Bacterial Flagellum Falsifies Evolutionary Theory

reply to post by hillbillydudeman


Evolution does not attempt to explain how the universe started, or even how life started. Those are completely different theories, and in the case of the universe a completely different field of science. Evolution is a branching process. Different environments require different adaptations thus leading to different species. We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from the same ancestor as modern primates. Our environment required us to evolve differently than monkeys, so here we both are today. As for mating with other species, if you need me to explain that then you clearly have no grasp of biology and have never actually studied evolution. Instead you clearly make arguments that you have read on pro-Creationist websites in an attempt to validate your preconceived world view. That is not science. That is blind faith.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by hillbillydudeman

 

Evolution does not attempt to explain how the universe started, or even how life started. Those are completely different theories, and in the case of the universe a completely different field of science. Evolution is a branching process. Different environments require different adaptations thus leading to different species. We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from the same ancestor as modern primates. Our environment required us to evolve differently than monkeys, so here we both are today. As for mating with other species, if you need me to explain that then you clearly have no grasp of biology and have never actually studied evolution. Instead you clearly make arguments that you have read on pro-Creationist websites in an attempt to validate your preconceived world view. That is not science. That is blind faith.

"Evolution does not attempt to explain how the universe started, or even how life started. Those are completely different theories"

I might have mixed in a bit of big-bang with that evolutionists shpeel, but its tied to the same rope, no singular cell without bang, no bang, without the evolution jazz-

Unless your saying the earth was created- then you evolved


"We didn't evolve from monkeys, we evolved from the same ancestor as modern primates."
So if we share the same great great ancestor why cant I mate with a monkey?

And i get genetics-

Foxes for instance, can interbreed, with many canines-
but a fox and a cat cannot do the deed- even if they 'share the same ancestor as modern foxes'


"you clearly make arguments that you have read on pro-Creationist websites in an attempt to validate your preconceived world view. That is not science. That is blind faith."

the link i published, was the first pro-creationist website ive ever been on- for the link to flagella. But you prolly wont believe me.

Im into facts, and data-

at one point i did not believe in a master creator, and doubted the world around me, but then I saw how complex it was, and then when people throw things like "thats blind faith" into the mix- I can tell you dont know what ive been doing all these years.

mwahahahhahahaha hardly-

Its deeply researched faith.


And i am more than happy to hear your DATA and INFORMATION supporting your claims, just no more jabs like "in an attempt to validate your preconceived world view" or terms like "Blind Faith" thats just rude.

dudeman

As previous posts have mentioned, both evolution and intelligent design are both theories. There is not enough evidence to prove either theory.

I believe that there is proof of de-evolution. This can be seen in vestigal organs, but no evidence that any species evolves in any way as Darwin theorized.

My personal thoughts point towards intelligent design. This has nothing to do with a God or religion, but I do not see how the theory of evolution can explain the complex systems in the human body and animals.

What evolved first: The heart, or the veins?

The veins or blood?

Blah blah blah. I could come up with many more, but the point is that evolution cannot explain the orgin of any species or the sequence of events that led to the human species. The fossil record only shows that there may have been different "versions" of humans in the past, as our creators worked out the major bugs. Lets call it: Human 3.0, 4.0. whatever version you see fit.

Intelligent design, although there are many odd theories to explain different versions, is more of a common sense theory. Our own scientists can use genes to create different forms of life, so it is completely believable that a "higher being" could have done the same to us.

reply to post by DisappearCompletely



Your funny.. The scientific method is flawed because it is not infallible. Experimentation is not infallible, conclusions are not infallible. Anything can be misinterpreted. As I said science is a philosophy. This is indisputable. None of your evidence is real evidence if it can be changed by new information or understanding. You only have suggestions that seem to support your theories or hypothesis for the current time and level of understanding.

This is exactly why science is really a religion. It is treated as a religion by its worshipers. You have proven my point by your attitude towards this infallible science you believe in so strongly.

Search through my posts an read all the science related ones. You will find lots of examples where I debunk something thought to be a scientific fact and it turns out it is really not true. You should not even need to do that because history is filled with these examples you should know yourself.

You say, " Not everything is a theory; creationism isn't a theory and neither is intelligent design. Hell, they can't even be considered hypothesis since they cannot even be attempted to be proven wrong or have supporting empirical evidence. "

I disagree. You can only claim they cannot be tested by your methods with your present understanding of science and technology. This may change in the future, so nothing is written in stone.

You say, " I certainly do have the right to call creationist attacks on science nonsense, because that is what it is, nonsense; until your hatred for science has some empirical evidence as to why your view is the correct one, you have nothing but collections of scripture and conjecture from liars that claim they are "creation scientists.""

Incorrect. I did not attack science with a creationist view. I did not show hatred for science through the use of scripture or words of creation scientists.

My position is a logical one.

You may believe that many of the arguments of the creationists scientists are nonsense now, but what if they can one day use your own scientific method to prove their points? All I am asking you to do is keep an open mind. Isn't that what true science teaches you? You do not know what the future will bring. I submit nothing is impossible.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
As previous posts have mentioned, both evolution and intelligent design are both theories. There is not enough evidence to prove either theory.

I believe that there is proof of de-evolution. This can be seen in vestigal organs, but no evidence that any species evolves in any way as Darwin theorized.

My personal thoughts point towards intelligent design. This has nothing to do with a God or religion, but I do not see how the theory of evolution can explain the complex systems in the human body and animals.

What evolved first: The heart, or the veins?

The veins or blood?

Blah blah blah. I could come up with many more, but the point is that evolution cannot explain the orgin of any species or the sequence of events that led to the human species. The fossil record only shows that there may have been different "versions" of humans in the past, as our creators worked out the major bugs. Lets call it: Human 3.0, 4.0. whatever version you see fit.

Intelligent design, although there are many odd theories to explain different versions, is more of a common sense theory. Our own scientists can use genes to create different forms of life, so it is completely believable that a "higher being" could have done the same to us.

Beautiful, absolutely beautiful.

That was very elegant-

reply to post by sheepslayer247


A century ago a there was a flooding in Africa. The event introduced a fish in a freshwater fish free lake. The fish a single of cyclid has effectively populated the lake and they have adapted to multiple niches, since they were theirs for the taking.

The differences in between this one species have caused adapted cousins to eat another diet, change color, they don't even mate with the other cyclids.

They are still cyclid but not just one species anymore but several. All in just one century.

Although this is called speciation it is exactly what evolution is about. Bigger changes will not happen in any time line we could imagine.

Evolution is not a system to guide changes or a set of life goals to reach.
It isn't any of that.

The only thing it does is that it explains the changes that we see throughout history.
The theory is also under constant evaluation and every new discovery is added and if necessary , the theory will be upgrade or altered depending on the new piece of evidence.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas

I agree with you on a lot of science isn't really science, but philosophy.

Science comes out of philosophy. Thats where it is/was born. Math too. I love how science fans who obviously havent studied the history of science seem to love speaking as if "philosophy" were some sort of ridiculous endeavor.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I'm sorry. I never realized philosophy is ridiculous. ( sarcasm )
I did not intended to bash science.

My point was that a lot of stuff is presented to be truth which simply can not be proven.
Like the big bang or inflation or whatever.

I really don't care how science came to be. IMO science is an obvious effect of curiosity.

reply to post by hillbillydudeman


Humans cannot mate with other animals because our DNA is so different from other animals that they would be incompatible. As time a physical distance separates species their DNA becomes more and more different. We were able to successfully breed with other species in the past, such as Neanderthals, but they're gone now.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas


My point was that a lot of stuff is presented to be truth which simply can not be proven.
Like the big bang or inflation or whatever.

I dont get how you are claiming these things are presented as "fact" they are working theories, and there are other competing theories, and they will remain theories until one or the other or both are disproven.

Science doesnt so much "prove" things as it does "disprove" others. See Poppers argument on the possibility of hidden variables or causes for more information. Though I really doubt you care.

Science is not just the workings of a curious mind. Monkeys are curious and yet curiously, lack science. So do cats, btw.

I understand that bad philosophers, or idiots who take the title philosopher to make themselves sound important may make many people have a bad opinion of it. Thats been true since Plato since he rants on about the same thing. But thats only because many people dont ever take the time to understand what it is supposed to look like, what it does, how it works etc., and so they accept any idiot using big words and fancy terminology and talking about stuff they dont understand as a philosopher.

Virtually everything we know began as a theory. Just because it couldnt be proven at the time did not mean it was wrong. Just like unproven theories now may not be wrong. Anyone who would have us toss away the theoretical and stick only to the known is an enemy of progress itself.

en.wikipedia.org...

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[38]

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

You seem to be mistaken about how science should work if you think theorizing is "stoopid." Theory is an integral part of science. See the above for clarification. You have to theorize FIRST and then you can try to quantify. Some science is "stumble upon" science, but even what we stumble upon is often the result of testing another theory.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


No, no, no... It seems we misunderstand each other.

I do not think philosophy and science in a negative way.

Theorizing is everything but stupid. I am interested in science. What I meant was that I think science comes natural to us. We want to now everything. Curiosity as in human curiosity.
I do not have a scientific background so I'm very open to impossible theories, but I can still divide fact from fiction. I noticed that I'm wrong a lot but science and ATS members who are passionate and kind enough to correct me is great.

When you look at a show about cosmology stuff like the big bang, dark matter is presented as if we completely understand and or as only possible option whatever. Of course they say it's theory, but when I watch such a show... I do not get the idea they are accepting any other explanation. That's why I used the word presented.

By all means I was defending the theory of evolution as a scientific theory usually is build around a foundation of stuff we know.

If it looked like I ridiculed science and stuff... I did not intend to.
I probably just made myself look stupid...

Why do I have such a big mouth on evolution ? While I'm not very scientific....
It seems I understand it very well. I don't know why or how, but I feel strangely attracted by it.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Good point! Life is able to adapt and change with its enviroment as needed, and I think speciation could be included in both theories of existance.

When I think of Evolution or Intelligent Design, I think of the absolute beginning of life and how it came about. Evolution does not explain how life began on Earth IMO. How does a single-cell organism evolve into a multi-cell creature such as a human, with a genetic code (DNA) built into it?

And where did the single-cell organism come from? There are so many questions that need answered and again IMO I think that ID comes closer to answering those questions in a scientific way than Evolution does.

This argument is not complex.

True atheists will tell you. We do not deny or claim the non-existence of a creator. We will believe in one once you supply us with ample evidence. However creationists are spurred by the bias that "there must be an intelligent creator." And why is that? What gave them that inkling? Surely nothing came down from the sky and slapped them and said "Hey look up!" No. Unfortunately it is quite simple, the reason they feel this draw towards "creationism" is because they have faith in that belief. It may or may not have a dignified religion, but it certainly shares the same dogmatic view that in order for things to have order something intelligent must have made it be so otherwise what's the purpose of living (the entire inspiration for faith IMO) ? So in this respect, we see that naturally Intelligent design believers or researchers (if you will) carry with them a bit of dirt in their lenses, and a skewed point of view that no scientist, no honest scientist, should carry. You see science is lack of faith that trades off for reasoning. It is neither a positive or negative and shares no inequalities to any relative variables with religion. It is because in science, we do not create a theory before fulfilling the hypothesis. That's what intelligent design ultimately is, they haven't proved anything yet but here they are calling it a flipping theory and NOTHING has been proven in any controlled experiments to be considered substantial enough to win the argument. I call BS.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


You are right. Evolution does not explain where life came from. I believe a scientific hypothesis that is called abiogenesis tries to explain that.

I don't know what your idea is on creation but when it is from the bible you can't call it an explanation. That is called faith and can better be labeled as revelation instead.

Personally I think we are the result of creation.

[edit on 8/11/2010 by Sinter Klaas]