Just Accidental?

[Hockeycowboy]

Sayak, do you not read what you post in your links? "More evidence to avoid and ignore"?

Let's take this first one....

"A single-celled alga has evolved a crude form of multicellularity in the lab – a configuration it never adopts in nature – giving researchers a chance to replay one of life’s most important evolutionary leaps in real time.

This is the second time researchers have coaxed a single-celled organism into becoming multicellular – two years ago, the same was done with brewers yeast. But the alga is an entirely different organism, and comparing the two could explain how the transition to multicellular life happened a billion years ago.

Multicellularity has evolved at least 20 times since life first began, but no organisms have made the leap in the past 200 million years, so the process is difficult to study. To replicate the step in the lab, Will Ratcliff and Michael Travisano, evolutionary biologists at the University of Minnesota in St Paul, and their colleagues grew 10 cultures of a single-celled alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Every three days, they centrifuged each culture gently and used the bottom tenth to found the next generation. Since clusters of cells settle faster than single ones, this meant that they effectively selected for algal cells that had a tendency to clump together.

Now, don't we have to ask if this process is something it "never adopts in nature" but needed researchers to "coax" them to become multicellular.....and "no organism has made the leap in the past 200 million years"!!!....and you are going to get excited? Really?
Who is the creator of these organisms? Did they happen by undirected chance? Seriously...

How about the next one....?


Just a few generations after evolving multicellularity, lab yeasts have already settled into at least two distinct lifestyles.

The discovery suggests that organisms can swiftly fill new niches opened up by evolutionary innovations, just as the first multicellular animals appear to have done on Earth, hundreds of millions of years ago.

In 2011, evolutionary biologist Michael Travisano and his student William Ratcliff at the University of Minnesota in St Paul made single celled brewer's yeast evolve into multicellular forms in the lab. They did that by centrifuging yeast cultures and selecting the fastest-settling yeasts to found the next generation. Since clumps of cells settle faster than single cells, this quickly led to multicellular “snowflakes”.

When another of Travisano’s students, Maria Rebolleda-Gomez, looked at Ratcliff’s multicellular strains, she noticed that some snowflakes were up to 10 times larger than others. So she took individual cells from large and small snowflakes in Ratcliff’s original samples and grew them into new multicellular snowflakes.

The daughter colonies resembled the parents in size meaning that the size difference was heritable, giving her in effect two different morphs of snowflake yeast. See the difference in two forms by moving the slider below:

And the two morphs respond differently to the centrifuge-and-settle conditions........

Many years ago, palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould suggested that a similar sudden ecological diversification may have led to the Cambrian Explosion in which most animal body forms arose in the fossil record within a few tens of millions of years.


“Possibly what we see here is the first step of what Gould’s talking about – the opening up of diversity due to a key innovation,” says Travisano.

The yeast also show that this diversification can take place in unexpected ways, based on even the simplest of conditions, says Zachary Blount, an experimental evolutionary biologist at Michigan State University in East Lansing. “I’ve come to think that life really rather abhors simplicity,” he says."

Do you see what I see? I see intervention by humans to produce something that was "made" to happen by their intelligent direction.

"Life abhors simplicity" because no life is simple....all of it required intelligent direction.

These links are not the language of provable science...it is pure suggestion and supposition masquerading as science.
How can you not see the obvious? The power of suggestion....

Hey, Deeje, hope you're well! I got something for you, related to multicellularity.

Google "pleiotropy", and "Chlorella vulgaris". The conclusions they arrived at, is funny! To me, it was. And read the comments below the article.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What does it take?....actual evidence that the "suggestions" made by science are true. The "evidence" is interpreted by biased minds who have a pet theory to validate.....they are going to jump to all the right conclusions because they must, not because the evidence actually telling them anything, but because the evidence is so loose that it allows for gross error in the interpretation.

Where are all the transitional species linking these fossils? If they are separated by millions of years, shouldn't there be many transitional species in between, seen to be heading in the right direction? Why is the fossil record not saying what scientists would like it to?

Deeje, just wanted to let you know, I'm not going to pursue more on this thread. Feel free to comment on my behalf, if you want.
Warmest Christian love, HC

 

[Sapiens]

Wasn't it you who posted this....?


What does this have to do with Eohippus looking suspiciously like a deer? Not "suggestion posing as a fact" or anything....?

Only in terms of its coat, but then you are only looking skin deep. The probability is that the coat was bay, black or LP. Is that an absolute surety? No, but an animal filling a deer's ecological niche in a similar environment is likely to have has a similar coat color.

But of course there is no hubris on your part, is there?

Glad you can see that.

Can't have what both ways?

Yes, you can't both judge my biological acumen whilst bragging about your lack of same, either you've got it or you don't and claim to not have it..

A degree in biology doesn't make an arrogant person right.

There we agree, do we also agree that someone with a strongly anti-intellectual bent who needs to be consistently corrected concerning basic biological concepts is rather unlike to be right, be they ever so humble? Consider Matthew 23:12, it not my task to exalt myself, but rather to humble you. It may seem otherwise to you since you are sinking so quickly.

It doesn't stop, does it? The downgrading and the resorting to humiliation to elevate your education.

Once again I ask you to point out where in this discourse I have elevated my education. I have not mentioned the premier institutions of higher learning that I attended, I have not gone on and on about the famous professors I studied on. I have not mentioned my graduating with high honors, or my perfect GRE score, or my Phi Beta Kappa key. Have I? In fact, I would not mention it now, save your spurious and slanderous statement. My arguments rest on their quality and supporting data, not on my past accomplishments.

The fact is, if the people who educated you were wrong, then everything you've learned will be wrong too.

Wow, talk about hubris, talk about ego, talk about self-exultation, it's a miracle you don't break your bones trying to get down off of that pedestal you've crawled up on to. You have no idea whom you've just denigrated, you've no idea whom you've just maligned, basically, you have no idea ... period, you are simple clueless.

Actually its empty vessels, but who cares. crawled up onto

Actaully it's "barrels" in the original Swedish proverb that Franklin pilfered it from.

Thank you...this is what I have been saying all along.

It is not what you have been misstating all along. If it were, I'd not have had to repeat it.

Thank you again.....I rest my case your honor...the witness has confessed.

Now you are trying to quote mine, you just don't get it. Science makes no claim to permanent and uncontradictable truth. That is not how science works. We present the most likely answer and are willing and able to quickly change our view when and if a given claim is falsified. That is why we are ever so much closer to the truth than the religionists who are stuck with apologizing for bronze age fairy tales that are full of prophetic pronouncements that never come to pass.

I know....you don't have to keep reminding us....we get it. There is no proof and never has been.

If you got it you would stop misstating and misusing it.

Oh, stop it! You are just digging a bigger hole to bury evolutionary science in.

If and when you can poke even the smallest hole in the ToE if will collapse, but you have not been able to do that, all you have done is state that you don't "believe" in the ToE. No one finds that strange, given your stated propensity for the illogical and low probability calls.

How many posts did it take for this confession? Haven't I said all along that science is an unproven theory and should be taught as such? I have no problem with theories, as long as they are not sold to the masses as facts.

What "confession" is that? I'm telling the truth you're spouting egotistical nonsense. I leave room for doubt and correction, you steadfastly adhere to your egomaniacal world view.

Yes! and this is all I needed to confirm all that has been said on this thread up to now.

The ToE is one of the most thoroughly tested and debated Scientific Theories that has ever been, it is extremely unlikely that major revision will ever be needed, but that does mean we close the door on the possibility.

Like I have said all along.....neither camp has "proof" that what they believe is true because there is no science that can "prove" either one.....so thank you for your honesty in clearing that up.

You believe without proof, you claim that I believe without proof, but what you are hiding is the mountain of evidence that supports the ToE and the molehole of evidence (a hole that grows deeper every day) that evidences your beliefs.

You just described beautifully "how science works".

But perhaps its more like a blind person disputing over the color red? If you had no vision, what would it matter? Disputing over how living things changed really never answers the more important question of how life began....does it?

There is more than one way to be blind. I recall Jesus speaking about 'the blind leading the blind'.....and 'both falling into a hole'. I hear that the excavation is huge! [/QUOTE]
No, give your superstitious views, I'm up on the mountain with Lucifer (the light bringer) seeing all the kingdoms and you're down in the molehole.

No you don't. There is not a shred of actual evidence for a chain of evolutionary descent between any of them...it is assumed....suggested and theorized, but there is nothing real to back that up. You could just as easily be looking at a variety of ape species all created by the same power, out of the same raw materials. We know that many species came and went before the creation of man, so our "beliefs" are just as valid as yours. Variety and similarity do not = evolution.

That's simply false, you just lack the requisite knowledge of anatomy, physiology and genetics to warrant a detailed presentation of the evidence that is arrayed against you.

So this is an admission that fossils are a poor source of information. The "excuses" offered are rather pathetic given that the fossil record is so often referred to as evidence for macro-evolution. Flimsy stuff.

Fossils are an excellent source of information, just not a perfect one. More recent data from immunology and genetics has confirmed most of what had been determined by the careful examination of fossils, a few fine points were contradicted, examined and corrected (e.g., the question of possible biphylogeny in the Pinnepedia.)

And this means that all that "evidence" "sitting in museum drawers" is yelling out loudly, but no one has evolved ears to hear them yet?

No, what that means is that every day, in every way, you are being found t be more and more wrong.

Nothing at all.

That's the way science is advance, propose, test, falsify, reject.

Horses have always been horses for as long as man has lived on earth. Large and small horses still exist.

How does that gel with evolution and common ancestry. Both are obviously horses. They did not evolve from any other "kind".

That's the same as a teacup poodle and a great dane, they are both horses, their skeletons and teeth, though of different sizes would never be mistaken for those from earlier members of the horse clade.

Sure it is....all very "scientific".

Yes, all very scientific.

 

[Sapiens]

You forget, it was covered inside and out with tar. Plus the three decks provided interior support. The resinous wood also made it waterproof.

Your comment does nothing to discredit the dimensions.

(I'm sure that Jehovah, who made the sun and brought the Flood, could protect a boat! No doubt He did.)

Wyoming was a wooden six-masted schooner, the largest wooden schooner ever built, but smaller than the claimed size of the Ark. It was built and completed in 1909 by the firm of Percy & Small in Bath, Maine. Wyoming was also one of the largest wooden ships ever built, 450 ft (140 m) from jib-boom tip to spanker boom tip, and the last six-masted schooner built on the east coast of the US.

Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands. A boat build as the Bible describes the Ark would have had trouble surviving in a light breeze. If you've got to invoke magic to make your case you have no case.

 

[Deeje]

Hey, Deeje, hope you're well! I got something for you, related to multicellularity.

Google "pleiotropy", and "Chlorella vulgaris". The conclusions they arrived at, is funny! To me, it was. And read the comments below the article.

Mmmmm interesting conclusions. Comments made me smile too.

 

[Darkstorn]

Where are the lies? The evidence she presents is in the obvious complex structure of living organisms! Even Flew and Einstein recognized there had to be an Intelligent Source behind it all!

Tell me, where's the lie, if it's not to believe that a written language, developed itself and began replicating, gaining its own knowledge to form the variety of life we have today? If it was trial and error -- and natural selection is based on trial and error -- the fossil record would be filled with half-formed creatures, manifesting little function. (This is precisely why Gould proposed 'punctuated equilibrium'.)

This is not the case!!!

Furthermore, how could Darwinian evolution account for and maintain the balance between predator-prey interaction? Natural selection, by definition, would upset that balance, as the 'selfish genes' would select for the prey to defeat the attacks from the predators!

Bunny rabbits, et.al., would be developing claws and other defensive body plans!

Deeje is a reasoner, not easily misled by what's accepted. So am I.

Did you even try to read my post? I wasn't arguing about evolution at all. Only the means some(including you now) use to push lies and strawmen, while at the same time DISMISSING EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTED OUT TO YOU.

How can you say you are "reasoner" when you dismiss evidence... Without evidence? I mean, Deeje's primary method of dismissing evidence is by imagining that it's some funny joke and should be responded with a funny internet picture instead of an actual argument.

Case in point:

Member A posts links to evidence Deeje asked for.

Deeje then replies with "lol" and a stupid picture.

Member B posts links to evidence Deeje asked for.

Deeje then replies with "lol" and a stupid picture.

Member C tells Deeje that he / she should stop dismissing evidence.

Deeje makes the claim that no evidence has been provided. Yet there's no evidence whatsoever in his / her argument that there's no evidence.

Members A, B, C and now even member D all tell him / her that they have already provided evidence and that Deeje is just dismissing it out of turn.

This is not a debate. This is a circlejerk for people who agree with him. THAT'S IT. Your reply is perfect evidence for this. You guys don't care about arguing. Otherwise you would argue the evidence with something more valuable than "lol" and a funny picture. Seriously man. You guys simply do not want debate. You want acceptance.

Wrong forum for that. Simple as that. If you cannot demand the same standards from yourself when you're demanding them from EVERYONE ELSE, it shows that you are arguing from shaky ground, and the burden of proof is on you.

/E: I'll NEED you to provide quotes from Einstein claiming that there's a designer in the first place: Intelligent or not. The burden of proof is on you; You made the claim. From my standpoint, you not providing such a quote would make you both a liar and an abuser of strawmen.

 

[Deeje]

Did you even try to read my post? I wasn't arguing about evolution at all. Only the means some(including you now) use to push lies and strawmen, while at the same time DISMISSING EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE POINTED OUT TO YOU.

How can you say you are "reasoner" when you dismiss evidence... Without evidence? I mean, Deeje's primary method of dismissing evidence is by imagining that it's some funny joke and should be responded with a funny internet picture instead of an actual argument.

Case in point:

Member A posts links to evidence Deeje asked for.

Deeje then replies with "lol" and a stupid picture.

Member B posts links to evidence Deeje asked for.

Deeje then replies with "lol" and a stupid picture.

Member C tells Deeje that he / she should stop dismissing evidence.

Deeje makes the claim that no evidence has been provided. Yet there's no evidence whatsoever in his / her argument that there's no evidence.

Members A, B, C and now even member D all tell him / her that they have already provided evidence and that Deeje is just dismissing it out of turn.

This is not a debate. This is a circlejerk for people who agree with him. THAT'S IT. Your reply is perfect evidence for this. You guys don't care about arguing. Otherwise you would argue the evidence with something more valuable than "lol" and a funny picture. Seriously man. You guys simply do not want debate. You want acceptance.

Wrong forum for that. Simple as that. If you cannot demand the same standards from yourself when you're demanding them from EVERYONE ELSE, it shows that you are arguing from shaky ground, and the burden of proof is on you.

/E: I'll NEED you to provide quotes from Einstein claiming that there's a designer in the first place: Intelligent or not. The burden of proof is on you; You made the claim. From my standpoint, you not providing such a quote would make you both a liar and an abuser of strawmen.

Good grief another Mr Grumpy.

What is it with you people? Does the topic of evolution vs creation make you lose your sense of humor? Did you evolve your funny bone out of existence or something? This whole question is about what people choose to believe. Its about whether scientists are really being truthful with the ordinary folks out there who don't have the benefit of a science degree and who just might find the investigation here of interest because it is conveyed in layman's terms. No fancy scientific jargon...just plain old in your face, facts....with real pictures of real creatures...not contrived diagrams of long extinct critters.

If you have chosen to support the ToE, then go for it. Believe it all you want....but seriously, if you really think this thread is nonsense, then how come we have over 15,000 views already? Does this make you uncomfortable?
Doesn't it demonstrate that this topic is of interest to those who may be questioning either one view or the other? We are helping them with their choices...isn't that wonderful?

Putting things simply, I believe that I have shown evolutionary science to be the deceptive fraud that it really is.
It is pure conjecture based on assumptions it has made about how life changed on this planet. The "chain" of evolutionary species that is supposed to have led to man, is lacking verifiable evidence that any of it is true. Its circumstantial evidence at best.....complete fraud at worst. I have noticed the level of disdain that is heaped upon those 'uneducated morons' who have the hide to question the 'god' that science has become for many. It isn't sacrilege.....its just plain, honest, logical truth.

If you believe that microbes can morph into dinosaurs given enough time, then I am going to call you out on that.

If the best you can do is show me fossil fragments or bones and then paint me a picture of how this evolved into that over several million years but you have no way to actually prove that, then what are we to conclude? What you are saying is nothing more than the fairy story you think we are telling.....you have no more proof for what you say, than we have.

Read Sapiens posts #1215 and #1216 and see what is written there. Take the biased glasses off and really read it.
There is no verifiable proof for evolution....and there is no verifiable proof for ID. Choose your belief system.

Evolution forces ordinary people to question their own common sense, deny what they see with their own eyes and believe everything scientists tell them for no other reason than that they are scientists. They have a decided bias towards the subject and if they don't have verification for some aspect, they will invent a scenario that they believe is convincing, complete with wonderful graphics....but its all smoke and mirrors.

What does it matter if evolution "suggests" most of what it posits as "evidence"? What if its "interpretation" of the evidence is way off the mark because it reads things in a biased way? It matters because people are told that ToE is unquestionable fact, when it clearly is no such thing. Even school children are brainwashed at a very young age.

I won't allow pompous men to feed people something presented as truth, when it isn't. It is assumed to be truth, but there is no way to prove it. Just be honest about that.

The original definition of a theory is.....
"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion;
opinion, view, belief, thinking, thought(s), judgement, contention"

And that is exactly what the ToE is. Changing the meaning of the word so you can call it the truth is deceitful.

 

[viole]

There is no verifiable proof for evolution....and there is no verifiable proof for ID. Choose your belief system.

Shall we add SD? So that we have all alternatives.

Ciao

- viole

 

[savagewind]

How can anyone who believes what the Bible really teaches expect that there should be fossil records all neat and tidy?

Genesis 3:19

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

 

[ArtieE]

We are living in the time of the last ruling power.

For those who are interested in JW prophecies read http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/1800s.php

 

[ArtieE]

Dogs are a "kind" in that they can be domesticated or wild but still visually dogs....wolves, dingoes, hyenas etc are all within the "dog" kind. Cats too are a "kind". Like dogs, domestic cats have many different breeds, all created by humans in selecting traits that they desire in their favorites. None of those breeds would exist without human interference. Wild cats are plainly of the same "kind"....regardless of size, we can see that they are still cats, not dogs.

Bears can come in many shapes and sizes as well....but they are all bears.

And don't get me started on insects........is that useful enough?

Here is an interesting article about Biblical "kinds". http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html

 

[metis]

No you don't. There is not a shred of actual evidence for a chain of evolutionary descent between any of them...it is assumed....suggested and theorized, but there is nothing real to back that up.

In science, there two different approaches in attempting to ascertain "facts". One of them is direct proof, which is often hard to come by, especially in this arena, but the 2nd is to disprove all other possibilities.

In the case of descent with modification, there is often no possible alternative explanation as to why we see transitional forms gradually being formed into new species while many of the older species die off. Theologically, it's as if God kept creating and creating and creating some more. But, in light of what it actually says in the Bible, that concept rubs counter to the fact that it says God finished creation at the end of the 6th day. Since this is what it says, what other explanation is possible? The reality is this: none.

So, if we take a look at roughly 3 billion years of the evolution of life here on Earth, there simply is no even slightly plausible alternative scenario, and that would even include the biblical creation accounts. On top of that, what we now know about genetics confirms the basic principles of the ToE, namely gradual mutations that natural selection and genetic drift dictate can and have been involved in the formation of new species (google "speciation", for examples)..

So, we know this has happened, and we've known it for over a century now, so it makes not one iota of sense to blindly swallow what we now know is an absurd interpretation of the creation accounts, especially since there's a much more logical alternative.

To put it another way, the Bible should enlighten one-- thus not to have one go through life with a set of blinders on.

 

[ArtieE]

The fact that stuff exists is proof that it had to have an originator. Stuff doesn't just "poof" itself into existence. Your fantasy is worse than mine.

That your originator didn't require an originator for it's existence is proof that stuff can exist without an originator.

 

[savagewind]

That your originator didn't require an originator for it's existence is proof that stuff can exist without an originator.

Poor form. God isn't "stuff". God is a spirit. For those not understanding spirit, think of energy.
Did energy have an originator?

 

[ArtieE]

Oh, the Earth isn't a circle? News to me! (The Hebrew word there -- "chug" -- can mean sphere.)

The Flat-Earth Bible. https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

 

[ArtieE]

Poor form. God isn't "stuff". God is a spirit. For those not understanding spirit, think of energy.
Did energy have an originator?

God is "energy"? So "energy" originated "stuff"?

 

[savagewind]

God is "energy"? So "energy" originated "stuff"?

I did not say that God is energy. I say God is Spirit. OK?

 

[ArtieE]

I did not say that God is energy. I say God is Spirit. OK?

OK. So according to the dictionary "spirit" is "a supernatural being or essence" and this supernatural being or essence didn't require an originator? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit

 

[savagewind]

OK. So according to the dictionary "spirit" is "a supernatural being or essence" and this supernatural being or essence didn't require an originator? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit

Correct. And to help you reason on it I offered to call spirit energy. Do you believe in energy? Did it always exist, or did it poof into existence?

 

[ArtieE]

Correct. And to help you reason on it I offered to call spirit energy. Do you believe in energy? Did it always exist, or did it poof into existence?

Why did you call spirit energy? What's supernatural about energy?