Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is not science
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 225 of 305 (432262)
11-04-2007 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by IamJoseph
11-03-2007 3:47 PM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
Several, does not mean what you select. I gave you one check list.
No you haven't, and you still have not refuted the facts of the forams.
Not so: while an offspring looking like a parent is demonstratable in real timeplace, provable in a manner not subject to any doubt whatsoever or any co-incidence - this is hardly the case with evolutionary imprints - so the response is based on diabolical premises. An offspring is not negatable how it is derived. I call it casino science.
It doesn't matter what you call it and you haven't done squat to refute evolutoin yet -- the link from parent to child is just as demonstrable as is descent of living species from common ancestors by DNA -- the "seed" -- that gets passed from parent to offspring. Calling it by a different name doesn't change the facts, just tries to hide the reality.
There is no hereditary linkage in evolution, ...
But you just said there is: "... an offspring looking like a parent is demonstratable in real timeplace, provable in a manner not subject to any doubt whatsoever or any co-incidence ... An offspring is not negatable how it is derived" so you are contradicting yourself already -- a feature common with people who misrepresent the truth.
... while there is absolute linkage with host parents. The fulcrum factor is, a miriad of other reasonings can apply in the evolutionary premise - but solely one applies with an immediate offspring. This applies to all your responsa, which appears in the same vein - the fulcrum non-virtual issues are replaced with imaginative, academic vitual specs. The equivalence is distorted and contrived.
You are babbling again -- if you stop trying to sound intelligent you might actually be able to say something meaningful. Try simple words and aim for clarity, you might be surprised at the result.
Trying to obscure what you are saying on the other hand is just a way of deluding yourself that you actually mean something when it is just babble.
Of coz it can be falsified, and this is a prime area when it will be falsified. Any percieved differences can be due to several other factors, ...
... which if you were being honest and actually had these other possibilities intellectually developed to a degree that you could make this claim, this is the point at which you would start presenting them and showing just how they explain the apparent relatedness and how the differences actually appeared.
Humans fly planes - does it mean the tail-light of a plane spells evolution from birds to humans? No - because we can see where tail-lights come from, and we do not see them coming from birds per se. But the latter scenario can very easily be contrived by scientists - specially so when their conclusions are accepted by virtue of fcontrived reasonings, and no conclusive proof is demanded.
I've seen some ludicrous straw man arguments in my time but this is really devoid of any possible relationship to evolution.
LOL! Tell me about it - you don't want a situation requiring you to actually *PROVE* your premise as does the offspring from a seed!
Thus actually proving (once more, not that it really needed to be demonstrated again) that (1) you don't understand science or how it operates and (2) your total ignorance of how evolution operates. You need to stop reading creationist prattle and study what the real science involves.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits (DNA or "seed") in populations from generation to generation, the only trail is from parent to offspring, which you acknowledge.
Irrelevent - these are twists and turns to propel a certain perspective and view, which leads to a preferred conclusion - its anything to run far from nearing any actual proof. To get closer to understanding where it is poor casino science - you have to contemplate the reverse premise: what factors would enable a subset of an octopus eye to appear similar to a subset of another life form? Here, any reasonable imagination will pour out 100s of other factors. You want to select one of them, and make this your *PROOF* to an unrelated scenario, and thereby escape any further examination or deliberation.
Yet it still invalidates your point. Calling it irrelevant just means you can't deal with it, just as your claim to turn it around is pathetic -- because it's the same argument either way.
Oh - even though you are argueing humans came from those who suddenly exhibit no similarity? The reverse appears more coherent: if a human can copy a bird to fly planes, then it is more probable a bird can copy an existential trait by his environmental life surrounds - even if this is done via instincts instead of human thought and speech. This is an example how you select what fits your premise only.
Here your attempt to turn the argument around is even more ludicrous.
After all, you are argueing that life forms graduate and speciate on the one principle: evolution, but a very selective and moody evolution?
Life forms change through mutation and natural selection among other mechanisms. This is happening to all species known today.
Be assured, if it had occured, no one can deny it, and this debate is subsequent to its reverse factor only. You cannot deny the offspring via the seed - because it occurs every day, in all living species.
Of course. Evolution is an observed fact, it has been observed: species have changed hereditary traits from one generation to another. This is because your "seed" is identical and inseparable from DNA passed from generation to generation as demonstrated by your usage without any differentiation of definition.
I won't ask what you mean by 'generation' - millions of years visavis nine months for a human! Re-evaluate what 'equitable comparison' means.
What I mean is what people normally mean by generation, which has nothing to do with nine months or millions of years for humans. Can you really be so ignorant to (1) not know the meaning or (2) can't figure out how to look it up? I really wonder how many creationists are embarrassed to read your posts when you make comments like this.
Generation Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
2.the term of years, roughly 30 among human beings, accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.
The reason generation is used is because the length of time is different from species to species, while a little rational consideration will show that absolute time is irrelevant to the process of evolution. See if you can figure it out.
A re-evaluation is due here too - we seem to have different interpretations of the term 'ongoing process'. This applies to all transmissions every instant, not just a sub-set millions of years ago, or in populations.
So present something rather than say it can be done.
The seed transmission is an ongoing process!
Yep, evolution is an ongoing process, I fully agree.
You say its a fact and observed; I see a miriad of other explanations to account for your conclusions, but none which equates with the seed factor.
So you have said before, however the essential point that you fail to make is what a single one of those could be and how it is different from evolution. Until you do all you are doing is talking about evolution by a different name so you can fool yourself.
There is no problems whatsoever with the premise of a seed: this is a direct and immediate outgrowth from the host parent, aka 'semen' and 'egg', which accounts for all offspring transmissions, including DNA and other micro and macro data.
Just as you claim: "seed" == DNA, as I have already said. You have made no distinction of one from the other.
Nor did I fail in asserting speech being different in kind than degree: ...
Yet the Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind stands at 262 messages without showing any difference in kind, only difference in degree. If you don't regard that as a failure, then perhaps you need to look up the definition of failure.
Failure Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote:
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His effort ended in failure. The campaign was a failure.
2. nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: a failure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.
do you need reminding, that there is no proof of speech being prevailent in historical longevity periods
Which does not invalidate speech in other animals, the actual issue at hand eh?
the excuse sited is there was no writings - as if a single 'name' of a human cannot be recalled without it as proof! Nor does a lack of knowing the exact definition reflect a failure in the differences with communication. If anything, the latter only affirms my position: it is precisely because there is a mystery here that the difference cannot be defined; this is not the case with communications of all other life forms, all of which possess the same mechanical organs and features, but display no speech: and you cannot define why this is so because it is a direct contradiction of evolution. The latter is understandable when you decide to examine evolution in terms of speech being different and unique: but there is a mental block here. Neo science is well on the way to becoming a religious science, where tresholds of dogmas cannot be breached.
More babble. Other animals use speech - verbal communication of emotion and thoughts - therefore it is not unique to man, not a difference in kind but ONLY in degree. This is what is show by 262 posts on the topic and which you have been shown to be totally incapable of refuting.
More than bable, it is hitting the nail on the head! You cannot perform in the arena outside your selective criteria, and must run away from actual and definitive premise none can question. You should be able to prove your case in all scenarios.
Babble. It seems it is what you are best at: stringing words together so that they appear to say something but in reality the total is meaningless babble.
No, it does not - the seed does this w/o a thing called evolution, while evolution cannot do this w/o a thing called the seed factor. That's a fact.
Evolution (in earth life forms) cannot do without DNA. Agreed. You haven't said anything new, all you have done is try to obscure what you are saying while pretending that it is different. You may fool gullible people, you may fool yourself, but I am not fooled.
Its not the 'change' factor that is the issue, but what and how that change is derived. A human from africa will start to resemble a chinese in a few generations if his ancestors were transferred to china 500 years ago: this change is not in doubt, and while you allocate this to evolution, it is easier traced to parentage input via the seed over that time period.
Not really, ... unless he breeds with chinese people and the offspring are selected for appearing chinese, and then the result will be due to evolution.
The same result is not forthcoming those 500 years with speciation: zebras won't emulate chinese people.
Which agrees with evolution.
... iow, there is no reason why a zebra won't become a chinese by your criteria.
No, for that is NOT evolution.
Of course there is more than just dna in repro via the seed: it is everything, including skeletal and mental imprints, and bar none.
And yet science has shown that this is false for all but DNA, and that DNA is the only thing you are left with.
It's a very simple experiment: take any fertilized egg, remove the DNA inside the nucleus, and replace it with DNA from the nucleus of a fertilized egg from another species and that other species will grow.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : sp

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 3:47 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 1:09 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 229 of 305 (432402)
11-05-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by IamJoseph
11-05-2007 1:09 AM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
ToE is overtaking religion. Note the extent of rejection here of everything, coupled with a total inability to respond to anything which is legitimate! We may soon see the day when the charge of heresy is proclaimed in all who do not bow to ToE and Ceasar. But mighty Rome is no more.
Rational people are unable to respond to babble because it is meaningless, not because there is any merit to it. What is legitimate? Some births are legitimate while others aren't and yet both involve evolution -- so again you use words to appear to say something when it is really meaningless babble.
You could just say that rational thought anchored in reality is overtaking old ways of thinking anchored in mythology and fantasy -- do you consider that a bad thing?
My check list began with the very opening of genesis contextually, as was asked of me, which says the universe is VERY 'FINITE'. You must either agree or disagree with the factors in my check list.
Which is not a list of alternate explanations for the evolution of forams. All this amounts to is more babble pretending to say something.
I do not have to refute any items mentioned in ToE; I am only disputing the conclusions derived therefrom, namely principles:
And in order to dispute the conclusions your need to refute them. Failure to understand this is failure to understand the scientific process.
... these are unscientific, immathemtical, illogical and unevidenced - specially where it conflicts with genesis.
Denial does not make the evidence disappear nor is it an alternate explanation for the evidence, it is delusion. When you reach a conclusion that the evidence must be false in order to maintain a belief, then you have reached a point where you can believe anything you want to with equal validity.
You cannot admit it, but with the aspect of speech - you have lost that one - despite all the excuses for not being able to evidence genesis wrong - the easiest thing with regard to communication progressing to speech.
I cannot admit it because that would be an outright lie: the thread clearly shows you complete and total inability to make a single rational point about speech being unique to humans. This topic is not about speech so take your speech babble back to the speech thread and try again.
Of coz I have done more than squat: there is no proof or evidence what is claimed by ToE, and the criteria for such proof does not rely on what a ToE advocate chooses. Parents which pass on a seed, and a virus which leaves an imprint on a fossil, have a problem in their equationalising: they reproduce the traits of the parentage, in realtime, able to reproduce its own kind. This renders all the factors of speciation superfluous. Unless you can perform that trick w/o the seed?
No contradiction. Humans do not resemble virus'; they do their parents. Nor do human offspring deviate and then return as humans: because they reproduce their own kind. And if you find a stray part of a human organ resembling another resting on a fossil, it does not evidence ToE: the entire bases of your arguement!
Babble. Try english.
Read again. Comprehension must precede science understanding.
Which is precisely why your babble is irrelevant -- all it demonstrates is your lack of understanding, your inability to communicate is because you don't understand. For example:
It is a principle held in ToE, that each life form begat its traits by its mechanisms being osmosized for another life form.
Evolution has nothing to do with osmosis of traits from one life form into another. You don't know what evolution is therefore you are incapable of discussing evolution.
I showed that traits can be adapted, without a life form becoming another one, as in humans flying planes.
Which also has nothing to do with evolution.
I do deal with it, and in its most fulcrum point: the results. All the transit factors alledged in ToE does not result in what it claims - but this is not the case with Genesis. The latter is what you don't deal with, and it is the fulcrum factor here. If you want to prove that a plane can fly - then you have to prove this by flying the plane; instead, you want to take us to Mars and show us a stone which resembles tail-light magnified and re-contructed after millions of years - but you still have not evidenced by flying the plane. The time factor does not apply in an 'ongoing' process. Babble?
Babble. None of this applies to evolution, never has, never will.
Mutation = deviation; it does not mean another life form. A handicapped life is also a mutation. The deviated cancer cells will not become zebras and humans in millions of years. The point here.
And the point is totally irrelevant, as it does not in any way deal with evolution, just with your fantasy world buried within your babble that attempts to hide you complete ignorance of the reality of evolution.
Exactly, and the reason i never bothered to ask. Anything can be claimed on that basis: a billion years ago [generations!], pigs used to fly in another galaxy. Go check! I know very well what a generation means with humanity, and what you cannot prove, is any speech endowed humans 20,000 years ago: drop all the excuses, and say this is correct! You cannot choose when and how to apply what measures 'generations'.
Nope. More babble.
I did, you call it babble: humans did not learn to fly planes because of dna data transmitted by forams millions of years ago.
More babble. I call it babble when you don't deal with the issue and use unusual words in unusual ways as if there was something meaningful said in arguments that are totally irrelevant.
It was uncalled for. The seed contains all required data, including dna, and is not defficient: meaning repro does not need ToE premises to validate itself, and ToE becomes redundent without the seed factor.
Which does not even begin to refute the fact that DNA has been shown to be where hereditary traits are passed from one generation to the next, so it necessarily contains everything you assign to your yet to be defined "seed" -- thus showing identity between "seed" and DNA.
The dif is speech, which ...
... you have failed to define in any way that shows a unique trait for humans, rather than just another difference in degree. All your babble about speech is totally irrelevant to this thread (and any other until you actually step up to the plate on the speech thread).
Here you agree with genesis by emulating its premise.
Then you have no problem with evolution.
It contradicts ToE which does not mention the seed factor at all.
No, it contradicts (1) what you think ToE is as well as (2) what you think "the seed factor" is. It shows that hereditary traits are carried by DNA and not by anything else in the fertilized egg.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 1:09 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 9:38 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 263 of 305 (432566)
11-06-2007 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by IamJoseph
11-05-2007 9:38 PM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
I dont think so: the term legitimate is hardly limited to child birth or ToE, specially not so in the context it was positioned. The irrationality claim applies to faulty grammar rendering, and is yours. Ever heard of a legitimate defense?
You didn't answer my question again, but babbled on to yourself.
Babbling can also be described as not seeing where science is on display.
You didn't answer my question again, but babbled on to yourself.
I did refute them by showing numerous other reasonings apply than what was concluded in ToE. You did not refute nor acknowledge the first scientific reference to the universe as finite, a premise introduced in genesis.
Saying you did something you did not do is a falsehood. Babbling is not a refutation nor the presentation of an argument.
Equally, you show a delusion in not seeing science where it is evidenced. You have not shown any alternate scenario to the universe being finite.
Because it is irrelevant to evolution, and being irrelevant does not contradict - no delusion involved. Babbling about whatever comes into you head does not constitute an argument.
Babble is not being able to disprove by evidence, and resting on excuses resting on semantics only.
No, babbling is pretending to say something while talking about something else, usually fantasy, using words that are meaningless in the context used and terms that are used with non-standard but not provided definitions. Take:
Speciation is a form of osmosis: both incorporate change and exchange. Its about perspectives.
It can - by the princple basis being applied backwards. ToE is not a free floating principle without any foundation: nothing is.
As examples. Babble. A rational person wanting to talk about evolution uses the terminology of the science. Any person not using the proper terminology is not talking about the science, but something else.
Using technical seeming words in unusual ways, and in fields other than ones where they are normally used, shows both a lack of understanding of the terms and a lack of understanding of the fields being discussed. When you introduce unnecessary terminology and use words in ways such that their normal definitions cannot be applied, it does not enhance communication but obscures it. It is babble and the reason people treat your posts as if they were written by a babbling simpleton is because they are written in the way that a babbling simpleton writes.
Yes, it does. The 'result' best evidences and vindicates what a process is saying. And ToE relies on runaway time periods, qualified with elusive transit twists and turns, which results never vindicates itself in reality: this allows ToE an immunity from evidencing an amoeba or root plant becoming a zebra, even when this is exactly what it is saying when properly examined, and prefers not being asked to evidence itself as does genesis. Here, I pointed out that the time factor is irrelevent, and gave actual examples: the runaway immunity subsequently does not apply. ToE must thus evidence its claims in reality - as does genesis: if the time factor does not apply, the transit phase time factors also do not apply. This means to evidence ToE, a life form evolving into another should be seen as commonplace and pervasively. Pause from ToE an instant, and examine my premise in any reductionist example: I suggested blue marbles turning to red marbles every 10 days, on an on-going basis. The latter must thus be seen at all times occuring in our midst - w/o pause and w/o any other affectations applying.
Meaningless irrelevant babble, with nothing to do with evolution or a rational approach to understanding..
You introduced the mutation factor. I suggested it is not an evidence of speciation, only a deviation and still fully contained in that kind of life form. I gave an example that a percieved similarity on two life forms can have other reasons than that proposed by ToE.
Except you were talking about evolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- and cancer cell becoming zebras, not about speciation.
I did deal with the issue. It means life forms emulate traits they see elsewhere. Humans are a life form which emulates traits of other life forms: it does not evidence ToE. Humans in africa may become darker skinned by environmental factors - not by those listed in ToE: both, human traits and environmental effectations are examples of an effect independent of ToE claims.
You dodged again. You were talking about tail lights.
This is not so. It requires ToE to be demonstrated w/o the impact of the seed, irrelevent of the dna factor. This is especially the case if you view the dna as common to both premises is taken. E.g: if you say red marbles turn to blue marbles every 10 days, because of gravity appling to both colored marbles equally, then the gravity factor does not apply to any one marble only as being the source of effectation. The dna has no impact here, and must still be shown to foster the same result: this is not the case, and by your own criteria. In contrast, genesis does not suffer this problem: the seed transmission is uneffected by ToE claims, and thus stands as the operable factor.
Repeating your assertion and adding more irrelevant babble does not refute the issue of hereditary traits being only transmitted by DNA inside the fertilized egg cell. This is an observed demonstrated fact, as noted, and continued denial is just evidence of delusion.
Then take another stat in genesis: that life forms began as a dual-gendered entity. This is not babble but a variant logical and scientific premise: to get blue and red marbles from one original marble, it has to contain both propensity traits. The original seed has to contain a propensity to result in either male or female offsprings. Its not babble.
Which of course explains the fact that some 90% of life -- by weight -- is single celled and asexual. Looks like you are babbling again as there is no relationship between what you are saying and reality.
If the dna carries hereditory traits, ...
There is no "if" involved: DNA carries hereditary traits, this is an observed demonstrated fact.
... it corresponds with genesis and the host parentage source in an evidential and observable manner, as can be seen in dna evidencing in legal court actions today. But that a human dna also contains hereditory traits of a zebra, is not as evidential or observable, and has not been accepted or ratified in an open legal court case: why so? In any case, this dna connection corresponds with genesis, and is not a negating factor of it: yet you posit is as such, and accuse me of babble!
But it is babble because -- among other things -- nobody ever said that "human dna also contains hereditory traits of a zebra" and all the other nonsense you keep spouting.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 11-05-2007 9:38 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by IamJoseph, posted 11-07-2007 3:50 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 275 of 305 (432678)
11-07-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by IamJoseph
11-07-2007 3:50 AM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
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 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! - that both are connected; numerous other reasons can apply.
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. Of course nothing is necessarily proven in any science, so your argument that this case is special for evolution is as bogus as your twisted terminology. 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.
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?
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 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.
Most of this is just more babble, more inability to learn from past mistakes and unwillingness to let go of false beliefs, even where they apply to what you think is science in general and evolution in particular.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by IamJoseph, posted 11-07-2007 3:50 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2007 3:17 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 282 of 305 (432887)
11-08-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by IamJoseph
11-08-2007 3:17 AM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE!
Why do you want more and better, when my examples are provable and manifest, and not limited to conclusions based on academic re-constructionism?
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?
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.
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.
... 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.
Of course I can dredge up more, but not when you charge my examples as poor examples. There is nothing poor about them.
And yet curiously you cannot demonstrate them to be any BUT poor examples, NOR can you provide an explanation for how your POOR examples show your non-existent explanation to be valid.
Ad hoc examples + NO explanation = meaningless babble.
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.
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?
Saying this does not make it so. The current fossil record shows change occurring over millions of years in all fossil lineages.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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. What you call "a seed following its own kind" is nothing more than the evidence of common ancestry in all life. 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.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : end

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by IamJoseph, posted 11-08-2007 3:17 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 7:22 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 286 of 305 (433498)
11-12-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 285 by IamJoseph
11-12-2007 7:22 AM


Re: A GUIDE TO THE BABBLE - OR WORSE! Dodge City
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.
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).
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.
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.
This is still meaningless babble -- you are not saying anything, just stringing words together. Your assertions (what phrases seem to have meaning) are completely un-supported by any evidence nor do they have any basis in reality: Babble.
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.
It's not meaningless if you accept babble? Marble babble is not biology, there is nothing of meaning to respond to: it's irrelevant.
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.
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.
2. Attached together in repeated units: a continuous form fed into a printer.
3. Mathematics Of or relating to a line or curve that extends without a break or irregularity.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
con·tin·u·ing -verb1. To go on with a particular action or in a particular condition; persist.
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)
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.
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.
So now you are mixing learned behavior with inherited genetic traits. Curiously, by behaving like a fighting tiger (the martial arts form) does not turn the people into tigers. They don't hunt, mate, eat like tigers.
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?
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.
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.
How so: if all changes in A to Z is all black colored, then the change factor in B to C is also black.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Sometimes one way, sometimes another. There is no overall equation.
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.
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.
Common ancestry is babble: there is no ToE w/o the seed factor; there is repro and continuance w/o ToE. The dif!
Except that your "seed factor" has been shown to necessarily == DNA or it doesn't exist, and thus it supports common ancestry.
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.
There is no "on-going process" - no directed evolution towards some goal, just continuing change in the hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Change is continuing to occur, but what results cannot be determined.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 7:22 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 12:19 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 289 of 305 (433541)
11-12-2007 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by IamJoseph
11-12-2007 12:19 PM


reducing the babble to background nonsense
An example exemplifies. There is no deficiency.
But they exemplify a principle, the intention here.
But without the principle, the explanation, they are random examples of irrelevant material.
No problem with Uninterrupted & continual.
Except that continual doesn't apply.
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.
Wrong. No surprise.
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.
Wrong again.
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:
That would be one of the reasons why 'continuing' is a better descriptor than 'continuous'.
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.
Still irrelevant.
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.
Still wrong.
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.
Your original statement remains falsified. If you are changing it now you are equivocating.
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.
Still irrelevant.
It does not matter its not biological life. The principle applies, and it does. Its not hoc or fantasy, but your denial - or worse..
Still wrong.
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.
Still meaningless babble.
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.
Still wrong.
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.
Still wrong. Where is the saber-toothed lion, the wooly rhinoceros, the cave bear, the mastodon and the ground sloth (just to name a few)?
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.
Still irrelevant, there is still no differentiation between "seed" and DNA.
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.
And still not one thing you have said either demonstrates that evolution is not science, nor that evolution is wrong.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 12:19 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 7:27 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 292 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 7:37 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 291 of 305 (433710)
11-12-2007 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by IamJoseph
11-12-2007 7:27 PM


Re: reducing the babble to background nonsense
Yet the fact exists that speciation has been observed, speciation is a FACT.
This shows that your conclusion is false, which means that the structure that leads to your conclusion is false. Babble is like that.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 7:27 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 7:49 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 293 of 305 (433720)
11-12-2007 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by IamJoseph
11-12-2007 7:37 PM


Re: reducing the babble to background nonsense
Yet the fact exists that evolution has been observed, evolution is a FACT.
This shows that your conclusion is false, which means that the structure that leads to your conclusion is false. Babble is like that.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 7:37 PM IamJoseph has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 295 of 305 (433738)
11-12-2007 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by IamJoseph
11-12-2007 7:49 PM


Re: reducing the babble to background nonsense
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.
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.
This shows that your conclusion is false, which means that the structure that leads to your conclusion is false. Babble is like that.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by IamJoseph, posted 11-12-2007 7:49 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by IamJoseph, posted 11-13-2007 7:58 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 298 of 305 (433955)
11-13-2007 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by IamJoseph
11-13-2007 7:58 AM


Re: reducing the babble to background nonsense
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?
Try to perform the hereditary trick without DNA.
We are talking basic biology, modern biology, biology informed by all the knowledge accumulated in the field, including evolution and basic genetics. Heredity has everything to do with the theory of evolution, because without heredity there would be no evolution.
Perhaps you think your (nebulous) concept of "seed" is a new\fresh\different idea. Sorry, it is old, a concept that was in existence before genetics, back in the 1800's. Before they knew that genes were located on the DNA there were lots of ideas about where and how hereditary information was kept and how it was transmitted to offspring.
Perhaps you think your concept of "seed" is a robust idea, one that has more explanatory power than current paradigms in biology. Again, this is a false impression, as scientific studies since those early days of genetics have shown how hereditary information is passed by the DNA in eggs and sperm. It was shown that does not come from various parts of the body, as was once considered possible,
Nor is heredity limited to four generations.
... 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?
Except that this is false. The Dutch settled in South Africa in 1652, where natives were exclusively black, and since that time they have remained white. Nor have people living in North America begun to look like native indians even though they have been in America since 1565.
If you assume that parents will get darker (tanned) in a hot sunny country, and then pass this trait on to their offspring, then what you are talking about here is a concept called Lamarckism where acquired traits could be passed from parent to offspring. Parents with skin cancer (also due to the hot sunny environment) do not pass that skin cancer on to offspring. There is no communication from cells in the body to the DNA in the egg and sperm cells, and without this communication there can be no way for such changes to be incorporated into the hereditary information passed from parent to offspring.
The other possibility is that the environment directs mutations to the hereditary DNA, and this too is not possible for the same reason: there is no mechanism.
Both these concepts were tried and they were falsified.
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.
The attitudes of people is irrelevant. The evidence of scientific studies and investigations are what show which ideas are valid and invalid. Yes it can be checked with experimentation -- that is how science operates, that is how evolution operates.
In fact it is the results of many such studies that have invalidated false concepts like Lamarckism and directed evolution, it is the result of such studies that show the hereditary information is carried in DNA, that random mutations to DNA cause changes in hereditary traits.
Enjoy

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by IamJoseph, posted 11-13-2007 7:58 AM IamJoseph has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 300 of 305 (434079)
11-14-2007 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill
04-09-2007 8:42 PM


Summary: Evolution IS Science.
The thesis of the OP is that evolution is not science, yet this has not been demonstrated.
"Science is based on repeated Observation"
this simple statement is ignored by many scientists who accept evolution.
This statement is based on the absolute or willful ignorance of the many repeated studies done in evolution, both in the field and in the lab. Fossil evidence is also repeatedly observed and evaluated by many different scientists. Thus the above statement is false.
It is also seems to be based on a bit of misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what science really is.
The basic elements of ALL science are:
  1. Observations
  2. Form theory to explain the observations
  3. Make prediction based on the theory
  4. Test the prediction
  5. Evaluate the validity of the theory
  6. Add observations from tests and later studies
  7. Refine theory as necessary, if invalid formulate a new one
  8. Go to step 3.
  9. Theory proven as fact.
It's an endless do-loop that refines our understanding of the reality by removing false concepts, but never reaches step 9.
Science limits its focus on the present.
This is another absolutely false assertion, as then there would be no physics, and no astronomy, to mention just a few.
"Facts" declared about what allegedly happened billions of years ago are not really facts, but strongly-advocated faith points.
Theories about what happened billions of years ago are theories, based on the evidence that was left. This evidence, being billions of years old though involves actual facts of what happened billions of years ago.
There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted.
And yet those people who proclaim this repeatedly also fail repeatedly to make alternative interpretations that deal with all the evidence. Picking what evidence to use and ignoring contradictory evidence is NOT an alternative explanation, it is denial.
The FACT is that evolution is a science -- it is based on observation, it uses a theory to make predictions, and it tests those predictions against reality. So far it has not been invalidated.
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This has been observed. This is fact. There are also several theories about how change occurs, how it is transmitted, and how it affects populations.
The theory of evolution can be stated as "a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time" ...
... or basically it states that the mechanisms of hereditary change we observe today are sufficient to explain all the diversity of life we see today, what is recorded in history, what is recorded in the fossil record, and what is recorded in the genetic record.
So far there are no contradictions.
To show that this is not science you need to show a lack of one of these items:
  • observations
  • theory based on observations
  • predictions based on theories
  • tests of predictions
This has not been done on this thread.
This thread has focussed more on what evolution is and isn't, along with all the creationist misrepresentations that crop up along the way, than on the actual question of meeting the criteria of being a science. The only conclusion I can reach on that is that the fact that evolution is a science is not that controversial in reality.
Creationists make the argument (gleaned from some creationist website) fail to refute the rebuttals presented that show evolution has all the elements of science, and they change the topic or go away.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by City_on_a_Hill, posted 04-09-2007 8:42 PM City_on_a_Hill has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 302 of 305 (469271)
06-04-2008 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by BanjoBlazer
06-04-2008 9:28 PM


Re: Just a Thought
Welcome to the fray, BanjoBlazer.
I heard a illustration once of how a evolutionist looks at "evidence" ...
As presented by a used car salesman selling you a load of shinola.
The question is whether you bought one truckload for a dollar or two for five dollars.
Now if you want to talk about the real thing, pull up a chair sit down, and forget everything you think you know about evolution.
Then we can start with the evidence and see if the truth jumps out at you.
Until then let me illustrate the difference between a creationist and an evolutionist:
One day a creationist and an evolutionist walked into a bar. The next day the creationist walked back into the bar, and the evolutionist ducked.
Enjoy.
ps - as you are new here, some tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
Edited by RAZD, : joke added.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by BanjoBlazer, posted 06-04-2008 9:28 PM BanjoBlazer has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 303 of 305 (469272)
06-04-2008 9:50 PM


Summary: yes virginia, evolution is science.
Science is based on evidence.
Evolution is based on evidence.
Science proposes a theory that explains the evidence.
Evolution proposes a theory that explains the evidence.
Science tests that theory to see if it holds up.
Evolution tests the theory to see if it holds up.
Science concepts that are invalidated are discarded.
Evolutionary concepts that are invalidated are discarded.
There is nothing in science that is not in evolution, ergo evolution is science.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024