scientific theories taught as factual

DrJones writes:And your evidence for this claim is?

We don't have to look to cryogenics to see examples of deep-frozen mammals; nature has already beaten us to it. In the summer of 1977, a perfectly-preserved specimen of a six-month-old baby mammoth was disinterred by a bulldozer from permafrost in the Yakutsk Republic of the former USSR. This baby mammoth, nicknamed Dinah, is over ten thousand years old. In 1900, a larger Russian mammoth was found in Berezovka standing upright in the Arctic permafrost. The frozen beast was so perfectly preserved by the sub-zero temperatures that the ancient buttercups it had been eating when it died were still stuck to its tongue. No reason has ever been given to explain why the mammoth died so suddenly it never had a chance to swallow the flowers, but the beast seems to have been literally frozen in its tracks.

It isn't exactly Jurassic Park, but Japanese researchers are looking at the possibility of using sperm from frozen animals to inseminate living relatives.

Adn your evidence for this claim is?

They did cease to be chemicals when they became single cell life forms didn't they.

If you want to prove they don't exist have at it.

Yes it is wrong. In fact I don't recall you making one single post about the evolutionary model that isn't wrong.

These are RAZD's definition of Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution leaving out the word evolution to appease creationist.

Those whom you are quoting are wrong.

I think you have a nearly perfect record of having nothing right in any of your posts.

A single cell life form appeared. Maybe more than one.
These life forms did whatever they did for 3.1 billion years when.
A multicellure life form appeared.

Would you please point out where I went wrong in stating what I think evolution is to what you say it is.

These life forms did whatever they did for 3.1 billion years when.
A multicellure life form appeared.

Over the next 700 million years these multicellure (one or more) life forms gave birth to all the life forms we see today through a process of natural selection and survival of the fittest events.

These are RAZD's definition of Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution leaving out the word evolution to appease creationist.

Lucy that I talked about the last couple of days has 8 different skeletons and none of them the same. All of which are claimed to be exact copies of the 40% skeleton that is locked away.

What is the difference between a colony and a multicellular life?

Not really - I don't assign them to micro or macro, and "macro" generally refers to (continued) evolution after speciation, so speciation is just the boundary of "micro" and "macro" levels.

Now back to your regular program of (mis)information (and trolling).

Thanks Percy, but I'm not really interested in another thread about what the definition is, rather I want to explore what we can deduce about biological life based on basic processes and observed mechanisms. People who want to discuss the definition can go to "the definition of evolution" thread (it is still open).
Using neutral language we can say that: Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.This process can be measured and documented, it can be observed in all living species and thus is an observed fact, part of the evidence of objective reality.There are several mechanisms that cause this process to occur, and these include

• genetic mutation,
  • insertions\deletions during replication
  • point mutations,
  • etc.
• epigenetic effects on the development of phenotypes,
  • nutrition effects,
  • chemical effects,
  • climate effects,
  • etc.
• various selection processes,
  • sexual selection,
  • ecological selection,
  • intentional selection,
  • survival selection,
  • etc.
• neutral trait drift,
  • etc.
• etc.

Each of these mechanisms can be tested and observed in various species at various times, but it should be noted that several don't need to be continual mechanisms. Nor is their any "hierarchy" in action of the mechanisms and their relative importance can change (neutral trait drift could be more important during static than rapid periods of change, for instance).It would be interesting to list all the mechanisms that are involved, but this would be a good topic on it's own, if not needing a thread topic on each mechanism, as we see continued debate about the mechanism of mimicry spanning several threads. It's also a good topic for individual study in depth (say by taking a university course in biology ... ).Discussing all the different mechanisms involved in the process should not be necessary to this thread, other than to mention some in passing as necessary, and thus we should be able to start with the most basic process that anyone can validate with their own observations: Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.Creationist say this is just "variation and adaptation within kinds," which they use to describe the process of change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation from their hypothetical "original created kinds," with special reference to those that survived the hypothetical world flood event.Included in the creationist model of biological change ("variation and adaptation within kinds") -- especially following the hypothetical flood event -- is speciation. The definition of species is also covered in an existing open thread - the "Definition of Species" thread - so we don't need to pursue that particular definitional\philosophical\semantic rathole here either. Going back to Message 73:

quote:

---

(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

quote:

---

... new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the “kind," ...

---

'speciation' is the division of a single species into two (or more) species.

---

Speciation is also often seen as the division line between micro-effects and macro-effects in the study of biological life, and so we may want to look at this as another process, with an emphasis on the hereditary relationship (to ensure the creationist position of "within a kind" is included): Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.Again there are several known and observed mechanisms involved, each of which could become a new thread. Speciation occurs by:

• allopatric mechanisms,
• peripatric mechanisms (including "founder effect"),
• parapatric mechanisms (including "ring species"),
• sympatric mechanisms (including "cryptic species"),
• artificially, through animal husbandry or
• artificially in laboratory experiments,
• etc.

There's a graphic that shows the four basic types of speciation at:File:Speciation modes.svg - WikipediaI think this is enough for discussion to proceed for now: Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.As has been demonstrated so far, this fits with creationist "variation and adaptation within kinds," and "speciation within the kind" so we should be able to agree on these processes as occurring in modern life, and that there is sufficient evidence for these processes that we can say it is a fact that they occur.Enjoy.Actually, I am trying to discuss a process, so I have stopped using the word "evolution" to prevent everyone being confused and distracted by their pet (& often divergent) definitions.I think this is enough for discussion to proceed for now:Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.As has been demonstrated so far, this fits with creationist "variation and adaptation within kinds," and "speciation within the kind" so we should be able to agree on these processes as occurring in modern life, and that there is sufficient evidence for these processes that we can say it is a fact that they occur.

We seem to have agreement then that we have two processes (even though they may overlap) that occur in modern everyday biological life as we know it:
Biological Process #1 is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.

​

Biological Process #2 is the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.We observe instances of these processes happening by various mechanisms as previously noted, and thus these are facts in today's world.The question is whether this is what has happened in the past and whether anything else was involved. To test this we will form a theory:

---

Theory #1:
That each species known today can be traced backwards to parent species through historical, fossil or genetic records, while only involving (1) the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and (2) the division of a 'parent' species into two (or more) 'daughter' species.

---

Stated simply: we posit that Process (1) and Process (2) are sufficient to explain the diversity of life today from the records of previous generations of species.

But she isn't "locked away." I saw her - the realio, trulio fossil bones - in Houston last month. And there is only the one australopithecine that was named "Lucy."

Unfortunately, the "real" Lucy can't be seen in Addis Ababa. Because of the rare and fragile nature of fossils, including Lucy's skeleton, molds are usually made of the originals, which are then used to create detailed copies (casts). These detailed copies are then used for teaching, research, and exhibits in institutions around the world. This is what has been done with Lucy.The "real" Lucy is stored in a specially constructed safe, in the Paleoanthropology Laboratories of the National Museum of Ethiopia in Addis Ababa. On display in the museum is one of the casts of the original skeleton. Visitors to the Ethiopian National Museum in Addis Ababa can see a replica skeleton laid out by itself in pieces, showing the 40 percent that was discovered.Also on display is a fascinating reconstructed full skeleton of Lucy that shows her height and stance. When she was alive, Lucy would have been about 3-1/2 feet tall and weighed about 60 to 65 pounds.Underlining and bolding mine

I hate to break the news to you but if you were told you was looking at the real Lucy YOU WERE LIED TOO.

I always thought if something was stored in a specially design safe it was locked away.Goes to show you how stupid I am.Just keep believing everything you are told.