This is a debate forum so it is 1) not really in public and 2) the point is to prove the others position wrong. I did not blame you I just stated that your position was wrong/false. Now this is a completely different statement. Not mutating and going from single cell to multi cellular life is a huge leap. How this happened is yet to be explained. Other leaps .. how did life go from asexual to sexual ? you have organisms that reproduce through cell division. Scientists have been able to show how self replication happened - this used to be a major gap. Self replication is on of the main keys to how life cold arise(reproduction). But ok .. you have a cell that is able to make a copy of itself .. how did we go from asexual to sexual. This is very strange. I agree that there is some force that is behind evolution. It is not random chaos. It appears that the forces of the universe ( call this God if you like) are geared to create complexity .. this complexity we call life.
I don't have any idea what you call here "not in public" - a forum is public. And if you like to say something to anyone's position then the first step is to try to understand what someone else really says, instead to answer only the own thoughts. To be blamed is not really a problem for me. There are lots of reasons I hate it to be right in many cases. I would often prefer to be wrong. But what you seem not to be able to understand is something else: Your form how to think allows you not to think that someone likes not to blame others. I did not like to blame you! That's why I gave no answer. You seem to think if you do not get an answer then someone agrees. You spoke nonsense. No. I did not say it was not a mutation. The problem is something else: A nearly endless row of years - a nearly endless high population of single cell organisms - an unbelievable high rate of mutations. ... How is someone really able to expect "the evolution" leads "automatically" to multi-cellular lifeforms? Or "How evolved DNA?" No one knows this. In case of life in our universe we are for example able to see that life on Earth is a nearly impossible wonder. And if we take a look at the universe, then we see a lot of stars and know that this stars have lots of planets. So a chance of nearly 0 for extraterrestrial life corresponds with an nearly endless amount of places where this could happen. And now comes this what I hate very much: In the anglo-American way of ignorant, arrogant and aggressive debates one of this two opinions wins. It wan the opinion "There must be extraterrestrial life in the universe". But still no one is able to know what's the real result of 0*oo. We have just simple to take a look what's really going on. "Ad aspera ad astra". And the same time we do not have any right to destroy the only life we know in the universe. The life of planet Earth. What will happen if this is the only life? What will we be able to tell god in the end of time?
This seems to me to have nothing to do with what we're talking about. I'm pretty certain his first action was not to believe random stuff that someone on the internet told him.
In reality everything has to do with everything. In your thoughts nothing has to do with nothing. So to say nothing (=not any original thought) gives you the guarantee never to be wrong. “Philosophers are people who know less and less about more and more, until they know nothing about everything. Scientists are people who know more and more about less and less, until they know everything about nothing.” Konrad Lorenz
If you want to actually be right about stuff, you need to keep track of what information has to do with what and how. I'm perfectly happy to say things I have good reason to believe them to be so. At the moment, you seem mostly frustrated that I'm unwilling to blurt out patently false things.
Actually it was you that spoke nonsense when you claimed that mutations did not happen for 3 billion years. People do not expect that evolution automatically leads to multi-cellular life forms. The fact remains that it happened. Scientists have now shown how DNA could have been created under primordial earth conditions. Clearly it happened so - clearly it is possible.
You speak nonsense again. ¿People? With the same probability as if the sun would be a cube? No one knows anything about the evolution of DNA. There are some speculations, that's all. If someone has only a hammer then every problem has to have to do with a nail. You have a hammer and what I say has nothing to do with nails - that's your problem.
What is nonsense is claiming "nonsense" but saying what nonsense you are referring to or why it is nonsense. Twirling around on a soap box crying "Nonsense" "nonsense" nonsense" is not an argument for much. Talking about the probability of the sun being a cube is nonsense as this would defy everything we know about the laws of the universe. Now you are just talking out your backside. Just because you are unaware of what has been done by scientists .. is no reason to boast. https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
You fight with a war of words against your own misinterpretations - that's nonsense. You feel fine now. That's what arrogance makes with people. You feel fine to say something against this what you could know on your own if you would be able to start to think about. In this context: What's the probability that the laws of the universe are exactly this laws? I heard in one of the natural constants a difference in the 40th decimal place would not allow the existence of life within this universe. So if the multiversum-theory would be right and even if we could take a look at other universes (what's impossible as far as we know today) we had to spent more time than was the age of our universe to take a look until we will be able to find a universe where living structures are possible Tell me how DNA evolved.
I already told you how Scientists showed that RNA can be created under primordial earth conditions. - and provided a link Running around with your fingers in your ears cyring "NO NO NO" and pretending not to have heard will not change this reality.
It's not my problem that people try to sell a knowledge which is not knowledge. So tell me how DNA evolved.
You were already told - If you disagree with the explanation given in the link given to you ... then go ahead.
You know nothing - that's your problem. You are not even able not to give a simple answer on a simple question where someone would get the Nobel price if he would know the right answer. But you "know" the answer is existing because someone said so or not. What for heavens sake do you know about the real scientific theory of evolution at all, except that Christians are idiots who believe in a flat Earth which was created 6000 years ago? Oh by the way: The universe is really flat, although Christians never thought the Earth is flat.
I can re-post what I previously posted if you like but, don't blame me for your lack of understanding of Science. https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/ Perhaps you are not familiar with the meaning of the acronym "DNA" deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA is very similar to RNA - the main structural difference being that DNA is two strands instead of one and RNA substitutes Uracil for Thymine. Ribonucleotides are the building blocks of RNA. Further experiments have shown that these ribonucleotides are "self replicating". Self replication was one of the major hurdles to an explanation for how more complex systems could arise. That hurdle has been achieved. Over time these self replicating ribonucleotides form more complex molecules.... this leads to RNA and to DNA.
Show me the first step of all this processes. How is whatever kind of material which is not self-replicating suddenly producing self-replicating material in this molecular dimensions which leads to the now existing RNA-DNA system. What had exactly happened about 4.x - 3.x billion years ago?
This has already been explained in the link given you. We have found complex molecules such as amino acids - the building blocks of proteins on Asteroids. Complex molecules such as these form naturally. What the scientists did in is that they started with simple molecules that would have been present in the early earth. Then they mimicked the sun (irradiation) and the evaporation (drying- wetting - repeat) of a pond - something that had not been tried before. And wallah ... ribonucleotides formed. Here is from another study: https://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html
Sound not plausible in my ears - nevertheless in case it would be in this way it exists now still not a self-replicating structure. An alphabet creates not automatically books but only a salad of letters as long as there is no one who is able to read. Some flavor enhancers are for example ribonucleotides. Do you think flavor enhancers are able to become alive?
Of course it is a self replicating structure... that was the big deal about the experiment. I am a Chemist. As such I could explain the difference between an activated an non activated system .. but .. lets face it .. regardless of what I say you are going to find some way to not let the bad news in and go running to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial. If it is any consolation. I am not an atheist .. I believe in God and even have a few interesting proofs for the existence of God although these contain some minor assumptions. One interesting proof I have that does not contain any assumptions (other than time is infinite) is that existence is infinite or that you will exist again - an infinite number of times. Regardless of how evolution happened .. the various forces involved and so on. ... and perhaps there was some intervention by a God - one thing that is a demonstrable fact is that who -ever that God might have been .. it was not your God .. aka "YHWH"
