Why every rational person must accept evolution

[PostmodernProph]

I am curious.....when you talk about the science of evolution, are you referring to the fact that we have 37,000 different kinds of beetle instead of just one.....

or are you referring to the argument that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?......

Is there a difference?

do you believe that science is based upon a specific method and that something must be falsifiable in order to qualify as a scientific object of study?.......if so, there's a difference......

 

[007]

Non-randomly, by definition. Jeez. That is why it is called natural "selection". If you want details you can either pay me, or take a class. I am not an charity for academic cases such as yourself.

And exactly what magical force is guiding this "natural selection?"

The environment in which species live is not a magical force. Jeez, I am surrounded by idiots!

I didn't ask about the environment. I asked what "force" was guiding the "selection?" Where is the intelligence behind it coming from? Some MAGICAL FORCE? Explain it.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

B,bye.

 

[orogenicman]

I am curious.....when you talk about the science of evolution, are you referring to the fact that we have 37,000 different kinds of beetle instead of just one.....

or are you referring to the argument that human beings evolved from single celled organisms?......

Is there a difference?

do you believe that science is based upon a specific method and that something must be falsifiable in order to qualify as a scientific object of study?.......if so, there's a difference......

There over 350,000 described species of beetles (not 37,000) is due to the fact of evolution. All multicellular life on Earth is derived from earlier evolved single celled life is due to the fact of evolution. So no, there is no difference.

 

[orogenicman]

And exactly what magical force is guiding this "natural selection?"

The environment in which species live is not a magical force. Jeez, I am surrounded by idiots!

I didn't ask about the environment. I asked what "force" was guiding the "selection?" Where is the intelligence behind it coming from? Some MAGICAL FORCE? Explain it.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

B,bye.

And I gave you the answer - natural selection.

 

[orogenicman]

Yep

Great, so tell me where, in this thread, anyone has addressed or discussed the facts presented in the video.

Why do you keep calling them facts? Have you personally proved them?

Some of them, yes. You?

 

[ZenBubba]

I'm surprised macroevolution wasn't mentioned in the video. I would have liked to kow by which mechanism it operates. I wasn't aware that evolutionary scientists had determined that.

 

[Politico]

Two centuries of "research and science" and all they can come up with is an alleged fish with alleged nostrils? Dogs have been selectively bred for two millennia, resulting in the greatest variation in size (100x) of any species that has ever existed. Guess what? They are all still dogs.

"Research and science" doesn't have a clue as to how one species can transform into another species, other than to assert that it magically happens "over millions of years." Instead, it resorts to attacking the straw man of "Creationism" in order to bolster its currently popular theory.

I'd be very impressed if evolutionists could demonstrate how the eye was developed.

Don't hold your breath. They can't even figure out how the human body works. As far as evolution goes. I don't have to believe anything without proof.

 

[orogenicman]

Two centuries of "research and science" and all they can come up with is an alleged fish with alleged nostrils? Dogs have been selectively bred for two millennia, resulting in the greatest variation in size (100x) of any species that has ever existed. Guess what? They are all still dogs.

"Research and science" doesn't have a clue as to how one species can transform into another species, other than to assert that it magically happens "over millions of years." Instead, it resorts to attacking the straw man of "Creationism" in order to bolster its currently popular theory.

I'd be very impressed if evolutionists could demonstrate how the eye was developed.

Don't hold your breath. They can't even figure out how the human body works. As far as evolution goes. I don't have to believe anything without proof.

Right. That's why there have been no advances in medicine in the last 150 years. Oh wait...

 

[orogenicman]

I'm surprised macroevolution wasn't mentioned in the video. I would have liked to kow by which mechanism it operates. I wasn't aware that evolutionary scientists had determined that.

Probably because you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Politico]

I'd be very impressed if evolutionists could demonstrate how the eye was developed.

Don't hold your breath. They can't even figure out how the human body works. As far as evolution goes. I don't have to believe anything without proof.

Right. That's why there have been no advances in medicine in the last 150 years. Oh wait...

Yeah right. Please show us the cure for cancer or diabetes. Not the half assed medicine that some doctor uses as a band aid to make people's eventual demise a little less painful.

 

[orogenicman]

Don't hold your breath. They can't even figure out how the human body works. As far as evolution goes. I don't have to believe anything without proof.

Right. That's why there have been no advances in medicine in the last 150 years. Oh wait...

Yeah right. Please show us the sure for cancer or diabetes. Not the half assed medicine that some doctor uses as a band aid to make people's eventual demise a little less painful.

There are cures for many cancers. Diabetes treatments are vastly better than they were just 20 years ago, and I expect that there will be a cure in the next 10-20 years. If you didn't know this, I can only assume you've been asleep for the past 30 years.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Republicans get their science from a talking snake. Fact.

 

[Iceweasel]

Republicans get their science from a talking snake. Fact.

And you thought that would make you look better? I think it makes your side look more dogmatic and intolerant.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Is there a difference?

do you believe that science is based upon a specific method and that something must be falsifiable in order to qualify as a scientific object of study?.......if so, there's a difference......

There over 350,000 described species of beetles (not 37,000) is due to the fact of evolution. All multicellular life on Earth is derived from earlier evolved single celled life is due to the fact of evolution. So no, there is no difference.

Do you believe it proper to consider a non-falsifiable proposition, such as "all multicellular life on earth is derived from an earlier evolved single celled life" to be scientific?.....

 

[orogenicman]

do you believe that science is based upon a specific method and that something must be falsifiable in order to qualify as a scientific object of study?.......if so, there's a difference......

There over 350,000 described species of beetles (not 37,000) is due to the fact of evolution. All multicellular life on Earth is derived from earlier evolved single celled life is due to the fact of evolution. So no, there is no difference.

Do you believe it proper to consider a non-falsifiable proposition, such as "all multicellular life on earth is derived from an earlier evolved single celled life" to be scientific?.....

What makes you believe it is non-falsifiable or non-scientific?

 

[PostmodernProph]

]

What makes you believe it is non-falsifiable or non-scientific?

the fact it cannot be tested, or at a minimum has never been tested, by experimentation.....scientific fact is identified by never failing to succeed in experimentation, ideas work their way through the process of becoming hypothesis and theory and law by passing certain stages of credibility based upon experimentation.....

what you have is an idea regarding causation that has never once been proven, let alone proven conclusively......

and if something cannot ever be demonstrated to be true, it remains unfalsifiable.......

that IS the scientific method.....

 

[orogenicman]

]

What makes you believe it is non-falsifiable or non-scientific?

the fact it cannot be tested, or at a minimum has never been tested, by experimentation.....scientific fact is identified by never failing to succeed in experimentation, ideas work their way through the process of becoming hypothesis and theory and law by passing certain stages of credibility based upon experimentation.....

what you have is an idea regarding causation that has never once been proven, let alone proven conclusively......

and if something cannot ever be demonstrated to be true, it remains unfalsifiable.......

that IS the scientific method.....

It can be tested. In fact, it is being tested. It can and is being tested today by observational evidence and by experimentation. There are many lines of evidence that supports the theory that multicellular life originated from single cellular life. For instance:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/01/key-step-in-evolution-from-single-to-multi-cell-clusters-discovered.html

How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve Into Multicellular Ones


Did bacteria spark evolution of multicellular life? -- ScienceDaily

 

[Iceweasel]

the fact it cannot be tested, or at a minimum has never been tested, by experimentation.....scientific fact is identified by never failing to succeed in experimentation, ideas work their way through the process of becoming hypothesis and theory and law by passing certain stages of credibility based upon experimentation.....

what you have is an idea regarding causation that has never once been proven, let alone proven conclusively......

and if something cannot ever be demonstrated to be true, it remains unfalsifiable.......

that IS the scientific method.....

It can be tested. In fact, it is being tested. It can and is being tested today by observational evidence and by experimentation. There are many lines of evidence that supports the theory that multicellular life originated from single cellular life. For instance:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/01/key-step-in-evolution-from-single-to-multi-cell-clusters-discovered.html

Did the yeast change into something other than yeast? It doesn't look like it. Life can and does adapt, especually if nurtured along in a lab. The question remains how that process exists in the first place.

How does a 'simple' cell happen when so many aspects have to function at the same time, the right amount, survive and go on to reproduce. I know there are theories but it is not provable science. To call it science is to misuse or misrepresent science.

 

[orogenicman]

It can be tested. In fact, it is being tested. It can and is being tested today by observational evidence and by experimentation. There are many lines of evidence that supports the theory that multicellular life originated from single cellular life. For instance:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/01/key-step-in-evolution-from-single-to-multi-cell-clusters-discovered.html

Did the yeast change into something other than yeast? It doesn't look like it. Life can and does adapt, especually if nurtured along in a lab. The question remains how that process exists in the first place.

How does a 'simple' cell happen when so many aspects have to function at the same time, the right amount, survive and go on to reproduce. I know there are theories but it is not provable science. To call it science is to misuse or misrepresent science.

It is being proven. Get over it.

 

[Iceweasel]

It is being proven. Get over it.

You remind me of the devout atheist I once had a conversation with. He got frustrated and said "You believe in fairy tales while I believe in scientific facts that haven't been proven yet".