Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

I haven't read all of them either. I've read parts of the other editions.

It is 150 years out of date, but still worth reading. Rather long, trying recitations of evidence, but still worth it.

But before I go, here is how you phrased it..."haven't read all of them either. I've read parts of the other editions." Because you're so defensive, maybe you better think things over...have a good day. Bye for now..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Watch out for the giraffe section! I nearly lost an eye.

And the pigeon feathers everywhere. Very realistic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But before I go, here is how you phrased it..."haven't read all of them either. I've read parts of the other editions." Because you're so defensive, maybe you better think things over...have a good day. Bye for now..

I know what I said. I also responded "me too" in response to @John53 confirming he had read it. It wasn't a long post either (two words), so surely you read it. The evidence is again in my favor.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am exactly correct based on the evidence. It has been noted by others as well. It is the point that you are attempting to make by the misinterpretation of the articles.

I love it. Exactly correct. Lol .

Again, we are back to the game of "prolong this without concession". Ignore the evidence. Ignore what others tell you.

I think this is enough.

Kind of me too. Thanks though for the conversation.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know what I said. I also responded "me too" in response to @John53 confirming he had read it. It wasn't a long post either (two words), so surely you read it. The evidence is again in my favor.

Never mind... You evidently and I mean that word cannot be specific.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I love it. Exactly correct. Lol .

Kind of me too. Thanks though for the conversation.

I guess it wasn't "Bye for now". Had to get some shots in for an honest reconstruction of what you have been up to. Not unexpected at all. No surprise for me.

I think we really are done here.

 

[Pogo]

Very good for you too. All six?

What a silly question, have you read all the thousands of editions of the Bible, The book is the same with minor changes, in response to comments from readers not changes in subject matter.

 

[Dimi95]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

You need to understand that the questions that you state here are telling us what you are trying to gain with them.
And you have used this similar 'tactic' before.

Does your God know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

 

[Dimi95]

So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

The correct answer is : They don't know exactly the whole procces behind it - not yet.

Do you think you or someone else can fill that gap?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What a silly question, have you read all the thousands of editions of the Bible, The book is the same with minor changes, in response to comments from readers not changes in subject matter.

I think his first book was awesome! But I prefer Darwin 2, The Revenge. This time he means business! I laughed. I cried. It warmed my heart and kept me on the edge of my seat.

 

[YoursTrue]

The correct answer is : They don't know exactly the whole procces behind it - not yet.

Do you think you or someone else can fill that gap?

Someone else...not me. Thank you for your honest answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

You need to understand that the questions that you state here are telling us what you are trying to gain with them.
And you have used this similar 'tactic' before.

Does your God know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

I would think so. Why not?

 

[YoursTrue]

What a silly question, have you read all the thousands of editions of the Bible, The book is the same with minor changes, in response to comments from readers not changes in subject matter.

It is not a silly question. I was asking for a purpose. Your point is not making much sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Consensus or belief in something doesn't mean it is correct.

It doesn't. What scientific consensus means, is that experts in the field who actually know what they are talking about agree that whatever there is consensus about is currently the best explanation available for the available evidence.

So going back to miller urey for a moment, what do the results mean as evaluated by scientists?

That organic compounds, like amino acids, can spontaneously arise through natural chemistry.

From my recollection of reading, it seems to verify the theory of abiogenesis.

It certainly is a step in the direction. The first step in explaining abiogenesis is to explain where they building blocks of life (like amino acids) come from.
You know....the kind of molecules that creationists like to claim "can't come about naturally".
Well, clearly they can.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I mean it seems incredible that these "just happening" processes led to human life as we know it.

Yeah, that's what we call the argument from incredulity.

IE: my evidence against it, is that I don't believe it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe I'm not using the right terminology, but I mean, putting crudely, fish do not breed with apes, and humans and monkeys or gorillas, or one of them if I remember correctly failed to grow within a woman, do not physically breed in any manner.

So?

But we are to assume that somewhere down the line from the UCA of apes they must have interbred.

No. Where did you get that nonsense from?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The entire "theory of evolution" rests on assumptions and interpretations rather than experiment.

No.

To say it another way no experiment rules out vastly different interpretations than Darwin and "survival of the fittest". No experiment shows species change gradually a little at a time. Logic merely says healthy individuals have healthy offspring that are just like they are. No change in species.

This leaves us with the knowledge species change but no experiment to show gradual change or the cause of change. We assume many things.

Every single evolution experiment shows gradual change leading to eventual speciation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's more I'd like to mention but I have a lot of things to do tonight. Car won't start, I have to think about which mechanic to use, statistics show not all are good honest mechanics.

Ask your pastor to pray for it to be magically fixed.
Why would you trust the science of car mechanics?

 

[cladking]

It doesn't. What scientific consensus means, is that experts in the field who actually know what they are talking about agree that whatever there is consensus about is currently the best explanation available for the available evidence.

Relatively few peers are fooled into mistaking this consensus for reality But it is a common problem for believers in science.

Every single evolution experiment shows gradual change leading to eventual speciation.

Can you cite any specific experiment carried out over millions of years? Thousands?

What you mean ids that you have no experiment and all observed change in life is sudden.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Relatively few peers are fooled into mistaking this consensus for reality But it is a common problem for believers in science.

You mean, it's a common strawman used by the anti-science squad.

I don't know anybody who thinks that scientific consensus means that whatever there is consensus about is therefor the Truth (tm).

I only ever see anti-science people make that claim.

You are free to link to a post from a "science believer", as you call it, where that person says that consensus means "Truth (tm)" instead of merely "best available explanation".