If God doesn't exist...

[Boss]

Not quite. It seems you're thinking of evolution like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly, where there is a set beginning state and a set end state, with a transition state in between. But that's not what evolutionary theory claims. Most changes are incremental and small, and not necessarily distinctly recognizable. There's no point where you can clearly say: "this generation was species A, and the next generation was species B." There's a point where you can say "Species A" and a point where you can say "Species B," but you can't necessarily recognize the point of change...or a side branch that becomes species A.5 instead of B.

And remember...when you're saying "suddenly," that means over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Fossils are rare. We can't expect to find any, but what we can do is predict that IF certain fossils are found that they will have certain qualities. And those predictions, such as whales with legs, have been correct.

When I say "suddenly" I mean suddenly. We can pinpoint where various species came into existence in the fossil record and when they became extinct. They appear, full formed, suddenly... not over millions of years of transition. The "whales with legs" thing is a myth... largely speaking. Whales do have a bony structure which could, in a deformity, appear to be a "leg" but this is not connected to the vertebral structure which is the case in every mammal that has legs. This bony structure also has a fundamental purpose to the species... and it's not so that whales can walk.

I understand how the evolution process is supposed to work, you're not talking to someone who is illiterate. At this time, there is absolutely ZERO evidence of any cross-genus evolution. The ONLY evolution is adaptation of species over time to form (sometimes) new species... not new genera taxa. Black bears become polar bears... spotted owls become white owls... those are adaptations.

DNA is the smoking gun that kills cross-genus evolution or "macro-evolution" because DNA proves it's not possible biologically. The mitochondria in the DNA molecule functions based on a specific amino acid and enzyme combination and nothing else works with it. In order for the "mutation" theory (Darwin) to be valid, the mathematical probability of a randomly-produced correct combination is 10^180 ...that is greater than all the atoms in the known universe. In other words, mathematically impossible.

They tested fruit flies for over 100 years, trying to make a mutation happen in order to prove the mutation theory and they failed to find any evidence of such. After millions and millions of generations, not one new amino acid or enzyme was produced. This is quite simply, an 18th century theory that has no basis for support today. Yet... Evolutionist Atheists cling to it like the Holy Grail... pardon the pun.

 

[pinqy]

There's a difference between saying a single cell evolved into a multi-cellular organism and saying that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell organisms. The first implies that one single cell creature somehow transformed itself into a multi-cellular creature. What makes more sense is that single cell creatures formed colonies...over time, due to transcription errors, and/or other changes, parts of the colony were no longer independent, then none of the colony was independent and that is a multicellular creature.

What process do you suggest makes more sense?

Uhmm... NAw... there is no difference in saying a single cell evolved into a multi-cellular organism and saying that multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cell organisms. It's two ways of saying exactly the same thing.

No, it's really not. But that you can't understand that is probably part of the issue.

In your hypothesis, the single cell evolved into multi-cell organism... you surmise it was through "transcription errors" and colonization.

No, in my scenario, multiple single cell organisms form colonies over the course of millions/billions of years, and over the course of more millions of years, the colony becomes as a single organism.

That's not the same as an individual single cell just turning into a multi-cellular organism.

The problem is, there is no biological support for your hypothesis. Therefore, it doesn't make sense.

Of course there is Choanoflagellates are single-celled but also form colonies, by incomplete cell division. There's no known reason that process, which is very much like what happens with zygotes, couldn't be the basis of multicellular life.

 

[BreezeWood]

No, it's really not. But that you can't understand that is probably part of the issue.

or not just him but the (above) creationist that simply close their minds for various reasons ...

Of course there is Choanoflagellates are single-celled but also form colonies, by incomplete cell division. There's no known reason that process, which is very much like what happens with zygotes, couldn't be the basis of multicellular life.

couldn't be the basis of multicellular life.

could that be a misprint ....


is there a multi(dissimilar)cellular organism on Earth or are they multisubdided (similar) cellular organisms that inhabit our planet ?

.

 

[the_human_being]

I find it totally awesome that a female in her child-bearing years somehow swam ashore from some slime pool at the same time a virile male swam ashore from the same slime pool and that they got together. I mean, suppose the female had swam ashore a million years prior to that male swimming ashore or that the female didn't climb out of a slime pool in China and that the male climbed forth from a slime pool in Africa. I mean really, what are the odds here?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
... the gals I know would find him if he jumped up and landed on Mars or be waiting there for him - if interested.

... climb out of a slime pool

is that the Almighty's Garden or the maintenance you keep in your "own" back yard ?

.

 

[the_human_being]

.
... the gals I know would find him if he jumped up and landed on Mars or be waiting there for him - if interested.

... climb out of a slime pool

is that the Almighty's Garden or the maintenance you keep in your "own" back yard ?

.

Actually, it's what has been put forth by the highly intelligent and scientific minded evolutionists. Of course, most of them claim that all life began from some single-celled organism in some primeval slime pool. I've never seen a baby born without the benefit of a female's egg and a male's sperm myself and have asked for a scientific explanation from some of the geniuses on here but thus far I have received no viable and believable response.

 

[Boss]

No, in my scenario, multiple single cell organisms form colonies over the course of millions/billions of years, and over the course of more millions of years, the colony becomes as a single organism.

That's not the same as an individual single cell just turning into a multi-cellular organism.

It's exactly the same. You are simply trying to "imagine" my argument to be some kind of *poof* moment in which the evolution happened... that's the only difference. "As a" is not "A" ...very important distinction. Colonies of ants and bees can function "as a" single entity... it doesn't make them one. In a million or a billion years, they will never become a single entity.

Of course there is Choanoflagellates are single-celled but also form colonies, by incomplete cell division. There's no known reason that process, which is very much like what happens with zygotes, couldn't be the basis of multicellular life.

I'm sorry, but again... you are talking about a THEORY from the 1800s that is not supported by any actual scientific evidence other than speculative theory. You have a group of scientists saying "we THINK this is what happened..." and that's all you have. Because you have a theory that you cannot reason why it's not possible, doesn't mean it happened. If you are trying to make that be science, you've simply substituted faith for science.

And that seems to be an ongoing problem here.

 

[BreezeWood]

that is not supported by any actual scientific evidence other than speculative theory.

boss lives in a makebelieve "I told you so" mentality, never producing links to any of his ramblings.

.

 

[Boss]

that is not supported by any actual scientific evidence other than speculative theory.

boss lives in a makebelieve "I told you so" mentality, never producing links to any of his ramblings.

.

I can't give you links to something that doesn't exist. It's incumbent upon you to provide me with links in order to support your claims. I have no obligation to refute that which you haven't provided evidence for.

The example given is a theory. I've heard the theory before and there is no science to actually support it at this time. In science, theories don't become facts because you desperately need for them to be facts. You can certainly run around claiming theories are facts but that isn't science... that's faith.

 

[BreezeWood]

I can't give you links to something that doesn't exist.

no one asked you to, simply links supporting your accusations ...

you are talking about a THEORY from the 1800s that is not supported by any actual scientific evidence other than speculative theory.

They appear, full formed, suddenly... not over millions of years of transition. The "whales with legs" thing is a myth... largely speaking.

- not over millions of years of transition.


that's a good one ... give it a rest bossy.

.

 

[Boss]

I can't give you links to something that doesn't exist.

no one asked you to, simply links supporting your accusations ...

you are talking about a THEORY from the 1800s that is not supported by any actual scientific evidence other than speculative theory.

They appear, full formed, suddenly... not over millions of years of transition. The "whales with legs" thing is a myth... largely speaking.

- not over millions of years of transition.


that's a good one ... give it a rest bossy.

.

Well yes... that was what you demanded... That I link you to something saying there is no scientific evidence to support your cockamamie theory. The burden of proof is on YOU... not ME!

And I don't know what you mean by "give it a rest" when I said the fossil record shows species appearing suddenly and disappearing suddenly. If species transitioned into new genus taxa, we'd find plenty of fossil evidence of it... we don't! We see fully-formed creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record... where is their common ancestors? Why were they not included in the fossil record as well? You don't have answers, just theories.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Well yes... that was what you demanded...

no, my diagram, link speaks for itself, you simply offer smokescreens and bellicose reply's when you have been thwarted, personal vendettas rather than reasonable responses.

.

 

[Boss]

.

Well yes... that was what you demanded...

no, my diagram, link speaks for itself, you simply offer smokescreens and bellicose reply's when you have been thwarted, personal vendettas rather than reasonable responses.

.

Your diagram was of a multi-cell organism functioning as a multi-cell organism. You've posted no links to support your argument that (essentially) all life is unicellular. Your supposition is not supported by biological facts. Sorry.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your diagram was of a multi-cell organism functioning as a multi-cell organism. You've posted no links to support your argument that (essentially) all life is unicellular. Your supposition is not supported by biological facts. Sorry.

You've posted no links to support your argument that (essentially) all life is unicellular.


the diagram is the link, all life on planet earth is either singlecellular or multisubdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi dissimilar celled organisms in existence.


[ you HAVE NOT named any creature on earth that is a multidisimilarly celled organism. ]

do so - or relent.

.

 

[TNumber]

Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.

lol stupid communest fascest
God was always existed. not that hard too understand but imguess ur a libturd so ur dumber then average

 

[BuckToothMoron]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

So if science can't explain it in terms you can understand, it qualifies as a miracle?

 

[Boss]

Your diagram was of a multi-cell organism functioning as a multi-cell organism. You've posted no links to support your argument that (essentially) all life is unicellular. Your supposition is not supported by biological facts. Sorry.

You've posted no links to support your argument that (essentially) all life is unicellular.


the diagram is the link, all life on planet earth is either singlecellular or multisubdivided single celled organisms, there are no multi dissimilar celled organisms in existence.


[ you HAVE NOT named any creature on earth that is a multidisimilarly celled organism. ]

do so - or relent.

.

Again, your graphic (which is not a LINK) depicts a multi-cell life form in process of reproduction. It has absolutely ZERO to do with unicellular life forms which function completely differently from your diagram.

I HAVE given you an example of multi-cellular life where the cells are dissimilar. EVERY multi-cell life form! ALL of them! 100% of them! In your entire body comprised of trillions of cells, no two are exactly alike. Many are similar, depending on their function. Many are quite different. NONE of your cells can independently carry on the process of life by themselves. That makes you a multi-cellular life form and not a unicellular one.

 

[BreezeWood]

I HAVE given you an example of multi-cellular life where the cells are dissimilar. EVERY multi-cell life form! ALL of them! 100% of them! In your entire body comprised of trillions of cells, no two are exactly alike. Many are similar, depending on their function. Many are quite different. NONE of your cells can independently carry on the process of life by themselves. That makes you a multi-cellular life form and not a unicellular one.

again you ignore the diagram, all cellular structures are within the initial cell - each because of the triggering combined nucleus's directive to perform differing tasks are nonetheless composed entirely from the initial cell. there are no dissimilar cells within any living creature on Earth.

you HAVE NOT named any creature on earth that is a multidisimilarly celled organism.

are the leaves of an Oak tree a different organism than the Oak ...



.

 

[Boss]

again you ignore the diagram, all cellular structures are within the initial cell - each because of the triggering combined nucleus's directive to perform differing tasks are nonetheless composed entirely from the initial cell. there are no dissimilar cells within any living creature on Earth.

I didn't ignore anything. Your diagram doesn't show any unicellular life form. Again... EVERY cell in EVERY multi-cell life form is different... like snowflakes.

 

[GaryDog]

again you ignore the diagram, all cellular structures are within the initial cell - each because of the triggering combined nucleus's directive to perform differing tasks are nonetheless composed entirely from the initial cell. there are no dissimilar cells within any living creature on Earth.

I didn't ignore anything. Your diagram doesn't show any unicellular life form. Again... EVERY cell in EVERY multi-cell life form is different... like snowflakes.

Jesus you are weapons-grade stupid.