Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

It has not been falsified here or elsewhere.

The rejection of all central assumptions of a theory is necessarily a rejection of the theory itself. The MS was disproven by the latest finds of molecular biology. See# 753

Denis Nobel said, “Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”

A handful of scientists have proposed an extended synthesis of the modern theory. They are not rejecting the theory of evolution..

Again, the modern theory is the “modern synthesis”. The fact that all central assumptions of the modern synthesis have been disproven, necessarily means that the theory itself is disproven. You cannot reject all the central assumptions of a theory without rejecting the theory itself. This is totally illogical. The theory is effectively rejected. See #753

Gradualism and punctuation are different modes of evolution. The latter is not replacing the former. Gradual evolution still persists in populations under stasis. In fact, gradualism is the predominant mode in stasis.

It’s indeed contradicting theories. Eldredge and Gould did reject gradualism because of the lack of evidence. The supporters of punctuation called gradualism “ evolution by creeps." The supporters of gradualism called punctuation “evolution by jerks". These two concepts are definitely opposing each other but the fact remains that neither gradualism is supported by evidence nor punctuation can explain the massive sudden appearance of genetic info.

No it does not. The Cit- trait is a defining characteristic of E. coli. They cannot utilize citrate as a substrate anaerobically independent of the presence of a reducer like glucose.

Yes, E. coli cannot utilize citrate as a substrate anaerobically that is why directed mutation event activated an existing silent citrate transporter through the precise placement beyond an aerobically expressed promoter. Otherwise the expression of the silent citrate transporter wouldn’t be possible.

There are 12 initially identical populations of of E. coli cultured with the same media in the experiment. If it were a directed mutation, it would have arisen in more than a single population and far sooner than 35,000 generations and 10 years. You are grasping at straws.

I already cited many recent studies confirming that mutations do not occur randomly, in #680 itself in addition to many other older posts. If that is still not clear enough to you, I’ll give you a much simpler and very clear example to help ease your denial.

We all know that microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) is repeatedly seen and cannot be disputed.

Studies by Harvard University showed that the mutation process happens at a frightening speed, not in years or thousands of generations but within 11 days, bacteria developed defense mechanisms against antibiotics that increased its resistance levels by over 1000-fold. See the link and YouTube below.

Scientists reveal the frightening speed at which bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance


The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab)`` - YouTube

The LE supports the theory of evolution whether you like it or not.

Non-random directed mutation is a fact whether you like it or not.

Where do you come up with this nonsense? It doesn't seem like I am the one that needs to read and understand. I think you are just reposting material you don't really understand.

Are you serious? Do you want me to read the article for you line by line?
I provide evidence and all what you provide is mere denial. Stop the nonsense.

Well let me go the extra mile. Not for you but rather for those who are serious and want to be informed. Here it is the link again for the entire lecture in addition to the first two pages with highlights:

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

 

[LIIA]

You are ignoring the massive evidence for the fact that there's been an evolutionary process and that this also involved us as humans.

See #326 and #327

As a matter of fact, common sense should tell you that you must be wrong or life on Earth today would all be single-celled organisms if they supposedly hadn't evolved.

common sense should tell you that if no single-celled organisms is explained, then no multicellular organism is explained.

A explains B which in turn explains C. If A is not explained, nothing is.

 

[cladking]

To control it, you first need to be aware of it, and even when you try, the degree of your success may vary. It’s not easy to be neutral.

Being aware of this bias is paramount. But experiment is supposed to prevent the silliest hypotheses from being adopted. This is why it's so important that there is no experiment that shows Evolution through "Survival of the Fittest". We're killing people for no reason. It's not making the race stronger or more evolved; it's just murder.

Again, for the third time, Darwin definitely involved racism and wars when he said, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.”

Darwin’s statements above clearly involved racism, politics and wars between humans. Do you think he was talking here about other living organisms or humans specifically? His statements are clear. Stop the nonsense.

Many of the concepts of 19th century "science" have been swallowed hook line and sinker by modern people. No matter that Champollion, Darwin, Freud and most of the rest based their nonsense on anti-human and anti-reason because people want to believe all of it, and now it is killing us. Chuck out religion, morals, and reason and replace them with dog eat dog and greed is good. When we replaced good with evil everything began to collapse and we're in the final phases now. From government for sale to the highest bidder to CEO's who don't care how many must die or how high gas prices must go to "save the planet" we don't need no stinkin' morals because we have the God called "greed" on our side.

The strong will survive and breed a better race because Darwin said so.

 

[LIIA]

The mechanism is still called “Natural Selection”, both back then, and today, not “survival of the fittest”.

Survival of the fittest is often misunderstood and misused, and you, liia and other creationists are proofs that all of you never understood this phrase.

And Charles Darwin was not responsible for writing Social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer was the author, sociologist and anthropologist.

Social Darwinism have nothing to do with Evolution and Natural Selection. Social Darwinism is a hypothesis on human cultures, social positions, and human behaviour.

Natural Selection is not confined to human biological evolution, it is the studies of changes to all living organisms, where the environmental conditions have impacts on their organisms to reproduce offspring and descendants. If their physical traits don’t change and adapt to new conditions in the environment, they could face extinctions.

These extinctions have nothing to do with murders, genocide or wars. Extinctions have to do with producing offspring that have genetically inherited “adapted physical” that are beneficial to the descendants.

Some of the most drastic environmental changes, come from glaciation periods, long droughts, climate changes caused either by volcanic activities or meteorite impacts, or excessive gases in atmosphere, etc.

In early Earth history, for nearly 2 billion years, the Earth lower atmosphere, have no free oxygen gases, and all microorganism - both bacteria and archaea - lived in oxygen free environments. Then some bacteria evolved, called Cyanobacteria, capable of photosynthesis, like plants, convert carbon dioxide into oxygen.

This changed the atmosphere, known as the Great Oxygenated Event (GOE), caused mass extinction upon many anaerobic microorganisms, where they cannot survive in atmosphere with oxygen; some anaerobic species can tolerate oxygen, while other anaerobes were poisoned by oxygen.

The GOE caused other effects in the atmosphere, like reductions of methane in the atmosphere, which caused the earth to become cooler, which produced ice sheets to large parts of the Earth’s surface, the first glaciation period or Ice Age, known as Huronian Glaciation. The Huronian Glaciation was the longest glacial period that caused more mass extinction of species of Bacteria & Archaea.

There were no wars or genocide in the GOE & Huronian Glaciation extinctions.

If your intention is to respond to an argument, then your writing should be relevant to the subject of the argument. Not just a load of confused nonsense.

In #614 cladking claimed that the ToE is a threat to HUMANITY. I agreed and explained my reasons. Why are you involving other living organisms? The context here is the impact on humanity as evident by the observed events.

Here is a reminder again to clarify the context with respect to HUMANITY, Darwin said” At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. “ He said that about HUMANS not any other living organisms

indeed the destruction caused by humans would indirectly affect other organisms but this is not the subject of our discussion. Try to be focused and limit involving loads of irrelevant info.

Genocide and wars are human actions from human social behavior and politics, which don’t exist in living organisms.

We arguing that core ideas affecting fundamental perception of human identity and perceived reality with respect to the nature of the world in which we live, definitely exert an influence on the human social behavior. Other Living organisms are irrelevant to this argument.

Wars and genocide have nothing to do with Natural Selection, something that you and other science-illiterate creationists are incapable of learning or understanding.

our understanding of our identity as humans, our sense of purpose, our values, goals, our perception of the laws controlling our existence, and our collective understanding of what reality is, strongly influence our behavior not only as individual but also the collective social psychology of societies with the specific characteristics of its adapted ideology directly driven by these core ideas. The ToE touches on the fundamental understanding of our identity, not as humans but as evolved animals that have different ranks on the evolutionary ladder some are superior and others are inferior. The only mechanism to progress and thrive is to allow the superior to dominate at the expense of the inferior. There is no place for mercy, morals or values other than the law of nature that should be embraced and respected.

Only an ignorant would think that these core ideas don’t influence the human behavior, the adapted ideology and collective social psychology of a society.

What Darwin wrote in the descendant of man “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” was not just personal statements, feelings or opinions, but rather it is the direct outcome necessitated by the view of evolution and natural selection which to a great extent inspired the toxic racist ideology by many others who adapted the same evolutionary views.

This racist ideology as influenced by the evolutionary views, considered that the mere existence of the inferior is a threat to the laws of nature, which had to be eliminated. As a result, Ethnic cleansing/Genocide became a justified practice consistent with the core evolutionary understanding of how the laws of nature work.

 

[LIIA]

I have no doubts. Nothing in you have posted causes me any doubts.

If you have the awareness and understanding of latest scientific finds/challenges, then you should have doubts. Otherwise, ignorant confidence is meaningless. See # 781

I avoid creationist nonsense masquerading as science.

I don’t avoid nonsense masquerading as science. I confront it.

I am pretty confident that you don't have a background in science based on what I have seen so far. That doesn't lend much credibility to the claims you attempt to make. Much of what you post follows a pattern I have seen followed hundreds of times by creationists that are being fed the information they are using. There is, as I have seen here, little or no evidence that the material dumped on here is understood by the person dumping it.

I am pretty sure what I am seeing is a desperation due to the realization that your arguments don't hold up.

nonsense, if you have no doubts, why do you switch to a fallacious “ad hominem” tactic rather than focusing on the specific argument that I’m maintaining? It clearly shows your failure to provide a logical response to support your side of the argument.

 

[LIIA]

I have watched and read some of your posts and you have failed to demonstrate a designer in any argument you have made.

You’re responding to #753. The clear focus of #753 as well as my other posts is to demonstrate the failure of the ToE (the MS). It’s not a designer argument.

I did touch on ID along the way in some posts but this is not the focus or subject of this thread.

The best argument you think you have still puts us with unguided evolution by naturalistic mechanisms. That's gotta sting.

Look at this post. You are arguing for unguided evolution in your constant referencing of the extended evolutionary synthesis which isn't even a refutation or a replacement of the existing theory.

Directed mutations have not been found. We don't even have a mechanism proposed that holds up to scrutiny as a hypothetical. If evidence does lead to the discovery of directed mutations, this does not mean that your belief becomes the mechanism by default. Since, no evidence for the supernatural has ever been demonstrated, the most logical explanation would be a natural mechanism.

Directed mutation is proven. Read the material in #753 & 781. What you fail to understand is what you consider as natural mechanism/natural law doesn’t just exist as a causeless fact, it’s caused to exist and caused to act in a very specific way. It’s neither random nor causeless. The way these mechanisms act clearly manifests a planned directed course that is definitely not a product of randomness.

What you have assembled as your killer evidence for the theory of evolution is not clear or conclusive.

Thank you for describing #753 as “killer evidence”, I couldn’t have said it any better. If you really think it’s inconclusive, you wouldn’t have defined it as “killer evidence”. You are illogically contradicting yourself.

It’s definitely conclusive to whoever can read. check # 781

I like how you end on a logical fallacy. If people believe you and accept what you say without question they are delusional and in denial.

It's not about believing me, it’s about believing the latest scientific finds by those who accept science as trusted reference while maintaining the awareness that science is ever changing.

It’s not my claim, it’s the claim of top scientists in the felid. And it’s absolutely legitimate and necessary that anyone in doubt, to question and verify the facts for himself. Which is easily attainable through reading the provided material as a starting point to get an understanding of the specific points of the argument then follow by further independent search to verify the facts.

Of course that would include 97% of all scientists.

You’re the one who is relying on a logical fallacy. You’re making a fallacious “argumentum ad populum” argument. Regardless the top scientists in the felid disproved all assumptions of the MS. No exception. See # 781

You are sort of entertaining, but that is starting to lose its appeal.

You’re here for some entertainment or wasting some time. I’m not. It takes time and effort, my only goal is to inform those who want to be informed.

Others who are aware of the reasons why their position is false but yet insist to maintain it, it’s totally their call. We can and will differ. Everyone is free to choose for himself and definitely responsible for the consequences of his own choice.

 

[LIIA]

Below are what you are declaring are the fundamental assumptions of the modern synthesis.

Mutations are still random and directed mutation has not been demonstrated. Sorry.
If you are referring to mutations as genetic change, they occur quickly on a evolutionary time scale. If you mean the change in allele frequency over time and the expression of traits, it is not sudden even in punctuation.
Change in allele frequency of a population is known to result from natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow and mutation. Natural selection is the predominant mechanism for fixing alleles in a population.
I don't think the assumption is stated as impossible. It simply states that acquired traits are not heritable.

The inheritance of longer necks by continually stretching of parent giraffes or tail-less mice from amputee parents still remains undemonstrated. What is known is something entirely different called epigenesis, which occurs in the packaging of DNA and has been shown to be heritable. The mechanisms for this are understood and they do not unseat the theory of evolution no matter how hard you strain to see it that way.

There are other assumptions of the theory of evolution that you do not mention. Was that on purpose?

Read the referenced material, understand it and get yourself informed. See # 781

If you don’t have the ability to read or understand, I’ll not be able to help you but hopefully I would be able to help others who can.

 

[cladking]

Consciousness IS life so consciousness is by definition central to all change in life and all change in species. We are trying to use reductionistic science to understand what can not be deconstructed, reconstructed, or reduced in any way shape or form. We are trying to employ reductionistic science on a "fossil record" which can only show what has come before and not why, how, or by what means. We are worse than blind men trying to describe an elephant because we have numerous elephant like creatures with no known tie between them.

All these 19th century scientists said experiment is unnecessary because they couldn't devise one that would show their beliefs and assumptions. We have forgotten the very meaning of "metaphysics" because we take 19th century "science" as being axiomatic. As such we don't need no stinkin' experiment either.

If Darwin was right then just exactly how did ignorant savages invent agriculture? How did rodents and insects invent agriculture? Why did ancient people believe that species change at bottlenecks? Why is every single observable change in all life and at all levels of life sudden?

We are confused and mistaken. If you want to know how species change then you first need to consult any lower life form. I'd offer my services but I'm just another homo omnisciencis, just another brick in the wall.

 

[cladking]

In the case of humans, do you believe that we have individual relative consciousness or a collective consciousness?

Good question.

First off all life is consciousness and all life is individual.

But Homo Omnisciencis arose 4000 years ago at the so called tower of babel (whatever that was). Initially the going was tough because economies, science, and history all collapsed and some individuals couldn't go on. If all this weren't bad enough the ability to communicate was severely reduced. Many died and many killed and many killed themselves. At that time even our species was fully individual even though we used languages that forced a new way to think on each of us. This new thinking was unique in nature because for the very first time individuals saw what they believed instead of what they knew. The language expanded and stabilized a little and this created a means by which every individual represented his time and place. A beaver from any place or epoch could be put into any other time or place and fit right in but any human (homo omnisciencis) is easily traced to his time and place just by the way he speaks and what he says.

This means that there are thought processes that are not just common to us but common to all those who use analog symbolic language (as we all do). This certainly includes definitions and ideas as well as idioms and turns of phrase. there is a sort of collective consciousness though I'd be inclined to call it a collective unconscious. It is this that lies at the root of Zipf's Law and it's why Ancient Language breaks it. There was no collective unconscious. Everyone thought alike but there was nothing in common otherwise.

Other than mental defectives which are rare in nature and less rare in humans all consciousness is created equal. Of course this consciousness differs in type and amplitude from species to species. There are numerous differences though, for the main part, they are all founded in logic of the wiring of the "brain".

All ideas are individual. All thought is individual. But humans are very much driven by current events and language.

 

[cladking]

Anything can be described as an event. That doesn’t really shed light on your understanding of what intelligence is.

It's just as well since I don't believe in intelligence.

We each think a little differently because we utilize our brains a little differently and have different beliefs. Many believe education is a waste of time so they remain ignorant but they can still think effectively where some specific knowledge isn't important. Some believe that philosophy is most important and some math. We each create ourselves through our beliefs and everyone, even the most defective, sometimes displays high levels of cleverness. Again though this is an event; ie- the idea that we call clever is an event and there is no condition in any species we call "intelligence". It simply doesn't exist as we define it. The ability to rotate complex shapes in our minds or to see things in all four dimensions is more a stupid human trick than it is an indication of intelligence. Certainly there are correlations and aptitudes between mental abilities and the needs of various jobs or the ability to come up with clever ideas about aircraft design.

I could discourse for hours on mental attributes that can lead to clever ideas but it is a highly complex subject and it involves lots of taxonomies and abstractions that I generally prefer to avoid, especially in recent years. Anyone who believes only humans are "intelligent" is missing the boat. Humans may not even be the most "intelligent" animal on the planet. It is language that allows us to pass complex learning from generation to generation that underlies all human success and all human "intelligence". "Intelligence" is a mirage created by the way we think. In a desert of understanding we see the water of life that is a trick of the light and the brain and isn't really there. We see understanding that doesn't exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is amusing, you’re using my argument but switching places. If you like to use my argument in your favor, you should adapt my premise first. It doesn’t work otherwise.

But no. It’s quite the opposite, you’re the one who denies science and deceives himself. Science is what disproved all fundamental principles of the modern synthesis theory that you are adapting, not me. It’s a fact. Live with it. See # 753



These racist crimes are direct implementation of Darwin ideas in the real world. Not only the racist ideology influenced by the concept of natural selection/survival of the fittest but also the direct statements of Darwin himself to exterminate the savage inferior races throughout the world as he stated in his book (the Descent Of Man) as mentioned before in #682

You cannot compare the impact of toxic ideas to merely tools in the hand of a criminal. Tools may facilitate the action but its not what influence, trigger or validate the criminal actions, the toxic ideas do.

ToE is a threat to humanity as evident by its actual impact in the real world.



Are you serious? Personal irrelevant feelings? Those feelings are directly driven by the theory itself and the inevitable outcome of it. Not only as personally understood by Darwin but by many others who adapted the same ideology.



Science already proved the failure of the modern synthesis. You are the one who is twisting science to stay in the comfort of your denial. See #753.



In #614 cladking claimed that the ToE is a threat to humanity. I absolutely agree and explained my reasons. The ToE necessarily dehumanizes man and eliminates the basis for any moral values. With this kind of ideology, nothing is left but the materialistic struggle for survival as the only law of nature.

It’s the long established law of the jungle but the ToE made it much broader to encompass everything in nature including Humans who indeed adapted this ideology to end up with a behavior worse than the wild beasts in the jungle.



What is the basis of your morality?

An evolutionist is a human (neither an animal nor descendant of an animal) and may very well choose to keep his morality (its not dictated by material) but when he makes this choice to adopt human values of mercy for the weak and equality of all races, he practices schizophrenia and betrays the principles of materialism because he allows lower beings on the ladder, to breed at the expense of higher beings.

If you’re loyal to Darwinism, the inferior races, the weak, the disable should be exterminated not helped to survive against the law of natural selection.



Denial is not equal to lying. Lying is an attempt to deceive others but in the case of denial you deceive yourself even if you’re not aware of it.

You may not be necessarily lying but you could be very well in denial. I didn’t fail to make my case, It’s only your denial. My case is clear and evident to whoever can see (#753) but you wouldn’t be able to see till you leave your bias behind.



Don’t be dramatic, I don’t blame it on you. It’s your avatar.

If name calling is the best you can muster, then move along. I've no time for that nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You’re responding to #753. The clear focus of #753 as well as my other posts is to demonstrate the failure of the ToE (the MS). It’s not a designer argument.

I did touch on ID along the way in some posts but this is not the focus or subject of this thread.



Directed mutation is proven. Read the material in #753 & 781. What you fail to understand is what you consider as natural mechanism/natural law doesn’t just exist as a causeless fact, it’s caused to exist and caused to act in a very specific way. It’s neither random nor causeless. The way these mechanisms act clearly manifests a planned directed course that is definitely not a product of randomness.



Thank you for describing #753 as “killer evidence”, I couldn’t have said it any better. If you really think it’s inconclusive, you wouldn’t have defined it as “killer evidence”. You are illogically contradicting yourself.

It’s definitely conclusive to whoever can read. check # 781



It's not about believing me, it’s about believing the latest scientific finds by those who accept science as trusted reference while maintaining the awareness that science is ever changing.

It’s not my claim, it’s the claim of top scientists in the felid. And it’s absolutely legitimate and necessary that anyone in doubt, to question and verify the facts for himself. Which is easily attainable through reading the provided material as a starting point to get an understanding of the specific points of the argument then follow by further independent search to verify the facts.



You’re the one who is relying on a logical fallacy. You’re making a fallacious “argumentum ad populum” argument. Regardless the top scientists in the felid disproved all assumptions of the MS. No exception. See # 781



You’re here for some entertainment or wasting some time. I’m not. It takes time and effort, my only goal is to inform those who want to be informed.

Others who are aware of the reasons why their position is false but yet insist to maintain it, it’s totally their call. We can and will differ. Everyone is free to choose for himself and definitely responsible for the consequences of his own choice.

Directed mutation is not proven. Read more.

You have failed to demonstrate a designer. You have failed to demonstrate that the theory of evolution has failed. You have emoitional arguments that are irrelevant.

I didn't read any of the rest of this. I'm not here to read your volumes of emotional arguments when you have failed to do what you claim you did.

 

[metis]

The question here is not about evolution or anthropology, it’s about your understanding of what an axiom is? Did you teach what an axiom is for 30 years?

Of course.

An axiom is self evidently true, it serves as a premise or starting point for further reasoning.

And the faxt that life forms evolve is VERY clear and even common sense.

The fossil record is only a proof for types of a life that did exist. It’s not a proof for a change of one life form into another.

Nonsense, because if that was true then no life forms more complex than a single-celled protozoa would now exist since the appearance of multi-cellular forms don't appear until the last 1 billion years.

Also, look up "speciation" that's based on observations and experiments.

 

[metis]

The point is, the slow and steady view was disproven by the facts observed in the fossil record,

This is not what we teach.

The model I used and is generally used throughout our field is what I call "mosaic evolution", which is numerous bands within a species, all evolving in their own way, only some of which may form new species. IOW, it's not a simple process.

competition and killing? What a wild guess!

No, it is not as we see plenty of evidence for this. One example is what ever happened to most Neanderthals, which were the dominant humans in northern Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas? We now only have roughly 2% of our d.n.a. overall in today's world. What killed them? Well, we know at least part of the answer with some found with wounds caused by spears and other weapons.

Why did chimps and bonobo survived but the numerous human species didn’t?

They have their own niche that they've been successful in, plus their tool culture, including possible weapons, is much more limited than ours.

The context here is not about biology or scientific advancement but rather about the toxic influence of the fundamental concept of evolution/natural selection with respect to racism and morality.

That's like saying that cars are evil because some people are killed in accidents.

 

[metis]

common sense should tell you that if no single-celled organisms is explained, then no multicellular organism is explained.

That makes no sense.

 

[cladking]

And the faxt that life forms evolve is VERY clear and even common sense.

Of course it is!!!

How do you think Darwin got it wrong?

 

[metis]

Of course it is!!!

How do you think Darwin got it wrong?

Mainly in the sense that he had very limited information at the time, thus our field has much more to work with today.

 

[gnostic]

common sense should tell you that if no single-celled organisms is explained, then no multicellular organism is explained.

A explains B which in turn explains C. If A is not explained, nothing is.

First.

The last paragraph - the part about A, B & C (which I have highlighted in red) - isn’t “common sense” in Natural Sciences, it is very closed minded way of thinking.

Your A, B, C scenario would only work in some very limited circumstances in abstract logic reasoning, but in the real world, NATURE is far more complex than logic, and LIFE is far more complex than logic.

Second.

I have asked you before, what are your qualifications and experiences in science?

Because, even from my novice in biology, I do understand (in general) the methodology of science, and you have I can see you have no grasp as to what constitute as scientific evidence.

Sciences are built upon the knowledge gained from observations of evidence, not from your oversimplification of rudimentary A-B-C logic.

I do understand the values of logic, because they can be useful tools and useful aids, like mathematical equations, for instances.

HOWEVER, logics alone (and equations alone) do not overrule tested and verified empirical evidence or experimental evidence, nor do logics represent the whole solutions.

Third.

The other half of your post that I quoted, that I’ll repost below:

common sense should tell you that if no single-celled organisms is explained, then no multicellular organism is explained.

As I have said, previously, above, the theory should be based on the evidence we have available that can be observed, NOW.

We know that many of organisms that are “multicellular”, have eukaryotic cells, which include

1. fungi (Fungi)
2. plants (Plantae)
3. animals (Animalia).

Hence, all 3 groups (kingdoms) are collectively considered as “eukaryotes” (domain Eukaryota), or eukaryotic organisms.

Most unicellular organisms have prokaryotic cells, most of them fall under two branches (domains) -

1. Bacteria
2. Archaea

Hence, both Bacteria and Archaea are prokaryotic organisms, therefore collectively known as “prokaryotes” (Prokaryota).

Now, just a reminder, I was never a biology student, but over the past decade I picked up a few things about biology, here and there. So if you have questions that require more details, then you need to ask someone else.

Prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells are different in that in a single eukaryotic cell, has numbers of different compartments, the main one being the cell has a membrane-bound “nucleus”, and smaller ones - membrane-bound “organelle”.

Prokaryotic cell has no nucleus and no organelles. Meaning there are no separate cellular compartments, all their functions are enclosed in membrane.

Bacteria and Archaea domains are all unicellular organisms.

But I have finally reached my points, not all unicellular organisms are prokaryotes. There are some unicellular organisms from the 3 eukaryotic kingdoms (animals, plants and fungi), like unicellular fungi, unicellular algae and the Protozoa.

Now it best, to treat all these organisms whether they are unicellular organisms, multicellular organisms, prokaryotes, eukaryotes, to understand what make different and what they have in common, ALL BASED ON DISCOVERED EVIDENCE for each organism, and not play the game of A, B, C logic, because such logic don’t work because of the complexity of understanding the nature of life, as to WHAT they are, and HOW they live.

So your -

“...that if no single-celled organisms is explained, then no multicellular organism is explained.”​

- along with -

“A explains B which in turn explains C. If A is not explained, nothing is.”​

- these claims of your, is one of most silliest and illogical things you have claimed. In another word, you want no explanations at all. There are no common sense in what you wrote in your post.

You have to explain unicellular organisms separately, multicellular organisms separately, and only then, can you compare the two, to see what they have in common and where they differed, and they do “differ”, LIIA.

Sorry, LIIA, i know I am a novice or amateur when it come to biology, but you have completely taken leave of your “common sense”, if you can reduce the nature of life into oversimplified case of a, b, c logic. It is apparent to me, that you need to learn and study more, not just about Evolution, but about biology in general, before you continue to post ridiculous claims that are obvious to me, that you have no common sense.

 

[gnostic]

Btw, @LIIA

A unicellular organism is a organism that have only one cell.

While a multicellular organism have many cells, to be alive.

In a human body (adult), the estimated number of cells are around 37 trillion cells, possibly even more.

The numbers could varied, because not everyone are not the same built, size, and cells died over time, while other cells produced. For instance, some people could be missing a limb, or eye, so the number I have given is only average estimate.

A human heart could be anywhere between 2 & 3 billion cells. These cells are what make up the cardio tissues, or cardio muscles.

How many cells are there in a leaf?

I have no idea, but it depends on the leaf, and the size of individual leaf. So again, the numbers would varied.

The point is that prokaryotes are easy to count, as single unicellular organism would have only one cell, but bacteria have ability to reproduce more organisms over a very short period of time, so you could have a colony of thousands of bacteria with a single day.

Multicellular organisms are lot more complex.

So it would be illogical (actually ludicrous) trying to explain multicellular organism on the basis of what biologists know about unicellular organism, especially when bacteria and archaea have completely different type of cells to animals, plants and fungi.

 

[LIIA]

If name calling is the best you can muster, then move along. I've no time for that nonsense.

Nice excuse, meaningless denial is not something to be taken seriously by anyone.