thehomer:

davidylan, what do you understand about the mechanisms of evolution? I ask because the question you just asked shows a deep misunderstanding of the theory. In fact, do you know that bacteria can be considered to be the most successful species on the planet? With some estimates saying that their biomass is more than that of plants and animals?

It is surprising that you never recognize what a devastating blow this very fact is to the theory of evolution's suppositions. I have pointed out to you once before the very fact you now mention: namely that unicellular organisms are the most successful living forms, and for this reason there ought to have been no evolutionary impetus towards less successful multi-cellular creatures as actually happened. This alone belies the whole of the theory of evolution: as conceived by scientists.

Now in saying this, note that I personally accept evolution: i just believe that there was a guided and deliberate intelligence behind the process, and not natural selection alone. For, as I have shown above, natural selection ought to have been satisfied with the earliest unicellular organisms alone: given their phenomenal success - and not contradictorily introduce less successful complex creatures.

davidylan:

This is a very empty statement and belies your own ignorance.

1. The earth is very old... what does that mean? 1000 yrs is "very old", 6000 yrs is "very old"... 1m yrs is "very old". What message where you passing across?

2. Animals have been evolving... ok and why then do we still have the same unicellular organisms as they existed 15m yrs ago? those forgot to "evolve"?

Go ahead and copy paste a response as is your usual MO.

1) Do I really need to tell you that the earth is billions of years old? That should be common knowledge. Oh wait, you're a creationist]

2) The unicellular organisms have evolved as well. Many have new features to adapt to new environments; human/animal bodies/acidic areas.


You keep failing

Deep Sight:

It is surprising that you never recognize what a devastating blow this very fact is to the theory of evolution's suppositions. I have pointed out to you once before the very fact you now mention: namely that unicellular organisms are the most successful living forms, and for this reason there ought to have been no evolutionary impetus towards less successful multi-cellular creatures as actually happened. This alone belies the whole of the theory of evolution: as conceived by scientists.

What do you think are these suppositions of the theory of evolution?
Why do you say that the multicellular organisms are less successful?

Deep Sight:
Now in saying this, note that I personally accept evolution: i just believe that there was a guided and deliberate intelligence behind the process, and not natural selection alone. For, as I have shown above, natural selection ought to have been satisfied with the earliest unicellular organisms alone: given their phenomenal success - and not contradictorily introduce less successful complex creatures.

Do you know how long unicellular organisms were the dominant life-forms on earth? Take a look at this time-line. Natural selection is not a person that it should be satisfied. It is a process.
I think the confusion here lies in what you mean by success.

A timely topic. No matter how long it takes the lies of the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy will surely come down. What is the lie ? That natural processes in vacuo can give rise to advanced lifeforms. That random mutattion & natural selection is all that is needed in order to cause evolution. This is a lie and is further from the truth. That evolution is a discrete, intelligent and a guided process (i.e works within limits). The Achille's heel of natural selection is shown especially in origin-of-life speculations. The question that is often round-tripped is this: How can the DNA encoding & decoding proecesses have arisen without being designed in the first place ? The neo-Darwinian view BTW is a still-born baby. It was born when biologists began to note the problems the unchangeable laws of heredity caused for the fluidity of the process of natural selection. This difficulty reached its height with Barbara Mcclintock's discovery of the computational capabilities of genetic controlling elements responsible for genetic transposition. Till the time when biological science oowns up to the falsity of the theory of evolution the creation & ID organisations should be supported in their fight against intelllectual dishonesty & brainwashing.

Deep Sight:

It is surprising that you never recognize what a devastating blow this very fact is to the theory of evolution's suppositions. I have pointed out to you once before the very fact you now mention: namely that unicellular organisms are the most successful living forms, and for this reason there ought to have been no evolutionary impetus towards less successful multi-cellular creatures as actually happened. This alone belies the whole of the theory of evolution: as conceived by scientists.

Now in saying this, note that I personally accept evolution: i just believe that there was a guided and deliberate intelligence behind the process, and not natural selection alone. For, as I have shown above, natural selection ought to have been satisfied with the earliest unicellular organisms alone: given their phenomenal success - and not contradictorily introduce less successful complex creatures.

The simple truth of this post would no doubt be totally lost on thehomer.

thehomer:

What do you think are these suppositions of the theory of evolution?
Why do you say that the multicellular organisms are less successful?



Do you know how long unicellular organisms were the dominant life-forms on earth? Take a look at this time-line. Natural selection is not a person that it should be satisfied. It is a process.
I think the confusion here lies in what you mean by success.

Please stop running around in silly circles. The logic in there is simple and iron cast: more successful species would not, by the principle of natural selection, evolve to less successful species. And please don't even be a toad by trying to play annoying definition games, cos we all know that in this respect, success refers to population and survival.

thehomer:

davidylan, what do you understand about the mechanisms of evolution? I ask because the question you just asked shows a deep misunderstanding of the theory. In fact, do you know that bacteria can be considered to be the most successful species on the planet? With some estimates saying that their biomass is more than that of plants and animals?

To be frank... you do not understand evolution at all. Bacteria being successful means exactly diddly squat... they still remain the same unicellular organisms they were billions of years ago according to evolutionary theory. How come some unicellular organisms evolved into complex multicellular HUMANS and others merely remained "successful"?

What has biomass to do with this? Plant biomass is far more than that of animals... is that a win for evolution as well?

Uyi Iredia: A timely topic. No matter how long it takes the lies of the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy will surely come down. What is the lie ? That natural processes in vacuo can give rise to advanced lifeforms. That random mutattion & natural selection is all that is needed in order to cause evolution. This is a lie and is further from the truth. That evolution is a discrete, intelligent and a guided process (i.e works within limits). The Achille's heel of natural selection is shown especially in origin-of-life speculations. The question that is often round-tripped is this: How can the DNA encoding & decoding proecesses have arisen without being designed in the first place ? The neo-Darwinian view BTW is a still-born baby. It was born when biologists began to note the problems the unchangeable laws of heredity caused for the fluidity of the process of natural selection. This difficulty reached its height with Barbara Mcclintock's discovery of the computational capabilities of genetic controlling elements responsible for genetic transposition. Till the time when biological science oowns up to the falsity of the theory of evolution the creation & ID organisations should be supported in their fight against intelllectual dishonesty & brainwashing.

Do you think by putting scientific terms in your argument would make it less foolish?
The bold part of your argument just ended any faith I had in it.

Deep Sight:

It is surprising that you never recognize what a devastating blow this very fact is to the theory of evolution's suppositions. I have pointed out to you once before the very fact you now mention: namely that unicellular organisms are the most successful living forms, and for this reason there ought to have been no evolutionary impetus towards less successful multi-cellular creatures as actually happened. This alone belies the whole of the theory of evolution: as conceived by scientists.

Now in saying this, note that I personally accept evolution: i just believe that there was a guided and deliberate intelligence behind the process, and not natural selection alone. For, as I have shown above, natural selection ought to have been satisfied with the earliest unicellular organisms alone: given their phenomenal success - and not contradictorily introduce less successful complex creatures.

I doubt thehomer is actually interested in the truth as espoused here. Like you said... if indeed unicellular organisms are that successful then what was the motivation for change?

logicboy01:





1) Do I really need to tell you that the earth is billions of years old? That should be common knowledge. Oh wait, you're a creationist]

2) The unicellular organisms have evolved as well. Many have new features to adapt to new environments; human/animal bodies/acidic areas.


You keep failing

Amazing illogicality.

davidylan:

I doubt thehomer is actually interested in the truth as espoused here. Like you said... if indeed unicellular organisms are that successful then what was the motivation for change?

Exactly.

We have been arguing about this same subject for eons with these atheists, can't they just get it ?

5 Years from now, they will still be propagating the same nonsense despite evidence to the contrary !!

davidylan:

Amazing illogicality.

I already know that you're a quack scientist but I wonder who the doofus is that liked your comment

frosbel: We have been arguing about this same subject for eons with these atheists, can't they just get it ?

5 Years from now, they will still be propagating the same nonsense despite evidence to the contrary !!

Lol...like there is evidence for god. See what religion does to you? Intelligent design has no evidence

logicboy01:

Lol...like there is evidence for god. See what religion does to you? Intelligent design has no evidence

You are a perfect evidence for intelligent design. Unless of course you've been brainwashed into thinking you are merely a result of statistical chance and scientific fantasy.

logicboy01:


I already know that you're a quack scientist but I wonder who the doofus is that liked your comment

On science, I really don'y know what your qualifications are, but, at the risk of sounding as though I am appealing to authority, Davidylan is a scientific Phd holder.

Just so you know.

davidylan:

You are a perfect evidence for intelligent design. Unless of course you've been brainwashed into thinking you are merely a result of statistical chance and scientific fantasy.

Intelligently designed? Who designed the intelligent designer?


Where is proof of that?

Deep Sight:

On science, I really don'y know what your qualifications are, but, at the risk of sounding as though I am appealing to authority, Davidylan is a scientific Phd holder.

Just so you know.

Did he get his phd from Ogbomosho or DelSU?

Every atheist on Nairaland knows that daviddyaln does not know the first thing about evolution. Maybe he is an ASStronaut!

logicboy01:


Intelligently designed? Who designed the intelligent designer?


Where is proof of that?

As is typical for most atheists... when boxed into a corner, they leave substance to chase shadows. The post you were responding to was quite clear - the fact that it is virtually impossible (if not downright crazy) to think that a system as complex as the human body is a product of random mutation and statistical chance. Do you agree or disagree and why (produce cogent facts pls).

The issue at stake here is NOT who the designer might be.

logicboy01:


Did he get his phd from Ogbomosho or DelSU?

Every atheist on Nairaland knows that daviddyaln does not know the first thing about evolution. Maybe he is an ASStronaut!

The last statement is really funny.
For 99% of atheists... believe in evolution is a MUST as that is the only way they can justify their disbelief in intelligent design. Most of the time, that belief is anchored in vacuous conjecture, metaphysical arguments that make no sense and blind faith in the religion of science.

It's a pity that the understanding of evolution by natural selection among the 'educated' folks in Nigeria is abysmally poor. Evolution is by far the most plausible naturalistic explanation for the existence of divergent forms of life on earth. The reason why most people are against evolution is essentially religious and not evidence-based. Science has proof without certainty whereas religion has certainty without proof. Scientific explanations for phenomena are constantly being modified as more and better evidence are available. But religious beliefs are immutable even in the face of glaring contradictory evidence. It is simply intellectual hypocrisy for creationists to ask for evidence in support of theory of evolution as no amount of evidence can convince a creationist.

Eratosthenes: It's a pity that the understanding of evolution by natural selection among the 'educated' folks in Nigeria is abysmally poor. Evolution is by far the most plausible naturalistic explanation for the existence of divergent forms of life on earth. The reason why most people are against evolution is essentially religious and not evidence-based. Science has proof without certainty whereas religion has certainty without proof. Scientific explanations for phenomena are constantly being modified as more and better evidence are available. But religious beliefs are immutable even in the face of glaring contradictory evidence. It is simply intellectual hypocrisy for creationists to ask for evidence in support of theory of evolution as no amount of evidence can convince a creationist.

Please read comments thoroughly before commenting. Some here do not dispute evolution (such as myself): we merely contend that there is more to that process than suggested by current science. See the comments on the success of unicellular organisms please.

Eratosthenes: It's a pity that the understanding of evolution by natural selection among the 'educated' folks in Nigeria is abysmally poor. Evolution is by far the most plausible naturalistic explanation for the existence of divergent forms of life on earth. The reason why most people are against evolution is essentially religious and not evidence-based. Science has proof without certainty whereas religion has certainty without proof. Scientific explanations for phenomena are constantly being modified as more and better evidence are available. But religious beliefs are immutable even in the face of glaring contradictory evidence. It is simply intellectual hypocrisy for creationists to ask for evidence in support of theory of evolution as no amount of evidence can convince a creationist.

No one doubts micro evolution... macro evolution is the problem.

Deep Sight:

Please stop running around in silly circles. The logic in there is simple and iron cast: more successful species would not, by the principle of natural selection, evolve to less successful species. And please don't even be a toad by trying to play annoying definition games, cos we all know that in this respect, success refers to population and survival.

There is no logic there because one of the things you're failing to see is that the environment changes.
In biology, success isn't determined by the population but by the ability of an organism to survive long enough to produce offspring. Having a large population of unfit individuals doesn't help the gene pool.
Based on what I've shown you that success is, do you still think only bacteria can be considered as being successful?

Uyi Iredia:

The simple truth of this post would no doubt be totally lost on thehomer.

The simple truth is that the post is misguided. If you disagree, you can table your disagreement.

davidylan:

To be frank... you do not understand evolution at all. Bacteria being successful means exactly diddly squat... they still remain the same unicellular organisms they were billions of years ago according to evolutionary theory. How come some unicellular organisms evolved into complex multicellular HUMANS and others merely remained "successful"?

Actually, according to the theory of evolution, the bacteria that we have today are descendants of those that were here billions of years ago. Speciation and diversification occurs for various reasons e.g the various mutations that occur, changes in environment like temperature, pressure etc.

davidylan:
What has biomass to do with this? Plant biomass is far more than that of animals... is that a win for evolution as well?

The point was to show that population isn't what is considered when one speaks of success in biology.

davidylan:

I doubt thehomer is actually interested in the truth as espoused here. Like you said... if indeed unicellular organisms are that successful then what was the motivation for change?

This is just ignorance of the theory of evolution by natural selection. I've given you some above.

frosbel: We have been arguing about this same subject for eons with these atheists, can't they just get it ?

5 Years from now, they will still be propagating the same nonsense despite evidence to the contrary !!

Can you present your evidence to the contrary for us to compare it to the scientific evidence we have that is available?

Deep Sight:

On science, I really don'y know what your qualifications are, but, at the risk of sounding as though I am appealing to authority, Davidylan is a scientific Phd holder.

Just so you know.

Having a PhD is no guarantee of expertise. After all, some Nobel Prize winners have been known to espouse some suspicious ideas.
The ideas that he expresses here don't appear to be what one knowledgeable about the theory of evolution would say unless of course they're creationists of some stripe or another.

davidylan:

As is typical for most atheists... when boxed into a corner, they leave substance to chase shadows. The post you were responding to was quite clear - the fact that it is virtually impossible (if not downright crazy) to think that a system as complex as the human body is a product of random mutation and statistical chance. Do you agree or disagree and why (produce cogent facts pls).

The issue at stake here is NOT who the designer might be.

I hope you realize that in order to know that an object was designed, you must know something about the designer such as its intentions, methods among others.

davidylan:

No one doubts micro evolution... macro evolution is the problem.

What is the difference between "micro evolution" and "macro evolution"?

Uyi Iredia: A timely topic. No matter how long it takes the lies of the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy will surely come down. What is the lie ? That natural processes in vacuo can give rise to advanced lifeforms.

Are you sure that this it is the theory of evolution that you're addressing here?

Uyi Iredia:
That random mutattion & natural selection is all that is needed in order to cause evolution. This is a lie and is further from the truth.

There is more to it than that but they're often enough to address most of the questions creationists like you often raise.

Uyi Iredia:
That evolution is a discrete, intelligent and a guided process (i.e works within limits). The Achille's heel of natural selection is shown especially in origin-of-life speculations.

I've told you previously that it isn't what the theory is supposed to address.

Uyi Iredia:
The question that is often round-tripped is this: How can the DNA encoding & decoding proecesses have arisen without being designed in the first place ?

I hope you know that scientists are actually working on this rather than sitting around pontificating.

Uyi Iredia:
The neo-Darwinian view BTW is a still-born baby. It was born when biologists began to note the problems the unchangeable laws of heredity caused for the fluidity of the process of natural selection. This difficulty reached its height with Barbara Mcclintock's discovery of the computational capabilities of genetic controlling elements responsible for genetic transposition. Till the time when biological science oowns up to the falsity of the theory of evolution the creation & ID organisations should be supported in their fight against intelllectual dishonesty & brainwashing.

Before you go too far, what problems did the laws of heredity cause for the process of natural selection?
You're yet to actually present the reputable articles supporting intelligent design.
Intelligent design will be considered when its proponents have some actual evidence to present.