Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[NYcarbineer]

Very well put. I wish I had done as good a job.

lol, that poster says there's plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution and you agree; I say the same and you disagree. You are confused.

 

[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?.....

As I posted to someone else in a different thread, you're trying to dispute the principle behind Russell's teapot:


Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PratchettFan]

lol, that poster says there's plenty of evidence to support the theory of evolution and you agree; I say the same and you disagree. You are confused.

No. I was responding in another thread which was not about evolution. I don't think evolution was even mentioned. I was disagreeing that there was a mountain of data about God.

 

[Rationalist1016]

I would think the transition from single cell to multi-cell would still be evolution.

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.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. I was responding in another thread which was not about evolution. I don't think evolution was even mentioned. I was disagreeing that there was a mountain of data about God.

Yep. I went back and checked. Nowhere in that thread was evolution mentioned until you asked if I was saying there was no evidence for it. Quite out of the blue.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I don't get how what you described isn't evolution. Abiogenesis is the transition from non-life to life. A single celled organism is alive. So going from one to many cells would not be abiogenesis. Would you apply another term to it?

 

[Rationalist1016]

I don't get how what you described isn't evolution. Abiogenesis is the transition from non-life to life. A single celled organism is alive. So going from one to many cells would not be abiogenesis. Would you apply another term to it?

No, you are correct. That was muddy language on my part.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I'm sure many people believe that. I believe that. I am sure the majority of scientists believe that. But that is irrelevant to the scientific method. There is no such thing as proof in that process.

so will you concede that the claim human beings evolved from a single celled organism is a statement of belief and has not been proven by science?....(if so, one down and about twenty to go)......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.

I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....

 

[PratchettFan]

so will you concede that the claim human beings evolved from a single celled organism is a statement of belief and has not been proven by science?....(if so, one down and about twenty to go)......

If someone says that it is a fact, then that is certainly a belief. It has not been proven by science and I doubt it ever will be. It's just the best conclusion we have based upon the evidence at hand.

 

[PostmodernProph]

The main problem with this current argument is that evolution and abiogenesis are being confused. Abiogenesis is life forming from non-living matter. Evolution only addresses how multi-cell organisms change over time. It makes NO claims about how life came to exist.
These two subjects should be argued separately because they address two different things.

whenever I have referred to them I have been careful to list BOTH abiogenesis AND the evolution of humans from a single celled organism (or its first basic step - the evolution of a multicelled organism from a single celled organism).....they are two separate claims, however they both share the same fault in that they cannot be falsified.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Not quite. You test the null hypothesis...that there is no relationship. If you can reject the null hypothesis, that means that it is likely the alternative hypothesis is correct. In other words: you don't test to see if your idea is supported, you test to see if the opposite of your idea is supported.

Falsifiability simply means that conditions exist under which the proposal could be proven wrong. There are any number of observations that would prove evolution wrong. The classic is a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, but others would be things like a dog giving birth to kittens, or a pig with wings, or a dog with scales...any kind of true chimera.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that hypothesis testing can only occur in a lab. That's ridiculous...unless you want to say all of astronomy is false because it's never been tested. For cases where direct experimentation cannot occur, testing takes the form of observation. No observation that contradicts the general theory of evolution has yet been made. Some parts of Darwin's original theory have been demonstrated to be incorrect, and other ideas have come and gone, but that species change over time and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor? Nothing to contradict that has been found and plenty of evidence to support it has.

and you are under the misapprehension that simply observing things is a substitute for testing.....if you look at something and come to the wrong assumption you have not tested the hypothesis....an example is transitional fossils......finding a fossil and discovering a similar characteristic is not proof that something is transitional.....it may in fact be transitional between two other fossils that have not even been discovered......

Nothing to contradict that has been found

/grins.....have you never heard of a book called Forbidden Archaeology?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

As I posted to someone else in a different thread, you're trying to dispute the principle behind Russell's teapot:


Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

russel's teapot is a philosophical argument, not scientific evidence......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.....

 

[Rationalist1016]

whenever I have referred to them I have been careful to list BOTH abiogenesis AND the evolution of humans from a single celled organism (or its first basic step - the evolution of a multicelled organism from a single celled organism).....they are two separate claims, however they both share the same fault in that they cannot be falsified.....

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.

 

[guno]

Unfortunately, it's a theory - not a fact - It's the Theory of Evolution - untill someonme invents a Time Machine it will remain a theory. It's a theory that I somewhat agree with - however it has alot of holes in it .

One primary hole being the absense of intermediate species or transitional fossils with the geological evidence.




And your comment re:Gravity - uh sorry to burst your bubble - but Gravity is a fact , and uh yes but I'm sorry they do understand how it works......You must be a Liberal - Right ?

Since you are uneducated and woefully ignorant a little education for you

 

[NYcarbineer]

russel's teapot is a philosophical argument, not scientific evidence......

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

 

[pinqy]

and you are under the misapprehension that simply observing things is a substitute for testing.....

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

if you look at something and come to the wrong assumption you have not tested the hypothesis

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.

....an example is transitional fossils......finding a fossil and discovering a similar characteristic is not proof that something is transitional.....it may in fact be transitional between two other fossils that have not even been discovered......

Who says otherwise? But the testing is, again, of the null hypothesis...that there is no relationship between the two fossils. If the null hypothesis fails, then we know there probably is a relationship, but more observations would be needed to see if there's a direct lineage. There are many cases where a direct lineage was first believed, and then later rejected. I find your example odd, though.....are you saying that a supposed transitional fossil might still be in the same lineage but between two other steps in that lineage? In that case it would still be transitional. If you mean transitional of a completely different lineage, sure. Conclusions are tentative.

have you never heard of a book called Forbidden Archaeology?.....

I have not heard of it.

 

[guno]

Since you are uneducated and woefully ignorant a little education for you

 

[PratchettFan]

Science truly does make a lousy religion. It shouldn't be treated as one.