the principles of world view

Sorry to add to the pile-on (well, not that sorry), but it seems no one really went anywhere with this. Don't blame them.You state this: You are aware that unicellular organisms are fully capable of reproducing and are fully grown, right? You are fully aware of reproduction by mitosis, among various other methods, right?You can criticize evolutionary theory when you actually have a basic understanding of biology, and then, evolutionary biology. Until then, you just look really silly stating that bacteria cannot reproduce (which is what you imply in your statement).

Wiki is a wonderful friend.

quote:

---

This lack of any clear species concept in microbiology has led to some authors arguing that the term "species" is not useful when studying bacterial evolution. Instead they see genes as moving freely between even distantly-related bacteria, with the entire bacterial domain being a single gene pool.
Nevertheless, a kind of rule of thumb has been established, saying that species of Bacteria or Archaea with 16S rRNA gene sequences more similar than 97% to each other need to be checked by DNA-DNA Hybridization if they belong to the same species or not [5]. This concept has been updated recently, saying that the border of 97% was too low and can be risen up to 98.7% [6].

---

Species concept - WikipediaIf I understand it correctly, if bacteria and archaea are more than 1.3% different they are different species.

Bringing back the comment of the half-life of U238. If one person has to live long enough in order to observe the fact, then I guess the science behind decay isn't a true science, as you would put it.After all, the human life span is roughly 80 years (in developed countries, that is). Since we've only known about decay for roughly 100 hundred years, we have not as a species or individually lived long enough to see C14 decay, to Argon decay, to see U238 decay (through one complete half-life, that is).In fact, no one has lived long enough to see pluto completely revolve around the sun once. We've only known about pluto for almost 80 years. Pluto's orbit is 249 years long.We haven't lived long enough to see us completely revolve around the milky way galaxy. I don't recall how long it would take, but we're talking hundreds of thousands of years.No humans were alive the last time yellowstone blew its lid. And yet we know it did. I guess that's just a theory, right, since we didn't live to observe it.Do you know how absolutely ridiculous you look making these claims?Is it just perhaps possible that you can actually work backwards from what you know? That you don't have to have observed pluto's complete orbit to know it's going to be 248 years? That U238 has a half life of 4.47 billion years? That the evidence for a yellostone eruption is similar to that of volcanoes erupting today, albeit on a much larger scale? That the evidence of the change in alleles over time, the observed mutations, the observed speciations, means that evolution does indeed happen, and that the theory does explain what we see? Of course.It is readily apparent that you know not the slightest thing about how science works. So please, learn how science works, and learn some biology and evolutionary biology.

Way to dodge. If you want to criticize a field, you have to actually know what the field says. Otherwise you build strawmen and display a high level of ignorance. No one need take your arguments seriously when you make the basic mistake of claiming that single cell organisms do not reproduce.You do not even seem to understand what a theory is. A theory, as has been pointed out, is an explanatory framework. The Theory of Gravity explaining the phenomenon of gravity, for example. The Theory of Gravity has not been proved, as one does not prove things in science.Thus, the Theory of Evolution explains the phenomenon of evolution. Allele frequency changes over time. This has been observed. That is the most basic definition of evolution. The Theory explains how the allele frequency changes over time. What's more, the Theory does actually explain very well what we observe.So yeah, as long as you continue to get basic biological facts wrong, and misunderstand how science works, your criticisms are really quite blanks fired into the air.

Linne's groupings were based on phenotypical similarities. He grouped dolphins and fish together as well.The point is, chimps and humans may look similar. But that does not necessarily mean that we are related. And if we are not related, then any research done on chimps to improve human medicine is a fool's errand.