Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu

Two-Celled Life?

Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.

Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes19.html#wp1012455

adamd164

That's it is it? You're just gonna come on here, copy and paste some rubbish from Creotard Science and expect us all to do a double take?

I see absolutely no special reason why there would be 2-5 celled extant animal forms. If you (or should I say Creotard Science) are implying that the transitions from every one stage to another stage should survive then this supposition blatently contradicts the fact that 99% of all species to have ever existed are extinct. By your criteria, the ancestral lineage of Homo Sapiens, right back to its common ancestor with the chimpanzees should be preserved in full just because those "intermediate" (I hate that term, but anyway) species once existed.

Organisms are the way they are because that's where selection pressure has led them. Selection pressures are highly dynamic. The animal kingdom is one demonstrably suited to high-degree multicellularity. Animals are highly motile creatures. The mere fact that no animal parasites (that we know of!) can get by on under 6 cells AFTER THE FACT of animal evolution proves nothing. It most certainly does not "prove" that BEFORE the radiation of animals this did not occur.

btw, I'm not sure Lynn Margulis and Karlene Schwartz would like the idea of being in any way associated with this nonsense. Both are reputable scientists, and the citation there seems to suggest that their (peer-reviewed) literature is promoting the creotard POV.

achtungbarry

Oh dear, oh dear.....

And by the way "creation science" is the god (sic) of oxymorons !

Tomk1

one post, this is against Charter & Rules:

3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

4. Starting another thread when challenged, instead of responding to debate to your post, is also not be tolerated.

Unlike other forums where proselytizing is banned, I suggest we don't need to do that here. As long as the basic rules are followed I can't see this being an issue - and it does spark debate.

Tim Robbins

Pahu wrote:

Nonsense

You've copy and pasted a load of pseudo science that you are unable to add to yourself perhaps because you haven't an iota why it is nonsense in the first place. What's the purpose of this thread? We all know there's tonners of garbage on the internet and tonnes of people who haven't a clue about science or the scientific method.

If you have a specific question or point about evolution be clear about it. Any fool can copy an paste nonsense.

You're trolling and should get a warning.

Pahu

adamd164 wrote: »

That's it is it? You're just gonna come on here, copy and paste some rubbish from Creotard Science and expect us all to do a double take?

I see absolutely no special reason why there would be 2-5 celled extant animal forms. If you (or should I say Creotard Science) are implying that the transitions from every one stage to another stage should survive then this supposition blatently contradicts the fact that 99% of all species to have ever existed are extinct. By your criteria, the ancestral lineage of Homo Sapiens, right back to its common ancestor with the chimpanzees should be preserved in full just because those "intermediate" (I hate that term, but anyway) species once existed.

I think the point is that there is no record of any transitional forms in the fossil record.

Organisms are the way they are because that's where selection pressure has led them. Selection pressures are highly dynamic.

That's the popular belief, but where is the evidence? As you point out, many life forms are extinct. Isn't that the result of selection pressure? Where is there any evidence that selection pressure has caused evolution?

The animal kingdom is one demonstrably suited to high-degree multicellularity. Animals are highly motile creatures. The mere fact that no animal parasites (that we know of!) can get by on under 6 cells AFTER THE FACT of animal evolution proves nothing. It most certainly does not "prove" that BEFORE the radiation of animals this did not occur.

You assume a "fact" of evolution, but where is the evidence? Is there any evidence it occurred before the radiation?

btw, I'm not sure Lynn Margulis and Karlene Schwartz would like the idea of being in any way associated with this nonsense. Both are reputable scientists, and the citation there seems to suggest that their (peer-reviewed) literature is promoting the creotard POV.

You are probably right. I am sharing information from scientists who have discovered facts that disprove evolution. There is no suggestion they promote creationism. As a matter of fact, most of them are evolutionist. For example:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, . John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews

Húrin

Pahu wrote: »

Two-Celled Life?

Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.

Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes19.html#wp1012455

Sorry, how does this in any way disprove evolution?

(never mind the dodgy sourcing)

Pahu wrote: »

You are probably right. I am sharing information from scientists who have discovered facts that disprove evolution. There is no suggestion they promote creationism.

So why are you posting it on a religion/spirituality forum?

Pahu

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You've copy and pasted a load of pseudo science that you are unable to add to yourself perhaps because you haven't an iota why it is nonsense in the first place.

Can you enlighten us as to why the findings of scientists is pseudo and nonsense?

What's the purpose of this thread?

The purpose is to share information from scientists who have discovered facts that disprove evolution.

We all know there's tonners of garbage on the internet and tonnes of people who haven't a clue about science or the scientific method.

You're certainly right about the garbage, and there are plenty of people who haven't a clue about science or the scientific method. Can you tell us what is science and the scientific method?

If you have a specific question or point about evolution be clear about it.

What do you find unclear about what I shared?

Any fool can copy an paste nonsense.

True. It takes intelligence to find and share facts by those who know what they are talking about. What does it say about those who automatically reject those facts without thinking?

You're trolling and should get a warning.

What do you mean by "trolling"?

Pahu

Húrin wrote: »

Sorry, how does this in any way disprove evolution?

(never mind the dodgy sourcing)

It suggests there are no transitions in the fossil record: "If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms."

(What on earth is "dodgy sourcing")

So why are you posting it on a religion/spirituality forum?

I'm open to suggestions. Where do you suggest would be a better spot on Boards.IE?

sink

Pahu wrote: »

I'm open to suggestions. Where do you suggest would be a better spot on Boards.IE?

Wherever would you find Biologists and Palaeontologists, like for instance the Biology and Palaeontology forums.

Edit: Palaeontology forum is probably best since you are talking about prehistoric organisms.

adamd164

Pahu wrote: »

It suggests there are no transitions in the fossil record: "If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms."

You clearly have no idea about the process of fossilisation. Are you trained in geology or paleontology?

Perhaps you can tell us how exactly a scientist would discern that one particular fossil had 5 cells and another had 6? There is usually not even agreement at that scale over whether a fossil is caused by a small animal or by abiotic processes.

Regardless, I find you insistance that this "disproves" the theory of evolution mildly amusing. EVEN IF you could show that no 2-5 celled fossils exist (and you can't), the fossil record is sporadic at best, because of the tenuous manner in which the process naturally occurs, and can be shown to occur. In spite of this, there have been amazing finds such as Tiktaalik (almost archetypally what we might expect in a vertebrate "land-sea transition" form) and others, all the time being hammered home and confirmed by genetic and anatomical testing to be more closely related to certain lineages than to others; precisely as common descent predicts.

eoin5

A lack of evidence doesnt disprove anything.

We really need to get critical thinking classes into schools.

Orion

Pahu wrote: »

I'm open to suggestions. Where do you suggest would be a better spot on Boards.IE?

Here

:rolleyes:

DapperGent

I think this is the worst one of these I've ever seen.

Hivemind187

Pahu wrote: »

Two-Celled Life?

Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.

Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes19.html#wp1012455

arent filamental life forms such as spyrogyra capable of having single, double, triple etc cell chains?

Pride Fighter

LOL, this gave me a laugh.

Tyler MacDurden

Pahu wrote: »

I'm open to suggestions. Where do you suggest would be a better spot on Boards.IE?

Quick, someone shine the giant Galvasean sign on a passing nimbocumulus! I wonder if he has a G-mobile....

achtungbarry

Pahu wrote: »

I'm open to suggestions. Where do you suggest would be a better spot on Boards.IE?

The science forum perhaps.....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=392

In fact I would love to see you post this creationist nut job pscyco babbling ramblings in the science section.

Please do in fact.

It would be great entertainment.

pfishfood

First off the evolution is theory. If the theory of evolution was disproved it would be big news and not presented in "creationist website", which is very biased towards a certain set of beliefs which in my opinion are quiet dodgy. Aren't these the same people that claim that 100% of water in the universe resides on earth with out taking into regard the water found on mars, the gas giants and the water on the moons of Jupiter to name but a few.

sink

pfishfood wrote: »

Aren't these the same people that claim that 100% of water in the universe resides on earth with out taking into regard the water found on mars, the gas giants and the water on the moons of Jupiter to name but a few.

Never head of these people do you have a link? It's seems a pretty strange belief since hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and oxygen is the third and H2O is one of the most common molecules in the universe.

pfishfood

Not 100% sure who these guys are but they sound similar to scientology. Heres some links that might provide more info on them. the water thing i remember reading somewhere on the net. Yes
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/wic.html and http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_statc.htm

Hope this helps

Schuhart

eoin5 wrote: »

A lack of evidence doesnt disprove anything.

Indeed, but this presumably opens the door to any nutty assertion that cannot be disproved.

I think we potentially allow this kind of post to trap us in to saying stupid things. If there's no evidence illustrating how life evolved from single to multiple cell creatures, then there's no evidence. I don't see the problem in acknowledging this.

On the other hand, there does seem to be considerable evidence to support the view that humans share a common ancestor with the Great Apes. And there's evidence to suggest common ancestry among mammals.

None of that (to my mind) is refuted by a lack of evidence relating to evolution of single celled organisms. Maybe the process through which the first multi-celled organisms arrived was different. Or maybe there is evidence that evolution had a role. I don't know, and I don't see the problem in stating what we don't know.

I think we're verging on displaying the mindset we criticise people of faith for.

eoin5

Schuhart wrote: »

Indeed, but this presumably opens the door to any nutty assertion that cannot be disproved.

Theres no way you can disprove that there are walking rainbows but to assert that there is would be silly as there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there might be. You cant really prove or disprove anything (except in mathematics of course). The best you can get is strong evidence to suggest something. There used to be strong evidence to suggest that rats were born of mud and maggots from sugar before we studied things more closely. What I'm hitting at is that people often use a lack of evidence to "disprove" or skew theories in a way that suits their own rationalisations. The lack of evidence might even be imagined. What we need is critical examination of whats around us and theories that are plausable, not people trying to protect their dogmas by denying whats likely.

UU

Another one of these threads? For pete's sake! I do wish people who actually don't understand Evolution and science in general would educate themselves rather than posting dodgy sources. Just because there is ambiguity relating to some parts of Evolution, that doesn't mean suddenly it is all false and something else like Creationism is right. The evidence for Evolution is extremely strong. Obviously this person wants to believe what they want to believe and is clearly unable to offer his/her own opinion on the subject but pastes and copies nonsensical sources. Also, what really begs the question is why is this even on the atheism and agnosticism forum? It is more suited to one of the science forums.

AtomicHorror

Pahu wrote: »

Two-Celled Life?

Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.

Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes19.html#wp1012455

"If I can't imagine it, it must be a lie."

You talk about the scientific method, but you reckon gaps in evidence constitute the falsification of a model. That's a pretty serious misunderstanding of the scientific method right there. Models are falsified by positive evidence. By consistent and reproducible data that does not fit the model.

If there were no gaps in what we know, why would we need models?

AtomicHorror

UU wrote: »

Another one of these threads? For pete's sake! I do wish people who actually don't understand Evolution and science in general would educate themselves rather than posting dodgy sources. Just because there is ambiguity relating to some parts of Evolution, that doesn't mean suddenly it is all false and something else like Creationism is right. The evidence for Evolution is extremely strong. Obviously this person wants to believe what they want to believe and is clearly unable to offer his/her own opinion on the subject but pastes and copies nonsensical sources. Also, what really begs the question is why is this even on the atheism and agnosticism forum? It is more suited to one of the science forums.

Nah, it's more suited to CT or yet another inane addition to the BC&P thread.

I guess this guy reckons we're all relying on evolution for our non-faith, despite the fact that evolution does not disprove the existence of Gods.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

"If I can't imagine it, it must be a lie."

Reminds me of one of the principles of cryptography:

Whoever wrote:

Anybody can come up with a cryptographic algorithm they're not smart enough to break themselves.

Schuhart

eoin5 wrote: »

What we need is critical examination of whats around us and theories that are plausable, not people trying to protect their dogmas by denying whats likely.

I totally agree - I don't think there is much difference between us in principle. I'm just pointing out that we should have absolutely no fear in agreeing if a proposition is unsupported by evidence. Whether the source of the material is a creationist website or not, its either valid or invalid in its own right. If this particular point is valid, I think its simply a matter of saying 'Yup, there's no evidence to suggest that single cell organisms begot multicell organisms through the mechanism of evolution. Next.'

Húrin

Pahu wrote: »

I'm open to suggestions. Where do you suggest would be a better spot on Boards.IE?

I know you're new, but you surely were not unaware of the existence of some form of science forum on boards.

Pahu

sink wrote: »

Wherever would you find Biologists and Palaeontologists, like for instance the Biology and Palaeontology forums.

Edit: Palaeontology forum is probably best since you are talking about prehistoric organisms.

Those sound a little too specific. I think this is where the light needs to be directed, but thanks for the suggestion.

Pahu

UU wrote: »

Another one of these threads? For pete's sake! I do wish people who actually don't understand Evolution and science in general would educate themselves rather than posting dodgy sources.

What do you understand about evolution and science?

Just because there is ambiguity relating to some parts of Evolution, that doesn't mean suddenly it is all false and something else like Creationism is right.

Is it possible there is an Intelligent Designer?

The evidence for Evolution is extremely strong.

What is that extremely strong evidence?

Obviously this person wants to believe what they want to believe and is clearly unable to offer his/her own opinion on the subject but pastes and copies nonsensical sources.

The information I am sharing is based on the findings of scientists that disprove evolution. I believe their scientifically based conclusions outweigh my uneducated opinions. What do you find nonsensical about science?

Also, what really begs the question is why is this even on the atheism and agnosticism forum? It is more suited to one of the science forums.

Isn't it better to shine the light in the darkness, than in the sunlight?

sink

Pahu wrote: »

Those sound a little too specific. I think this is where the light needs to be directed, but thanks for the suggestion.

Why, because you might actually meet someone who knows what they're talking about?

Zillah

We should merge and sticky all these threads for posterity.

Dades

Pahu wrote: »

Those sound a little too specific. I think this is where the light needs to be directed, but thanks for the suggestion.

I'm dubious as to where the light is shone from...

Sorry, we don't need another one of these threads.

One thread on Boards full of ridiculous crackpottery is enough.