

Which is invented theoretic by machine users.

Placing machines above and beyond natural circumstance of what you don't and can't see rationally.

Man used machine conditions to look where he could not look.

What natural psyche human spiritual lives observe first about human scientists.

Done whilst we all live as humans

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't deal with anything at all because you can't see it even in all caps and three inch red letters.

I don't think people have any trouble seeing your nonsense. No need for large fonts and red letters.

 

[SkepticThinker]

By George I think you got it. There is no testable hypothesis to show any gradual change in individual life or in species.



You merely gainsaid one thing from my post and ignored the rest.

This is typical for believers and scientism.



The sad part of it is you want to explain your beliefs to me without any evidence.

Where is your evidence for a gradual change?

You will continue to ignore everything I say. I'm done. Go back and read my posts. They contain several dozens pieces of evidence. Then you merely claim you provided evidence while ignoring mine such as ALL OBSERVABLE CHANGE IN LIFE OF ALL TYPES IS SUDDEN!! But you can't even see that this is evidence because you see what you believe.

You will ignore it yet again.

Have you submitted your work to all the science journals?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you submitted your work to all the science journals?

I suppose it would not be good form and probably a rule violation, so I will not name names. But I can think of three others that would be excellent collaborators. Though, I have no idea what would happen when Dunning Krugers collide.

 

[cladking]

Have you submitted your work to all the science journals?

You could dissect upside down flies but you won't find what makes them upside down until you understand consciousness. You can't even dissect extinct species like homo sapiens but if you could you can't find they lacked a broccas area even if you did understand the nature of consciousness. Across the board the problem is the same; just as you can't take "Ancient Reality" or "Ancient Language" apart to study it you can't take "life" itself apart to study it.

People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden so the assumption of gradual change in species as a result of survival of the fittest is sacrosanct. They can't even consider the possibility we are misinterpreting experiment and few people seem to know that experiment lies at the heart of science and peer review is wholly irrelevant. By definition "Peers" are the group of all people who share the same assumptions. If you rephrase it as the group of all scientists who share the same assumptions then they become right by definition to most people who believe Peers are right by definition.

The status quo has been enshrined and heretics are simply ignored today. Then people wonder why the average joe is losing confidence in science!

Some things can't be taken apart to study. You can't parse life and you can't dissect consciousness. Reductionism works great in mechanics but not so well in biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You could dissect upside down flies but you won't find what makes them upside down until you understand consciousness. You can't even dissect extinct species like homo sapiens but if you could you can't find they lacked a broccas area even if you did understand the nature of consciousness. Across the board the problem is the same; just as you can't take "Ancient Reality" or "Ancient Language" apart to study it you can't take "life" itself apart to study it.

People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden so the assumption of gradual change in species as a result of survival of the fittest is sacrosanct. They can't even consider the possibility we are misinterpreting experiment and few people seem to know that experiment lies at the heart of science and peer review is wholly irrelevant. By definition "Peers" are the group of all people who share the same assumptions. If you rephrase it as the group of all scientists who share the same assumptions then they become right by definition to most people who believe Peers are right by definition.

The status quo has been enshrined and heretics are simply ignored today. Then people wonder why the average joe is losing confidence in science!

Some things can't be taken apart to study. You can't parse life and you can't dissect consciousness. Reductionism works great in mechanics but not so well in biology.

Nonsense.

 

[cladking]

Then people wonder why the average joe is losing confidence in science!

There are thousand of branches of science today called "specialties" and few people realize how little overlap there is between any two of them. While some individuals will have a good grounding in multiple specialties, as a rule it is only a few and they are interrelated areas. This means our reductionistic science is splintering in many different directions and we are approaching a new "tower of babel" where expertise in one area conflicts with expertise in another and even with common sense. Industrial concerns are pulled in different directions by specialists who can't see that companies operate in the real world and addressing a specific concern in one area makes it impossible for the company to operate at all in another. Modern economies hum along at about 4% efficiency because they are being pulled in a million different directions and the actual workers are ignoring most of them. "Science" says we should do this but this is harder and the work rules say we should do that instead. Meanwhile nobody asked the number crunchers what the relative costs are. Most of the workers can see that their effort, time, supplies, and material are being wasted but compared to the overall waste it is insignificant anyway.

So the average joe goes home at the end of the day and checks the news to see what the soup of the day science is; will we die of pollution, an ice age, or global warming this week. Over and over we see consensus Look and See Science change directions almost as fast as a weather vane. Then we go to work and wonder how any company can even survive much less profit.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There are thousand of branches of science today called "specialties" and few people realize how little overlap there is between any two of them. While some individuals will have a good grounding in multiple specialties, as a rule it is only a few and they are interrelated areas. This means our reductionistic science is splintering in many different directions and we are approaching a new "tower of babel" where expertise in one area conflicts with expertise in another and even with common sense. Industrial concerns are pulled in different directions by specialists who can't see that companies operate in the real world and addressing a specific concern in one area makes it impossible for the company to operate at all in another. Modern economies hum along at about 4% efficiency because they are being pulled in a million different directions and the actual workers are ignoring most of them. "Science" says we should do this but this is harder and the work rules say we should do that instead. Meanwhile nobody asked the number crunchers what the relative costs are. Most of the workers can see that their effort, time, supplies, and material are being wasted but compared to the overall waste it is insignificant anyway.

So the average joe goes home at the end of the day and checks the news to see what the soup of the day science is; will we die of pollution, an ice age, or global warming this week. Over and over we see consensus Look and See Science change directions almost as fast as a weather vane. Then we go to work and wonder how any company can even survive much less profit.

Still more nonsense.

 

[cladking]

"People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden so the assumption of gradual change in species as a result of survival of the fittest is sacrosanct."

Nonsense.

Every time one of you posts you are merely proving my point.

Scientism is the greatest threat to the human race today. It is driving the construction of building in DC for lobbyists. Unless we attempt to tie the various branches of science back together it will all collapse and with a far more dire result than the last time.

There are no specialists in the fragmentation of science. There are no specialists in the study of consciousness and little theorizing on its effect on life, science, business, and governance. Though, of course, most will agree that consciousness plays extremely little role in Congress.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You could dissect upside down flies but you won't find what makes them upside down until you understand consciousness. You can't even dissect extinct species like homo sapiens but if you could you can't find they lacked a broccas area even if you did understand the nature of consciousness. Across the board the problem is the same; just as you can't take "Ancient Reality" or "Ancient Language" apart to study it you can't take "life" itself apart to study it.

People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden so the assumption of gradual change in species as a result of survival of the fittest is sacrosanct. They can't even consider the possibility we are misinterpreting experiment and few people seem to know that experiment lies at the heart of science and peer review is wholly irrelevant. By definition "Peers" are the group of all people who share the same assumptions. If you rephrase it as the group of all scientists who share the same assumptions then they become right by definition to most people who believe Peers are right by definition.

The status quo has been enshrined and heretics are simply ignored today. Then people wonder why the average joe is losing confidence in science!

Some things can't be taken apart to study. You can't parse life and you can't dissect consciousness. Reductionism works great in mechanics but not so well in biology.

Umm, okay. So that's a no?

Then I'm wondering why you expect to be taken seriously, if you can't (or won't?) attempt to demonstrate the veracity of your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could dissect upside down flies but you won't find what makes them upside down until you understand consciousness. You can't even dissect extinct species like homo sapiens but if you could you can't find they lacked a broccas area even if you did understand the nature of consciousness. Across the board the problem is the same; just as you can't take "Ancient Reality" or "Ancient Language" apart to study it you can't take "life" itself apart to study it.

People today can't even address the simple fact that all observed change in life is sudden so the assumption of gradual change in species as a result of survival of the fittest is sacrosanct. They can't even consider the possibility we are misinterpreting experiment and few people seem to know that experiment lies at the heart of science and peer review is wholly irrelevant. By definition "Peers" are the group of all people who share the same assumptions. If you rephrase it as the group of all scientists who share the same assumptions then they become right by definition to most people who believe Peers are right by definition.

The status quo has been enshrined and heretics are simply ignored today. Then people wonder why the average joe is losing confidence in science!

Some things can't be taken apart to study. You can't parse life and you can't dissect consciousness. Reductionism works great in mechanics but not so well in biology.

Nonsense.

No, salad. Mmmm. Not very nutritious, but it is full of "fiber" to clean out the system. A good start to every morning. Word salad, my favorite!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Umm, okay. So that's a no?

Then I'm wondering why you expect to be taken seriously, if you can't (or won't?) attempt to demonstrate the veracity of your claims.

And you are surprised? Just enjoy the salad. Totally without any cognitive calories or nutrients. It just makes him feel better.