Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[MrIntelligentDesign]

But based on what you've shown here and the manner in which you've shown it, I'll be very surprised ─ astonished ─ if you can elaborate such a thing coherently anywhere else.

You don't appear to know what the Theory of Evolution is, let alone the evidence for it.

Are you sure you're not a troll?

If I do not know ToE, I cannot falsify ToE! I cannot replace ToE if I do not know ToE. I know ToE, I know reality and I know how to falsify, for if, I cannot write science article for publication.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I taught it.

You taught ToE well, but reality wrong.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Hey at least you got honest feedback, right? Brutally honest, but it's better than your close friends telling you the theory is great.

I do not care about worst feedback. I have the best science, the best explanation, that is enough to surpass all stupid criticisms of mine.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Marvel would be appropriate for publication of your ideas.

I make a joke here but it reminds me of the first time I became aware of creationism. My mom and me ere visiting my aunt/uncle/cousins when I was in high school and on their coffee table was a crude magazine that depicted humans and dinosaurs existing at the same time. It gave a young earth

ID has been little more than fraud and disruptive of competent science education. And that is the side you stand with.

I do not care about you, but I only care reality in Biological world.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Slow down, you, and no on else, has demonstrated that ToE is erroneous. Who are these people that are afraid, exactly?

If you are seeing any sort of push back it is likely against creationists who spread disinformation about science. Creationism and ID has been little more than fraud that unethical people have used on gullible Christians for money. The Discovery Institute isn't a science lab, it is a set of rented office spaces where disinformation is created. Thus far you offer no evidence that your work is any different. Feel free to prove me wrong.

All supporters of ToE. I've been submitting many science articles in many science journals, from 2007, I think, and debating many supporters of ToE, but they refused to fight, they refused to publish new discoveries, they refuse to be fair...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

If your ideas are as revolutionary as you claim, then you would easily get into the journals 'Nature' or 'Science'.

But, if you are an expert, you know that.

But those journals are becoming more religious or politics than real science journals, because of money, probably...

 

[rational experiences]

God greatest status by human theists said cooled evolved states are no longer burning.

Evolution as a scientific status.

Cooled bodies versus satanisms how to convert by radiating space conversion to mass as attack.

Machines.

Evolution in science was never biology.

Is one of your known human thinking lying status.

As you are just a human first. Always.

The teaching human consciousness proved human egotists destroy life.

Water is water as water.

It can become heated water. Still water.

It can become cooled water. Still water.

It can be removed of its oxygen by heating.

It can hold its oxygen by cooling.

Water the whole time.

No human biology no scientist theist either.

As an ape pre biological consciousness is not pretending it's sex act produced a human. As one conscious body outside of a human being the human.

A human says I own bone evidence that humans were mutated.

As human is used as identification of the bones.

Moot point for science to claim proof.

Proof is observed apes are apes in cooled heavenly body with ape babies by sex. Gods term highest greatest cooled.

Same for humans as human baby.

God by term cooled holy heaven.

Reasoned by Satanists. Scientists. Who said O earth was once a burning satanic God first. Cooled to Inherit its greatest God status.

G O D in heavens a theoried cooling movement flow form. Why heavens maintained a cooling function.

Is not any machine thesis in science today.

Science by peer group status is trying to force humanity to believe a human owned the processes of why apes changed into humans by scientific conditions.

Falsely claiming they were the God type body mind word use who caused it. The scientist himself.

So human memory has to ask are you scientist confessing that in nuclear sciences human past you mutated life and knew you had.

And are trying to re establish that human science nuclear heavens changes causes evil mutations? To human bones cells?

As water is water as water.

 

[YoursTrue]

They would have been single-celled organisms.

Thank you. Assumedly, of course. These single cells, can you describe them? Or one of them?

 

[YoursTrue]

Um, that *is* abiogenesis. The question of how the first life formed is the study of abiogenesis.

The first life was bacterial. It was single celled.



The question, as you asked it, makes no sense. You are asking about an 'item'. What do you mean?

My question makes a lot of sense. Except of course perhaps, to some.
ok, so...the question is: what is the first thing that began-- burgeoned into 'greater' life forms. At least one poster replied that it is a single-celled organism. (Which is it, do you think? Do you agree?)

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't have a clear idea, because of the lack of evidence. The farthest back we can extrapolate from today's life is something called LUCA, the last universal common ancestor. Details here: Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia

This would have been a very primitive single-celled organism. If you read the article, you can see the discussion is all about the biochemistry it would have had, because that is where you end up, as you go right back towards the start. Much further back and you are into abiogenesis, i.e. what biochemistry went on before there was a stable form of reproduction involving inheritance. Before LUCA, we just don't know. All we have are hypotheses.

Ah -- thank you for your honesty.

 

[YoursTrue]

First, the universe existed LONG before the Earth formed and LONG before the sun formed. There were stars that went through a whole cycle of formation and explosion before the sun formed.



No, I do not understand your question. The Earth formed by a bunch of rocks and gases coming together gradually over time. At first, it was very hot from the energy of those collisions.

Your question is very strange. No 'item' moved to life. There were chemical processes going on in many different ways. Life was the result of certain of these chemical processes. We do not know the specifics, though. It was, remember, 3.8 billion years ago and not much remains from that time period to ell us precisely what happened.

But the crucial point is that life *is* a complex collection of chemical reactions. And many of those reactions were going on before anything we would call life was there.

It's hard to describe in proper scientific terms (at least for me) of what happened when "life" entered into atoms or whatever was first to start the process. (of evolution - supposedly) If you have a term to describe the blast (?) of life (hard to put into words from single atoms combining if you get the point) given into these atoms combining supposedly with one another and then -- growing, evolving...

 

[F1fan]

I do not care about you, but I only care reality in Biological world.

This is an odd statement. You should care about your fellow human beings. Given your religious affiliation to ID you are probably a Christian, yet express indifference about me. That is anti-Christ.

And clearly you are hostile to credible explanations in the biological sciences. So I suggest you care more about your religious dogma than science.

 

[Left Coast]

Thank you. Assumedly, of course. These single cells, can you describe them? Or one of them?

Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia

Presumably they would've been some kind of simple prokaryote.

May I ask, why do you want to know? If the answer was, "we don't know," what do you think that would demonstrate?

 

[F1fan]

If I do not know ToE, I cannot falsify ToE!

Since you don't know ToE, you're admitting you can't falsify ToE. You are finally correct about something.

I cannot replace ToE if I do not know ToE. I know ToE, I know reality and I know how to falsify, for if, I cannot write science article for publication.

Let's note you haven't accomplished any of this.

When apes pound their chest all they accomplish is making noise as well. You are superb at making noise.

 

[F1fan]

All supporters of ToE. I've been submitting many science articles in many science journals, from 2007, I think, and debating many supporters of ToE, but they refused to fight, they refused to publish new discoveries, they refuse to be fair...

I don't believe you. I think you are bluffing, making more noise. Notice you've offered nothing to substantiate your claims, so we throw it out.

 

[Polymath257]

It's hard to describe in proper scientific terms (at least for me) of what happened when "life" entered into atoms or whatever was first to start the process. (of evolution - supposedly) If you have a term to describe the blast (?) of life (hard to put into words from single atoms combining if you get the point) given into these atoms combining supposedly with one another and then -- growing, evolving...

No, life is not something extra added to the atoms.

Life is the complex interaction of the different atoms.

 

[Polymath257]

My question makes a lot of sense. Except of course perhaps, to some.
ok, so...the question is: what is the first thing that began-- burgeoned into 'greater' life forms. At least one poster replied that it is a single-celled organism. (Which is it, do you think? Do you agree?)

The problem is that your question is based on some serious misunderstanding.

There was no 'burgeoning' into 'greater' life forms.

Life is a complex collection of interactions of various chemicals. it isn't something added to atoms or molecules. It is a property of systems of those molecules.

But yes, the first life was some sort of single celled organism. It was also microscopic.

 

[blü 2]

If I do not know ToE, I cannot falsify ToE! I cannot replace ToE if I do not know ToE. I know ToE, I know reality and I know how to falsify, for if, I cannot write science article for publication.

Then congratulations ─ you're a gifted master of disguise.

I'd have said, on the evidence of this thread, that you know stark motherless nothing about the Theory of Evolution.

Nor do you appear to be aware that "intelligent design" is (to limit myself to polite expressions) incoherent, unsupported and untenable as science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia

Presumably they would've been some kind of simple prokaryote.

May I ask, why do you want to know? If the answer was, "we don't know," what do you think that would demonstrate?

It would demonstrate that scientists don't know but believe these were the first cell structures, perhaps? Before other things like plants and animals? And so the next question is, which I suppose no one knows the answer to for sure, or maybe some say they do, how did prokaryotes and eukaryotes come about? I understand they have no nucleus. But a question is: how did these prokaryotes come to be? (come about) I guess that the answer is a guess also. The ToE is fairly well dependent upon the idea that something was "first," meaning before the adding on (?) or burgeoning or developing into plants and animals. The question is where and how did the prokaryotes and other such organisms develop? Do you think they started in the forms as described in pictures in scientific articles? Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that your question is based on some serious misunderstanding.

There was no 'burgeoning' into 'greater' life forms.

Life is a complex collection of interactions of various chemicals. it isn't something added to atoms or molecules. It is a property of systems of those molecules.

But yes, the first life was some sort of single celled organism. It was also microscopic.

Ok, so they don't grow, move, or morph into anything else, is that right? They just stay prokaryotes? I;m learning, thanks.