Evolution of what?

[The Hammer]

That is true. That is why we are still apes. That is why we are still mammals. And I know that you do not like this but that is also why we are still fish.

You just confirmed all of the above in your post.

I bet this goes right past them.

 

[shunyadragon]

The thing is, that dolphins and humans are different. Dolphins have qualities that humans do not have. And that's where I'm going to stop right now.

Like the sky is Carolina Blue on a clear day ar noon on the 4th of July. So what?!?!?!?!

 

[YoursTrue]

That is true. That is why we are still apes. That is why we are still mammals. And I know that you do not like this but that is also why we are still fish.

You just confirmed all of the above in your post.

You and others can say you're an ape or I'm an ape. That's your obvious prerogative. Scientists can say you're an offshoot from an ape unknown ancestor as well as fish. And for this -- there's no "proof." No Miller-Urey type experiment proving the thesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

I bet this goes right past them.

I'll bet you think you're a fish, too. And who knows? Maybe you think you're bacteria also.

 

[shunyadragon]

I can believe in Adam and Eve because I believe that the Bible is truthful. I don't have to prove anything to you if not with the Bible. In the Bible Adan and Eve were true persons.

Yes in ancient mythology they were real persons, So were dragons and the Monkey King in ancient Chinese mythology.

You need to prove that the doctrine of the evolution is real according to evidence,

Science is not a doctrine nor does it prove anything.

You and others can say you're an ape or I'm an ape. That's your obvious prerogative. Scientists can say you're an offshoot from an ape unknown ancestor as well as fish. And for this -- there's no "proof." No Miller-Urey type experiment proving the thesis.

You still do not understand the basics of the sciences of evolution.

since you decided not to believe what the Bible says without that kind of evidence ... supposedly you must have that kind of evidence to proof your doctrine. I don't have to.

What is your back ground in the sciences of evolution that you would base our line of reasoning on?

 

[shunyadragon]

From my experience, some people will do and say just about anything using ostensible logic, hook or crook, to overcome any seeming obstacle to the logic of the theory of evolution.

Hook? The fishing line is hanging from your mouth.

I got into the discussion and my glasses are becoming clearer as the conversation of sorts continues among certain parties. I am learning, however.

I do not believe you have changed your belief in the church of Jehovah Witnesses since your first post.

You still do not remotely understand the terminology of evolution used so far in your history at this forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You and others can say you're an ape or I'm an ape. That's your obvious prerogative. Scientists can say you're an offshoot from an ape unknown ancestor as well as fish. And for this -- there's no "proof." No Miller-Urey type experiment proving the thesis.

And you just admitted total ignorance again and fulfilled @The Hammer;s prediction too.

Did you ever see the Maury Povich show? You know "You ARE the father!!"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I bet this goes right past them.

I gave this a like and then had to update it to "winner" since the prophecy had already been fulfilled.

 

[sayak83]

Once a human, always a human. Same with dolphins. Once a dolphin, always a dolphin. Unless, of course, you think otherwise. Then maybe they're not.

A human is a species. Species can change into a new species through evolution.
Once a human always a human is hence FALSE.

An ape is however a clade (a nested group of lower classes or species with a common ancestor). Evolution cannot take a newly evolved species out of its clade.

So once in an Ape (clade) always in the Ape (clade)
As to dolphins and whales, they are in the clade odontoceti (toothed whale clade) and again, any new species that evolve in the future will continue to belong to odontoceti clade.
Once an odontoceti always an odotoceti.

 

[gnostic]

You and others can say you're an ape or I'm an ape. That's your obvious prerogative. Scientists can say you're an offshoot from an ape unknown ancestor as well as fish. And for this -- there's no "proof." No Miller-Urey type experiment proving the thesis.

The Miller-Urey experiment doesn’t refute the theory of evolution, as the experiment had nothing to do with theory.

The premises of the experiment was that, through chemical reactions from some inorganic chemicals (chemical compounds), the inorganic chemicals will produce organic compounds. and as predicted, it work, producing 9 different types of amino acids as predicted in the premises - amnio acids are among the building blocks of proteins, which are essential for all living organisms.

The experiment was successful, and validated one of the premises of the hypothesis Abiogenesis.

The experiment has to do with Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

Your argument is not only flawed, it was a deliberate & dishonest misinterpretation of the purpose of Miller-Urey experiment.

You are doing again - you are making up things that’s clearly not true.

You don’t even realise, that your underhandedness only creationists’ positions. Dishonesty only hurts your argument, not help you.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Miller-Urey experiment doesn’t refute the theory of evolution, as the experiment had nothing to do with theory.

The premises of the experiment was that, through chemical reactions from some inorganic chemicals (chemical compounds), the inorganic chemicals will produce organic compounds. and as predicted, it work, producing 9 different types of amino acids as predicted in the premises - amnio acids are among the building blocks of proteins, which are essential for all living organisms.

The experiment was successful, and validated one of the premises of the hypothesis Abiogenesis.

The experiment has to do with Abiogenesis, not Evolution.

Your argument is not only flawed, it was a deliberate & dishonest misinterpretation of the purpose of Miller-Urey experiment.

You are doing again - you are making up things that’s clearly not true.

You don’t even realise, that your underhandedness only creationists’ positions. Dishonesty only hurts your argument, not help you.

I have not been dishonest. The lack of exactitude for the theory of evolution is dishonest in its way of something is when it isn't.

 

[gnostic]

I have not been dishonest. The lack of exactitude for the theory of evolution is dishonest in its way of something is when it isn't.

Your post is dishonest, as the Miller-Urey experiment had nothing to do with Evolution.

You are forgetting that one of the mechanisms for Evolution - underlying Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking - is GENETICS.

Genetics required there to be living organisms REPRODUCTION, which will pass genetic & physical traits from one generation to another.

THERE ARE NO LIVING ORGANISMS IN THE EXPERIMENT! ​

​

NO REPRODUCTION FROM LIVING (PARENT) ORGANISMS IN THE EXPERIMENT!​

​

NO OFFSPRING IN THE EXPERIMENT!​

​

NO TRAITS BEING PASSED FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT, IN THIS EXPERIMENT!​

​

HENCE THE EXPERIMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION!!!​

​

​

The only thing that happened in Miller’s experiment were just CHEMISTRY & CHEMICAL REACTIONS, with no living organisms and no reproduction, therefore no genetics!

Are you getting the picture, now???!!!

Your original post was gross misrepresentation of Evolution and of Abiogenesis. Hence, your post was a dishonest one.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Science is not a doctrine nor does it prove anything.

Amen to that!

 

[shunyadragon]

Amen to that!

Needs clarification because of your opposition to sciences of evolution. Proofs are for math and propositional logic not science, and logical arguments depend on the acceptance of the assumptions. Proven propositional logic are not always true.

Do you understand the principle of falsification in Methodological Naturalism?

By definition in English "doctrine" does not apply to science.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

noun

1. a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
   "the doctrine of predestination" synonym - dogma
   
   
   Clarification needed based on English definitions concerning how science functions in terms of understanding the nature of our physical existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your post is dishonest, as the Miller-Urey experiment had nothing to do with Evolution.

You are forgetting that one of the mechanisms for Evolution - underlying Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking - is GENETICS.

Genetics required there to be living organisms REPRODUCTION, which will pass genetic & physical traits from one generation to another.

THERE ARE NO LIVING ORGANISMS IN THE EXPERIMENT! ​

​

NO REPRODUCTION FROM LIVING (PARENT) ORGANISMS IN THE EXPERIMENT!​

​

NO OFFSPRING IN THE EXPERIMENT!​

​

NO TRAITS BEING PASSED FROM ONE GENERATION TO THE NEXT, IN THIS EXPERIMENT!​

​

HENCE THE EXPERIMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH​

Huh? (P.S. Please try to stop yelling -- it hurts my ears -- something I suppose you think EVOLVED...) (Have a good one...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Needs clarification because of your opposition to sciences of evolution. Proofs are for math and propositional logic not science, and logical arguments depend on the acceptance of the assumptions. Proven propositional logic are not always true.

Do you understand the principle of falsification in Methodological Naturalism?

By definition in English "doctrine" does not apply to science.

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

noun

1. a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.
   "the doctrine of predestination" synonym - dogma
   
   
   Clarification needed based on English definitions concerning how science functions in terms of understanding the nature of our physical existence.

All these philosophical terms. I guess that's part of science, too.

 

[gnostic]

Huh? (P.S. Please try to stop yelling -- it hurts my ears -- something I suppose you think EVOLVED...) (Have a good one...)

just emphasising the points that you were completely ignoring.

Miller-Urey experiment wasn’t about creating life, and certainly wasn’t about genetic variations or speciation, but it was about inorganic chemical compounds can produce organic compounds, through CHEMICAL REACTIONS. It was to synthesise organic compounds from inorganic compounds.

as the experiment didn’t use living organisms, no reproduction processes and genetic processes were involved…it was just chemistry.

The outcome were 9 different types of amino acids were detected back in 1952, and another 11 were detected in 2007, bringing it to total of 20 different types of amino acids.

And no point was this experiment about evolution, so you are misrepresenting both Abiogenesis experiment and the theory of evolution…in another word, you haven’t been truthful.

 

[Eli G]

It is outrageous to have to read some forum members throw gratuitous accusations at other forum members who question them honestly and decently.

There is no social communication in what the acolytes of the evolutionary doctrine call "sciences of the evolution" (a term that makes me laugh a bit, but...).

 

[gnostic]

Btw, @YoursTrue

The Miller-Urey experiment wasn’t the only experiment for Abiogenesis. Other chemists (including biochemists) used different inorganic chemicals that could possibly existed pre-3.6 billion years ago, in their own experiments, to produce amino acids or other organic compounds, eg adenine, which is one of the 4 nucleobase molecules in RNA & in DNA, from Joan Oró’s experiment in 1969.

what you need to understand that organic compounds would have to exist, before any prokaryotic cell can form.

some think that such biological compounds or molecules can form in hydrothermal vents, or any body of water that were exposed to prebiotic atmosphere.

Plus, the Allende meteorite and the Murchison meteorite, both in 1969, revealed that these meteors and asteroids can form organic compound, outside of the earth’s atmosphere.

So organic compounds could probably have extraterrestrial origins. But biochemists are researching Abiogenesis are not ignoring any possible sources.

While Abiogenesis may not be science yet, as they need more evidence and data, the current evidence and data do support there are number of avenues for origins of biological matters existing before first life, which make Abiogenesis falsifiable.

The same cannot be said for Intelligent Design or any form of creationism, where they required “God” or “Designer”. If you cannot observe the Creator or Designer, then Genesis Creation and Intelligent Design are both unfalsifiable.

That’s the differences between what Abiogenesis have been able to test so far, and the religion (and your Bible) that you “believe“ to be true, which untestable.

 

[YoursTrue]

just emphasising the points that you were completely ignoring.

Miller-Urey experiment wasn’t about creating life, and certainly wasn’t about genetic variations or speciation, but it was about inorganic chemical compounds can produce organic compounds, through CHEMICAL REACTIONS. It was to synthesise organic compounds from inorganic compounds.

as the experiment didn’t use living organisms, no reproduction processes and genetic processes were involved…it was just chemistry.

The outcome were 9 different types of amino acids were detected back in 1952, and another 11 were detected in 2007, bringing it to total of 20 different types of amino acids.

And no point was this experiment about evolution, so you are misrepresenting both Abiogenesis experiment and the theory of evolution…in another word, you haven’t been truthful.

Sorry, I don't 'hear' when someone is yelling.