Why every rational person must accept evolution

[PostmodernProph]

now, while we're asking questions....you made the statement that there is plenty of evidence that multi cellular life arose from single cellular life.....since you haven't yet produced any such evidence, why don't you?.......

 

[orogenicman]

now, while we're asking questions....you made the statement that there is plenty of evidence that multi cellular life arose from single cellular life.....since you haven't yet produced any such evidence, why don't you?.......

Why don't you take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Again, it's the scientist vs superstition mentality.

unfortunately, many who believe what they say is based on science are actually basing it on their own superstitions.....for example, those who claim that science has evidence that human being evolved from single celled organisms.....

Everything did. The human body is made up of unimaginable collection of cells...

So if there's many that make up us who's to say we didn't come from just one????

 

[westwall]

now, while we're asking questions....you made the statement that there is plenty of evidence that multi cellular life arose from single cellular life.....since you haven't yet produced any such evidence, why don't you?.......

Why don't you take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.

YOU made the assertion. YOU claim to be a scientist. YOU defend your thesis! That's how science works buddy boy!

 

[orogenicman]

You are missing the point here. What the experiment did was show the key steps in the transition from single cellular to multicellular life. It was a definitive experiment, one that others are now conducting.

well no.....what the experiment did was show that if you shake a bottle of yeast, those that stick to each other will settle on the bottom of the beaker......they started as single cells, they ended as single cells....it wasn't some "key transition"......transition implies movement or change......they didn't change and while there was movement, it was simply because heavy objects don't float nearly as well as light objects.....

Ahem:

"Analysis showed that the clusters were not just groups of random cells that adhered to each other, but related cells that remained attached following cell division.That was significant because it meant that they were genetically similar, which promotes cooperation. When the clusters reached a critical size, some cells died off in a process known as apoptosis to allow offspring to separate.The offspring reproduced only after they attained the size of their parents.

"A cluster alone isn't multi-cellular," Ratcliff says. "But when cells in a cluster cooperate, make sacrifices for the common good, and adapt to change, that's an evolutionary transition to multi-cellularity."In order for multi-cellular organisms to form, most cells need to sacrifice their ability to reproduce, an altruistic action that favors the whole but not the individual, Ratcliff says.For example, all cells in the human body are essentially a support system that allows sperm and eggs to pass DNA along to the next generation.Thus multi-cellularity is by its nature very cooperative."Some of the best competitors in nature are those that engage in cooperation, and our experiment bears that out," says Travisano.

Now, let me ask you a question (I know you won't answer it because people like you never do). If multicellular life didn't arise from single cellular life (and there is plenty of evidence that it did), where did it come from?

???....why wouldn't "people like me" answer?........multicellular life was created, separately and distinctly different from single celled life.....

Really? And your evidence is?

 

[orogenicman]

now, while we're asking questions....you made the statement that there is plenty of evidence that multi cellular life arose from single cellular life.....since you haven't yet produced any such evidence, why don't you?.......

Why don't you take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.

YOU made the assertion. YOU claim to be a scientist. YOU defend your thesis! That's how science works buddy boy!

I am a scientist. It is not my thesis. It is a conclusion based on decades of research by scientists all over the globe. First of all, I did provide you with evidence in the form of at least three links to articles about real scientific research on the matter. If you want more information, again, take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.

The reason why I say this is because if your goal here is to learn something, you now know the best places where you can go to learn more. But I don't believe that learning is your goal here. In which case, don't waste my time.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A scientist can see a cell divide into many cells with a microscope.

A living thing develops from sperm and egg. This entity then divides and expands into the creature be it a human, ape, monkey, pig, dog, etc. We see a single cell ---> muilicelliure being all the time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A scientist can see a cell divide into many cells with a microscope.

A living thing develops from sperm and egg. This entity then divides and expands into the creature be it a human, ape, monkey, pig, dog, etc. We see a single cell ---> muilicelliure being all the time.

Thathas nothing to do with evolution.

 

[westwall]

Why don't you take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.

YOU made the assertion. YOU claim to be a scientist. YOU defend your thesis! That's how science works buddy boy!

I am a scientist. It is not my thesis. It is a conclusion based on decades of research by scientists all over the globe. First of all, I did provide you with evidence in the form of at least three links to articles about real scientific research on the matter. If you want more information, again, take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.

The reason why I say this is because if your goal here is to learn something, you now know the best places where you can go to learn more. But I don't believe that learning is your goal here. In which case, don't waste my time.

YOU are the one representing it. That means you get to defend it, that's what a scientist does (and which I have done on this board numerous times) and I already am very familiar with evolutionary theory thank you very much.

 

[westwall]

A scientist can see a cell divide into many cells with a microscope.

A living thing develops from sperm and egg. This entity then divides and expands into the creature be it a human, ape, monkey, pig, dog, etc. We see a single cell ---> muilicelliure being all the time.

Anybody can do that matthew.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

So, you have proof of creationism?

 

[ScienceRocks]

A scientist can see a cell divide into many cells with a microscope.

A living thing develops from sperm and egg. This entity then divides and expands into the creature be it a human, ape, monkey, pig, dog, etc. We see a single cell ---> muilicelliure being all the time.

Anybody can do that matthew.

True...Let's all go get a microscope and watch the cells divide. Showing that we all may of developed from something so simple.

 

[orogenicman]

YOU made the assertion. YOU claim to be a scientist. YOU defend your thesis! That's how science works buddy boy!

I am a scientist. It is not my thesis. It is a conclusion based on decades of research by scientists all over the globe. First of all, I did provide you with evidence in the form of at least three links to articles about real scientific research on the matter. If you want more information, again, take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.

The reason why I say this is because if your goal here is to learn something, you now know the best places where you can go to learn more. But I don't believe that learning is your goal here. In which case, don't waste my time.

YOU are the one representing it. That means you get to defend it, that's what a scientist does (and which I have done on this board numerous times) and I already am very familiar with evolutionary theory thank you very much.

You are confuse.

Seismic FAQ - Main Page

Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionary scientists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Why don't you take a biology class, get a library card, and/or read the professional literature? I'm not your tutor. If you want me to be, send me a private message and we can discuss the fee.

???....so far, you're the one demonstrating a lack of knowledge regarding biology.....not to worry, I will stay and tutor you at no charge......

now, back to the discussion, why did you run away from the discussion regarding the inability to falsify your beliefs regarding macro-evolution?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Everything did. The human body is made up of unimaginable collection of cells...

So if there's many that make up us who's to say we didn't come from just one????

/shrugs.....if the test is "who's to say", its obviously a faith choice rather than science......I can respect that......I simply don't share your faith choice.......my problem is with those who mistakenly believe their faith choice is supported by scientific evidence......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Ahem:

"A cluster alone isn't multi-cellular," Ratcliff says. "But when cells in a cluster cooperate, make sacrifices for the common good, and adapt to change, that's an evolutionary transition to multi-cellularity.

except the claim that it is a transition is simply a statement of belief.....as he admits, its still a clump of individual single celled organisms......one cell dies, another cell replaces it.....we are left with the fact that there is no evidence of a single celled organism ever becoming a multi-celled organism../...

]

Really? And your evidence is?

I freely admit that what I believe is a faith choice.....the scientific method does not require evidence of faith choices......obviously since faith is defined as the belief in something in the absence of evidence.......which causes one to question why you don't recognize that the things you believe in the absence of evidence are also faith choices......why is it you pretend they are science?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

It is a conclusion based on decades of research by scientists all over the globe.

except, as already demonstrated, it has never achieved the status of being falsifiable......what do you call it again when a large group of people share a common faith choice?........I believe its called religion........

 

[PostmodernProph]

Showing that we all may of developed from something so simple.

???....that isn't an observation of evolution.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

than the one almost everyone else accepts.

ah, ad populum......what if I point out the majority of people in the world believe that a deity created the heavens and the earth and everything in it.....would that then mean I win the debate?.....

 

[ScienceRocks]

Showing that we all may of developed from something so simple.

???....that isn't an observation of evolution.....

That just shows that a single cell can develop into a more complex organism.