Evolution is not science

no; why yes/no?

quote:

---

And my answer was:
No, because the conditions on Pluto are drastically different from the conditions on Earth.

---

Yes, you did say so, but does this not mean that Adaptation does not occur in other harsh environments than earth? Else how would one prove the premise of it? The other planets have a 'different' set of harsh conditions from pluto: but still no results any place.

quote:

---

Nobody said that evolution only occurs on Earth.

---

What is the basis for such a premise? On the probability factor, there is no life in the known and observable universe, which translates to no evolution elsewhere. [quote]

quote:

---

What was said was that because of the different enviroment on Pluto you would not have any earth-like organisms evolve.

---

But there is no non-earth-like life either, any place we look, via space missions, telescopic views and other imprints - not for at least 4.5 Billion earthly years.

quote:

---

Meaningless irrelevant babble, with nothing to do with evolution or a rational approach to understanding..

---

I gave you examples on the specific factors of ToE, which you responded as babble, namely an imprint in a fossil resembling another, does not necessaily prove what is concluded of it - that both are connected; numerous other reasons can apply. I sited that life forms can emulate other life forms traits, and this does not conclude speciation - the example of birds and planes here, is hardly outside the subject point or babble - even if it is not your preferred selection of criteria, as presented by ToE scientists!Let me go further for you: even if 2 or 3 parts of a jigsaw puzzle [the kind we all used as children], were connected with exacting parts on two life form relics - it does not mean what ToE has concluded of it - even allowing for the notorious reconstructionism undergone in ToE science labs! Why? because we have no surrounding evidences which match that conclusion: those parts of the jigsaw could have been dislodged there by the wind or tsunami, or grown out of consumed foods and simply continued to grow for some time. Such periphery impressions, used to make epochial conclusions, at best come under circumstantial evidences, not proof, and they become cancelled as evdential candidates by the lack of required surrounding and extra back-up proof. No one found a half zebra and half-whatever; we should have millions of these, w/o pause.Now I should accuse you of babbling: you had no response at all in defining what an 'on-going process' is, and how it must display itself against the millions of years scenario presented by ToE's casino science. I gave you examples of blue marbles turning red every 10 days [recall it?]: when exactly does the process cease in this on-going process - will we cease seeing blue marbles turning to red ever - why?

quote:

---

There is no "if" involved: DNA carries hereditary traits, this is an observed demonstrated fact.

---

Don't believe everything you believe. FYI, I have no problem with an underlying imperical process in any of the universe's structures, in both the micro and macro, and this is blatant and not debatable. The human body, gravity and pineapples verify this. I have only a problem in certain sectors and its conclusions made in ToE, such as the extent of the pervasive speciation referred to therein, which I see as limited with definitive borders. I can see that graduations and advancements [adaptation] occur - as we see in ancient and modern man - however, this factor, as well as NS, are seed derived - but totally; and ToE cannot evidence itself independently of this factor.Most ToE enthusiasts become lost in the nuts and bolts of premises provided by ToE scientists, who have already accepted ToE as the new, non-negotiable religion, and do not look elsewhere from it. The million years scenario is bunks - the basic maths fells it. Crocs and roaches are said to have not adapted much from the most prImodial periods: why not? Is there no more adaptation to be had - no more advancements than being crocs and roachs? Contrastingly, adaptation can also belong to a cat, which is a size-reduced feline from its past, which allows it better access to longevity of its kind than sabers. Endless other possibilities can apply: the one which wins is that which does not refer you to a bogus million year scenario, and displays its premises in our midst, without exceptions. Its an important, fulcrum issue for mankind, and should be demanded of more than is given: it is not a fact, but a theory with much disputation. Thus far, a host of unscientific premises have result, directly to uphold ToE: complexity from randomity, for example, which is a related and non-babble non-science.

quote:

---

THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IS DEPENDENT ON (AMONG OTHER THINGS) THE ENVIROMENT IN WHICH THE ORGANISM LIVES

---

Your fulcrum factor here is, 'IN WHICH THE ORGANISM LIVES'. This means, where there is no life, there is no adaptation: a superflous statement. It also means, its verification remains non-conclusive, because life cannot occur or subsist w/o adaptation. This is the reason ToE cannot be disproven, because it adopts only those verifications which are non-conclusive. Its like saying there is no one with a red short on pluto, because there is no one on pluto.In such a situation, we cannot pose that adaptation can subsist on the basis of its claims, and this has nothing to do with the process of adapting, and not verifying this process. It proves nothing.

quote:

---

I think we all agree that things that do not exist do not show evidence of evolution.

---

Correct, that is why adaptation cannot be posited as a universal constant, by reason of no life on pluto: but this is what has been presented here as being a sound arguement. Nor can biologists use a response, evolution starts only after life already exists, or that the issue is in the cosmological arena, when the entire principle is the one thread, and one sector does not subsist without the others.New blocks of faculties specific to a particular subject is fine - provided they are in fact particular and not connected inter-dependent ones. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't understand what you mean by "alphabetical book." Do you mean "phonetic writing system"?

---

This refers to a multi-page continueing narrative [book], which can be made of scrolls, parchments or even clay or stone tablets, in the alphabetical [non-picture] mode. e.g. the dead sea scrolls, which contains the book of Isaiah, in alphabetical hebrew. though it is not a required factor, but ideally, such books also contain historically contemporanous data, such as dates, events and names of figureheads and places, which can be cross-checked with other historical and/or archeological factors.

quote:

---

India is an older culture, and should logically have pre-dating writings

​

It does.

---

If this is in hard copy, as opposed to 'IT IS BELIEVED' premises, then put it up for examination. There is no question India is a far older civilization, however I have not found any reliable proof in the aspect of alphabetical books here: there are none of these in the Mohenjodaro relics or chinese history.

quote:

---

Discontinuous cultures. The first Qin emperor of China, for instance, had a great deal of Chinese literature burned.

---

Then it disqualifies as hard proof. It is surprising that no alphebatical books remain, not even from near post-Qin dynasty. One has to be fair in what is accepted as criteria for no proof: there is no civilisation which has been subjected to more upheavel, dispersions and destructions than ancient Israel, yet they possess the most evidences of alphabetical books, while the surrounding nations have almost never experienced dispersions and exiles, and remained in the same region for eons - but have no equivalent historical archives. If there is a significance from the latter, it is that alphabeticals occured suddenly and in an already advanced mode: an anomoly.

quote:

---

We know that there is no mention of Abraham, Ishmael, jacob, etc from any other source than from the OT, despite that many nations interacted with these figures.

​

Which indicates that these were mythical figures.

---

The reverse is the case. There is the Egyptian Tel mentioning Israel, and it is older than 3000 years. King David, once touted as a mythical figure, has been scientifically evidenced in the Dan Tel discovery; loads f 1stand 2nd temple coins and relics with ancient alphabetical hebrew have been found. The pre-3000 narratives in the OT, referring to kings, nations, land terrains and countries - are all mentioned by names and dates, and remain one of the most proven histories. You are mistaken, and there is no need for e to expand on this here - its off subject some.

There is no calendar even near as accurate as the OT one, which can predict a sunset a 100K years in advance, to less than 20 seconds accuracy. This is acknowledged in most scientific assessments. When examined, it also shows the earth has to be a moving spheare [not flat], with predictable results, and that the sun is relatively motionless. It is also the oldest active calendar. Its meaning is, there is total science and maths vindication in Genesis.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And what I pointed out was that you needed to provide an alternative and show how it was a better explanation for all the evidence involved.

---

Why do you want more and better, when my examples are provable and manifest, and not limited to conclusions based on academic re-constructionism?

quote:

---

The relationships of forms changing over time is easily explained by evolution for example, but not by every one being a convergent evolution from entirely unrelated different species.

---

Not necessarily. The principle employed leaves no other alternative than this is a connected premise. The twists and turns of non-continuous convergence does not negate the continuous process: the same principle binds them, with no other possible meanings. This is what I mean by casino science being planted into the arena when it suits, and it is a wonder you condone it, while still positing your arguement as a science premise: no one need ask, if such a distortion is conscrued only because the continuous speciation line cannot be proven! And it can't.

quote:

---

You repeat that "numerous other reasons can apply" yet the only thing you can dredge up is a poor example of an inadequate conceptualization for covergent evolution - an explanation that relies on evolution to be true to show that evolution is false?

---

Of course I can dredge up more, but not when you charge my examples as poor examples. There is nothing poor about them.

quote:

---

Likewise your "example of birds and planes" has nothing to do with evolution nor anything to do with speciation and the development of different lines of life.

---

Let me put it more blatantly simpler for you: if one life form can emulate other life forms and come up with flying planes and crouching tigers - so can other life forms. And this definitely has an impact on adaptation: it did not happen millions of years ago, and continues on many levels with a host of everyday examples. Alternatively, perhaps you can give some examples of traits which are excluviely related to adaptation?

quote:

---

Anyone who says evolution involves "a half zebra and half-whatever" is telling outright falsehoods, and anyone who repeats this kind of nonsense is guilty of passing on falsehoods without verifying their (total lack of) validity. You can easily verify this by reading any textbook on evolution and looking for "half and half" creatures being discussed.

---

Its not a Q of falsehoods or not understanding what ToE is saying. Its about whether one accepts the logic of going from A to Z directly, and indirectly, amounting to justifying a faulty principle; if the A to B is faulty, the rest is faulty; if the A to Z is faulty, the B to C is faulty - is my point. I explained also, the time factor was irrelevent in evidencing your claim, thus the transit phase time factors are also irrelevent in an on-going process; the transit phases are based on the same principle each time it occurs, namely that of speciation. If it is wrong to begin with - the intermediary twists and turns are also wrong, namely each sector is wrong as with the first one.

quote:

---

Now I should accuse you of babbling: you had no response at all in defining what an 'on-going process' is, and how it must display itself against the millions of years scenario presented by ToE's casino science. I gave you examples of blue marbles turning red every 10 days [recall it?]: when exactly does the process cease in this on-going process - will we cease seeing blue marbles turning to red ever - why?

​

Because you were babbling again. This is nonsense that is irrelevant to the way evolution works and the evidence for it.

---

Replace the marbles with life forms: choose your ToE species, how they change, and evidence it as an on-going process, and why that life form, or part thereof, does not have to become a zebra - by virtue of it becoming something else a 100 times, and then a zebra emerges. There is no dif here, and only one principle applies - its a contrived one to deflect a glitch.

quote:

---

I'll believe evidence that invalidates concepts, especially ill-defined concepts based more on desire for delusion than a basis in reality. As I have said before that once you believe that the evidence is or must be false in order to believe a concept that there is no rational way to discern truth for any belief -- purple unicorns, flat earth, and flying pigs are as valid as what you believe. It is only by believing that all evidence is true to reality that we can make any conclusions. When you say you believe the results of "imperical process" (sic) in things like gravity, but that you have "only a problem in certain sectors and its conclusions made in ToE" you are saying that your conclusion tells you that the evidence is false. This is delusiont.

---

Non-babble, if it makes you feel good.

quote:

---

Self delusional nonsense and babble. You keep saying there are "Endless other possibilities" and yet fail to mention even one that can explain the same evidence that evolution explains.

---

The concept for evolution came from genesis, so we have another premise here, how life forms emerge, develop, multiply, and transmit all data - with no deficiencies, and without any assistance from ToE, and that ToE cannot prove itself in the absence of the genesis provision. We know for a fact this occurs in our midst, and has occured throughout recorded time: its called 'a seed following its own kind'. Why do you deflect and trivialise the term 'babble' so much - do life forms not follow their own kind - except in ToE?

quote:

---

The currently used Hebrew Calendar is accurate, but as far as I am aware that was adopted after Christ was said to have been around. Their earlier calendar (the OT one) seems to have been inspired by other sources, such as the Babylonian one.

---

Impossible: only the name of a long existing festival was changed by christianity. The passover, called 'last supper' in the NT, was observed since Joashua's times [after entry into canaan], and in the first temple period [900 BCE], while its inaugration occured 39 days after the exodus from egypt: the temple festivals were not possible to observe w/o the Hebrew calendar, which predates christianity and the Israelite interaction with Babylon in 586 BCE; the passover was observed in Babylon by Israelites exiled there.I think the calendar issue is very important, and impacts on science via historical pointers. Below is bits of a discussion from another place, which says the influences of Babylon came later. Basically, the issues are in controversy of their origins in all western links and archives, including the Babylonian connection: the observance of the Hebrew calendar was active in the first temple period [900BCE], and the festivals such as Passover was observed before the temple was destroyed by Babylon. The exact dates of the exodus, the cencus in the desert, and the calendar adjusted to align with the leaving of egypt, are known and predate any Israelite interaction with Babylon.The accadians and sumerians predate the babylonian language but they come from the same area. The names of months were later taken from Babylonian, after the israelites were exiled there in 586 BCE. The bible lists other names for Jewish months but mostly mentions them according to their order, the first being Khodesh HaAviv, now referred to as Nissan.The issue of taking on board from the surroundings is a normal interaction, but the trick is in discarding the incorrect and retaining the correct: reading and correcting MC2 are two different tresholds. The Hebrew calendar is 5776 years, and the first to use the sun and moon in alignment with earth movements. It is described as the most accurate, and it correctly appears before the advent of laws which are based on dates and times. The Babylon calendar, like the ancient egyptian calendar, does not subsist anymore, nor can it predict last and future as can the OT calendar. The babylon calendar became obsolete when Persia conquered it, and the greek prevailed the Persian one. wiki is not a good source for anything concerning Israel.Babylonian influence: from Babylonia.” This is generally understood to mean that during their exile in Babylonia the Jews borrowed these names from the language of their host country. (See Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni and Ramban on Exodus 12:2.)http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htmThis entire discussion is also an entirely Western Euro-centric view, because the Middle East and Asian countries use calendars that are totally different than ours anyway! The Hebrew calendar is really the only calendar that takes into account the motions of the sun, earth, and moon completely. [http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~gcmastra/mail/calendar.html]In 46 B. C., Julius Caesar, as Pontitex Maximus, decreed a new
calendar. In Egypt he had studied their Thoth calendar based upon a
solar year of 365-1/4 days. It included the 7-day week and "leap" years borrowed from the Hebrew calendar. Its year had 12 months, each with 30 days, ending with 5 or 6 days never used in public or private transactions.[http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/natbltn/700-799/nb745.htm]History of the Babylon calendar is 750 BCE, while the Hebrew calendar was in use well before this date, specially under King David and Solomon, which required dates for festivals, seasonal and jubilee observances: The "AN" years are the Era of Nabonassar, Anno Nabonassari, dating from the reign of the Babylonian King Nabns.iru in 747 BC. The names of months were influenced later.Nisan is the first month of the religious year. Nisan (the name is derived from the Assyrian) has thirty days, and its zodiac sign is Aries (which the rabbis connected with the paschal lamb). In the earlier biblical books, this month's name is given as Aviv.Babylonian influence came later, and is only recorded in the babylonian language in later post-Mosaic writings:The name Elul is of Babylonian origin, and first appears in Hebrew Scripture in the Book of Nechemiah 6:15. [. — ’’]
Although the name of the month, Cheshvan, is of Babylonian origin, like all of the names of the months of the Hebrew calendar, it is sometimes given another name in the books of prophecy. In Kings 1:6 it is called the month of Bul. The boy's and girl's name Ziv \ziv\ is pronounced zeev. It is of Hebrew origin, and its meaning is "radiance, brilliance or light of God". Also the name of the second month in the Jewish calendar that celebrates Israel's Independence.
[Jewish Heritage Online Magazine]

quote:

---

I'll be honest with you, Joe - I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say. Since I can't understand your argument, I certainly am not going to be able to grapple with it one way or another.

---

Science, IMHO, is one of the faculties from which verification is concluded, and it does not subsist in all cases unless backed by maths, history and geography. Some of the factors of ToE are in contradiction with Genesis, and this is the point of the debate. Unfortunately, ToE is based on promordial periods w/o dates, and cannot be aligned with historical datings, as can Genesis. Thus most of the evidence for ToE is academic and thesis based.One of the main factors in contradiction is cross-speciation: although denied, I have posited that a zebra is traceable to a virus or amoeba, then a human, via the principle fostered in ToE, leaving no other meaning possible. The other factor debated is the understanding of an 'on-going process' - which makes void the millions of years factor employed by ToE for its evidencing.

quote:

---

You said that there were many possibilities other than evolution as an explanation of the evidence, so I've asked for one. Your examples of planes with wings and tail-lights do not explain the evidence they just say "look: airplanes haves wings and tail-lights" -- and the explanations need to be better than evolution because otherwise evolution is the better answer ... or are you happy with inferior work?

---

I gave examples, and you call them babble. The tail-lights was an anology to show that humans emulate other life forms to 'adapt', w/o the factor of speciation. Perhaps you want to prove that emulation = speciation, but the criteria used is open to numerous other factors than speciation. Definitely it is so in our midst and in realtime: humans emulate in realtime.

quote:

---

Not necessarily. The principle employed leaves no other alternative than this is a connected premise. The twists and turns of non-continuous convergence does not negate the continuous process: the same principle binds them, with no other possible meanings.

​

Absolutely meaningless babble.

---

That bable means, if the original millions of years factor is irrelevent in an on-going process, so is the transit changes of ToE's speciation. Unless, ToE factors took a pause and never recovered; whereas in a contueing on-going process, its effect do not cease.

quote:

---

This is what I mean by casino science ...

​

Which, seeing as it is meaningless doesn't refute squat. Calling something you have made up "casino science" is meaningless as well when you make no connection with reality.

---

Its not meaningless if you accept the factors applicable in an on-going process; its non-acceptance is meaningless, which I described as casino science. In fact, it appears a double-edged slight of hand: the transic factor excuses appear to deflect from the requirements of proof in realtime. This is a good possibility, and yet you deny even that it can be so - w/o any basis. To conclude this point, 'IF' you accept the logic in an on-going process, there is no requirement for speciation to be limited to millions of years, and if this is the only evidence of ToE - it is casino science: no arguement here. If you do not accept, then you have to show why: I gave you further examples: marbles adaoting every 10 days do not become impacted by time. You responded with: NOTHING.

quote:

---

... and it is a wonder you condone it, while still positing your arguement as a science premise: no one need ask, if such a distortion is conscrued only because the continuous speciation line cannot be proven! And it can't.

​

Except you are talking about your babble version of your own personal delusion, and not science or evolution.

---

Ok, so millions of years ago, certain changes occured in life forms, and these cannot be evidenced again: then it is NOT a continueous process.

quote:

---

Let me put it more blatantly simpler for you: if one life form can emulate other life forms and come up with flying planes and crouching tigers - so can other life forms.

​

Now demonstrate that this has any bearing on the all the types of life we currently see on this planet. Show how those types of life come to be from the fossil record and the genetic lineages in a manner that explains the fossil record and the genetic lineage through the processes we see in living systems today. Demonstrate how different forms of life came to be, including crouching tigers.

---

Sure. Crouching tiger is a martial arts stance, derived from studying tigers - in the absence of any speciation or genetic lineage: humans did not come from tigers in this example, not even indirectly. Even if a fossil showed an imprint of a human crouching. Here, the proof is to show a half-tiger/half-human, or half and hapf of any other two life forms, w/o resorting to millions of years: the system is on-going, meaning it occurs today also.

quote:

---

Saying this does not make it so. The current fossil record shows change occurring over millions of years in all fossil lineages.

---

Can you explain why the need to resort to the million years scenario, if the process is ongoing? My point is, if it takes one million years to produce B from A, this process is also valid for 1M minus 5 seconds years ago; thus the change will be seen today, now, anytime - because the change instant is also on-going. Yes/no?

quote:

---

More meaningless irrelevant babble, and wrong too: " if the A to Z is faulty, the B to C is faulty" is a false conclusion, as it is possible that only A is faulty.

---

How so: if all changes in A to Z is all black colored, then the change factor in B to C is also black.

quote:

---

Replace the marbles with life forms: choose your ToE species, how they change, and evidence it as an on-going process, and why that life form, or part thereof, does not have to become a zebra - by virtue of it becoming something else a 100 times, and then a zebra emerges. There is no dif here, and only one principle applies - its a contrived one to deflect a glitch.

​

But your marbles bear no relationship to life forms, just as your plane and tail-lights are not life forms.

---

Not so: they are aligned by the principle employed. The marbles refer to on-going changes and how time does not impact; the tail-lights refer to emulation by a life form of another life form - w/o speciation occuring.

quote:

---

In evolutionary terms no organism has to become a zebra or any other type of life we see: this is a false characterization of evolution caused by ignorance and babble.

---

In ToE, all speciation occurs by the same principle. That the changes are compound factored [incorporating additionally adapted/evolved embellishments] - does not alter the equation.

quote:

---

The concept for evolution came from genesis, so we have another premise here, how life forms emerge, develop, multiply, and transmit all data - with no deficiencies, and without any assistance from ToE, and that ToE cannot prove itself in the absence of the genesis provision. We know for a fact this occurs in our midst, and has occured throughout recorded time: its called 'a seed following its own kind'. Why do you deflect and trivialise the term 'babble' so much - do life forms not follow their own kind - except in ToE?

​

No, the concept for evolution came from observing life, animal breeding with human selection and the evidence of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation for all known life.

---

No sir. The first chronological recording of life forms is in genesis; so is the mode of life form continuence from the seed, able to transmit all traits: well before toE was coined. Now your in denial too: Darwin, a religious man, was of the opinion he found a contradiction of 'GENESIS'. The observation factor does not invalidate a precedent recording of these issues, and their blatant similarity of the premises, given different reasonings only.

quote:

---

What you call "a seed following its own kind" is nothing more than the evidence of common ancestry in all life.

---

Common ancestry is babble: there is no ToE w/o the seed factor; there is repro and continuance w/o ToE. The dif!

quote:

---

The rest of your argument is all babble designed to obscure the fact that you don't understand science or evolution while vainly attempting to look like you are saying something. With this result:

​

Message 281 - crashfrog:
I'll be honest with you, Joe - I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say. Since I can't understand your argument, I certainly am not going to be able to grapple with it one way or another.

​

That's what happens when you babble eh? You end up making a long post that is essentially meaningless.

---

Maybe Cfrog can explain why an on-going process is effected and proven only with what happens millions of years ago, and not manifest always and at all times: because you have not.

quote:

---

Examples are not explanations. An explanation tells how the facts came to be, then uses examples to demonstrate it, then provides a prediction for a way to tell the difference between explanation {A} (evolution) and explanation {B} (IamJoseph Babble).

---

An example exemplifies. There is no deficiency.

quote:

---

Your example of humans making tail lights does not show how organisms speciate, and last time I checked there were no humans with tail lights on their bodies.

---

But they exemplify a principle, the intention here.

quote:

---

Correct it is not a continuous process, it is a continuing process.

​

con·tin·u·ous -adjective1. Uninterrupted in time, sequence, substance, or extent. See Synonyms at continual.

---

No problem with Uninterrupted & continual.

quote:

---

2. To exist over a prolonged period; last.
3. To remain in the same state, capacity, or place: She continued as mayor for a second term.
4. To go on after an interruption; resume: The negotiations continued after a break for lunch.
(American Heritage Dictionary)

---

That's ok too, but I wouldn'y accept 'prolonged period' - this is not continual or continueing, and is probably expressionism, not actual, in one of its listed definitions.

quote:

---

Change continues to occur in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generations, but the change is not a continuous process from some {A} point to some {B} point.

---

That is ok too, as long as the principle of the change is a continueing one. It means zebras become humans via stages of changes, but based on the same principle as any and all changes. This confirms also that the time factor is irrelevent: the changes never cease, and its manifestation is always seen in the presence. Every second, everywhere. Basic maths fells the casino science.

quote:

---

There is no " need to resort to the million years scenario" as evolution is valid from generation to generation. It is also valid as continuing over the course of history, and further for continuing over the course of the fossil record. That the fossil record exists over a period covering billions of years is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. It's just a fact that evolution is still valid over the course of that record.

---

Generation to generation is not a continuous process, nor is this evident in a generation, which you have not defined. If it is continual, it does not cease an instant, as between generations. If the changes are too subtle, but actually occuring, it is fine. But it is not occuring, because while one change is too slow to view, there would be millions of the same change every succeeding second, graduating to a point which is not subtle, and thus viewable. This is not the case, making the said speciation an imaginative academic thesis only, but not reflected in reality. Go back to the marble analogy:If red marbles turn blue every 10 days, continuely, unceasingly, then the critical point of change can be captured with no impact of the time factor - even if the changes are as slow as you wish to nominate. If this maths is not understood - forget about science.

quote:

---

You are again confusing the evolution of species {A} over millions of years resulting in species {B} with the need to result in species {B}. This is false. Likewise repeating the timescale will not repeat the evolutionary steps that happened to occur in one period as species {A} evolved by stages into species {B}. This is a typical post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

---

Not so. The equation is not effected by what something changes to, but that it changes per se. No matter what A changes to, the same 'principle' applies with B to C, regardless if B is a zebra and C is a human. There is a linear thread here from zebras to humans, with no effect to this thread whatever differences appears between the zebra and the human. All changes are classed as adaptation and speciation in ToE.

quote:

---

Not what you said: The statement "{all change from A to Z is all black colored} is faulty" is TRUE if {A} is white even though the statement "{all change from B to Z is all black colored} is faulty" is FALSE (ie they are all black).

---

There is still a connectivity from A to Z, and from all points in-between, to either extremity. It means humans came from/via a zebra, from A. [quote] Not so: they are aligned by the principle employed. The marbles refer to on-going changes and how time does not impact; the tail-lights refer to emulation by a life form of another life form - w/o speciation occuring.

quote:

---

They are not biological life and do not represent the behavior of biological life, nor do they explain the fossil evidence OR the genetic evidence in any way. This is nothing but a post hoc ergo propter hoc fantasy. The "lost marble theory" would predict that you would find fossils totally unrelated in time and space, and this does not happen.

---

It does not matter its not biological life. The principle applies, and it does. Its not hoc or fantasy, but your denial - or worse..

quote:

---

Again your babble misuse of terminology show that you neither understand the terms or the topic. There is no such thing as "compound factored" -- it is just your attempt (pathetic as it is) to sound scientific, when all it does is make you seem silly.

---

It allows for your stages of changes. It was meant to explain your process, its just language, and not a scientific term. Like, on-going process.

quote:

---

Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Sometimes one way, sometimes another. There is no overall equation.

---

The applicable factor here is, 'changes' - this is continual even by your description. It must be active at 'all' times, even between generations, and as we speak. And because this occurs with all life, every instant - there can never be an instant when these changes are not occuring or their effect not viewable. The million years scenario is thus superfluous, and thus not a factor as used by ToE supporters.

quote:

---

False the first chronological recording of life forms is in the fossil record. The first chronological recording of life by humans is in cave paintings - paintings that agree with the fossil record for the species alive at the same time, some of which are similar and some of which are totally different from life known today). Both these chronological records validate evolution.

---

And very co-incidently, genesis got it right, by copying this info from the fossills, but no one else bothered to write it down?! Of course it is first recorded in genesis, and Darwin's fossil records are only a factor to show his variation theme from genesis.

quote:

---

Except that your "seed factor" has been shown to necessarily == DNA or it doesn't exist, and thus it supports common ancestry.

---

No seed, no repro, no adaptation, no speciation, no dna. The dna also shows variations of species, as opposed they all came from one source, and those variations are 'new' in the thread [no human gene in a zebra's dna], emulating the host parentage. While genesis is vindicated of its decared factors, ToE is not.

quote:

---

Change is continuing to occur, but what results cannot be determined.

---

No need for determination what life form will result. Your problem is, this continueing change does not require millions of years to occur, and even if it did - it would have no effect: because the changes continue every second and nano-second. This means, nothing is so slow it cannot be seen. Its called maths and logical reasoning.

quote:

---

That would be one of the reasons why 'continuing' is a better descriptor than 'continuous'.

---

Yes, its a good way to agree your on-going process is not really on-going: because while it is continueing, its not continual. Semantics will get you anywhere you want to go.But now that we've agreed speciation is not viewable because its not continuous, we can easily see why we cannot continually see it while it continues. Contrastingly, my marbles scenario performs differently: the difference is non virtual maths and logics apply.

quote:

---

And still not one thing you have said either demonstrates that evolution is not science, nor that evolution is wrong.

---

Its wrong, and no such creature as evolution or nature exists. But the seed factor does work - w/o ToE, w/o the million years resorting, and w/o any casino science applied to an on-going process. I won't hold my breath when the next speciation will occur.

Does the seed factor exist - does the seed transmit all data and is able to perform the reproduction cycle of each life form in an on-going process, including dna, and how then does ToE assist in this process? What deficiencies did you notice? - because ToE doesn't have a clue where evolution comes from or where it started.Its not that there should not be an intelligent process, because we see that all the universe constructs are intelligent process based. Its that ToE fails in this regard: its unscientific when examined closer and rests on casino science, while also being superfluous.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The genes controlling growth, development and hereditary traits on DNA have been observed, and these genes, growth control, development control and hereditary traits as a part of DNA are a fact.

---

Sure. But its got nothing to do with ToE! Hereditary is strictly and exclusively seed derived, namely from a thread of human parentage - going back upto four generations. It is easily proved: try to perform the hereditary trick w/o the seed?

quote:

---

Environmental, behavioral and cultural elements may affect growth and development of individuals, and thus natural selection, but the hereditary traits involved are on DNA. This too is a demonstrated fact.

---

here too, when environmental impacts occur, it is to do with 'environmental impacts' - no connection to a fictional thing called ToE. If one lives in a hot sunny country, chances are they and their offspring will be darker: ToE?

quote:

---

This shows that your conclusion is false, which means that the structure that leads to your conclusion is false. Babble is like that.

​

Enjoy.

---

Nothing is babble or false, and can be checked via first hand experemantation. It is true many ToE-ists display attitudes very similar to the most fanatical religious adherents, as if their ToE diety is sacred and holy. Most are in denial and cannot see themselves that way.