If Darwin or the FBI had less than 15% of the data for a case

[gnostic]

In Dawins day, when he published Origin of the Species NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST agreed with him so.... "you can't count on numbers" as the song goes It may be an irony that people of the Darwinian dogma faith disagree with standing up against a consensus when the consensus is flawed.... ironic huh?

You know that this is terribly flawed and ignorant claim?

Here are Darwin’s contemporaries and in their respective fields of science, who accepted his Natural Selection evolution:

• Alfred Russel Wallace (biologist, naturalist, and one who also independently wrote a similar paper on Natural Selection. Read The Geographical Distribution of Animals, 1876; The Malay Archipelgao, 1869)
• Henry Walter Bates (naturalist. The Naturalist on the River Amazons, 1863)
  
• Charles Lyell (geologist and one who encouraged Darwin to publish On Origin. Principles of Geology, 1833; Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man, 1863)
• Joseph Dalton Hooker (botanist)
  
• Thomas Henry Huxley (biologist)
• Herbert Spencer (biologist. Progress: Its Law and Cause, 1857; First Principle of a New System of Philosophy, 1862)
• John Gould (ornithologist)
  
• George Rolleston (physician, zoologist)
• William Henry Flower (surgeon, anatomist)
  
• William Kitchen Parker (physician, anatomist, zoologist)
• Asa Gray (American, botanist)

The funny thing is that most of them are Christians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An equivocation error would be saying Charles Grandfather who believed in transmigration of the souls and met with a society at the time of the full moon, was merely just another scientific view

Wrong again. Why didn't you ask for clarification when it is more than apparent that you do not understand your error.

 

[sayak83]

Per Wikipedia,
Anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.

There has never been an observed morph from unicellular to multicellular organisms in present times. There has never been an observed morph from unicellular to multicellular organisms from billions of years ago. Therefore, not currently possible to test, observe, repeat. Does not qualify for most of the scientific method. I can go on and on and on with many examples. Most have achieved the formulated hypothesis step, and cannot go further other than subjective inferences.
What are the contending ideas and beliefs on how and why unicellular organisms morphed into multicellular? Those would be the subjective inferences, always subject to change.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a rushed conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Anyone can make subjective inferences and hypothesis all they’d like, but ‘demanding’ and ‘enforcing’ their truth upon others is disingenuous.

“Come to grips with” means I have no desire to rush to conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence and inferences. There is no need to.

Regarding evolution of multicellularity. There have actually been experimental demonstration of evolution of multicellularity in algae.

Alga takes first evolutionary leap to multicellularity

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We have a series of fossils of skulls and other bones of creatures intermediate between a chimplike animal and a manlike one. When we radiodate them, the more chimplike, the older they are. That is evident, therefore that is evidence. Of what, though?

Which potential fossils are you referring to?

I was referring to hominin skulls that have been found and radiodated, and been shown to illustrate the transition from a chimplike skull (small cranial capacity, posterior foramen magnum characteristic of quadrupeds, large brow, evidence of huge muscles of mastication such as a sagittal crest/deep temporal fossae and a large zygomatic arch and mandible, chinless, and dentition characteristic of a herbivore eating leaves and nuts, forward angled teeth, and a protruding muzzle) to the more human form:

Inference is not evidence and shouldn't be confused with it. Inference is what is drawn from evidence by the application of reason to it.

Inference is enough evidence for many.

It seems you didn't understand. Inference is not evidence.

Many creationists believe evolution theory as is.

Darwin's theory makes no provision for man being made in God's image or of him having a soul, which is in conflict Christian doctrine. One can only pick one or the other without self-contradiction, not both.

Disagree, and irrelevant. I never once mentioned the word god or christian doctrine. One doesn’t have to pick either or one or the other.

We seem to be talking past one another. Most creationists are Christians.

Proof is not the standard in science or most other places. Empirical adequacy is. If an idea works, we use it. If it doesn't, we modify or toss it. Evolutionary theory works. It can be used to predict which observations are possible and which are not, and to improve the human condition. Creationism can do neither. So, it's an easy decision.

I try not to involve anthropomorphism with evolution theory and science. People find value and meaning in many areas. If one is evolution theory, wonderful. If not, wonderful.

And again. I don't see the relationship between your last comment and mine. Anthropomorphism isn't relevant here. Proof remains not the standard for belief, and the utility of the scientific theory remains its greatest selling point over the alternative.

Anyway, I can't proceed with this discussion any further. Your comments would need to actually address what was said to you to be useful to a potential collocutor, so let me summarize by noting that

• Human evolution from a chimplike ancestor is settled science. No other possibility is seriously considered in the relevant scientific community. What remains to be sorted out is which of these extinct forms are in our ancestral line, and which represent cousins that branched out from our line and went extinct, as well as the timeline for this transition.

• Your interest in the science is admirable if sincere, but if you want to learn it, you're going about the matter incorrectly. Virtually none of the people you are communicating with learned their science piecemeal on an Internet discussion forum. They we were likely all trained in the sciences at university, and that after a lifetime of interest in science. They're people that have been fascinated by it since childhood. They asked for chemistry sets and Radio Shack kits as kids. They read about science in their Highlights magazines. They enjoyed biology, chemistry and physics in high school and needed no prompting to study and learn it. The took science electives in college. They may have majored in one or two of the sciences and chosen a career in science. They were glued to the TV during the Apollo missions and have been following the space program ever since. They subscribed to Scientific American and Sky & Telescope. Many owned telescopes and became amateur astronomers. And they continued their science education after graduating with pop science books at Barnes & Noble or B. Dalton written by people like Davies, Gribben, Dawkins, Weinberg, and Prigogone, watched uncounted science documentaries from NatGeo and Nova, watched every episode of both Sagan's and Tyson's Cosmos series, and the like.

You can't get up to speed with a few questions and answers here. If you want to know the science, do the legwork yourself. Find sites that teach evolution such as Talk Origins, and begin sifting through the material. If you like, bring your questions about that material here.

But without a concerted effort on your part, you won't learn evolutionary science. Good luck in your studies.

Already did. Re-read #162 of yours. I responded with what I actually stated. Somehow it says that “Set Free” said something never stated inserted by you only. “Did you read that, so why did you offer it?”

It’s not a big deal, we are only human. I would appreciate the correction though.

I can't follow that. Please be more specific. Correct what?

 

[Set Free]

Regarding evolution of multicellularity. There have actually been experimental demonstration of evolution of multicellularity in algae.

Alga takes first evolutionary leap to multicellularity

‘What’s difficult is to have complex multicellularity, where you have tissues or organ systems.’

Eukaryotic Cell vs Prokaryotic Cell - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

The differences are abundant. That is no simple morph.

While there have been experiments, they are no true morph. Not even remotely close. This is what I mean by anecdotal evidence and inference. It is only inferred that they took this complete true morph of a giant leap.

I do understand that there are no alternative choices in science then to make these inferences, void of the scientific method.
‘Multicellularity has evolved at least 20 times since life first began, but no organisms have made the leap in the past 200 million years, so the process is difficult to study.’
This is only what was meant by me. I am not saying that they did or did not morph. I am merely saying that it is void of scientific method beyond hypothesis, anecdotal evidence, and inference and not able to be observed, tested, repeated.

 

[Set Free]

I can't follow that. Please be more specific. Correct what?

Per what I actually said in post #124:

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I understand the internal conflicts with evolution theory. I also understand it is easy for many to sit back, avoid, dismiss, downplay, and hide in comfort rather than address. There is no point if anyone doesn’t critique or question.

Now here is your post #162:

Set Free said: ↑
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Did you read that? If so, why did you offer it?

I understand the internal conflicts with evolution theory. I also understand it is easy for many to sit back, avoid, dismiss, downplay, and hide in comfort rather than address. There is no point if anyone doesn’t critique or question.

Now, once more why did you add in YOUR own words to mine, ‘Did you read that? If so, why did you offer it.’

 

[gnostic]

Do you use it to determine some truths and fail to acknowledge its limitations in many other areas? I have no trouble coming to grips that most of history cannot be tested and repeated. Most is anecdotal evidence and inference. I have no troubles coming to grips with anyone giving their subjective inference based on anecdotal evidence that cannot be tested or repeated. Which lead to subjective truths, which I also have no trouble facing.

Inference is a technique in logic reasoning.

Any form of reasoning, eg inference, deduction, etc, are merely a way of rationalising, and are not themselves “evidences”.

For instance, how do you determine two different people are right, when both using inferences, but both sides inferences are different and disagree with others’ positions?

Logic and reasoning are like you said “subjective”, which people being “human”, therefore they can make mistakes with their reasoning, or they can be biased.

That is the reason why, scientists (excepting “theoretical scientists“) don’t rely solely on logic and reasoning alone. And the only way to be objective, in finding the truth, is through empirical and verifiable evidences, eg experiments and rigorous and repeated testings.

Accepted scientific theories are one that relied on both logic and evidences, not on logic alone.

 

[gnostic]

Per what I actually said in post #124:


Now here is your post #162:

Set Free said: ↑
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Did you read that? If so, why did you offer it?

I understand the internal conflicts with evolution theory. I also understand it is easy for many to sit back, avoid, dismiss, downplay, and hide in comfort rather than address. There is no point if anyone doesn’t critique or question.

Now, once more why did you add in YOUR own words to mine, ‘Did you read that? If so, why did you offer it.’

Evolution is repeatedly tested and reviewed, for the last 158 years.

The evidences support evolution, demonstrating its robustness in explanatory and predictive values, because it followed the scientific method, through observation (eg evidences or experiments).

You keep saying there are internal conflicts within evolution, but you repeated fail to give actual examples of what these conflicts are.

Can you give us a couple of examples of what you mean by these internal conflicts?

 

[Set Free]

I was referring to hominin skulls that have been found and radiodated, and been shown to illustrate the transition from a chimplike skull (small cranial capacity, posterior foramen magnum characteristic of quadrupeds, large brow, evidence of huge muscles of mastication such as a sagittal crest/deep temporal fossae and a large zygomatic arch and mandible, chinless, and dentition characteristic of a herbivore eating leaves and nuts, forward angled teeth, and a protruding muzzle) to the more human form:

Illustrations are inference and anecdotal. If we go by illustrations, sure we can conclude based on inference only that human skulls are similar to chimp skulls, that human eyes are similar to the octopus, and that the human heart is similar to the pig.

It seems you didn't understand. Inference is not evidence.

Where do you come up with this from what I’ve said about inference being enough evidence for most? Correct though, it’s about time someone can admit that inference is not evidence. Then I will ask again, why then is inference enough evidence for most?

We seem to be talking past one another. Most creationists are Christians.

Every human being is a creationist and evolutionist. Every atom and subatomic particle are both creationists and evolutionists. Whether guided/intended or unguided/unintended and/or both. There is both guided and unguided in nature. There is both intent and unintentional in the objective natural world. Anyone attempting to use evolution or creationism to prove or disprove intent or unintentional, guided or unguided are being disingenuous. Please try to leave this rubbish out. I can appreciate and respect what any infers to whether Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, Jew, etc.

And again. I don't see the relationship between your last comment and mine. Anthropomorphism isn't relevant here.

Science and the scientific method do not perform or do anything on their own. Science itself is metaphysical occurring only inside of human beings. When anyone says, science says this and science does that it is really human beings saying this and doing that.

Human evolution from a chimplike ancestor is settled science. No other possibility is seriously considered in the relevant scientific community. What remains to be sorted out is which of these extinct forms are in our ancestral line, and which represent cousins that branched out from our line and went extinct, as well as the timeline for this transition.

I understand that no other possibility is considered and can be considered. If inference is enough evidence. Then you said that inference is not evidence.
What do you mean by science? You mention the scientific method but it can only be inferred that humans came from a chimplike ancestor. In which you mentioned ‘inference is not evidence.’ There is no testing, observation, and repeat per the scientific method. I am not saying that humans did or not evolve from a chimplike-ancestor. I am stating that it can only be inferred.

Your interest in the science is admirable if sincere, but if you want to learn it, you're going about the matter incorrectly. Virtually none of the people you are communicating with learned their science piecemeal on an Internet discussion forum.

I am interested in communicating with people who are not emotionally charged, who aren’t quick to get their nerves all tangled up and react with hostility, quick to tell others they do not understand, that they are the expert teacher and savior of others. What I am learning swiftly, is that is not very feasible among many. I cannot even state that inference is enough evidence for many, a simple one sentence and another stating I do not understand that inference is not evidence. A simple one sentence cannot even be read correctly. My point all along was that inference is not evidence.

I cannot even state that much without others getting overly defensive, nerves being rattled thinking their ideologies are being threatened when they’re not. If the sciences truly brings out these morals in others where emotional defense of ideologies are priority over having a respectful conversation or debate, then I’m not interested in engaging.

 

[Set Free]

Evolution is repeatedly tested and reviewed, for the last 158 years.

The evidences support evolution, demonstrating its robustness in explanatory and predictive values, because it followed the scientific method, through observation (eg evidences or experiments).

You keep saying there are internal conflicts within evolution, but you repeated fail to give actual examples of what these conflicts are.

Can you give us a couple of examples of what you mean by these internal conflicts?

Whatever you say.

 

[ChristineM]

Its actually rather amazing when evolutionists look at evidence they see darwinism darwinism darwinism no matter what. Its like an inkblot experiment.... here;s a fossil what do you see? EVOLUTION!!! Here's chimp bones what do you see? APE MEN!!!

Lucy for example.... toe protruding perpendicular.... basically a thumb on the foot speaks of a tree dweller not an habitual upright walker... but legs angled like a trapeze artist, cursed hands for hanging and a pelvis tiled for tree balance not walking... also say Lusy was a tree dweller

Entry into the skull of the spine angled like a canine, a brain much smaller than a modern chimp , skull shaped like chimp in slope and eye sockets not human at all. Doesn't make a good case but she was the best darwinists had, right?

And oh by the way... latest evidence is Lucy was a guy monkey
Now Cro Magnan... now are classified as part of Homo.... those would be human

FYI, darwin published over 150 years ago, since that time much evidence has been gathered in several different disciplines of science. Now evolution cannot be refuted.

Sure people can whine and groan and complain and lie in an attempt to discredit evolution but it makes no difference to the multitude of evidence that verifies evolution.

Cro magnon are classified as anatomically modern humans.

 

[Set Free]

Inference is a technique in logic reasoning.

Any form of reasoning, eg inference, deduction, etc, are merely a way of rationalising, and are not themselves “evidences”.

For instance, how do you determine two different people are right, when both using inferences, but both sides inferences are different and disagree with others’ positions?

Logic and reasoning are like you said “subjective”, which people being “human”, therefore they can make mistakes with their reasoning, or they can be biased.

That is the reason why, scientists (excepting “theoretical scientists“) don’t rely solely on logic and reasoning alone. And the only way to be objective, in finding the truth, is through empirical and verifiable evidences, eg experiments and rigorous and repeated testings.

Accepted scientific theories are one that relied on both logic and evidences, not on logic alone.

There are many pathways that lead to truth, and many don’t involve scientism.

Objective and subjective are both part of the natural world.

Example: Evolution is true.

One infers that cows and whales are related.
One infers that cows and whales did not come from one another.
One infers that they do not know for certain.

The third one would be right to me, as there is no adequate scientific method observing, testing and, repeating the entire process since it cannot be done. But all 3 know that evolution occurs and is true. The first 2 only are right in their own self-deceptive minds based upon bias. Bias, and self deception also evolved and are a part of the natural world.

Example: Evolution is true.

One infers that they believe in guided evolution.
One infers that they believe that evolution was unguided.
One infers that they do not know for certain.

The third one would be right to me, as there is no adequate scientific method observing, testing, and repeating any process of proving or disproving guidance or non-guidance since it cannot be done. Any strict and genuine scientist would conclude that the words ‘guided or unguided’ should not be used by scientists. But all 3 know that evolution is true and occurs. The first 2 are right only in their self-deceptive minds based upon bias. Bias and self deception also evolved and are part of the objective natural world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many pathways that lead to truth, and many don’t involve scientism.

Please, use of false loaded terms harms your argument.

Objective and subjective are both part of the natural world.

Example: Evolution is true.

One infers that cows and whales are related.
One infers that cows and whales did not come from one another.
One infers that they do not know for certain.

We know that evolution is true because of the massive scientific evidence that supports it and the total lack of scientific evidence for any other beliefs. Second the theory of evolution tells us that all life is related. And since the evidence is beyond the evidence for any other concept out there we do know that whales and cows have a common ancestor.

The third one would be right to me, as there is no adequate scientific method observing, testing and, repeating the entire process since it cannot be done. But all 3 know that evolution occurs and is true.

Example: Evolution is true.

One infers that they believe in guided evolution.
One infers that they believe that evolution was unguided.
One infers that they do not know for certain.

The third one would be right to me, as there is no adequate scientific method observing, testing, and repeating any process of proving or disproving guidance or non-guidance since it cannot be done. Any strict and genuine scientist would conclude that the words ‘guided or unguided’ should not be used by scientists. But all 3 know that evolution is true and occurs.

The problem is that there is no scientific evidence for guided evolution. It is up to those that claim there is guided evolution to come up with evidence that supports them. So far that evidence is lacking.

Lastly you do not understand the scientific method. There is no requirement that an entire process be repeated in the sciences. What is required is that experiments need to be repeatable. One tests concepts with experiments and those must be able to be individually confirmed by others. One does not need to repeat an event to prove an event.

Think of a murder trial. To prove the murder the murder does not need to be repeatable. The evidence that supports the claim of murder needs to be repeatable. For example DNA that is collected must need to be able to be shown to come from a specific person no matter how many people test it.

 

[Set Free]

Please, use of false loaded terms harms your argument.

Are you inferring that the only truth possibly attainable is through scientism?

We know that evolution is true because of the massive scientific evidence that supports it and the total lack of scientific evidence for any other beliefs. Second the theory of evolution tells us that all life is related. And since the evidence is beyond the evidence for any other concept out there we do know that whales and cows have a common ancestor.

Like I said, everybody knows that evolution is true. I try not to invoke anthropomorphism into a theory. It is human beings who tell.
No, we do not know that cows and whales have an ancestor for certain. It is inferred that they do.

The problem is that there is no scientific evidence for guided evolution. It is up to those that claim there is guided evolution to come up with evidence that supports them. So far that evidence is lacking.

That’s why I stated to avoid that rubbish. As I also stated that there cannot be evidence for guided or unguided. So, if you care to pounce all over one and if you claim unguided, you as well have no evidence. I stated early on that I’m not interested in this yet people keep throwing creationism, Christianity, at me incorrectly. It’s quite a sad attempt of diversion.

Lastly you do not understand the scientific method. There is no requirement that an entire process be repeated in the sciences. What is required is that experiments need to be repeatable. One tests concepts with experiments and those must be able to be individually confirmed by others. One does not need to repeat an event to prove an event.

By what you said, we are in no disagreement. It is not provable. It is inferred. There is no repeatable experimentation. Exchanging words like ‘experiment’ for ‘event’ are irrelevant.

Think of a murder trial. To prove the murder the murder does not need to be repeatable. The evidence that supports the claim of murder needs to be repeatable. For example DNA that is collected must need to be able to be shown to come from a specific person no matter how many people test it

Then you’re in a pickle of contradiction and false equivalence.

If a cow and whale are on trial for common ancestry how is that determined outside of inference alone? You said that DNA that is collected must need able to be shown to come from a specific ancestor no matter how many people test it. There is absolutely no DNA collected from the mysterious and unknown ancestor. The ancestor isn’t even ‘specific.’ It is unknown and remains a mystery. I have no issues with anyone or scientists inferring that they do with no evidence, or anyone inferring that they do not. Both have no evidence outside of inference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you inferring that the only truth possibly attainable is through scientism?

"scientism" is a bogus creationist claim. There is no "scientism" in science. Let me help you, it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word:

"Scientism is a term generally used to describe the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method."

The theory of evolution is based upon the scientific method. It is not an example of "scientism".

Like I said, everybody knows that evolution is true. I try not to invoke anthropomorphism into a theory. It is human beings who tell.
No, we do not know that cows and whales have an ancestor for certain. It is inferred that they do.

You just contradicted yourself. If evolution is true then whales and cows have a common ancestor. And it is not inferred. it is a deduction that is supported by evidence.

That’s why I stated to avoid that rubbish. As I also stated that there cannot be evidence for guided or unguided. So, if you care to pounce all over one and if you claim unguided, you as well have no evidence. I stated early on that I’m not interested in this yet people keep throwing creationism, Christianity, at me incorrectly. It’s quite a sad attempt of diversion.

"Unguided" would be the null hypothesis, just as when an object falls the null hypothesis is that it was "unguided" by God on its fall to the Earth. If you want to claim it was otherwise the burden of proof is upon you.

By what you said, we are in no disagreement. It is not provable. It is inferred. There is no repeatable experimentation. Exchanging words like ‘experiment’ for ‘event’ are irrelevant.

Wrong again. It appears that you do not understand the nature of experimentation. Every new fossil find is by definition an experiment. Fossils can be found again and again, the evidence from fossils can be examined again and again. Those are repeatable experiments. Observing the human genome is an experiment. That can be repeated indefinitely.

Then you’re in a pickle of contradiction and false equivalence.

If a cow and whale are on trial for common ancestry how is that determined outside of inference alone? You said that DNA that is collected must need able to be shown to come from a specific ancestor no matter how many people test it. There is absolutely no DNA collected from the mysterious and unknown ancestor. The ancestor isn’t even ‘specific.’ It is unknown and remains a mystery. I have no issues with anyone or scientists inferring that they do with no evidence, or anyone inferring that they do not. Both have no evidence outside of inference.

Nope, you have it one hundred percent backwards. And you once again demonstrate that you do not understand the scientific method.

Let me help you, the scientific method involves models. Those models need to be tested. Just because you do not know how to test those models does not mean that they cannot be tested. There are two questions involved in testing models. One is "what would we expect to see if this model was true?". The second and more important question that is asked and answered is "What would we expect to see if this fossil was false?"

The second is more important for a scientist because if he does not try to refute his own idea he knows that others will try to do the same thing. So the question is if cows and whales had the same ancestor what would we expect to see? One thing that we would expect to see is a measurable closeness to each other. What would we not expect to see if evolution was true? We would not expect see a stronger similarity between fish and whales rather than between cows and whales. Nested hierarchies can be used to test the theory of evolution.

 

[Set Free]

"scientism" is a bogus creationist claim. There is no "scientism" in science. Let me help you, it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word:

"Scientism is a term generally used to describe the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method."

The theory of evolution is based upon the scientific method. It is not an example of "scientism".

Holy moly you are splendid at deception and diversion. I do not require your saving grace, but thanks.

You’ve managed to apply the scientific method in many unwarranted situations. That is why I asked you if you think scientism is the only way to attain truth. A simple yes or no would have done well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Holy moly you are splendid at deception and diversion. I do not require your saving grace, but thanks.

You’ve managed to apply the scientific method in many unwarranted situations. That is why I asked you if you think scientism is the only way to attain truth. A simple yes or no would have done well.

Nope, there is not one iota of either deception or diversion there. You at best simply have no understanding of the sciences. You may be willing to lie for your beliefs, that does not apply to me.

Where and how has the scientific method been applied in unwarranted situations? This is your claim you need to support it. You keep making the false claim of "scientism" but you cannot support that claim. At the very least you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. You are bearing false witness against your neighbor. Now perhaps you did not know what "scientism" is and you may not understand the sciences at all, or you may be lying. Rather than calling you a liar, which would be a violation of the rules here, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply have no clue.

 

[Set Free]

Nope, there is not one iota of either deception or diversion there. You at best simply have no understanding of the sciences. You may be willing to lie for your beliefs, that does not apply to me.

Where and how has the scientific method been applied in unwarranted situations? This is your claim you need to support it. You keep making the false claim of "scientism" but you cannot support that claim. At the very least you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. You are bearing false witness against your neighbor. Now perhaps you did not know what "scientism" is and you may not understand the sciences at all, or you may be lying. Rather than calling you a liar, which would be a violation of the rules here, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply have no clue.

A simple question asking you if you believe that scientism is the only way to attain truth and all of this.

Back on ignore you go, permanently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A simple question asking you if you believe that scientism is the only way to attain truth and all of this.

Back on ignore you go, permanently.

Now you are not being honest. You tried to imply that scientism was somehow tied to evolution when that is not the case. Or perhaps you have a faulty definition of "scientism". I supplied a source, I can supply more. Scientism is a misuse of science and you have been making false claims about others. Putting me on ignore when I have shown that you were wrong is simply you admitting that I defeated your arguments.

 

[sayak83]

‘What’s difficult is to have complex multicellularity, where you have tissues or organ systems.’

Eukaryotic Cell vs Prokaryotic Cell - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

The differences are abundant. That is no simple morph.

While there have been experiments, they are no true morph. Not even remotely close. This is what I mean by anecdotal evidence and inference. It is only inferred that they took this complete true morph of a giant leap.

I do understand that there are no alternative choices in science then to make these inferences, void of the scientific method.
‘Multicellularity has evolved at least 20 times since life first began, but no organisms have made the leap in the past 200 million years, so the process is difficult to study.’
This is only what was meant by me. I am not saying that they did or did not morph. I am merely saying that it is void of scientific method beyond hypothesis, anecdotal evidence, and inference and not able to be observed, tested, repeated.

There is excellent scientific evidence of the claim that multicellularity evolved multiple times independently in the past. Scientific method does not require experiments to be done in lab in all things. For example nobody has replicated a volcano in the lab either, but there is excellent evidence regarding the claims science makes about how volcanoes work.

Finally this is a popular article written in a media outlet. It is disingenuous to use its casual style of writing as evidence of ill-evidenced claims made in science. Science is written in journal papers and there each and every claim is extensively supported either in the paper itself or through citations of previous relevant research. So, look at the paper itself and critique it if you wish a real discussion here.