Amy, something you obviously don't know is that "single-celled" amoebas WERE single-celled in Darwin's day because he had a very limited microscope. Technology has come a long ways since Darwin, and with telescopes MANY MORE times powerful than the one he used, they have since discovered that there are no single-celled anythings! Did you also know that Darwin confessed on his deathbed that he was sorry that he ever devised the evolutionary THEORY because it became a religion, and that was never his intent.
By the way...natural selection NEVER produced another species; the manipulation and interference of man has! When left alone, every species reproduces "after its own kind", just as God commanded... just as it has done now for thousands of years. Sadly, you're the product of a number of years of successful brainwashing by the school system. I'm sure that if we had the teaching that pedophilia was normal, you'd rise up against it. So, why don't you rise up against this deceitful THEORY that has never been proven and cannot be?
27 comments
Trotting out the old canard about Darwin on his deathbed, which has been repeatedly disproven? Don't know the difference between telescopes and microscopes? More and more reasons to ignore your opinion on any of this.
Even if Darwin had denied evolution on his deathbed, it would make the same difference as if Marx and Engels had denied communism on their deathbeds -- none whatsoever. Today Darwin is to evolution as Newton is to calculus or Aristotle to physics. We don't say Jupiter only has four moons because that's what Galileo discovered, because we've moved on and made new discoveries. Same thing with Darwin and evolution.
there are no single-celled anythings!
Yes, there is; your brain.
Wait a minute. So the single celled things were waaay back in Darwin's time - 150 years ago.
"Did you also know that Darwin confessed on his deathbed that he was sorry that he ever devised the evolutionary THEORY because it became a religion, and that was never his intent."
Err, no, according to his son he never did this but even if he did, it wouldn't matter because in science there are no authorities. Only the evidence matters.
We have discovered colonial organisms since Darwin's day. These are very simple lifeforms made of a single type of cell (or occasionally, of two or more different species). Each cell is an independent organism, capable of surviving on their own if absolutely necessary (generally, there are exceptions) but at the same time, they function much more efficiently in complex clusters. This is not to say that every single-celled lifeform is a colonial organism.
It would be surprising if such things didn't exist, as it would be baffling as to how true multicellular life could evolve at all.
[Edit] Upon checking, it appears that multicellular lifeforms can be colonial organisms as well.
No.
Did I miss anything in this "fractal wrongness" post?
Amy, something you obviously don't kniow is that "single-celled" amoebas WERE single-celled in Darwin's day because he had a very limited microscope. Technology has come a long ways since Darwin, and with telescopes MANY MORE times powerful than the one he used, they have since discovered that there are no single-celled anythings! What?!?!?!?
When left alone, every species reproduces "after its own kind", just as God commanded
"something you obviously don't know is that "single-celled" amoebas WERE single-celled in Darwin's day because he had a very limited microscope. Technology has come a long ways since Darwin, and with telescopes MANY MORE times powerful than the one he used"
Skywatcher57, you do know that micro scopes and tele scopes are two different things, right? RIGHT??
And where is your evidence for these no-longer-single-cell amoebas?
Did you know that I don't like green eggs and ham?
Natural selection doesn't produce another species, no.
You dolts have never been able to define "kind". Horses and donkeys reproduce; are they the same kind? Their offspring sometimes can't reproduce at all; are they another kind?
You're the sad brainwashed gullible fool, dearie.
It doesn't become a THEORY until it has been proven again and again, by different people in different places, nitwit.
I'm kinda wondering if Skywatcher is a Poe/troll. Or maybe it's that I'm HOPING that's the case. It's like he/she is making use of every misconception about evolution (the conflating of it with cosmology/abiogenesis, the confusion - no, the WILLFUL IGNORANCE of the distinct meaning of the word "theory" in a scientific context) and every faulty argument and logical fallacy against it.
@Churchy
Trotting out the old canard about Darwin on his deathbed, which has been repeatedly disproven?
Oh, that ain't even the only thing like that....he or she also claimed (without any citation or anything) Richard Dawkins of all people believes in an intelligent designer. I'd really like to see the quote-mine that came from (if it's not just made up out of thin air, that is).
Holy crap. ONE thing was right.
"So, why don't you rise up against this deceitful THEORY that has never been proven and cannot be?"
Yes. It's a theory. EVERYTHING in science is a theory. Math has proofs, where we find the one and only answer that can ever be true.
So, this statement is correct. But your intention with this statement, to imply that it's "merely" a theory, not a fact, is just balls-out ignorant.
@KingOfRhye - Not only Dawkins Skywatcher also said,
" right along with Stephen Hawking who is leaning heavily to the side of Intelligent Design!"
@Bob J. (I assume that's Bob, not Bo..lol)
Yeah, he's anti-Catholic too.....I must say I am NOT surprised. I can pretty much fill in my "fundie bingo card" today.
EDIT: OK, now I think I figured it out, it's not Dawkins, but Hawking, who is supposed to have said "intelligent design is highly probable"....but that was from an admitted satire site.
@Keith
"Math has proofs, where we find the one and only answer that can ever be true."
I hate to nit pick but this isn't entirely true. The "one and only answer" is dependent upon what axioms you begin with. For example, if you change Euclid's 5th postulate you get non-Euclidean geometries that are just as consistent as Euclidean geometry but give you an entirely different set of theorems.
@Alencon
Science has DISproofs. You can show that something can NEVER be true. But the very fact that science must be falsifiable means that no matter how well supported a theory is, there's always at least technically a chance that a new observation will prove the old theory is false.
this is what Skywatcher57 THINKS he's saying above. That the THEORY was that some creatures were single celled, but new observations disproved that as science advanced. The details he claims are factually nutburgers, but it's the underlying mechanism of science.
@ KingOfRhye
autofill
"'single-celled' amoebas WERE single-celled in Darwin's day because he had a very limited microscope."
Ummm.... what?
"... with telescopes... they have since discovered that ...there are no single-celled anythings!"
No, seriously, what the fuck are you saying?
"...Darwin confessed on his deathbed..."
I don't know what you're talking about. Do you?
"...natural selection NEVER produced another species; the manipulation and interference of man has!"
So humans are more powerful than your god? Awesome.
"....and with telescopes MANY MORE times powerful than the one he used...." - Telescopes? What, like Space Amoebas?
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
