Question for evolutionists

[kudzu]

Speculation. We are talking about existing examples, not speculation.

Jellyfish are a unique kind of marine animal that they actually don't have a specialized circulatory system. They don't even have a specialized respiratory system or nervous system. They can easily absorb oxygen when needed through their thin bodies.

 

[Into the Night]

That's not only bable but it's a circular argument. You've been talking to PiMP haven't you? LOL

No, you are trying to show an example of falsifying a theory by falsifying a different unrelated theory.
There are several different theories for order or appearance. Some are based on physical differences, some are based on DNA or RNA differences, and some are based on simply the layers the fossils are found in. Each of these theories produce a slightly different order of appearance. None of them are related to the Theory of Evolution itself, other than assuming it to be True.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh you are just babbling nonsense.

You seem to like this comment a lot. Must be your favorite way to discard an argument without counter-argument. That's called an argument of the Stone fallacy.

The modern theory of evolution does not state that life evolved from primitive forms.

Yes it does. It is also not a modern theory. It is thousands of years old.

That's your misinterpretation.

Nope. That's the theory.

You're just simply wrong and don't know what you're talking about and it's as simple as that.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Evolutionary theory predicts that species living today have common ancestors

Are those common ancestors more advanced life or more primitive life? Does an earthworm and a human being have a common ancestor? What form do you think that takes?

and the facts, to the best of our knowledge, bear that out.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Supporting evidence doesn't prove anything. Literally mountains of it mean nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence in science.

and while were on the subject of learning, learn what science is.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It is not whatever you want to define it as to meet your purposes or world view.

Not my definition.

Virtually every claim you make is not only not supportable by the facts as we know them, they are arguments from ignorance.

Science does not use supporting evidence.

The Theory of Biological evolution one of the most useful and thoroughly test scientific theories and it meets all the criteria of a scientific theory despite your false claims as to other wise.

No theory is ever blessed, sanctified, proven or other made more legitimate by supporting evidence. There are no proofs in science.

A scientific theory is defined as;

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. (ref: Wikipedia).

WRONG. Science does not use supporting evidence. Wikipedia is discarded on sight. You cannot use it as a reference with me.

To considered a scientific theory it must;
Model natural phenomena.
Be falsifiable in principle.

...and that's it.

Make testable predictions.

Science is not capable of predictions. It is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems have the power of prediction. Theories of science MUST be formalized into a closed functional system to gain the power of prediction. The resulting equation is called a 'law'.

Be based on empirically observable fact.

WRONG. Observations are not a proof. They are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only. They are not a fact. Learn what 'fact' means.

Be independently verifiable.

Repeating a test with the same parameters produces the same result. Unnecessary.

Be published and peer reviewed.

A theory of science need not be published at all. Consensus is not used in science. It is only used in religion and politics.

It must have a high probability of being correct

Science isn't gambling. Probability mathematics does not apply. Probability mathematics also loses the inherent power of prediction in mathematics due to its importation of random number mathematics into the Real Domain. Thus, you can calculate the odds of the next roll of the dice, but you cannot predict what the next roll will be.

Can be revised or modified based upon new evidence or discoveries.

WRONG. If a theory of science is falsified, it is utterly destroyed. Theories of science do not change. They are what they are until they are destroyed. A new theory may arise in the void left behind that looks similar to the old one, but it is a completely new theory.

The Theory of Biological Evolution by means of natural selection not only easily meets all these criteria of a scientific theory and it is one of the most profoundly useful scientific theories discovered by man with a vast array of applications and uses (a fact you seem to be avoiding).

Nope. The Theory of Evolution is about a past unobserved event. It is not falsifiable. It is not testable. The only way to test such a theory is to go back in time to see what actually happened. Science has no theories about past unobserved events.

So no Biologist is looking for absolute truth's, that's what you appear to be doing.

The Theory of Evolution has little to do with biology. I am not trying to prove anything. YOU are. Inversion fallacy.

We, like any other scientist are looking for what are the facts to the best our our knowledge and how do they explain how living systems work.

Learn what a 'fact' is. Data is not a fact. A fact is not a Universal Truth.

Theories of science are, after all, theories. All theories are explanatory arguments. That's what a theory is.

 

[Into the Night]

Same with Jellyfish ......

Jellyfish have no circulatory system or blood. Still looking for an example of an existing animal that has blood without a circulatory system, or a circulatory system without blood. This was the original question posed at the beginning of this thread.

Listing animals that have neither is a pointless exercise.

 

[StoneByStone]

Ok. Your body has a circulatory system. This is used to move oxygen rich blood cells through every part of your body. Now, here's a question for you. A circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood has no reason to exist without one. So which came first? Blood or our circulatory system? The answer is neither. They were created at the same time. There is no other rational explanation.

They evolved at the same time.

 

[Into the Night]

Good post... but I think he fled the thread.

Quoting Wikipedia is not a good post. Wikipedia references are discarded on sight. You cannot use them with me.

 

[Into the Night]

Probably because he couldn’t answer my last question on why the theory has produced a vast number uses.

Nah. I've just been enjoying my Christmas vacation.

 

[Into the Night]

Probably because he couldn’t answer my last question on why the theory has produced a vast number uses.

Theories don't produce anything.

 

[Into the Night]

He's also a bit of a bully IMO.

No one is bullying you. Apparently you feel that anyone that disagrees with you is 'bullying'.

 

[Into the Night]

Essentially, we're in agreement. I just simplify the discussion by cutting to the chase. Like I said, the theory of evolution and the creationist theory....never the twain shall meet, but maybe they should give each other a phone call. Couldn't hurt.

They actually have nothing to do with each other.

There are those who subscribe to the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution at the same time. They are not incompatible with each other.

The Theory of Creation IS mutually exclusive with the Theory of Abiogenesis, however. One of them MUST be False.

None of these theories are theories of science. All of them remain circular arguments...and religions.

 

[Into the Night]

They evolved at the same time.

If this is True, that would require a complex evolutionary step to take place all at once. There is no halfway measure. No intermediate species would exist under this assumption.

 

[StoneByStone]

If this is True, that would require a complex evolutionary step to take place all at once. There is no halfway measure. No intermediate species would exist under this assumption.

Do you know how evolution works?

 

[Taichiliberal]

They actually have nothing to do with each other.

There are those who subscribe to the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution at the same time. They are not incompatible with each other.

The Theory of Creation IS mutually exclusive with the Theory of Abiogenesis, however. One of them MUST be False.

None of these theories are theories of science. All of them remain circular arguments...and religions.

Again, both share a FAITH....one in there being an eternal Supreme Being that created the earth and stars, the other in there being some physical explanation the will explain how it all came into being. FAITH: a belief that cannot be logically or factually proven at the present.

And the beat goes on.

 

[Into the Night]

Jellyfish are a unique kind of marine animal that they actually don't have a specialized circulatory system. They don't even have a specialized respiratory system or nervous system. They can easily absorb oxygen when needed through their thin bodies.

They do not have blood or a circulatory system. Please stick to the original question. Which came first, blood or the circulatory system? Did they happen together?

 

[Into the Night]

Do you know how evolution works?

No. Neither do you. No one does.

So why would a circulatory system develop without blood, or why would blood develop without the circulatory system? If they developed together, that would require quite a leap. You seem to be attempting to deny your own argument.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, both share a FAITH....one in there being an eternal Supreme Being that created the earth and stars, the other in there being some physical explanation the will explain how it all came into being. FAITH: a belief that cannot be logically or factually proven at the present.

And the beat goes on.

Bingo. ALL nonscientific theories, including the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of the Big Bang, and the Theory of Creation, are all based on faith.

We do not know what actually happened.

 

[StoneByStone]

No. Neither do you. No one does.

Oh no...
Why do religious people think that if they don't understand something, no one does?

So why would a circulatory system develop without blood, or why would blood develop without the circulatory system? If they developed together, that would require quite a leap. You seem to be attempting to deny your own argument.

So the way evolution works is that organisms have mutations that either help them survive and procreate, or don't. If an organism has a mutation that greatly reduces fertility, then that species will soon die out.
When it comes to the circulatory system, there have been countless organisms with countless circulatory systems that died out because they didn't have the combination required to survive and procreate.
When you understand how evolution works, you realize that we don't need a god to exist the way we do.

Another common religious argument is that if the Earth was further from the Sun, then we wouldn't be able to survive, so there must be a god. This ignores the fact that Earth could just as easily have been inhabited by a species that evolved to be able to stand much colder weather.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Ok. Your body has a circulatory system. This is used to move oxygen rich blood cells through every part of your body. Now, here's a question for you. A circulatory system is useless without blood. Also, blood has no reason to exist without one. So which came first? Blood or our circulatory system? The answer is neither. They were created at the same time. There is no other rational explanation.

Mother of fucking Christ, this clown is an idiot.
This asshole is dumb enough to be the next Republican presidential candidate.

 

[kudzu]

They do not have blood or a circulatory system. Please stick to the original question. Which came first, blood or the circulatory system? Did they happen together?

I think the answer is "we don't know", but we do know there was no global flood. Geologists are quite sure of that.

 

[Grugore]

Do you know how evolution works?

LOLOL! No one knows how it works because it's a crock of shit. A fantasy. A fairy tale for grownups. There is no scientific to support it.