Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[NYcarbineer]

do you really think there are mountains and mountains of evidence to support the claim single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms?........do you realize it has never once been tested in an experiment?.....

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

 

[Vandalshandle]

This thread is about as close as we will ever get to a Time Machine. I come here occasionally to get a feel for contemporary thinking as it was in the year 900 AD. it is actually pretty entertaining.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Abiogenesis is not a proven fact, that is true. There have been many experiments done, and their is a lot left to learn about how it could have happened. But evolution is a fact. Evolution, ("change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."), has been observed. Which is why it is called the "theory" of evolution and not the "hypothesis" of evolution.

the change of one species of warbler into another (and similar) has been observed.....the change of a non human into a human has not been observed....the change of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has not been observed......that is NOT a theory.....it may not even qualify as an hypothesis......

 

[PostmodernProph]

So? If you want scientific evidence of evolution, I suggest you google 'evolution' and start reading

???.....but I already know more about it than you do....my I suggest YOU start reading?.....

 

[PratchettFan]

the change of one species of warbler into another (and similar) has been observed.....the change of a non human into a human has not been observed....the change of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has not been observed......that is NOT a theory.....it may not even qualify as an hypothesis......

It is a theory and so far fits all of the evidence we have. I find it more than plausible and certainly superior to any other conclusion put forth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

the change of one species of warbler into another (and similar) has been observed.....the change of a non human into a human has not been observed....the change of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has not been observed......that is NOT a theory.....it may not even qualify as an hypothesis......

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

 

[PostmodernProph]

It is if controlled tests are not possible. Do you really want to throw out astronomy as a science? Geology?

???....there are many things you can test in astronomy and geology......if you are asking if we should not pretend things that cannot be tested in those fields are science, obviously yes, we should stop pretending....

Well, yes....because you shouldn't come to any assumptions. First, as I already stated, we don't test the hypothesis, we test the null hypothesis. If we can discard the null hypothesis, then the alternative hypothesis might be true.

I'm sorry...."might be true" is not part of the scientific process....

Who says otherwise?

a whole lot of people who post in this forum....

If the null hypothesis fails, then we know there probably is a relationship

uh, no......if for example I have a positive hypothesis, such as......if I mix water and flour together it will burn.....and I test it by mixing water and flour and it does NOT result in fire, I have proven the hypothesis is false.....that is not testing for a null hypothesis......now, if I modify my hyptothesis to if I mix water and flour together at a temperature of 10,000 degrees K......then I will likely have positive results as close to the 100% mark as you can get.....in no event can you arrive at any scientific conclusion based on "might be true" or "probably"

are you saying that a supposed transitional fossil might still be in the same lineage but between two other steps in that lineage?

no, I'm saying it could be a completely different line running at right angles to the one you are "observing" that just happens to share a characteristic.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

It is a theory and so far fits all of the evidence we have. I find it more than plausible and certainly superior to any other conclusion put forth.

/shrugs....so, your faith is strong....

 

[pinqy]

???....there are many things you can test in astronomy and geology......

Oh? What labrotory tests have been conducted in astronomy? Planetary orbits duplicated? Nuclear reactions for how a star works? And in geology? What lab experiment has shown continental drift?

I'm sorry...."might be true" is not part of the scientific process....

Of course it is. All conclusions are tentative.

uh, no......if for example I have a positive hypothesis, such as......if I mix water and flour together it will burn.....and I test it by mixing water and flour and it does NOT result in fire, I have proven the hypothesis is false.....that is not testing for a null hypothesis.

Yes it is. You are testing to see if they will not burn if you put them together. They do not during your experiment. Therefore you cannot discard the null hypothesis that they will not burn and cannot accept the hypothesis that they will. You gave a simplistic example, but it works better for more complicated statistical analysis.

no, I'm saying it could be a completely different line running at right angles to the one you are "observing" that just happens to share a characteristic.....

Right...you can't be sure. So what?

 

[NYcarbineer]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

no....I do not believe science is crap......I simply believe your arguments are crap....

Says the guy who believes humans just popped into existence like in a cartoon. Hey, maybe your god is Walt Disney!

PostMod is just trying to discredit science because he thinks that somehow transfers credibility to his myths, as if there's some sort of zero sum game at work here.

 

[BillyP]

Abiogenesis is not a proven fact, that is true. There have been many experiments done, and their is a lot left to learn about how it could have happened. But evolution is a fact. Evolution, ("change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."), has been observed. Which is why it is called the "theory" of evolution and not the "hypothesis" of evolution.

the change of one species of warbler into another (and similar) has been observed.....the change of a non human into a human has not been observed....the change of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has not been observed......that is NOT a theory.....it may not even qualify as an hypothesis......

The skeletons/fossils of most or all the different steps between apes and humans have been observed, and what you're asking, that if anyone has seen an ape change into a human, took millions of years. Seriously, read up on it, are you gonna make me beg?

 

[PratchettFan]

It is a theory and so far fits all of the evidence we have. I find it more than plausible and certainly superior to any other conclusion put forth.

/shrugs....so, your faith is strong....

Not really. If evidence indicates it is no longer the most plausible I will change my position. My faith is nothing compared to yours.

It really doesn't matter. If I believe it is true, that does not make it true. If you believe it is false, that does not make it false. No matter how hard either of us might believe, it has zero impact upon what is true. So I have no problem at all with you believing as you please. I shall do the same.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Oh?.

yes, spectrum analysis of stars......the Hubble telescope......analysis of asteroids.....

Of course it is. All conclusions are tentative.

its not the standard scientists are searching for....

Right...you can't be sure. So what?

lol...well, lets see.....if you can't be sure you might look like a fucking idiot for claiming it is.....and some guy on an internet forum who's been asking for proof and now hears you say "well, we can't be sure but it doesn't matter" is going to laugh and say "I told you so".......

 

[PostmodernProph]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.

I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

no....I do not believe science is crap......I simply believe your arguments are crap....

Says the guy who believes humans just popped into existence like in a cartoon. Hey, maybe your god is Walt Disney!

PostMod is just trying to discredit science because he thinks that somehow transfers credibility to his myths, as if there's some sort of zero sum game at work here.

I'm not discrediting science at all.....I'm discrediting your arguments.....did you think your arguments were science?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Abiogenesis is not a proven fact, that is true. There have been many experiments done, and their is a lot left to learn about how it could have happened. But evolution is a fact. Evolution, ("change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."), has been observed. Which is why it is called the "theory" of evolution and not the "hypothesis" of evolution.

the change of one species of warbler into another (and similar) has been observed.....the change of a non human into a human has not been observed....the change of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has not been observed......that is NOT a theory.....it may not even qualify as an hypothesis......

The skeletons/fossils of most or all the different steps between apes and humans have been observed, and what you're asking, that if anyone has seen an ape change into a human, took millions of years. Seriously, read up on it, are you gonna make me beg?

I may make you beg for mercy.....prove to me that one of these "transitional fossils" is a step between apes and humans.....what if its just an ape-like creature that has no living descendants at all?......can you prove its more than just a dead animal?......

 

[Rationalist1016]

It is not my understanding that single to multi-cell is an evolutionary step. It is my understanding that this step was a cooperation of cells to form multi-cell. But again, this is just my basic understanding. Please provide a link to better information if you have it.
My main point was that evolution often is asked to care the burden of proof for things it is not meant to explain. How life started is not evolution. And many times the proposition is that if we can't explain how life started, then how can evolution have any credibility. And that is a false equivalency.

???....how could it not be an evolutionary step?.......a multicelled organism, when it reproduces, forms a new multicelled organism......when a cell which is part of a cluster of single celled organisms reproduces it forms a new single celled organism which finds a new cluster to attach to......

that change in the reproductive system is a MAJOR evolutionary hurdle.....

I have been trying to post some links to the information that makes me disagree, but I get an error whenever I try to post. Once this is straightened out, I will come back to this.

 

[Hollie]

Abiogenesis is not a proven fact, that is true. There have been many experiments done, and their is a lot left to learn about how it could have happened. But evolution is a fact. Evolution, ("change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."), has been observed. Which is why it is called the "theory" of evolution and not the "hypothesis" of evolution.

the change of one species of warbler into another (and similar) has been observed.....the change of a non human into a human has not been observed....the change of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has not been observed......that is NOT a theory.....it may not even qualify as an hypothesis......

The skeletons/fossils of most or all the different steps between apes and humans have been observed, and what you're asking, that if anyone has seen an ape change into a human, took millions of years. Seriously, read up on it, are you gonna make me beg?

I may make you beg for mercy.....prove to me that one of these "transitional fossils" is a step between apes and humans.....what if its just an ape-like creature that has no living descendants at all?......can you prove its more than just a dead animal?......

This is the classic, misinformed, befuddled comment that thumpers make continually.

"Man" was not an ape, did not descend from an ape (or monkey), but shared a common ancestor which appeared ape-like.

If you had taken even the most basic, 7th grade earth history / biology courses, you would have been exposed to the rather complete fossil record delineating the evolution of man.

There is the theory of evolution and there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists/Flat Earthers'/YEC'ists grudgingly admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.