Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[OZman]

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.

This link contains research on the origin of cellular life.

The Origin of Cellular Life on Earth: Jack Szostak

 

[THE LIGHT]

Ok, you're one of those lunatics who thinks humans just popped into existence and that science is crap. Got it.

No, you believe the earth popped into existence, I believe it was created.

 

[BillyP]

Ok, you're one of those lunatics who thinks humans just popped into existence and that science is crap. Got it.

No, you believe the earth popped into existence, I believe it was created.

No, I never said that. I agree with what the scientists say, because they're right. You believe that the world was created by an invisible superbeing in another dimension who made humans with so many flaws that it will punish you if you don't follow a book. Sounds pretty absurd when I lay it all out, doesn't it?

 

[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?

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.

I would add: The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

 

[pinqy]

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

lol...well, lets see.....if you can't be sure you might look like a ******* 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".......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

then like me, you disagree with Billy?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

 

[BillyP]

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

then like me, you disagree with Billy?.....

She's right, we descend from a common ancestor that wasn't actually an ape. My mistake.

 

[BillyP]

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Scientists move on when they're wrong and someone shows them why, that's sometimes how science advances. No faith involved. Please try again.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Scientists move on when they're wrong and someone shows them why, that's sometimes how science advances. No faith involved. Please try again.

now that I have shown you why you are wrong, will you move on?....

 

[BillyP]

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Scientists move on when they're wrong and someone shows them why, that's sometimes how science advances. No faith involved. Please try again.

now that I have shown you why you are wrong, will you move on?....

Wrong on what? Science? Or are you still beating that dead horse that science is faith based?

 

[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.

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.....

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?.....

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Scientists move on when they're wrong and someone shows them why, that's sometimes how science advances. No faith involved. Please try again.

now that I have shown you why you are wrong, will you move on?....

It's apparent that you don't care about the legitimacy of your arguments, but anyway,

you stuck on a very false premise that science has to be able to reproduce everything in a lab experiment in order for it to be considered a scientific fact or theory.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

PostMod's 'faith' is really nothing more than the equivalent of someone who believes with certainty that sasquatches roam the woods of the great Northwest.

 

[LittleNipper]

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

then like me, you disagree with Billy?.....

She's right, we descend from a common ancestor that wasn't actually an ape. My mistake.

We are becoming apes. Evolutionists believe we are becoming GODS!

 

[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.....

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?.....

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Scientists move on when they're wrong and someone shows them why, that's sometimes how science advances. No faith involved. Please try again.

now that I have shown you why you are wrong, will you move on?....

It's apparent that you don't care about the legitimacy of your arguments, but anyway,

you stuck on a very false premise that science has to be able to reproduce everything in a lab experiment in order for it to be considered a scientific fact or theory.

actually, my premise is that the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has never been reproduced, observed, tested or validated.....and until SOMETHING is demonstrated, its not science at all......

 

[PratchettFan]

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

then like me, you disagree with Billy?.....

She's right, we descend from a common ancestor that wasn't actually an ape. My mistake.

We are becoming apes. Evolutionists believe we are becoming GODS!

Not becoming apes. Are apes. Not becoming gods. Are God.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.....

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?.....

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Scientists move on when they're wrong and someone shows them why, that's sometimes how science advances. No faith involved. Please try again.

now that I have shown you why you are wrong, will you move on?....

It's apparent that you don't care about the legitimacy of your arguments, but anyway,

you stuck on a very false premise that science has to be able to reproduce everything in a lab experiment in order for it to be considered a scientific fact or theory.

actually, my premise is that the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has never been reproduced, observed, tested or validated.....and until SOMETHING is demonstrated, its not science at all......

That is nonsense.

 

[Hollie]

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

In spite of your objections, multi cellular organisms did in fact evolve.

I'm perfectly willing to see your evidence of your gawds magically *poofing* all of existence a mere 6,000 years ago.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

In spite of your objections, multi cellular organisms did in fact evolve.

I'm perfectly willing to see your evidence of your gawds magically *poofing* all of existence a mere 6,000 years ago.

silly, Hollie.....not only can you not produce evidence its a fact, you can't remember from one page to the next that I'm not a young earther.....no wonder your posts carry no weight.....

 

[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.....

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?.....

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Oh?.

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

Those are not lab experiments, those are observations. If I applied your standards, I'd be demanding the re-creation of a star in a laboratory.

not at all.....I am perfectly willing to let you show me a single celled organism evolving into a multicelled organism outside the laboratory.......

It happens all the time in science. Newton was wrong about many things. Darwin was wrong about many things. Pretty much every scientist got something wrong about something which was later discovered by later scientists.

so your defense of your claims is that while they may be wrong now you have faith it will be proven true later....

Scientists move on when they're wrong and someone shows them why, that's sometimes how science advances. No faith involved. Please try again.

now that I have shown you why you are wrong, will you move on?....

It's apparent that you don't care about the legitimacy of your arguments, but anyway,

you stuck on a very false premise that science has to be able to reproduce everything in a lab experiment in order for it to be considered a scientific fact or theory.

actually, my premise is that the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has never been reproduced, observed, tested or validated.....and until SOMETHING is demonstrated, its not science at all......

That is nonsense.

do you then have something you can link which will show that the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism has ever been reproduced, observed, tested or validated?.......