I have two questions about monkeys and evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi again @Dan From Smithville . It's kind of like your assertions about the validity or truthfulness of the concept of evolution. In other words, you really have no proof, you can't explain the differences between DNA and evolution, and frankly, you're telling me what I believe when I don't. You're wrong about my belief about DNA. DNA does a lot. Anyway, with your mind and education, I'm sure you can figure it out.

Sure I can. DNA is a chemical polymer. It is the self-replicating molecule of inheritance found in living cells and carries the genetic information necessary for development, growth, life processes and reproduction.

Evolution is the process of change in the genotypic and phenotypic properties of populations of living things over time.

The theory of evolution is the explanation for evolution that is supported by evidence.

See. I addressed your claim that I could not explain the difference between DNA and evolution.

I cannot be wrong about a claim I never made. I never said that I thought DNA did nothing.

Perhaps it is not my comprehension of your words that is the problem. This post is evidence that I post responses directly to what you post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not reading correctly.

I believe I have put that claim to bed.

Perhaps you are not reading correctly. How many times have numerous people informed you that proof is not a standard in science, yet you refuse to accept that valid correction and update your posts with that knowledge?

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't think that people start out as a single cell and over time become multi-cellular and larger? Do you think you stepped from your mother's womb the size you are now?

I think that statement about what science claims and demonstrates not mattering to you says it all. No evidence would make any difference since you are not basing your views of science on evidence.

You have not shown any evidence.
From my study of the various parts and functions of living matter, I think, believe, and KNOW that it took two to tango to get ME to be conceived. Again, I think you greatly misunderstand what I am saying, but thanks anyway for the conversation.
Does this mean that I think everything came about as a result of natural selection, or -- better yet -- survival of the fittest? No again. I think that the mechanics were instituted by God. What do I mean by that? Let me put it this way: DNA was and genomes were appropriately designed by God, the supreme creator. (While you might not believe that, can you really show proof to the contrary?) Remember -- I speak of the function and mechanism of life and growth. He chooses to structure the concept. Therefore mutations such as an infant born with no arms was NOT designed by God. That means that the process of growth or transformation was enabled by God. RNA and DNA show no proof that one type of animal eventually evolved into another. If you have any, now may be the time to bring it up.
And that's where I leave it right now. (DNA is obviously influential in the way someone is comprised and takes its turn in the growth process.) If you can prove (or show or demonstrate) to the contrary, please do so, it would be helpful. Not just talk, similarly as you think I should do the same, I suppose. So please, I ask you, do show the evidence that the growth process and primary components were designed by God. Thanks. And then the converse -- that they were NOT designed by God. (Thanks again.) Do not shy away from offering proof of your concept. By proof I mean proof. Of the concept without doubt Thanks again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi, nPeace. What I am finding is that gross misinterpretations of my comments or lack of substance of logic by some such as @Dan From Smithville is representative of those who don't listen, or care to listen.

Clearly you are incorrect as I have just demonstrated. I have directly responded to what you post. I have not misrepresented your comments. My responses have substance and logic. I read what you post. I do not always understand it, since it lacks clarity and is often very difficult confusing to what it is that you are trying to say. I think that is a result of ignorance of science and the fact that your position is not based on an evaluation of the evidence, but rather on a belief system that you have neither evidence for nor proof.

You recently claimed that there is no evidence that single-celled organisms become multicellular organisms. I corrected that and not one peep of thanks from you. You are an example of a multi-cellular organism that was once only a single cell.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe I have put that claim to bed.

Perhaps you are not reading correctly. How many times have numerous people informed you that proof is not a standard in science, yet you refuse to accept that valid correction and update your posts with that knowledge?

OK, so no proof of your conjecture. I am guaranteeing you that if a person does not eat or drink long enough they will die. Yup. That's proof and a guarantee. You have nothing in the way of guarantee and/or proof of the theory of evolution. Nothing. Thanks again.

 

[YoursTrue]

Clearly you are incorrect as I have just demonstrated. I have directly responded to what you post. I have not misrepresented your comments. My responses have substance and logic. I read what you post. I do not always understand it, since it lacks clarity and is often very difficult confusing to what it is that you are trying to say. I think that is a result of ignorance of science and the fact that your position is not based on an evaluation of the evidence, but rather on a belief system that you have neither evidence for nor proof.

You recently claimed that there is no evidence that single-celled organisms become multicellular organisms. I corrected that and not one peep of thanks from you. You are an example of a multi-cellular organism that was once only a single cell.

Sir, you clearly did not understand what I was saying. I never said DNA was not involved in the growth process, OR differentiation between life forms. Never ever did I say that. So stop making things up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have not shown any evidence.
From my study of the various parts and functions of living matter, I think, believe, and KNOW that it took two to tango to get ME to be conceived. Again, I think you greatly misunderstand what I am saying, but thanks anyway for the conversation.
Does this mean that I think everything came about as a result of natural selection, or -- better yet -- survival of the fittest? No again. I think that the mechanics were instituted by God. What do I mean by that? Let me put it this way: DNA was and genomes were appropriately designed by God, the supreme creator. (While you might not believe that, can you really show proof to the contrary?) Remember -- I speak of the function and mechanism of life and growth. He chooses to structure the concept. Therefore mutations such as an infant born with no arms was NOT designed by God. That means that the process of growth or transformation was enabled by God. RNA and DNA show no proof that one type of animal eventually evolved into another. If you have any, now may be the time to bring it up.
And that's where I leave it right now. (DNA is obviously influential in the way someone is comprised and takes its turn in the growth process.) If you can prove (or show or demonstrate) to the contrary, please do so, it would be helpful. Not just talk, similarly as you think I should do the same, I suppose. So please, I ask you, do show the evidence that the growth process and primary components were designed by God. Thanks. And then the converse -- that they were NOT designed by God. (Thanks again.) Do not shy away from offering proof of your concept. By proof I mean proof. Of the concept without doubt Thanks again.

How the single cell arose is not in question. You didn't make claims about reproduction mechanisms.

This is a quote from your post I have two questions about monkeys and evolution. "There is no proof, no test, no verifiable residues that show one or many cells expanding or growing and gradually getting to the sizes of living things like trees and animals. I understand what you are saying, I used to believe it until I began looking closer at the scientific surmises."

You are not talking about reproduction in that post. You made a specific claim that was easily refuted based on the fact that insects, lobsters, whales, redwoods, chickens and people all start out as a single cell. Science has known this for some time. If you did not want to use that as an example that is so easily put to bed, then you should have chosen a better one. That is not my fault. I do the best to understand what it is you post despite what is clearly difficulty for many here.

You said no evidence and I provided you with some. Now you are moving the goal posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sir, you clearly did not understand what I was saying. I never said DNA was not involved in the growth process, OR differentiation between life forms. Never ever did I say that. So stop making things up.

You were clear on what you said and I gave you evidence to refute those words. I don't see any need to discuss the matter further. If you have some new unsupported claim you would like to make, we can move on.

 

[Valjean]

How do you know it's nothing like God.
You haven't seen it, have you? We haven't seen God either.
Aren't those similarities?

No, God is a special pleading. The only reason someone would make up such a bizarre story of an invisible personage manipulating things by magic is to preserve the mythology they base their life on. Threatening the myth threatens their ego-integrity.

Isn't it equally plausible that the Earth and the life on it was created by hyper-intelligent, interdimensional mice? We haven't seen it.
How do we know it didn't happen that way?

I am not really concerned with how man defines things. They can believe whatever they feel to.
I don't follow the changing tide.
Going against the tide in this world seems to work well for me.
So, if you want to accept how they define you, ...but I don't have to accept how you want to define me.
Should I accept whatever a person defines me as?
There are some really obscene descriptions given to people and their body parts.
I don't have to accept these.

It's not about you. It's not about what works for you. It's about objective truth, regardless its effect, convenience or utility.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

One does not need to identify the common ancestor in order to determine that there was a common ancestor.

If this is acceptable, then…
“One does not need to identify the common Creator in order to determine that there was a common Creator”…
should be an acceptable answer, too. We see purposeful design everywhere we look!
Just saying “we don’t know the designer”, is not an acceptable reason to deny the complementary designs.
…

 

[Valjean]

They said the same about coelacanths, until one was found 66 million years later.
Then they said :" Wrong again. "

No, they knew cœlocanths existed in the past, but believed they'd died out.
The sloth was a new thing, that had developed recently.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If this is acceptable, then…
“One does not need to identify the common Creator in order to determine that there was a common Creator”…
should be an acceptable answer, too. We see purposeful design everywhere we look!
Just saying “we don’t know the designer”, is not an acceptable reason to deny the complementary designs.
…

I do not think not being able to identify an ancestor is the same as declaring the existence of a Creator out of lack of evidence for that Creator.

Do you doubt that you had ancestors 3,000 years ago simply because you cannot identify them?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then I suggest you point out exactly where you see that I admit we are mammals. Then we can take the next step.

You don't think we are mammals? It would be so cool to find out we are cobras.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sounds like you are being religious Astrophile.

@YoursTrue interesting that people who believe evolution, are so happy to give us their reasoning and interpretations for their beliefs, and criticize religious people for these things.

I critique claims that are offered as if they were facts, but with no evidence. I critique the profuse use of logical fallacies in support of the denial of science. I do not see the science supporters making claims that they cannot support or denying evidence or reason. Believe however you want, but you want to force your beliefs on others and in denial of logic, reason and evidence. I see that as wrong and in need of correction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't think we are mammals? It would be so cool to find out we are cobras.

Hmm . . . maybe not a breast man?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so no proof of your conjecture. I am guaranteeing you that if a person does not eat or drink long enough they will die. Yup. That's proof and a guarantee. You have nothing in the way of guarantee and/or proof of the theory of evolution. Nothing. Thanks again.

This is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with the argument.

Creationists never seem to want to understand the basic concept of evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, so no proof of your conjecture. I am guaranteeing you that if a person does not eat or drink long enough they will die. Yup. That's proof and a guarantee. You have nothing in the way of guarantee and/or proof of the theory of evolution. Nothing. Thanks again.

Funny, you are using evidence to support a claim while denying evidence that supports a scientific claim that your are biased against based on belief.

I have no evidence that I personally will die as a result of not eating or drinking. Maybe I would survive it. You don't know that I will die either. You can suspect, based on the evidence that it is likely that I will. I agree. But you cannot say absolutely that I will or that no one exists that could survive starvation and thirst. No proof. Sorry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

OK, so no proof of your conjecture. I am guaranteeing you that if a person does not eat or drink long enough they will die. Yup. That's proof and a guarantee. You have nothing in the way of guarantee and/or proof of the theory of evolution. Nothing. Thanks again.

Did you vet the theory of evolution using evidence as you are here? Or did you just deny it, since you personally don't want it to be correct?

How have you established that the evidence of evolution is not like the evidence for death by extreme starvation and thirst?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hmm . . . maybe not a breast man?

I'm appreciate his opinion, just at a different scale.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe read your Bible. Do you believe that?

Why would any rational person believe a cherry-picked, highly edited, miscopied, factually erroneous, self-contradictory, hearsay collection of ancient stories, by unknown authors, making fantastic claims noöne would believe if reported today -- even by eyewitnesses?

Aren't there dozens of such anthologies, making alternative claims, from different religious traditions? What makes the Bible any more credible?

The Quran, for example, claims to be a unified work by a single author. Wouldn't it be more credible than the Bible?

nPeace, you believe the Bible because it's familiar to you. It was installed before you had any rational firewalls; before you had any critical thinking skills. It's part of your ROM.
It's believed by your parents and status community. It gives you comfort and reassurance. It's a part of a supportive community.

Had you been born in Riyadh, I daresay you'd be a devout Muslim.