Question for evolutionists

[Into the Night]

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

I am not making a religious 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.

The Theory of Natural Selection, which is NOT the Theory of Evolution, has been falsified. That theory logically denies itself. The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is not falsifiable. It is therefore not a theory of science. It remains a circular argument...and a religion. It cannot be tested. There is no way to go back to see what actually happened. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. I am simply accepting the Theory of Evolution as a given fact for the purposes of this discussion.

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.

How do you know? Do you have examples of this? As far as I know, no fossil has ever been found with such a property.

When you understand how evolution works, you realize that we don't need a god to exist the way we do.

I am not arguing about any god, gods, or spirits. Why do you think I am??

Another common religious argument

I am not making a religious argument (other than the religion of the Theory of Evolution simply being accepted as a given fact).

is that if the Earth was further from the Sun, then we wouldn't be able to survive, so there must be a god.

Irrelevant redirection. Anyone making that argument is making a circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. Fundamentalism can occur in any religion, including the Theory of Evolution. It is not possible to prove any circular argument True or False.

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.

There is one factor to consider, however. Life as we understand it requires liquid water. That can only exist in a narrow range where the Earth happens to be orbiting. I don't consider it likely that the Theory of Abiogenesis could be just as True under harsher conditions. The Theory of Evolution can't even get started without life being on Earth in the first place.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Rather than insulting people, why don't you discuss the question presented?

 

[Into the Night]

I think the answer is "we don't know", but we do know there was no global flood.

We don't know that, either.

Geologists are quite sure of that.

They don't know either.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Science is not evidence, either supporting or conflicting. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

I see you do not subscribe to the religion of the Theory of Evolution. Fine. It is a religion, after all, just like any other.

 

[StoneByStone]

Rather than insulting people, why don't you discuss the question presented?

Normally I would agree, but there are some people who aren't interested in reality, and they can't be reasoned with.

 

[Into the Night]

Normally I would agree, but there are some people who aren't interested in reality, and they can't be reasoned with.

Define 'reality'. I know what it means. Do you?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

I love how you Creationist just throw shit out and hope it sticks. It’s actually not a bad method. To convince noobs who know nothing about science. Hell you don’t even know something as basic as what a scientific theory is. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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



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.

You’re close to right. That’s just one part of it. Random genetic mutations occur. Some provide adaptative advantage others are neutral and some harmful. What isn’t random is the next part of the process. Something Creationist tend to forget about. That’s Natural Selection. The random mutations that do provide adaptive advantages are selected for those advantages.

So to argue that evolution can’t occur because it’s a random process is an argument from ignorance. Natural Selection is anything but random.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

He's also a bit of a bully IMO.

He can’t bullshit me. He’s fairly ignorant on the subject.

 

[Ralph]

I love how you Creationist just throw shit out and hope it sticks. It’s actually not a bad method. To convince noobs who know nothing about science. Hell you don’t even know something as basic as what a scientific theory is. Thanks for the laugh.

A theory....scientific or not is nothing but CONJECTURE, SPECULATION and the assumption that reality has never changed from the beginning of time. One such idiotic theory proclaimed as an absolute truth is the theory of radio carbon dating.....with the ASSUMPTION that the universe has not changed over the course of supposed a 13 billion year time period (based upon another assumed THEORY). As if something so common a H20 leeching does not have the ability to alter the rate of radio active decay in certain elements. Reality concerning Radio Carbon dating: Such dating has no standard of calibrating any date past 5000 years.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

Creationism isn’t a scientific theory. It’s a religious teaching. Creationism meets none of the criteria to be considered science let alone a theory.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There is no change in the meaning of 'theory' in any scientific sense. The meaning of 'theory' remains the same, whether used to describe a scientific theory or any other.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Thats what I thought. You don’t know what a scientific theory is. Given that why should I, as a Biologist, give any of your comments any credibility? You make arguments from authority, provide no testable predictions, ignore observable empirical fact and are not modeling natural phenomena. You also provide absolutely no alternative model that explains speciation. Why should any Biologist give you any credibility considering you’re not giving us anything but unscientific sophistry to work with?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you know how evolution works?

yes......random shit happening randomly.......incredibly slow.....intelligent design is much more efficient.......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

Just like Creationist do?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

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

wait.....aren't you the atheist who thinks he understands religion?......

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

Thank you for proving my point with more circular reasoning.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I love how you Creationist just throw shit out and hope it sticks. It’s actually not a bad method. To convince noobs who know nothing about science. Hell you don’t even know something as basic as what a scientific theory is. Thanks for the laugh.

I know right?.......there's no such thing as a theory of abiogenesis........

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

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

Nope. That's the theory.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

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?

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.

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

Not my definition.

Science does not use supporting evidence.

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

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

...and that's it.

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'.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

You’re laughable dude. You’re trying to change the time tested and proven method of science to fit your particular view. Good luck with that.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

You, again, haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. It goes without saying that homologies create phylogenies and those are easily explained by common descent. Please provide a plausible alternative scientific explanation?

In other words he’s right. You’re wrong.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You’re laughable dude. You’re trying to change the time tested and proven method of science to fit your particular view. Good luck with that.

almost as bad as those who try to substitute "predictability" for experimentation in the scientific method.........