People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Seek out the witches and unbelievers so you can torture and sacrifice them on your almighty alter of scientific consensus! You don't care if the ice caps were supposed to be gone for... what?... a decade now?"

Let's unpack the stupidity here:

First of all, ya paranoid freak, nobody is suggesting anything of the sort. Stop trying to make yourself some sort of "martyr", when really you are just a cackling peddler of anti-scientific nonsense. Lending yourself faux martyr status doesn't suddenly make your bullshit, "true".

Secondly, not a single scientist claimed the ice caps would be gone by now, so your comment shows not only utter ignorance of the topic, but the fact that you know less than nothing about the topic. That's right, less than nothing. I.E., not only do you know nothing about the topic, the things you think you know are all wrong. Yes, you have net negative knowledge about the topic. In other words, a teacher would have to spend time simply correcting your dishonest, incorrect bullshit just to get you to the point where your knowledge of the topic is the same as an newborn baby. How embarrassing for you... and it's made even more embarrassing by your aggressiveness. "Aggressively stupid"... it's worse than stupid.

I may be a tad aggressive but I'm not the one being aggressive and abusive. As for the ice caps being gone...



...One of your ^^^high priests^^^ proclaimed in 2009 that the ice caps were supposed to be gone in five years. Now that would have been 2014 that all those polar bears would have no habitat and here we are almost four years later. Did I miss something about how that global warming theory magically divined all of this? Maybe if you manipulate the data 'just so' the next time it won't blow up in your face.

*****CHUCKLE*****

That's yet another shameless lie by you. He said the models predicted it as possible, which was accurate to say. One of these days, you cackling deniers are going to come to the realization that your own ignorance and misunderstanding of simple words and scientific topics is not everyone else's fault.

So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. It would appear that the only ignorance here is your inability to believe that you can not sway the masses with your theology of global warming when the untruths of your dogma are uncovered. I'm sure that as you kneel to the great alter of scientific consensus one of these days you'll have a prophesy that might even come true... After all even a clock is right two times a day.

*****CHUCKLE*****

"So now you're saying that the words of prophesy were misguided because your high priest was filling in the gaps with theological untruths. "

No, you shameless, embarrassing little liar, i said nothing like that. I said gore said that the models now predicted the possibility that the Northern sea ice could melt away completely at some point during the year by 2014. And saying so was accurate on his part, as this was an outlier in the models. Just take a hike, I have no use for your crazy or for your lies.

Your lack of self-awareness is astounding

Your religion is ridiculous. The forte of mindless cultists who seek to shore up the deficiency of their own ignorance by bleating mantras from the leaders of your cult.

Gravity is scientific fact that is supported by mathematical and physical evidence. Any scientist is free and encouraged to test gravity.

Evolution is scientific fact that is supported by mathematical and physical evidence. Any scientist is free and encouraged to test evolution.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud that is refuted by mathematical and physical evidence. Any scientist who speaks against the church will be black balled and persecuted by your obscenely stupid religion.

Clearly something is wrong with your brain, if you actually believe that the world's scientists are all lying about AGW. That, of course, explains why you know-nothing deniers are all squawking on internet forums, instead of publishing science. You are not presenting a challenge to a robust theory by throwing your little hissy fit. You are just embarrassing yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The dogma that is leading you to irrationally deny scientific theories, of course. your dogma is the incorrect "alternative explanation". yes, it arises from your magical beliefs. No, I won't believe you if you say otherwise. Sorry.

Precisely the argument I use in regard to the AGW cult that you worship, Comrade.

So what? Who gives a shit of some freak on the internet says water isn't wet? Your cackling has no bearing on anything, save for embarrassing this country by being part of its unique contingent of trailer park scientists who think global warming is a vast conspiracy.

 

[MarkDuffy]

If one believes in microevolution, then he has admitted to all of evolution.

The IDer argument that while microevolution is true, while macroevolution is false, is merely buying time instead of surrendering to science today.

Nonsense. I believe it's possible for a species to undergo changes due to environmental pressures and natural selection to form new species over time. The species are still in the same genus taxon. I see no evidence that anything has ever leaped to a new genus in the evolution process. The fossil record doesn't show this.

Now if you want to fall back on the argument that "just because" science can't explain it today, doesn't mean they won't be able to explain it tomorrow, that's fine but it's a faith based argument no different than "God Did It!"

I should also throw in here that taxonomic categories are very arbitrary. Some genera are much different from other genera. Not a lot of sponges, but tons of chordates (vertebrates), so with vertebrate, we smash a lot into a little name. Even then we add super, sub, infra, etc. Old taxonomy was by looks only and wow did they get it wrong.

We are also dealing with time. We kinda assume a new fossil of let's say homo erectus is a real species meaning we could not breed with it. We really do not know this. We don't even know we could breed with archaic home sapiens.

There is nothing special about your "genus"

This is SO fucking frustrating! I am using terminology you are familiar with to make my argumentative point and you are ass raping your own terminology in order to refute me! If I don't use terminology you're familiar with, you claim I'm a simpleton who doesn't understand basic biological taxonomy. So you've set this up so that you can't be wrong. Either your taxonomic system is a crock of shit that means nothing or it's empirical truth that can never be challenged, and it all just depends on what you're arguing.

Taxonomy has been around since ancient times but pre-Darwin taxonomy was essentially useless because it largely relied on, as you admit, how things look. I can't count how many times I've been confronted with the example of the duck-billed platypus because it looks like a duck but it's a mammal. So you fuckwits jump back and forth from an ancient pre-Darwin understanding of taxonomy to a post-Darwin understanding... again, just depending on what you're arguing at the time.

Modern post-Darwin taxonomy is largely phylogenetic and based on things like DNA and genetic code or genomes. It's not some arbitrary distinction drawn through happenstance. There are very clear and distinct delineations between domains, kingdoms, phylum, class, order, family and finally, genus and species. And yes, much of this is indeed structured on a presupposition that everything evolved from an ubiquitous single cell organism. Modern taxonomy is based on this hierarchy, even though it's simply a theory.

MY point... using your very own terminology and system of classification, is that we have no evidence of any "evolution" ever occurring across genus taxon. Within a genus, yes... there is plenty of evidence for MICRO-evolution spawning new species. You have finches with short beaks and finches with long beaks... because, in some geographic areas, the short beaked finches were better equipped to survive and in other areas, the long beaked finches fared better. Natural selection happened and viola... two different species of finches emerged. This process happens over thousands of years and eventually you have 27 different species of finches... but they ALL belong to the same genus taxon.

I'm not claiming MACRO-evolution is impossible. It could very well be true. We've just not found the clear indisputable evidence to support the theory at this time. Doesn't mean we're never going to find it, that could happen at any time. Pretending that it already happened and we've already established this as an indisputable fact is erroneous and dishonest. Trying to twist and contort your own terminology to fit your narrative is not helpful. Insulting me and denigrating my attempts to point out facts is the antithesis of science and displays a complete disregard for scientific principle.

Zen Faulkes, works at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
Answered Apr 27

I think this is a variation of a standard Creationist objection: “Nobody has seen speciation.” This objection has two problems.

First, since there are now multiple cases of speciation that have been observed (CB910: New species), the goalposts get moved to a higher taxonomic rank. No Macroevolutionaddresses this objection pretty well.

Second, the standard of evidence is unreasonably high: it limits inferences to what has been directly observed by other humans. The argument goes, “I can know Washington crossed the Delaware because it was seen by other humans. I can’t know anything about dinosaurs because it wasn’t observed by humans.” It’s not clear what the dividing line between “knowable” and “not knowable” is.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-evidence-of-a-genus-evolving-into-another-genus

This is a variation of the bogus missing link argument.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Adrià Cereto i Massagué, Bioinformatician (2015-present)
Answered Apr 27


The question doesn’t make much sense.

A part of a defined genus will not colllectively split and form a new genus. All members of a genus are descended from a single species. That species no longer exists, but if it did instead of all its daugther species, and it were closely enough related to the species in another genus, it might not even have its own genus.

Genera are just labels we use to group together related species. As we learn more about their relationships and history, we change and reshuffle them to better fit what we know.

Now, there’s evidence of species evolving into different species. It’s a gradient. But onece you get back enough in time, it’s no longer useful to consider the species at the extremes to be in the same genus; so we put the modern and most modern-like ancestors in the same genus, and the least modern-like ancestors in their own genus. For example, Pierolapithecusturning into (probably) Sahelanthropus turning into Ardipithecus turning into Australopithecus turning into Homo. And that’s just one lineage; the modern genera Pongo, Pan and Gorilla, among others, are also ultimetely descendants of Pierolapithecus.

If what you are looking for is a speciation event that turned the new species different enough to be granted its own new genus… well, yes, it has happened, but, that I am aware of, only in plants. That’s what happens when 2 species of different genera hybridize and the resulting hybrids are fertile and stable, meaning they can produce hybrids with the same overall genetic make-up. It’s happened naturally several times, but in the 19th century a notable one was developed by man: triticale, a hybrid between wheat and rye. These fertile hybrids, being descended from 2 different genera, need a new one. You argue, though, that their parent species should just be classified within the same genus if they can produce fertile hybrids. And this happens sometimes too: mollies used to be iin the genus Mollienesia while guppies used to be in the genus Lebistes. But after finding that they can successfully (albeit rarely) produce (sterile) hybrid offspring, both genera were merged together into Poecilia.

So, genera, and other clades above are just labels we use to sort species and show their relatedness Other than that, they are rather arbitrary. : by the standards used for most organisms, the species in the Pan and Homo genera aren’t different enough to be in different genera… but… who’s going to mix us perfectly rational humans with savage filthy beasts like chimpanzees, huh? No, we need our own genus! we’re not animals at all!

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-evidence-of-a-genus-evolving-into-another-genus

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Adrià Cereto i Massagué, Bioinformatician (2015-present)
Answered Apr 27


The question doesn’t make much sense.

A part of a defined genus will not colllectively split and form a new genus. All members of a genus are descended from a single species. That species no longer exists, but if it did instead of all its daugther species, and it were closely enough related to the species in another genus, it might not even have its own genus.

Genera are just labels we use to group together related species. As we learn more about their relationships and history, we change and reshuffle them to better fit what we know.

Now, there’s evidence of species evolving into different species. It’s a gradient. But onece you get back enough in time, it’s no longer useful to consider the species at the extremes to be in the same genus; so we put the modern and most modern-like ancestors in the same genus, and the least modern-like ancestors in their own genus. For example, Pierolapithecusturning into (probably) Sahelanthropus turning into Ardipithecus turning into Australopithecus turning into Homo. And that’s just one lineage; the modern genera Pongo, Pan and Gorilla, among others, are also ultimetely descendants of Pierolapithecus.

If what you are looking for is a speciation event that turned the new species different enough to be granted its own new genus… well, yes, it has happened, but, that I am aware of, only in plants. That’s what happens when 2 species of different genera hybridize and the resulting hybrids are fertile and stable, meaning they can produce hybrids with the same overall genetic make-up. It’s happened naturally several times, but in the 19th century a notable one was developed by man: triticale, a hybrid between wheat and rye. These fertile hybrids, being descended from 2 different genera, need a new one. You argue, though, that their parent species should just be classified within the same genus if they can produce fertile hybrids. And this happens sometimes too: mollies used to be iin the genus Mollienesia while guppies used to be in the genus Lebistes. But after finding that they can successfully (albeit rarely) produce (sterile) hybrid offspring, both genera were merged together into Poecilia.

So, genera, and other clades above are just labels we use to sort species and show their relatedness Other than that, they are rather arbitrary. : by the standards used for most organisms, the species in the Pan and Homo genera aren’t different enough to be in different genera… but… who’s going to mix us perfectly rational humans with savage filthy beasts like chimpanzees, huh? No, we need our own genus! we’re not animals at all!

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-evidence-of-a-genus-evolving-into-another-genus

Excellent point about Homo and Pan.

 

[Boss]

Sooo, DNA code was created just by accident? Riiight! LOL

No, it was probably created by selection, which is nonrandom. Is this an epiphany for you? All this time you have been calling it "random", and "an accident". Now you know you were ass backwards wrong the entire time.

Has this new knowledge changed your views?

Let's talk about this "selection" you keep bringing up when debating origin of life. Before there was any form of life in our universe, it was full of inorganic matter floating around randomly in space. At some point, there had to be approximately 27 specific amino acids and 14 enzymes which found their way to one another and coalesced to create the very first strand of DNA. We don't know how that happened or by what sort of "selective" process it could've occurred, but it certainly had to happen for DNA to exist. What force, natural or supernatural, do you suppose controlled the selection of these components? What are the odds out of the thousands of possibilities that the correct combination just happened to fall together in order to form the very first living organism? It's not a question that is easy to answer or we would have answered it by now. We simply have to presume one of two possibilities... "Just So Happens!™" or "God Did It!™" Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

SO... Now we have the very first DNA and living organism. What force, natural or supernatural, determined which amino acids and enzymes to switch around or change in order to produce a completely different DNA required for a completely different form of life? Are you claiming the organism itself has the capacity to "select" on it's own accord, without any outside input? That's pretty incredible. But it had to happen somehow in order for there to be another form of life. Again... "Just So Happens!™" or "God Did It!™" Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

At some point, there was the monumental leap from single-cell life to multi-cellular life and that required some phenomenal happening we've yet to be able to figure out. Even with full understanding of amino acids and enzymes, even with state-of-the-art laboratories and controlled environments, we can't seem to replicate this feat. But again... it had to happen somehow and we're looking at the two possibilities... "Just So Happens!™" or "God Did It!™" Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

Obviously, you are in the "Just So Happens!™" camp. But as we examine the utter complexity of life and the abundance of life forms, it becomes quite unbelievable that so many insurmountable odds were met with nothing but random chance involved. And really, it's just as easy to believe "God Did It!™" ...Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Adrià Cereto i Massagué, Bioinformatician (2015-present)
Answered Apr 27


The question doesn’t make much sense.

A part of a defined genus will not colllectively split and form a new genus. All members of a genus are descended from a single species. That species no longer exists, but if it did instead of all its daugther species, and it were closely enough related to the species in another genus, it might not even have its own genus.

Genera are just labels we use to group together related species. As we learn more about their relationships and history, we change and reshuffle them to better fit what we know.

Now, there’s evidence of species evolving into different species. It’s a gradient. But onece you get back enough in time, it’s no longer useful to consider the species at the extremes to be in the same genus; so we put the modern and most modern-like ancestors in the same genus, and the least modern-like ancestors in their own genus. For example, Pierolapithecusturning into (probably) Sahelanthropus turning into Ardipithecus turning into Australopithecus turning into Homo. And that’s just one lineage; the modern genera Pongo, Pan and Gorilla, among others, are also ultimetely descendants of Pierolapithecus.

If what you are looking for is a speciation event that turned the new species different enough to be granted its own new genus… well, yes, it has happened, but, that I am aware of, only in plants. That’s what happens when 2 species of different genera hybridize and the resulting hybrids are fertile and stable, meaning they can produce hybrids with the same overall genetic make-up. It’s happened naturally several times, but in the 19th century a notable one was developed by man: triticale, a hybrid between wheat and rye. These fertile hybrids, being descended from 2 different genera, need a new one. You argue, though, that their parent species should just be classified within the same genus if they can produce fertile hybrids. And this happens sometimes too: mollies used to be iin the genus Mollienesia while guppies used to be in the genus Lebistes. But after finding that they can successfully (albeit rarely) produce (sterile) hybrid offspring, both genera were merged together into Poecilia.

So, genera, and other clades above are just labels we use to sort species and show their relatedness Other than that, they are rather arbitrary. : by the standards used for most organisms, the species in the Pan and Homo genera aren’t different enough to be in different genera… but… who’s going to mix us perfectly rational humans with savage filthy beasts like chimpanzees, huh? No, we need our own genus! we’re not animals at all!

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-evidence-of-a-genus-evolving-into-another-genus

Claim CB901:
No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
Response:

1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.
   
   
2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
   
   
3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.
   
   
4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
   
   
5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

CB901: No Macroevolution

As I have posted, if they accept microevolution, then they have accepted all of evolution. They just refuse to admit it ~ YET.

Sooner or later, religionists will accept all of evolution with man being special creation of their God. They will parse Genesis and all will be well with their new faith. Religions evolve and are very adaptable.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sooo, DNA code was created just by accident? Riiight! LOL

No, it was probably created by selection, which is nonrandom. Is this an epiphany for you? All this time you have been calling it "random", and "an accident". Now you know you were ass backwards wrong the entire time.

Has this new knowledge changed your views?

Let's talk about this "selection" you keep bringing up when debating origin of life. Before there was any form of life in our universe, it was full of inorganic matter floating around randomly in space. At some point, there had to be approximately 27 specific amino acids and 14 enzymes which found their way to one another and coalesced to create the very first strand of DNA. We don't know how that happened or by what sort of "selective" process it could've occurred, but it certainly had to happen for DNA to exist. What force, natural or supernatural, do you suppose controlled the selection of these components? What are the odds out of the thousands of possibilities that the correct combination just happened to fall together in order to form the very first living organism? It's not a question that is easy to answer or we would have answered it by now. We simply have to presume one of two possibilities... "Just So Happens!™" or "God Did It!™" Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

SO... Now we have the very first DNA and living organism. What force, natural or supernatural, determined which amino acids and enzymes to switch around or change in order to produce a completely different DNA required for a completely different form of life? Are you claiming the organism itself has the capacity to "select" on it's own accord, without any outside input? That's pretty incredible. But it had to happen somehow in order for there to be another form of life. Again... "Just So Happens!™" or "God Did It!™" Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

At some point, there was the monumental leap from single-cell life to multi-cellular life and that required some phenomenal happening we've yet to be able to figure out. Even with full understanding of amino acids and enzymes, even with state-of-the-art laboratories and controlled environments, we can't seem to replicate this feat. But again... it had to happen somehow and we're looking at the two possibilities... "Just So Happens!™" or "God Did It!™" Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

Obviously, you are in the "Just So Happens!™" camp. But as we examine the utter complexity of life and the abundance of life forms, it becomes quite unbelievable that so many insurmountable odds were met with nothing but random chance involved. And really, it's just as easy to believe "God Did It!™" ...Either way, it's a faith-based conclusion.

"What are the odds out of the thousands of possibilities that the correct combination just happened to fall together in order to form the very first living organism?"



This is fundamentally loaded and based on fallacy from the start. For one, the "odds" (nonsensical term in this context, but I will use it anyway) are excellent that selection, given enough time and iterations, would produce complicated chemicals that persist and even self-replicate. That is self-evident, as only the chemicals successful at persisting would persist,. and those more successful would be more persistent. That's selection.

Discussing the "odds" of it being "exactly DNA" is unscientific and irrational, and is based in a fallacy called "Hoyle's Fallacy". We have DNA and RNA precisely because those molecules persisted and thrived more well than others, and for literally no other reason, in the context of "abiogenesis by selection". There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based, and there is almost certainly forms of life that have evolved or will evolve elsewhere in the universe that are NOT DNA-based.

What are the odds of DNA persisting and then existing, billions of years later? ? Apparently, 100%, in this universe, same as the odds that stars will form and die. Or, using Hoyle's fallacy (as you do all the time), it's virtually 0%. Clearly, it's a nonsensical question, as no answer is more correct or incorrect than any other. You wield a LOT of nonsense like this, Boss.

seriously, take some advice: when a claim you make can never be tested, or when there is no way to ever tell if it is correct or not, it is useless nonsense. When you ask a question, and any answer is as correct as any other, your question is nonsense. You REALLY need to observe this simple idea. You waste a lot of time with utter nonsense.

 

[Boss]

Adrià Cereto i Massagué, Bioinformatician (2015-present)
Answered Apr 27


The question doesn’t make much sense.

A part of a defined genus will not colllectively split and form a new genus. All members of a genus are descended from a single species. That species no longer exists, but if it did instead of all its daugther species, and it were closely enough related to the species in another genus, it might not even have its own genus.

Genera are just labels we use to group together related species. As we learn more about their relationships and history, we change and reshuffle them to better fit what we know.

Now, there’s evidence of species evolving into different species. It’s a gradient. But onece you get back enough in time, it’s no longer useful to consider the species at the extremes to be in the same genus; so we put the modern and most modern-like ancestors in the same genus, and the least modern-like ancestors in their own genus. For example, Pierolapithecusturning into (probably) Sahelanthropus turning into Ardipithecus turning into Australopithecus turning into Homo. And that’s just one lineage; the modern genera Pongo, Pan and Gorilla, among others, are also ultimetely descendants of Pierolapithecus.

If what you are looking for is a speciation event that turned the new species different enough to be granted its own new genus… well, yes, it has happened, but, that I am aware of, only in plants. That’s what happens when 2 species of different genera hybridize and the resulting hybrids are fertile and stable, meaning they can produce hybrids with the same overall genetic make-up. It’s happened naturally several times, but in the 19th century a notable one was developed by man: triticale, a hybrid between wheat and rye. These fertile hybrids, being descended from 2 different genera, need a new one. You argue, though, that their parent species should just be classified within the same genus if they can produce fertile hybrids. And this happens sometimes too: mollies used to be iin the genus Mollienesia while guppies used to be in the genus Lebistes. But after finding that they can successfully (albeit rarely) produce (sterile) hybrid offspring, both genera were merged together into Poecilia.

So, genera, and other clades above are just labels we use to sort species and show their relatedness Other than that, they are rather arbitrary. : by the standards used for most organisms, the species in the Pan and Homo genera aren’t different enough to be in different genera… but… who’s going to mix us perfectly rational humans with savage filthy beasts like chimpanzees, huh? No, we need our own genus! we’re not animals at all!

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-evidence-of-a-genus-evolving-into-another-genus

This is just utter "unscientific" nonsense based on speculation of the fossil record. A dancing around your own terminology to render classifications as meaningless until you need them to be meaningful. It's simply a self-aggrandizing statement based on a secular belief that has no support in actual scientific evidence. It's conjecture and speculation based on a preconceived notion that hasn't been supported.

 

[Boss]

This is fundamentally loaded and based on fallacy from the start. For one, the "odds" (nonsensical term in this context, but I will use it anyway) are excellent that selection, given enough time and iterations, would produce complicated chemicals that persist and even self-replicate.

"Selected" by WHAT?

 

[Boss]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based

Except the fact that EVERY form of life relies on DNA.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is fundamentally loaded and based on fallacy from the start. For one, the "odds" (nonsensical term in this context, but I will use it anyway) are excellent that selection, given enough time and iterations, would produce complicated chemicals that persist and even self-replicate.

"Selected" by WHAT?

By physical laws and environmental pressures, of course. Just as stable molecules like water are "selected for". Just as certain molecular rock structures are "selected for". Just as spheroid objects in space are "selected for".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based

Except the fact that EVERY form of life relies on DNA.

Now you are just making stuff up again, Shaman Boss. You have no way of knowing such a thing.

 

[Boss]

What are the odds of DNA persisting and then existing, billions of years later? ? Apparently, 100%, in this universe, same as the odds that stars will form and die. Or, using Hoyle's fallacy (as you do all the time), it's virtually 0%. Clearly, it's a nonsensical question, as no answer is more correct or incorrect than any other. You wield a LOT of nonsense like this, Boss.

Apparently, you don't understand what DNA is or how it works. DNA is not this ubiquitous thing that just so happens to exist in living things. It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to. Every living thing contains unique DNA... that's why it is so useful in crime scene investigations. All DNA is not the same. While it is unique to each organism, it also contains comparatively common markers allowing us to define species, genus, family, order, class, etc. We know the difference between the DNA of a monkey and that of a human. They have similarity because both are members of the same genetic family but they are never the same.

I've not argued ANY type of fallacy, I am merely interjecting philosophy of honesty here. You can't run around waving your science book at me and proclaim things fact that you haven't proven. Maybe you'll prove them one day, but that's not today, bucko!

 

[Boss]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based

Except the fact that EVERY form of life relies on DNA.

Now you are just making stuff up again, Shaman Boss. You have no way of knowing such a thing.

Well then, reel me off a few examples of living organisms DEVOID of DNA?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What are the odds of DNA persisting and then existing, billions of years later? ? Apparently, 100%, in this universe, same as the odds that stars will form and die. Or, using Hoyle's fallacy (as you do all the time), it's virtually 0%. Clearly, it's a nonsensical question, as no answer is more correct or incorrect than any other. You wield a LOT of nonsense like this, Boss.

Apparently, you don't understand what DNA is or how it works. DNA is not this ubiquitous thing that just so happens to exist in living things. It is a complex 16-bit code defining every single aspect of the living organism it belongs to. Every living thing contains unique DNA... that's why it is so useful in crime scene investigations. All DNA is not the same. While it is unique to each organism, it also contains comparatively common markers allowing us to define species, genus, family, order, class, etc. We know the difference between the DNA of a monkey and that of a human. They have similarity because both are members of the same genetic family but they are never the same.

I've not argued ANY type of fallacy, I am merely interjecting philosophy of honesty here. You can't run around waving your science book at me and proclaim things fact that you haven't proven. Maybe you'll prove them one day, but that's not today, bucko!

You fool...guess who does understand DNA? The scientists who discovered it and dedicated their lives to studying it, and who are now testing the hypothesis of abiogenesis by selection, exactly as I have described it. No, your contrived bullshit that "anyone who doesn't apply your magical bullshit and fallacies to this idea just doesnt understand it" is not worth shit. Get that weak shit out of here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based

Except the fact that EVERY form of life relies on DNA.

Now you are just making stuff up again, Shaman Boss. You have no way of knowing such a thing.

Well then, reel me off a few examples of living organisms DEVOID of DNA?

Thank you for a very clear illustration of your very poor grasp of logic. A person would not have to produce an example to refute your claim. It is you who would have to survey every cubic millimeter of the universe to prove your claim. I give some people credit for using conman tactics intentionally, but I think we all know your logical errors are quite by accident.

 

[MarkDuffy]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based

Except the fact that EVERY form of life relies on DNA.

Current life on earth disclaimer.

Exploring Life's Origins: Ribozymes & the RNA World

Do Humans and Bacteria Share Common Genetic Codes?

The code can be different (thar's that stubborn evolution thang again, duck!)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi

 

[Boss]

This is fundamentally loaded and based on fallacy from the start. For one, the "odds" (nonsensical term in this context, but I will use it anyway) are excellent that selection, given enough time and iterations, would produce complicated chemicals that persist and even self-replicate.

"Selected" by WHAT?

By physical laws and environmental pressures, of course. Just as stable molecules like water are "selected for". Just as certain molecular rock structures are "selected for". Just as spheroid objects in space are "selected for".

Ahh.. So a molecule of oxygen decides it wants to select two hydrogen molecules to bond with and form water? Rocks decide to select their formation? Perhaps there is actual PURPOSE in my continuous arguing with rock heads like you on the Internet?

 

[MarkDuffy]

There is absolutely no reason at all to believe that life can only be DNA-based

Except the fact that EVERY form of life relies on DNA.

Now you are just making stuff up again, Shaman Boss. You have no way of knowing such a thing.

Well then, reel me off a few examples of living organisms DEVOID of DNA?

HIV & other viruses, red blood cells

https://www.quora.com/Do-all-living...-examples-of-living-things-that-dont-have-DNA