Summations Only

So much is obvious. It's not really something to be proud of.Meanwhile we put him on a bank note. One of us is wrong.

You are making a weird set of arguments It's obviously pedantically inaccurate to say that nothing in biology makes sense without evolution - it's obviously a deliberate exaggeration. If you want to prevent the pedants making pointless points it's better to simply say that the ToE is biology's overarching organising concept.And of course it's possible to do biological work without reference to the ToE. Much of biology ticks away at very detailed levels without anyone having to reach for a formula derived from the ToE. It's not physics, you don't have to use and reuse E=mc2 to do your work. You don't need the ToE to work out how a cockroach's leg works or how a petal forms. But you've also been given many examples of where evolution is used first hand.You're making silly arguments of no consequence, the ToE is biology's user manual - scientists use it to know how everything fits together.It's also a very weird and very, very wrong-headed idea that a scientific concept needs to be practically useful to be useful. Knowledge of how thing work is intrinsically worthwhile. And in any case, the ToE is very obviously very useful - it's one of the most important discoveries mankind has every made about the natural world.The objection to this particular collection of knowledge by a few is not based on any assessment of its worth, it is ONLY because it contradicts a particular ancient mythology. You have forgotten that your belief system had it that everything we see on earth was put here by god as we see it. It's only in the last 300 years that you creationists have been backtracking and fighting rearguard actions with Kinds and microevolution and allowing orgnisms to change over time. Religious ideas are evolving and reforming - they have to if they are to survive at all. It's only the few that can't adapt to the new knowledge environment that are becoming extinct. And this is just an outright falsehood.

Careful, you delusion is showing...Reminds me of the Monty Python sketch, 'what have the Romans ever done for us?' The arguments of the ignorant.

quote:

---

It just so happens that the parts they find objectionable and reject are the parts that are useless to science in any practical sense. That's my point - by rejecting Darwinism, science is none the poorer.
  —Dredge

---

You have been shown how the ToE is useful to science, simply repeating that it isn't to creationist loonies isn't going to change that.

quote:

---

Gee, I wonder why not? - could it have something to with the fact that it's pointless wasting time on a theory that's perfectly useless?

---

We don't study Darwin's work because it's 150 years old. It's history. He discovered the ideas that are now fundamental to all biology, but his book is not the bible - I'm prepared to bet that less than 1 in a thousand biologists have even read it. They're too busy reading modern stuff.

quote:

---

Really? In that case, please answer me this: Why is a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - dogmatically preached at virtually every level of education in the industrialised world?

---

That would be because the ToE is fundamental to all biology. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be taught would it? Perhaps your premise is wrong?

quote:

---

Another question: Why are people who oppose a scientifically useless theory - namely, Darwin's theory of Common Descent - persecuted and ridiculed in academic and intellectual circles for doing so?

---

There's nothing like leading with your chin is there? It's because people that are forced to deny proven scientific facts for purely religious reasons are worthy of riddicule.

quote:

---

It seems to me that, contrary to your claim, creationists aren't the only ones obsessed with Darwin. Evidently, the entire scientific community is obessed with Darwin. What could account for this, do you think?

---

It seems to me that you have no knowledge of the scientific community. Darwin is just interesting history. It's probably fair to say that the ToE is barely mentioned outside teaching - evolution as a process is embedded in the biological regime - it's the organising principle behind all their work, but like oxygen is to breathing, it's simply taken for granted.Only a few weirdo religious fanatics are obsessed by it. And only because it interferes with their children's story book.

Well finally.It's always puzzled me why creationist don't simply apply magic all the way through the process. Why spend so much time attempting to explain the factual impossibilities of the bible when you can just say 'goddidit'? At that point we'd all shut up - there's nothing we can say about magic.Why do you guys do it?

The truth about the 'Flood' is that there has never been one. That's the reason you'll never know how it happened.But again, why try to create impossible scenarios for how the flood story worked in real life when you can simply invoke magic?

There must be something in that, and it's quite a modern thing. The idea that belief needs to be proven objectively would be alien to an 18th century Christian. It smacks of a real deep centred insecurity.

You have this arse-about-face.Science has accepted the fact of evolution for over a century. There is overwhelming evidence for it and there is no other competing theory. Therefore when a feature like the giraffe's neck is seen the assumption is that the process of evolution produced it.That's generally the end of it because the case is closed for 'proofs' of evolution - there's no money to be wasted in continuing to prove something already proven. But during their day-to-day useless work sometimes scientists discover things that adds to its confirmation. One such pice of evidence is the the giraffe's laryngeal nerve. (To further demonstrate how useless the theory of evolution is, without it we wouldn't have a clue why this nerve is so stupidly built. With it, we know.)

quote:

---

This video, including comments by Richard Dawkins, documents a necropsy (an autopsy on an animal other than a human) carried out in a classroom on a giraffe. In this video, we follow the pathway of the recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve, an important nerve that is a branch of the Vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve). The recurrent (inferior) laryngeal nerve, which branches off the Vagus nerve at the base of the brain, travels down the neck, around the arteries of the heart and travels back up the neck to ennervate the larynx, or voice box, thereby providing motor function. The purpose of doing this exercise is to show that there is no so-called intelligent designer because the pathway of this nerve is completely illogical unless, of course, you accept that evolution is the reason for this nerve’s convoluted pathway through the body.

---

http://scienceblogs.com/...22/the-laryngeal-nerve-of-the-gir

Your posts have reduced to ridiculous one line bumper stickers. It looks like you have nothing left to say. Why are you here?

That's too big for a bumper sticker. Needs work.

What happens when someone finds something in science wrong is that they publish their findings. In this case - as with your other work across multiple disciplines - you're at the Nobel Prize level.Why don't you pick your best subject and change the world?Once you've knocked off geology, you should find it easy to crack evolution. You'd be more famous than Darwin, Newton and Einstein. Your name would go down the ages. (Well obviously not very far, given that you reckon the world ends next week - or is it the week after?)

It's impossible to be recognised in science unless you do some. How come none of these proofs have ever appeared in a reputable journal?

Double postEdited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I don't know what to do about this. Are you being serious?

You seriously think that people talking to each other on an internet forum are doing science? This would explain a lot.