| OooSnap said: The evolution story goes something like this: life arose from goo and evolved to you by the way of the zoo. Is there any empirical, observational documentation of an organism population evolving camouflage abilities on the fly like an Indonesian Mimic Octopus or Anole Lizard? Or an organism evolve special clawed feet to walk vertically and upside down on all walls like an ant? Is their documentation of any creature population evolving feathers or a blow hole or gills? How about a fruitfly evolving glands to produce silk or a spineret or bioluminence abilities or anything of that sort? |
Yes
| OooSnap said: How about an organism evolving antennas, a blow hole, gills, a shell, eyes, baleen plates, fluke, arms, legs, trunk, claws, ink dispersal abilities etc. ? Just any radical novel feature or ability would suffice. |
Yes
| OooSnap said: You see, it takes radical changes to get a cell from goo to all the diversity of life we see today. But I have yet to see any documentation of at least one example of any organisms observed while occuring evolve such novel abilities or features. It seems that it is an assumption it happened but without the empirical evidence to back it up. |
It's not, try reading a biology text book.
| OooSnap said: And if you didn't know, empirical, observational evidence is part of the scientific method. Thus if there is no empirical, observational evidence then it is not scientific: |
Luckily, there is. It's in those millions of text books I eluded to earlier.
| OooSnap said: " The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. *To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical* and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning." Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton 1999, pp. 794–6, from Book 3, The System of the World |
Don't try to teach us the core concepts of science when you're incapable of looking up the single most researched and studied field of scientific inquery in history. It makes you look like an arsehole.
| OooSnap said: Moreover can the story really be scientifically tested and repeated? |
First it's not a story. Second, yes.
| OooSnap said: So is the evolution story really scientific? |
Again, yes. Now fuck off back to your church and don't come back until you develop a sense of shame and perchant for integrity. You know exactly what you're doing, spouting preached nonsense you've never actually taken the time to study (reading Christian media and scan-reading Wikipedia is not studying), because you're threatened by science; worried it's going to take away your magical sky daddy, which is ironic because evolution says nothing about God, and is fully compatible with modern Christian philosophy.
This thread is pathetic and only highlights your lack of faith in your own convictions by showing us that you feel the need to lie in an attempt to discredit science based off nothing more than your own insecurities. The only people taken in by your crap are idiots with their heads in the sand, and no scientist is even slightly threatened by your bullshit. This pathetic peice of trolling will get you no-where, you just look like a scietifically illiterate fool who's afraid of the truth. How about we go back to talking about video games now, or does this pointless "debate" need to happen on yet another forum?
PS: Remember this; if OooSnap actually wanted to learn about evolution, there are literally thousands of scientific papers, books, websites, videos, documentaries, and lecture series at various levels of complexity from basic school-age to post-graduate university level that (s)he could find with ease. This person doesn't want an answer, they want to evangelise; they want to preach to a captive audience. Nothing more. Don't waste your time.
