User Tag List

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3678910111213
Results 121 to 125 of 125

Thread: Monkeys exist, so how can evolution be true?

  1. #121
    Senior Member Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points3 months registered
    Overall activity: 51.0%

    BabyBoomer+'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    447
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked: 246
    Rep Power
    1181121
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    1. Not ignoring anyone.. shoot down? With speculative beliefs and conjecture?
    2. Nothing even resembling 'life', has been created by man, even though it supposedly happens easily, by accident, naturally.

    3. Show me ANY experiment where anything but 'building blocks!' has been created.. all you have are spoiled little brats playing with tinker toys, crying if the adults don't see the tiger or elephant they made..
    4. '..weight to the idea..', the common disclaimer in the articles you posted, is another way of saying, 'We believe it without evidence!' But it is all hypothetical and conjecture.. pardon my skepticism, that i don't share the same religious opinion.
    5. You're new here, and i try to be gentle and accommodating, and not take anyone too seriously, at first.
    6. It still boils down to belief. You believe, 'amino acids!, chemicals!, enzymes!, clouds!, blocks!, and millions of years!' will create life, with no facts to support it.. just conjecture and plausibility.
    supporting evidence for all this was provided, you merely chose to ignore it. What you DID fail to do was prove any of it was wrong.

    2 and 3. life is a simple as two pairs of amino acids, as long as they possess genes, evolve by natural selection, and replicate by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. The invention of two new amino acid pairs and there integration into existing DNA creates a new life form unknown anywhere else in the universe.

    3. This is an absurd bit of chicanery. Its like saying "I decline to believe in bricks until you show me a house" We know how life is constructed, and we know how to make the building blocks. The rest inevitably will follow, barring legal constraints on creating life.

    4. ".weight to the idea..', the common disclaimer in the articles you posted, is another way of saying, 'We believe it without evidence!'"
    No it isnt, Its exactly what it says, "it supports previous evidence". You really do like these little word games, dont you?

    5. Dont be patronising.

    6. No its boils down to science. All these points have been proven by repeatable scientific experiements. You can do the same process, and you will come up with the same result. Show me the method by which the existence off god can be verified by anyone by means of a repeatable scientific experiment.

  2. #122
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    Overall activity: 83.0%

    Morning Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    12,539
    Thanks
    3,614
    Thanked: 13,196
    Rep Power
    20911033
    Quote Originally Posted by Shane Ryan View Post
    Let's think logically. I know that is hard for evolutionists, but they can try.

    We are told that humans evolved from species that are always depicted as "ape-like". Then the evolutionists try to double-talk us by saying that we did not evolve from apes, while at the same time claiming that people who don't subscribe to their dogma believe that people rode saddleback on dinosaurs.

    Can we cut through the bullshit, just once?

    If evolution is true, then people evolved from apes. However, apes still exist. Why hasn't natural selection evolved them out of existence?
    It is obvious that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

    It would be one thing to disbelieve because you understood it, even remotely, but reject the logic, but wow man, you are just beyond the pale ignorant when it come to this topic. I suggest you keep to your stupid fairy tales and leave these discussions to those that have a clue.

  3. #123
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class1 year registered
    Overall activity: 83.0%

    Morning Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    12,539
    Thanks
    3,614
    Thanked: 13,196
    Rep Power
    20911033
    Quote Originally Posted by usfan View Post
    Yes, that is the belief, carefully indoctrinated into every American from preschool on. ..repeated dogmatically, until it becomes a transcendental chant or mantra..

    Too bad there is no evidence for it, and that belief in abiogenesis, and common descent are just religious opinions, masquerading as 'science!'
    The evidence is overwhelming you just deny it. Human DNA and Chimp DNA is almost identical and we have traced DNA all the way down the tree of life. Which supports the idea of UDC, as for abiogenesis, just another red herring, evolution does not address abiogenesis.

  4. #124
    Alumni Member & VIP V.I.P Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteranTagger First Class
    Overall activity: 99.6%

    nonsqtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    21,435
    Thanks
    7,268
    Thanked: 19,592
    Rep Power
    21474862
    Quote Originally Posted by Morning Star View Post
    The evidence is overwhelming you just deny it. Human DNA and Chimp DNA is almost identical and we have traced DNA all the way down the tree of life. Which supports the idea of UDC, as for abiogenesis, just another red herring, evolution does not address abiogenesis.
    UDC? No, not really. What it shows is that certain symmetries and certain equilibria are necessary for life. This is where the embryology comes in. Because if you understand embryology, you're seeing the development of shape in front of your very eyes. Shape is what distinguishes a chimp from a human being. Even though 99% of the DNA may be identical, we look very different. Why is that?

    Well, it's not necessarily that we were "descended from" apes, it just means that anything in our branch of the tree has a certain "shape".

    I mean, monkeys, humans... we all look kind of more or less the same. But there are half a dozen branches of the tree involved, and it's not entirely clear that any of these branches were depending on each other.

    Nature is very clever. Take for example one of the cytochromes or something, those molecules are reused over and over again. Normally they're sequestered in the mitochondria in the energy-producing apparatus, but they're also used to maintain chemical gradients during embryogenesis.

    As life becomes more complex, some of these functions change from optional to mandatory. They become necessary to support the complexity. And at that point, it doesn't really matter how the life forms started, what matters more is that their complex and they require certain support.

    And remember that all of this occurs at the chemical level. Which is why I pointed out, that many of the most important evolutionary events are mechanical, they have nothing to do with mutations or anyting. If a little speck of dust gets into the cell it can disrupt a whole lot of things, in Plants it can even have a more dramatic effect than colchicine.

    The mechanical manipulations are where you see things that more closely resemble speciation. In the laboratory, these are the types of things to put an arm where an eye is supposed to be. You can create dramatic changes in shape this way, for example frogs with faces that are... different.

    Generally speaking, yes, there is a tree of life.

    I do think though, that the common descent nonsense has been sufficiently disproven.

    The questions regarding the missing link just have to do with Tracing Our Branch, that's all. It doesn't say anything about any other kinds of life-forms.

  5. #125
    The Last Free American V.I.P Achievements:
    SocialTagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsCreated Blog entryVeteranOverdrive
    Overall activity: 85.0%

    usfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sedona, Az
    Posts
    12,685
    Thanks
    14,321
    Thanked: 8,864
    Blog Entries
    10
    Rep Power
    21474855
    Quote Originally Posted by BabyBoomer+ View Post
    supporting evidence for all this was provided, you merely chose to ignore it. What you DID fail to do was prove any of it was wrong.

    2 and 3. life is a simple as two pairs of amino acids, as long as they possess genes, evolve by natural selection, and replicate by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. The invention of two new amino acid pairs and there integration into existing DNA creates a new life form unknown anywhere else in the universe.

    3. This is an absurd bit of chicanery. Its like saying "I decline to believe in bricks until you show me a house" We know how life is constructed, and we know how to make the building blocks. The rest inevitably will follow, barring legal constraints on creating life.

    4. ".weight to the idea..', the common disclaimer in the articles you posted, is another way of saying, 'We believe it without evidence!'"
    No it isnt, Its exactly what it says, "it supports previous evidence". You really do like these little word games, dont you?

    5. Dont be patronising.

    6. No its boils down to science. All these points have been proven by repeatable scientific experiements. You can do the same process, and you will come up with the same result. Show me the method by which the existence off god can be verified by anyone by means of a repeatable scientific experiment.
    1. No evidence was provided. Plausible speculation, from creating amino acids, is offered, but nothing like life is produced. Prove it, if you believe otherwise.
    2,3. Making parts does not equate to a finished product. If you claim these parts fit together to make a living organism, show me. You just have lego blocks scattered all over the floor, and claim it is a zoo you have made.
    4. There is no life. That is the bottom line. You have not created an amoeba or bacteria, or anything that is called 'life' by biologists. Amino acids are not life, no more than an old tire is a car..
    5. No problem. Don't complain if i don't reply at your command.
    6. All you have are dead compounds. None of them are alive, or meet any definition of sustainable life. You've brewed up some compounds under highly controlled laboratory conditions, and do not even come close to life. The word games are yours, for pretending your tinker toy animals are alive.
    ..

    'Christians have religion! Atheists have science!'
    Everyone has to do their own believing, and their own dying.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •