The Definition for the Theory of Evolution

What, specifically, do you find the TOE lacks per RAZD's Message 177?For clarity's sake: Merriam Webster

29+ evidences is a stretch.The intro gets you buttered up by playing on semantic mind games.Most of the rest is telling stories on how life must have evolved. No science in stories. The phylogenic tree makes astounding claims as to what evolved first, but this is based on mostly vertebrate life forms, what about the invertebrate? You know, most of the fossil record. I'd like to see a phylogenic tree from the cambrian layer of invertebrates. assume= ass out of u and me.On vestiges, i would say i doubt whatever research has gone into this subject. Almost every instance of vestigial parts I see I just have to laugh. The hindlegs of a whale? LOL Just because 'science' doesn't know what the purpose is doesn't automatically classify it under vestigial. Silly HOE's (hypothesis of evolutioners)Weak sauce, that article.

Since this is the only point you've chosen to address, I will briefly respond.Here is the vestigial organ link you are referring to.There are 149 articles referenced that support the evidence offered for vestigial organs.Since you ... ... let's examine just one of the referenced articles. In order to read this publication, you will need to have access to pubmed or a university library. Are you able to access scholarly research online?If not, I can pick another article, one that is available online without a subscription, and we can discuss that.

Okay, so you didn't understand the article. The article explained very carefully how each of these examples fits into the hypothesis-prediction-observation method of science. If you don't understand this, then start a thread on any of these points. Someone I'm sure will be willing to discuss the matter with you. Or join any of the threads in progess.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

yeah, i understood the yarns that spun my brain around unneccesarily. hypothesis on assumptions on hypothesis dabbed with some theory and even some facts to top it off.The fact is the conclusions might be considered science by the extreme religious zealots in the fundamentals of HOE, however the initial guesswork assumptions are not. Or maybe its vice versa. whatever.

Personally (and in the laughable sense), I like what molbiogirl had to say: Oooooh... so intimidating!Don't you just love the terminally erudite?As though all of the external facts in the world can show purpose or meaning without invoking a philsophical bias.You nailed it Vashgun. Just because science doesn't understand, doesn't mean their philsophical bias is accurate. That is known as theory, not emperical evidence.you may find this discussion interesting: http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?

Your so cool. What with your high profile links to superior reading material and access to university libraries. I catch the drift.Like I said before, vestigial parts are freakin hilarious. I saw one today about the ear ridge on a human. I mean c'mon! Where do they come up with this stuff.Maybe you should take a break from being snooty and really look at what this stuff means and infers.Anyhow though this is off topic, perhaps you should read the rules section? Hmm? ;p

Tell you what.If I propose a new topic on vestigial organs, will you join me there?

"Whatever", eh? That's a good argument. Well, as good as all the other creationist arguments.Let us know when you've worked out what it is you're trying to say, and we'll tell you why it's wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I knew that would fly over somebody.In layman's terms, common descent is shit.It's a religion, and should be left out of the definition of evolution.As for joining miobio chik on a debate thread about vestiges, i'll do it. I haven't laughed enough this week. Although it's going to be pretty hard to convince me that whale reproductive anchor bones are tiny vestigial legs. lol that gets me every time.

Anglagard: Is that so?So before he has even fully communicated his position, you already know that it is wrong?Do I detect an obvious, blatent, and overtly maniacal hint of bias?

I't a fair supposition. No-one's come up with a good creationist argument in the last 150 years, so I'd be willing to bet that it's not going to happen here, now, coming from someone totally unfamiliar with the scientific literature.Tell you what, though, if he somehow manages to destroy the foundations of biology --- I'll buy you a pint.

Wow, that was such a detailed and trenchant critique, you should publish it somewhere.

Yeah, facts. What do they prove, eh?---I think we should advertise for some smarter creationists. If there are any.

Dr. A: Hey... that's a good line Dr. A!But I don't believe the lines at the bar. They're funny, but not real enough...By the way, the foundations of biology are philsophical. And the external world only confirms that philosophy is valid. It cannot speak on it's own. It has to match the pattern...So, even if he does bring the stone down and it crushes you (when you could have cast yourself upon it and willingly been broken); you will be oblivious, because you are not thinking at his level.You will simply be tormented forever by your lack of understanding and demise. It will never make sense to you, because you will not let it make sense. It would cost you your most treasured posession; your sin.