Evolution?

[Blake]

Blake you are stirring up a hornet's nest of unimaginably epic magnitude by calling out phenomanul.
This dude will go on for thirty pages about how the theory is not complete therefore god exists. And how he dropped knowledge on park rangers in the grand canyon about rock formation and shit.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136687&highlight=evolution

we didn't quite go for 30 pages, but the thread itself went 28.

[Blake]

If this is the Blake I know (the one who used to discuss Rasho vs Nazr), then 30 pages would be a piece of cake for him. :lol

yup matias(?).

just fyi, for what it's worth, when I see "MB" I think mombear and I get a shiver down my spine.

I can do 30 pages of ownage before breakfast. I also miss watching coyotefan go nuclear every time I would say Nazr>Rasho. That was freakin awesome stuff.

[spursncowboys]

Evolution is not a belief. Do we all have to believe in mathematics now, too?

Evolution is real, its measurable, its documented.

The only doubt assigned to evolution is the process of how all life on earth got where it is today. That we humans have a common ancestor with other primates, etc.

Its a bold theory, and so far, the only one supported with evidence, but no conclusion.
Evolution isn't real or measurable. You are thinking of adaptation.

[Blake]

Evolution isn't real or measurable. You are thinking of adaptation.

in your opinion, how did humans come to be?

[MB20]

yup matias(?).

just fyi, for what it's worth, when I see "MB" I think mombear and I get a shiver down my spine.

I can do 30 pages of ownage before breakfast. I also miss watching coyotefan go nuclear every time I would say Nazr>Rasho. That was freakin awesome stuff.

Yup. Matias here. :toast
Those coyotefan vs blake fights were epìc. :lol

[The Power Hour.]

GBwXFBBXcS0

[Phenomanul]

Are you suggesting it disconfirms it? Or do you have a better theory?

I'm flat out stating that evidence for micro-evoluionary processes don't prove the validity of macro-evolution....

Not now... Not ever...

The existence of genetic recombinations and highly rare beneficial point mutations doesn't allow anyone to assume that our biological history was driven by this process. For that assumption to hold water you would need quantifiable proof of the critical genetic shifts that created the major taxonomic branches... But none of that exists...

I don't care that you still believe in Macro-Evolution. I have a problem with you and others arguing that these assumptions are what constitute the 'hard science' behind Macro-Evolution.



I don't care what you call it, really. Do you think the theory of electro-magnetism isn't "hard science?" There's a lot we don't know there, too -- and yet the theory we have is useful, and grows more complete by the day.

Actually, the theory of electromagnetism is pretty sound... it is fully testable, quantifiable, and fully subjectable to any number of experiments against any number of variables. Extremely reliable empirical equations have been developed by the data (Maxwell, Faraday equations... etc...).

The impact of subatomic physics on the bearing of how those equations work (in a practical sense) is minimal, only the illusive equation for earth's electromagnetic dynamo is yet to be derrived... even then... to label electromagnetism as anything but 'hard-science' for the sake of your analogy would be rather disingenuous...



LOL @ wanting to repeat "macro-evolution" in order to prove it.
Are you waving your 'magic time' wand? LOL at trying to hide hole-riddled assumptions behind the pretense of billions of 'data-erasing' years... Where's the scientific data for all (or any) of the connections you blindly take as valid?? Those standards hardly qualify as 'hard-science' and you know it.



You do realize we don't need the genomes of missing links in order to help chart the evolution of species. That WAS my point. PS, a little hint: science at the theoretical level IS observational. And incomplete. And fallible. But as things stand, there is no better model, and there is no reason not to assume your "macro-evolution" took place in a different way than bacterial evolution does. That is why we don't see eye-to-eye....

Oddly enough, when Christian scientists draw conclusions from observations the critics are quick to label that dynamic as "pseudoscience"... When the scientific community uses a fossilized hip bone as the sole basis for defining the transition from one genus to another, such events largely pass by unnoticed... A mountain-sized stack of such assumptions does not make the macro-evolutionary claim any more valid. Just like all the politicians and 'scientists' mounting heaps and heaps of false assumptions in support of anthropomorphic climate change doesn't make their claim any more true.



Err... why? If they evolved from, say, bacteria, and we did, too -- it would follow that we share genetic information.
A plausible conclusion is not always the correct one.

But you missed my point... We have genetic samples from dinosaur bones (not even fully fossilized) that are purported to be over 70 million years old. Genetic decay cannot be suppressed for that extent of time... what gives?

For that matter we have an entire dead forest located just 745 miles from the north pole (on a Canadian island), where no such forest should exist. Ancient trees that stood over 150 ft tall... and can still be chopped up to firewood (i.e. it is not petrified :wow). Radioactive dating reveals them to be over millions of years old... how is that even possible?



So a supposition from over a century ago was disproven, therefore baby goes with bathwater and the theory is now implausible?
That's not what I said.

You make it sound like my objections to Macro-Evolution rely solely on that incongruency... My objections are based on a heap of such incongruncies.... Of course it's pretty funny to hear scientists now try and rationalize the coelacanth's choice habitat by suggesting that the ability to walk began under water... Oddly enough, all of the biological systems, and structural differences that would be required to make that jump become less attenable the moment you assume that... (the changes to the fish's lungs, changes to their eyes, the shifts to sturdier endoskeletal structures, and the enlargement of their heart, among other changes would have to occur almost simultaneously...)




Have I said you make farcically unrealistic demands of science already?

Anyway, you believe as you will -- I've got to get back to work.
We have different standards apparently.

[Blake]

I'm flat out stating that evidence for micro-evoluionary processes don't prove the validity of macro-evolution....

Not now... Not ever...

The existence of genetic recombinations and highly rare beneficial point mutations doesn't allow anyone to assume that our biological history was driven by this process. For that assumption to hold water you would need quantifiable proof of the critical genetic shifts that created the major taxonomic branches... But none of that exists...



so what do you think the correct theory of how humans arrived is and how exactly have you validated your theory?

[Blake]

GBwXFBBXcS0

great video of super creationist Kent Hovind getting owned, even if he doesn't realize it himself.

btw,


Since November 2006 Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

great guy

[tlongII]

But you missed my point... We have genetic samples from dinosaur bones (not even fully fossilized) that are purported to be over 70 million years old. Genetic decay cannot be suppressed for that extent of time... what gives?

For that matter we have an entire dead forest located just 745 miles from the north pole (on a Canadian island), where no such forest should exist. Ancient trees over 150 ft tall... that can still be chopped up to firewood (i.e. it is not petrified :wow). Radioactive dating reveals them to be over millions of years old... how is that even possible?




You might want to give your sources on this stuff because I believe you're talking out of your ass now. Either that or the source is talking out of its ass.

[MiamiHeat]

I think it's funny how people blindly accept a FAITH argument like evolution, but dismiss the Lord Almighty God.

[Blake]

I think it's funny how people blindly accept a FAITH argument like evolution, but dismiss the Lord Almighty God.

I think it's funny how you think you are funny

[boutons_deux]

"dismiss the Lord Almighty God"

straw man.

but let's see your proof, hard evidence, not some Augustinian word games, that He exists?

[Phenomanul]

You might want to give your sources on this stuff because I believe you're talking out of your ass now. Either that or the source is talking out of its ass.

Ask blake to google that for you... he's good at it.

[Stringer_Bell]

As far as I know remains or evidence of this common ancestor have yet to be found.

Now I'll let the more knowledgeable poster correct me.

I think you're referring to the "missing link." I think it's fucking hilarious we have found all these random and rare ass fossils, but we can't even find the damn thing we came from. Suspicious if you ask me!

Maybe they don't want us to know we evolved from some super-intelligent kind of jellyfish. Also, dinosaurs did not exist (source: Holy Bible).

[tlongII]

Ask blake to google that for you... he's good at it.

I stand corrected. They did discover soft tissue in a 70 million year old fossil. Amazing!

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/25/science/sci-tyranno25

[DarkReign]

These threads are still good for a laugh.

Only in America does this conversation even have the slightest relevance. While the rest of the world charges forward.

[I. Hustle]

These threads are still good for a laugh.

Only in America does this conversation even have the slightest relevance. While the rest of the world charges forward.

Now that is funny. I think it's hilarious how people, who live here, always try to put America down and believe that other countries are far more advanced. C'mon dude, it's the same arguments EVERYWHERE.

[Blake]

But you missed my point... We have genetic samples from dinosaur bones (not even fully fossilized) that are purported to be over 70 million years old. Genetic decay cannot be suppressed for that extent of time... what gives?

What gives is that the theories of decay and fossilization are changing due to these discoveries.......just like theories of evolution change.

[Blake]

Ask blake to google that for you... he's good at it.

Thanks, too bad you suck at it.

What is your theory of our origins and how exactly have you validated that theory?

[Blake]

Now that is funny. I think it's hilarious how people, who live here, always try to put America down and believe that other countries are far more advanced. C'mon dude, it's the same arguments EVERYWHERE.

In most civilized countries, not so much compared to the US.

Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds (2006)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060810-evolution_big.jpg


The only country included in the study where adults were more likely than Americans to reject evolution was Turkey.


I'm good at googling. Just ask pheno.

[DarkReign]

Now that is funny. I think it's hilarious how people, who live here, always try to put America down and believe that other countries are far more advanced. C'mon dude, it's the same arguments EVERYWHERE.

Incorrect, good sir.

America is the only 1st world country where its inhabitants are still arguing the merits of evolution. Everyone else moved on 20 years ago.

Its because most 1st world countries are secular nations, whereas we are not. We are the last 1st world country that still clings to its Bible.

Is that a good or bad thing? I dont know.

What I do know is that state legislatures in certain areas of the country mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" on public funds in a direct attack on evolutionary teaching. Nevermind one is steeped in science and the other in faith.

So yes, I.Hustle, when it comes to the education of their youth and the advancement of their society, quite sadly, the world at large does a FAR better job at it then mighty America. America's universities, otoh, are the best in the world. But what do Americans say about our universities? "Bunch of liberal indoctrination!"

Every measurable test of education, America lags behind the rest of the world by a large margin. Especially in math and science. The Japanese, Chinese, Germans, Indians and even those damn Canadians are mopping the friggin floor with us.

Korea is the world leader in electronic manufacture, France is the site of the LHC, Europe is the world leader in nuclear technology, India churns out more PhDs than any other country in the world and Japan is the leader of bio-chemistry.

Hell, Europe is making gains on the US in astronomy and astrophysics, too. If they ever get the Euro Space Agency up to snuff, when they start putting new and better telescopes of every kind into orbit like we did, theyre going to blow us away there, too.

I am not attributing all this to religion vs evolution, but it is a huge indicator to the current state of America that we cant get past it.

You have half the country clutching to their chosen invisible man inthe sky and the other who just doesnt think that aspect of life is very important to the tacit world and our place in it.

So long as we have a Federal Education system with standardized curriculum (which is a huge mistake, btw), and this system is designed to the lowest common denominators amongst a populace as diverse as ours, with diverse values and diverse priorities, we will always lag behind. I mean, it doesnt get anymore ridiculous than "intelligent design" as required learning for a handful of unfortunate residents in certain states.

Name me one other first world country with this issue at the forefront of all education. Iran, Saudi Arabia, et all are not first world countries...theyre theocracies/monarchies/dictatorships.

I wonder, and I really dont know, is South America like this on the issue? I realize theyre not first world, but for the sake of argument...a heavily Catholic continent like SA might better indicate where we are as a country.

So, to be very clear IH, America is the worst country in the 1st world at educating its youth. Yes, almost the entire relevant world does it shit-tons better than us. IMO, its because as a country with our diversity of priority, we get stuck arguing non-scientific entities like ID out of some ancient compulsion to our faith.

And so long as we have a federal system in place, this tragedy will never cease.

I dont care if Bubba Jones, MiamiHeat, Phen and Spursncowboys want to believe evolution isnt true while offering no scientific alternative to replace it...that is their business.

But get them the fuck away from the kids of this country, filling their heads with long forgotten relics of faith. These kids have to compete with the rest of the world and the world has long moved on from this ridiculous topic.

This is why I only derive entertainment from these threads, because it amuses that a country as free, diverse and rich as ours that there would be this much discourse over the merits of science and its place in the echelon of life.

I guess being free, diverse and rich doesnt instantly cure ignorance and superstition.

Its astounding and amusing.

[DarkReign]

I completely missed Blake's graph.

[DarkReign]

Well, we beat Turkey, goddamnit!

USA! USA! USA!

Fucking morons.

[Phenomanul]

What gives is that the theories of decay and fossilization are changing due to these discoveries.......just like theories of evolution change.

But not the accepted age of when dinosaurs were believed to have died out. Got it.

The existence of soft tissues and proteins within bones of anything considered older than 50,000 years isn't convenient to the "established" viewpoint. It is amazing for that very reason!

You do realize how long a span 70 million years covers? Recorded earth history doesn't even go back an iota's measure of that span... 70,000,000 years (25,578,000,000 days :wow)... You're claiming to tell me that the effects of entropy on a system far removed from absolute zero temperatures can be glossed over simply by stating that [science] is "changing the theories of decay"... You do realize that this is why fossilization occurs in the first place, right? Because most organic bonds are covalent and can't overcome extended periods of time without complete degradation... that's why our own proteins and genetic compounds are constantly being replenished by our bodies, that's why our cells have limited life-spans... that's why even the highly stable cellulose polymers in most plants will petrify over time... That's why much of the degradative products from dead biomass was converted into petroleum over the course of the years (in the bowels of the earth)...

Who's being deceived here??

But hey... we'll wait to see what creative scheme your athiest buddies can come up with to keep that wool's cloth over your eyes... I'm sure you'll accept anything.

This is as big as the "Dead Sea Scrolls" was to addressing the naysayers accusations about the alleged fidelity loss that was accrued from years and years of biblical text propagation. The Dead Sea Scrolls (from 200 B.C.) read almost identically to texts written in 1000 A.D. (the oldest scripts from the Hebrew Canon in existence at the time the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered).

You just haven't realized how big this discovery is yet...

[Phenomanul]

I dont care if Bubba Jones, MiamiHeat, Phen and Spursncowboys want to believe evolution isnt true while offering no scientific alternative to replace it...that is their business.

But get them the fuck away from the kids of this country, filling their heads with long forgotten relics of faith. These kids have to compete with the rest of the world and the world has long moved on from this ridiculous topic.



And yet I would still kick the living crap out of all those academic aptitude tests...

You act like Faith is a societal crutch...

I guess those same 'secularist' countries are so superior to the U.S. when it comes to making a difference... No nation matches the U.S. when it comes to charitable giving... The U.S. (thus far) has donated more than 4 times the amount of aid than the entire European continent to the Haiti relief effort. The same could be said during the tsunamis from a couple of years ago... I certainly don't remember the Europeans sending much aid to New Orleans after Katrina...

Also, if the brightest students weren't from the U.S. other countries would have far more advanced technologies than we do... Fact is, no one rivals the technologies available to our armed forces. That's not from foreign development.

The problem in this nation is that many parents just don't give a darn about their children's education. That has nothing to do with whether or not this nation believes in GOD.

[Phenomanul]

Thanks, too bad you suck at it.

What is your theory of our origins and how exactly have you validated that theory?

Awwww... did I strike a nerve?

I guess the news of these discoveries popped into my brain while I was sleeping....

Fact of the matter Blake is that I do my own thinking... I don't blindly accept everything that is published. Do so at your own peril Mr. "we're changing the theories of decay - [no big deal]"....

[Phenomanul]

In most civilized countries, not so much compared to the US.

Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds (2006)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060810-evolution_big.jpg


I'm good at googling. Just ask pheno.

Hey... we're the perfect Napoleon bar...

As I explained to DR... this breakdown, and any inference to our progress as a nation is an ad hominem reach.

[DarkReign]

And yet I would still kick the living crap out of all those academic aptitude tests...

Seeing as youre keen to point out ad hominem attacks, I am sure you can find fault in this above statement.

Youre, by far, the exception to the rule. Americans, by and large, are ignorant.


You act like Faith is a societal crutch...

Not a crutch at all, just completely irrelevant to just about everything tangible.


I guess those same 'secularist' countries are so superior to the U.S. when it comes to making a difference... No nation matches the U.S. when it comes to charitable giving... The U.S. (thus far) has donated more than 4 times the amount of aid than the entire European continent to the Haiti relief effort. The same could be said during the tsunamis from a couple of years ago... I certainly don't remember the Europeans sending much aid to New Orleans after Katrina...

So, since we are the richest nation in the world and this tragedy happened in our "sphere of influence", this proves....what, exactly?

Being rich doesnt buy class. Ask any blue-blood that. America is a walking, talking example of being rich doesnt buy an education...it merely hides your lack of it.


Also, if the brightest students weren't from the U.S. other countries would have far more advanced technologies than we do... Fact is, no one rivals the technologies available to our armed forces. That's not from foreign development.

Seeing as you can add the military spending of the entire world and it still wouldnt equal that of the US, this isnt really saying much.

As Americans, yes, our warfare technology supersedes everyone else. So we're better at killing other humans en masse with less than educated soldiers. Whoopety-doo.

Moreover, as an American, I dont take great pride in our military spending. I can think of far better things to do with our money than foreign wars, death and occupation, but thats just me.


The problem in this nation is that many parents just don't give a darn about their children's education. That has nothing to do with whether or not this nation believes in GOD.

Not going to argue. But, IMO, the reason American parents dont care is because they dont have to. America, up until some short time ago, never competed with anyone for anything (ultimately speaking).

Now that we are in direct competition with growing nations (China, India, the EU), its clear we're not equipped to do so in any tangible area besides our inherent advantage of geography, legacy and infrastructure.

Oh, and our military. Now that I think about it, America's military is a direct compensation for our lack of education. Without a "big stick", the other monkeys would outsmart us, they know it, we know it and more importantly our government knows it.

Thus, our military. Little reminders to the rest of the world that we can, still and will fuck you up.

As a nation, IMO, we dont have time to argue this mundane bullshit. The world is quite literally, passing us by in terms of applicable science education and our dumbasses squabble over Bible accuracy and science demonism.

Again, amusing to say the least. Like Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burned.

[DarkReign]

As I explained to DR... this breakdown, and any inference to our progress as a nation is an ad hominem reach.

It would be.

But then you could use comparison data of relevant knowledge of math and science of every listed country and compare.

Correlation certainly wouldnt indicate causation, and I am not arguing that at all, but it would certainly amuse, wouldnt it?

The smartest nations, I am sure, treat evolution as science.

The dumbest by any measure, do not teach evolution at all, or question its merits.

Does it make the faithful proud that the USA is grouped in with theocracies, monarchies and dictatorships when the question of education is asked?

I cant see how it does. Unless holding the country back for the sake of superstition is a goal.

[I. Hustle]

Incorrect, good sir.

America is the only 1st world country where blah blah blah. Everyone else moved on 20 years ago.

Its because most 1st world blah blah blah not. We are the last 1st world country blah blah blah its Bible.

Is that a good or bad thing? I dont know.

What I do know is blah blah blah in faith.

So yes, I.Hustle, when blah blah blah "Bunch of liberal indoctrination!"

Every... damn Canadians are... friggin...us.

Korea is blah blah blahin the world and Japan is the leader of bio-chemistry.

Hell, blah blah blahEuro Space Agency blah blah blah, too.

I am not attributing all this to religion vs evolution, but it is a huge indicator to the current state of America that we cant get past it.

You have half the country clutching to their chosen invisible man inthe sky and the other who just doesnt think that aspect of life is very important to the tacit world and our place in it.

So long as we have a Federal Education blah blah blah states.

Name me one blah blah blah Saudi Arabia, blah blah blah dictatorships.

I wonder, blah blah blah for the sake of blah blah blah SA blah blah blahwhere we are.

So, to be very clear IH, America blah blah blah youth blah blah blah shit-tons blah blah blah of blah blah blah non-scientific entities

And so long as we have a federal system in place, this tragedy will never cease.

I dont care if Bubba Jones, MiamiHeat, Phen and Spursncowboys blah blah blah..that is their business.

But blah blah blah fuck blah blah blah the kids of this country, filling their blah blah blah relics. These kids have blah blah blah long moved on from this ridiculous topic.

This is why I only derive entertainment from blah blah blah the echelon of life.

blah blah blah

Its astounding and amusing.


That was too much reading. Well not really but I know it was arguing against me so that is what made it too much. Here is my rebuttal. A pie chart that supports my theories.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_O_jAni-AQ1c/SOXYsOpM0tI/AAAAAAAAAH8/SO9RWN5Tktw/s400/accurate-pie-chart.jpg

[z0sa]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/060810-evolution_big.jpg

Thanks for pointing out this is not an American-only issue, contrary to your (and others') arguments.

Kinda makes you wonder: why do literally hundreds of millions of people in the universe's most civilized human countries choose to completely ignore and even deny a "fact", as some call it?

DarkReign, since these and other countries "moved past this 20 years ago" since it is a 'fact', why are there still considerable amounts of the populations that are unsure? And why are there still considerable amounts that completely deny it?

[Phenomanul]

Seeing as youre keen to point out ad hominem attacks, I am sure you can find fault in this above statement.

Youre, by far, the exception to the rule. Americans, by and large, are ignorant.


Fair enough...



Not a crutch at all, just completely irrelevant to just about everything tangible.

So, since we are the richest nation in the world and this tragedy happened in our "sphere of influence", this proves....what, exactly?

The Tsunamis occurred in our sphere of influence...??? I'm sure the Chinese cooperated there.... yeah.



Being rich doesnt buy class. Ask any blue-blood that. America is a walking, talking example of being rich doesnt buy an education...it merely hides your lack of it.

While I agree with your statement... it's a tangential one...

America's wealth was accrued because we were blessed as a nation. Moreso after slavery was abolished.




Seeing as you can add the military spending of the entire world and it still wouldnt equal that of the US, this isnt really saying much.

As Americans, yes, our warfare technology supersedes everyone else. So we're better at killing other humans en masse with less than educated soldiers. Whoopety-doo.

Moreover, as an American, I dont take great pride in our military spending. I can think of far better things to do with our money than foreign wars, death and occupation, but thats just me.

Another misplaced assumption. America values its "way of life" and feels compeled to defend herself.

I'm simply stating that the technologies that U.S. military possesses far out-class anything available in the public sector. Development of advanced technologies is the quintessential indicator of a nation's place amongst its peers when it comes to scientific progress. OBVIOUSLY, I wish those technologies were more frequently employed towards the advancement of our quality of life instead of just defense. But that should go without saying... It's sad that you actually made me point that out, as if I find some masochistic joy in the death of those who die at the hands of our country's war machine.



Not going to argue. But, IMO, the reason American parents dont care is because they dont have to. America, up until some short time ago, never competed with anyone for anything (ultimately speaking).

Now that we are in direct competition with growing nations (China, India, the EU), its clear we're not equipped to do so in any tangible area besides our inherent advantage of geography, legacy and infrastructure.

There are many reasons why american students lag behind the rest of the 'first world' academically. Belief in GOD is not even remotely chief among those reasons...



Oh, and our military. Now that I think about it, America's military is a direct compensation for our lack of education. Without a "big stick", the other monkeys would outsmart us, they know it, we know it and more importantly our government knows it.

Thus, our military. Little reminders to the rest of the world that we can, still and will fuck you up.

That's a way of seeing things... probably one that does factor into the big picture...

Ultimately however, America wields that 'big stick' because we've learned from history and seen that nations who 'banished' GOD from their societies, and persecuted the church, became dictatorships hell-bent on power and destruction.

See Nazi Germany, Imperialistic Japan, the rise of power by Stalin in Communist Russia [later Soviet Union], the rise of power by Mao Tao in Communist China... etc... etc...

I hope your memory hasn't been that short...

Our western freedoms are a direct result from having established a system of government which values the 'free-will' that GOD Himself gave us. From valuing life. That we take those freedoms for granted and have become overwhelmed with a sense of entitlement is another story altogether (one that plays more into our 'bad' education than any other reason - our students simply don't care). Conceptually however, our view of GOD and His role in our lives and government are radically different from the Islamic Theocracies you compare us to... those theocracies are set-up to behave more like the former set of secularist dictatorships I mentioned in the previous list...



As a nation, IMO, we dont have time to argue this mundane bullshit. The world is quite literally, passing us by in terms of applicable science education and our dumbasses squabble over Bible accuracy and science demonism.

Again, amusing to say the least. Like Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burned.



The sad part is that Americans such as yourself devalue the importance of having lived under a government who's morality was largely based on biblical principles... now that this is falling apart... well, you do the math...

[Phenomanul]

It would be.

But then you could use comparison data of relevant knowledge of math and science of every listed country and compare.

Correlation certainly wouldnt indicate causation, and I am not arguing that at all, but it would certainly amuse, wouldnt it?

The smartest nations, I am sure, treat evolution as science.

The dumbest by any measure, do not teach evolution at all, or question its merits.

Does it make the faithful proud that the USA is grouped in with theocracies, monarchies and dictatorships when the question of education is asked?

I cant see how it does. Unless holding the country back for the sake of superstition is a goal.

Come to think of it... It's rather presumptuous to suggest that belief in evolution is what determines whether a nation is progressive or not. Who made that belief the ultimate criteria?

[Blake]

But not the accepted age of when dinosaurs were believed to have died out. Got it.

dinosuars are said to have died out about 65 million years ago.

This dinosaur was said to have lived 70 million years ago.

You obviously have problems with simple math and fail at using google. Got it.


The existence of soft tissues and proteins within bones of anything considered older than 50,000 years isn't convenient to the "established" viewpoint. It is amazing for that very reason!

You do realize how long a span 70 million years covers? Recorded earth history doesn't even go back an iota's measure of that span... 70,000,000 years (25,578,000,000 days :wow)... You're claiming to tell me that the effects of entropy on a system far removed from absolute zero temperatures can be glossed over simply by stating that [science] is "changing the theories of decay"... You do realize that this is why fossilization occurs in the first place, right? Because most organic bonds are covalent and can't overcome extended periods of time without complete degradation... that's why our own proteins and genetic compounds are constantly being replenished by our bodies, that's why our cells have limited life-spans... that's why even the highly stable cellulose polymers in most plants will petrify over time... That's why much of the degradative products from dead biomass was converted into petroleum over the course of the years (in the bowels of the earth)...

Who's being deceived here??

But hey... we'll wait to see what creative scheme your athiest buddies can come up with to keep that wool's cloth over your eyes... I'm sure you'll accept anything.

This is as big as the "Dead Sea Scrolls" was to addressing the naysayers accusations about the alleged fidelity loss that was accrued from years and years of biblical text propagation. The Dead Sea Scrolls (from 200 B.C.) read almost identically to texts written in 1000 A.D. (the oldest scripts from the Hebrew Canon in existence at the time the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered).

You just haven't realized how big this discovery is yet...

"established" viewpoints change all the time.

but hey... we'll wait to see in what creative new ways you can call me "godless" and how I hang out with my atheist buddies.....and I'm sure you'll continue to accept anything the Old Testament tells you.

[z0sa]

http://www.creation.or.kr/

Possibly the world's most prominent and sizable creationist association is based in Korea, founded by an award winning (in America from NASA) Korean scientist and industrialist.

This is nowhere near being an "American only" issue. Not only that, the hundreds of creationist scientists in the KACR and ICR are proof positive that there are extremely intelligent and successful creationists.

[Phenomanul]

dinosuars are said to have died out about 65 million years ago.

This dinosaur was said to have lived 70 million years ago.

You obviously have problems with simple math. Got it.

The concept still eludes you... Got it.

"When dinosaurs lived...."




"established" viewpoints change all the time.

but hey... we'll wait to see in what creative new ways you can call me "godless" and how I hang out with my atheist buddies.....and I'm sure you'll continue to accept anything the Old Testament tells you.

Why does being called godless bother you so much?

Your disbelief is your religion. Don't live in denial about it.

[Blake]

Awwww... did I strike a nerve?

I guess the news of these discoveries popped into my brain while I was sleeping....

Fact of the matter Blake is that I do my own thinking... I don't blindly accept everything that is published. Do so at your own peril Mr. "we're changing the theories of decay - [no big deal]"....

Awwww.... no I'm just pointing out you're an idiot that would talk out of his ass most of the time instead of source his information.

If anyone accepts anything you say over anything that has actually been published, they do so at their own peril.

[Blake]

Thanks for pointing out this is not an American-only issue, contrary to your (and others') arguments.

What I pointed out is that this a much bigger deal to Americans than it is to most everyone else in the world not named Turkey.

You're welcome.

[Blake]

The concept still eludes you... Got it.

"When dinosaurs lived...."

simple math and the ability to google still elude you. Got it.


Why does being called godless bother you so much?

Your disbelief is your religion. Don't live in denial about it.

Why are you assuming I am a godless athiest? It's why anyone that listens to you does so at their own peril.

3rd time, what is your theory on how we arrived and how have you validated that theory?

[z0sa]

this a much bigger deal to Americans than it is to most everyone else in the world

The graph does not portray "how much bigger a deal" the issue is. That's speculation, and only your opinion. That assertion is not represented by any information from the graph.

Secondly, many countries have a similar (and still considerable) amount of the population unsure compared with America. That's added the amount of those that completely deny it. Why? If it were somehow a clean cut fact in these countries but not here, like you argue, there would be little unsure population.

[z0sa]

3rd time, what is your theory on how we arrived and how have you validated that theory?

This is completely separate from the debate. Whether or not his theory is correct has nothing to do with evolution's validity.

[Blake]

The graph does not portray "how much bigger a deal" the issue is. That's speculation, and only your opinion. That assertion is not represented by any information from the graph.

On it's own, you are correct, the graph does not portray that.

It just helps to affirm that assertation that most of us except you understand to be true.


Secondly, many countries have a similar (and still considerable) amount of the population unsure compared with America. That's added the amount of those that completely deny it. Why? If it were somehow a clean cut fact in these countries but not here, like you argue, there would be little unsure population.

Name some countries with a similar amount of the population that flat out don't believe the theory of evolution.

[Blake]

This is completely separate from the debate. Whether or not his theory is correct has nothing to do with evolution's validity.

Are you pheno? If so, then you may answer the question.

If not, beat it.

....or feel free to say "hi, my name is z0sa, this is my theory...." in which you give your theory.

[z0sa]

On it's own, you are correct, the graph does not portray that.

Nor anything like it.


It just helps to affirm that assertation that most of us except you understand to be true.

According to the graph you posted, this assertation^ is also incorrect.




Name some countries with a similar amount of the population that flat out don't believe the theory of evolution.

I've already deduced from the evidence that roughly one 3rd of the civilized world flat out denies evolution. Another 10-15% are unsure of this supposed 'fact.'

So roughly half of the civilized world does not consider evolution a fact.

Find me one Western country whose population shows such a strong disbelief for any other mainstream, scientifically acceptable and peer reviewed fact.

[Phenomanul]

Awwww.... no I'm just pointing out you're an idiot that would talk out of his ass most of the time instead of source his information.

If anyone accepts anything you say over anything that has actually been published, they do so at their own peril.

The fact that you shield your inability to think for yourself in the masses is not something you should be gloating about.

I speak out of my own volition. It's true... and I'm proud of it.

Speaking out of my arse however, as you and others constantly accuse me of, would suggest I was lying... I'm not... the last time someone accused me of 'speaking out of my arse' all he had to do was google to verify that what I was stating was true.

I'm simply explaining my viewpoint the way it makes sense to me. That you or others can't handle that... that is your problem. That you can't handle the fact that I'm well versed in the technical nuances of most of our advanced fields... that is your insecurity. That you can't accept my objections... that is just plain stubborness [each to his viewpoint].... but ultimately you're entitled to believe whatever you want. (now hurry, twist those phrases around on me... you know you want to).

What you don't understand is that evidence and data don't come with a tag stating what the possible inferences and conclusions from that data are. Our presupposed viewpoints cause us to interpret it differently. You seek for ways in which new data can throw GOD out the door. I simply see that it reflects His truths... In this case you're willing to compromise your understanding of chemical degradation and entropy so that you can look the other way when someone questions whether or not the notion that these creatures lived millions of years ago is a valid one. The same goes for the formation of stalactites and stalagmites in suburban basements (a mouse classic) as a 'slap in the face' to the notion that millions of years are required to form the structures...

So... we have proof that things can fossilize within 30-50 years... and we have evidence that fossilized bones purported to be over 70 million years old still have proteins and soft tissues inside... could it be that those bones are not as old as asserted. Unmistakably, the specimen this bone was taken from was a Tyrannosaurus rex (one of the most recognizable in the world)... there's no debate there. So something has to give.

I place my bets on the nature of entropic forces.

[z0sa]

Are you pheno? If so, then you may answer the question.

If not, beat it.

I just answered.

What are you going to do about it?


....or feel free to say "hi, my name is z0sa, this is my theory...." in which you give your theory.

That's separate from the discussion we're having. It's the basis for an ad hominem attack since you dislike him.

No matter how viciously you could tear down his theories, it would still have nothing to do with evolution.

[Phenomanul]

simple math and the ability to google still elude you. Got it.

NO what I got was that you're still eluding the obvious question surrounding that find. Don't be so disingenuous....



Why are you assuming I am a godless athiest? It's why anyone that listens to you does so at their own peril.

3rd time, what is your theory on how we arrived and how have you validated that theory?

I don't know... maybe your predisposition to go around calling others idiots and asses... instead of addressing the questions at hand. Then again I'm about to call you an ant... (keep reading to the next post :p:)

[Phenomanul]

I just answered.

What are you going to do about it?



That's separate from the discussion we're having. It's the basis for an ad hominem attack since you dislike him.

No matter how viciously you could tear down [Phenomanul's] theories, it would still have nothing to do with evolution.

Wishful thinking z0sa...

All Blake can do is go look in his talkorigins bible to see if they've developed counterpoint to the critique of these atheistically driven scientific claims... since the 70 million year old T-rex (among other such finds) or the dead artic forest aren't yet included in his index he has nothing to say... Other than stating the "theories of decay are changing" of course.... (he's probably out googling his comeback)

Debate with Blake is like talking to an ant... he can't comprehend my objections. All he can do is bite or sting me (curse me out, and call me names) because he doesn't understand me. Does that come across as pretentious? :lol At this point I don't care.

[z0sa]

I don't think he could tear your arguments down at all, at least not in any cohesive, sound manner. AFAIK, he still has yet to make such an argument.

It looks to me like he wants a clean break to a related but different discussion since it's obvious his "much bigger deal in America" position is ignorant at best.

[Phenomanul]

Now I must take my leave...

[Blake]

According to the graph you posted, this assertation^ is also incorrect.

the graph on it's own doesn't really make the assertation correct or incorrect.



I've already deduced from the evidence that roughly one 3rd of the civilized world flat out denies evolution. Another 10-15% are unsure of this supposed 'fact.'

So roughly half of the civilized world does not consider evolution a fact.

Find me one Western country whose population shows such a strong disbelief for any other mainstream, scientifically acceptable and peer reviewed fact.

half of the civilized world does not consider evolution fact? What is your source other than your ass cheeks?

what other mainstream, scientifically acceptable and peer reviewed fact shoots down the 7 day theory that western countries like us love to believe in?


Secondly, many countries have a similar (and still considerable) amount of the population unsure compared with America.

name some of these many countries.

[Blake]

The fact that you shield your inability to think for yourself in the masses is not something you should be gloating about.

I'm no scientist, but I read the research that has been done by real scientists and think for myself based on their conclusions.


I speak out of my own volition. It's true... and I'm proud of it.

You shoot down the scientific community at large yet you have not provided any of your own research. This makes you look like an idiot.

It's true... and you shouldn't be gloating or be proud of it.


Speaking out of my arse however, as you and others constantly accuse me of, would suggest I was lying... I'm not... the last time someone accused me of 'speaking out of my arse' all he had to do was google to verify that what I was stating was true.

You called me 'godless' and that I have atheist buddies. This is a lie. I don't need to google to verify that you are a liar in this case.


I'm simply explaining my viewpoint the way it makes sense to me. That you or others can't handle that... that is your problem. That you can't handle the fact that I'm well versed in the technical nuances of most of our advanced fields... that is your insecurity. That you can't accept my objections... that is just plain stubborness [each to his viewpoint].... but ultimately you're entitled to believe whatever you want. (now hurry, twist those phrases around on me... you know you want to).

What you don't understand is that evidence and data don't come with a tag stating what the possible inferences and conclusions from that data are. Our presupposed viewpoints cause us to interpret it differently. You seek for ways in which new data can throw GOD out the door. I simply see that it reflects His truths... In this case you're willing to compromise your understanding of chemical degradation and entropy so that you can look the other way when someone questions whether or not the notion that these creatures lived millions of years ago is a valid one. The same goes for the formation of stalactites and stalagmites in suburban basements (a mouse classic) as a 'slap in the face' to the notion that millions of years are required to form the structures...

So... we have proof that things can fossilize within 30-50 years... and we have evidence that fossilized bones purported to be over 70 million years old still have proteins and soft tissues inside... could it be that those bones are not as old as asserted. Unmistakably, the specimen this bone was taken from was a Tyrannosaurus rex (one of the most recognizable in the world)... there's no debate there. So something has to give.

I place my bets on the nature of entropic forces.

4th time, what is your theory on how we got here and how have you validated that theory.

I place my bets on me asking a 5th time.

[z0sa]

the graph on it's own doesn't really make the assertation correct or incorrect.

:lol The graph and this thread both show I'm not alone on this issue.

Someone is reading too fast.


half of the civilized world does not consider evolution fact? What is your source other than your ass cheeks?

The graph you just posted. Perhaps I'd be more accurate to say, roughly half of the people of the countries polled don't consider evolution a fact.



name some of these many countries.

Japan
Greece
Estonia
Romania
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Turkey

[DMX7]

It's worthless to debate people who don't believe in evolution. That's because they aren't swayed by facts or rational, which is why they don't believe in evolution in the first place.

[z0sa]

That's because they aren't swayed by facts or rational,

A hundred creationist scientists say hello

[Blake]

Wishful thinking z0sa...

All Blake can do is go look in his talkorigins bible to see if they've developed counterpoint to the critique of these atheistically driven scientific claims... since the 70 million year old T-rex (among other such finds) or the dead artic forest aren't yet included in his index he has nothing to say... Other than stating the "theories of decay are changing" of course.... (he's probably out googling his comeback)

Debate with Blake is like talking to an ant... he can't comprehend my objections. All he can do is bite or sting me (curse me out, and call me names) because he doesn't understand me. Does that come across as pretentious? :lol At this point I don't care.

I understand your objections.

what I want to know is if you are so sure macro evolution hasn't occured, then what theory do you have that is better and how you have validated that theory.

Talking with you and z0sa is like talking to idiots. It's not really as pretentious as it is the truth.

[DMX7]

A hundred creationist scientists say hello

Oxymoron

[z0sa]

Talking with you and z0sa is like talking to idiots. It's not really as pretentious as it is the truth.

You can't even understand your own graph. :lol

[z0sa]

Oxymoron

The founder of the KACR is an award winning scientist and industrialist, in case you missed that part.

[Blake]

:lol The graph and this thread both show I'm not alone on this issue.

Someone is reading too fast.

The graph you just posted. Perhaps I'd be more accurate to say, roughly half of the people of the countries polled don't consider evolution a fact.

You wouldn't be accurate. The graph shows only 6 out of the 34 countries with the "evolution is true" blue line being at 50% or less: Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Cyprus, the US, and Turkey.

Someone is reading too fast.


Japan
Greece
Estonia
Romania
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Turkey

Japan's poll shows that at almost 75% being sure evolution is true. Someone is reading too fast again.

Greece is low, but still over 50%. The US is at 40%.

Still, 9 out of 34 is only considered to be "many" only by you.

[Blake]

A hundred creationist scientists say hello

name the hundred.

[Blake]

You can't even understand your own graph. :lol

You can't even understand a simple graph and what the word "many" means. :lol

[boutons_deux]

"creationist scientists"

a big fat motivated-reasoning oxymoron says hello :lol

[Blake]

The founder of the KACR is an award winning scientist and industrialist, in case you missed that part.

I missed that part. Who is the founder and what awards has he won?

[DMX7]

The founder of the KACR is an award winning scientist and industrialist, in case you missed that part.

So are the thousands of scientists who aren't using this debate as an excuse to push an ideology on unsuspecting fools.

The science behind creationism is laughable. They struggle to find one or two examples of irreducible complexity and other non-sense only to have these theories blown to shreds.

lol, KACR.

[z0sa]

You wouldn't be accurate. The graph shows only 6 out of the 34 countries with the "evolution is true" blue line being at 50% or less: Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Cyprus, the US, and Turkey.

Someone is reading too fast.



It just helps to affirm that assertation that most of us except you understand to be true.

Most of us except me is an untrue assertation according to the graph you posted. Many, yes many, m-a-n-y people think evolution is false or are unsure (therefore, do not think it is a fact).

Stop reading so fast or you'll keep arguing strawmen.



Japan's poll shows that at almost 75% being sure evolution is true. Someone is reading too fast again.

What does this have to do with their amount of 'unsure' population being comparable to the USA's?


Greece is low, but still over 50%. The US is at 40%.

What does this have to do with their amount of 'unsure' population being comparable to the USA's?


Still, 9 out of 34 is only considered to be "many" only by you.

Hundreds of millions of people is not considered "many" only by you.

[z0sa]

So are the thousands of scientists who aren't using this debate as an excuse to push an ideology on unsuspecting fools.

The science behind creationism is laughable. They struggle to find one or two examples of irreducible complexity and other non-sense only to have these theories blown to shreds.

lol, KACR.




That's all you got? Ad hominem ignorant bullshit is all I can see.

Michael Behe struggled so hard to find good examples of irreducible complexity that he wrote a whole book about them. :lol

[DMX7]

That's all you got? Ad hominem ignorant bullshit is all I can see.

Michael Behe struggled so hard to find good examples of irreducible complexity that he wrote a whole book about it. :lol

A whole book? :lol Damn, that makes him almost as qualified as Sarah Palin to be President.

[z0sa]

I missed that part. Who is the founder and what awards has he won?

You don't need help do you? I heard you're good at google.

[z0sa]

A whole book? :lol Damn, that makes him almost as qualified as Sarah Palin to be President.

His various credentials and degrees, his background, as well as developing and researching the actual hypothesis extensively beforehand is what makes him qualified to write about it.

You're definitely qualified to be an ignorant human being.

[Blake]

Most of us except me is an untrue assertation according to the graph you posted. Many, yes many, m-a-n-y people think evolution is false or are unsure (therefore, do not think it is a fact).

Stop reading so fast or you'll keep arguing strawmen.

most of us is a true assertation based on most of us in this thread calling you an idiot. stop reading so fast or you'll miss everyone else calling you an idiot.



What does this have to do with their amount of 'unsure' population being comparable to the USA's?

50% are sure it's true. that leaves the other 50% for the unsure and the ones that believe it's false, so that's my question: why are you trying to compare it to the US's 40%?


What does this have to do with their amount of 'unsure' population being comparable to the USA's?

I don't know. You were the one trying to compare Japan with the US. You tell me.


Hundreds of millions of people is not considered "many" only by you.

On a planet with 6.7 billion people? even rounded up to 1 billion, that's only 15% of the total population.

Do you consider 15% to be "many"? Obviously you do.

[Blake]

That's all you got? Ad hominem ignorant bullshit is all I can see.

Michael Behe struggled so hard to find good examples of irreducible complexity that he wrote a whole book about them. :lol

Michael Behe also admitted in a court of law that intelligen design is not a science. :lol

[DMX7]

His various credentials and degrees, his background, as well as developing and researching the actual hypothesis extensively beforehand is what makes him qualified to write about it.


qualified to make money off of fools like you.

[Blake]

You don't need help do you? I heard you're good at google.

I am. Apparently the KACR is so obscure that even google barely recognizes it.

Of course, you making yet another claim to something that you fail to source is of no surprise to anyone.

[z0sa]

most of us is a true assertation based on most of us in this thread calling you an idiot. stop reading so fast or you'll miss everyone else calling you an idiot.

:lmao You changed your story.





50% are sure it's true. that leaves the other 50% for the unsure and the ones that believe it's false, so that's my question: why are you trying to compare it to the US's 40%?

To prove your logic is wrong, of course. Which I did.




I don't know. You were the one trying to compare Japan with the US. You tell me.

I've gone over your head I see.




On a planet with 6.7 billion people? even rounded up to 1 billion, that's only 15% of the total population.

We've only been discussing civilized, 1st world and predominantly Western countries, Blake. You could stay focused better if you read less quickly.


Do you consider 15% to be "many"? Obviously you do.

Quote me where I said 15% of the planet thinks evolution is false.

While you're at it, show me some hard basis information from which you deduced the 15% of the planet's population number from. Hint: it's not the graph posted in this thread.

[DMX7]

Michael Behe also admitted in a court of law that intelligen design is not a science. :lol

He doesn't watch PBS. It's part of the conspiracy.

[z0sa]

I am. Apparently the KACR is so obscure that even google barely recognizes it.

Of course, you making yet another claim to something that you fail to source is of no surprise to anyone.

KACR shows up on the first page if you simply put "KACR" into Google.

:lol you're really that stupid?

You actually have no excuse since I've given you, specifically, this info before.

[Blake]

qualified to make money off of fools like you.

I'm hoping somewhere z0sa makes reference to Kent Hovind as well.

[Blake]

KACR shows up on the first page if you simply put "KACR" into Google.

:lol you're really that stupid?

ah, you're right. I missed it because it looked like this:


한국창조과학회 - [ Translate this page ]공룡들의 발자국에는 : 이들은 노아의 홍수와 같은 격변적 사건을... 수많은 공룡발자국들이 전 세계적으로 퇴적암들에서 발견되어져왔다. ...
www.kacr.or.kr/ - Cached - Similar

hey, you're good at google too. too bad you don't use it or you would be able to clearly state who the founder is and what awards he has won and why it's important.

[z0sa]

ah, you're right. I missed it because it looked like this:


한국창조과학회 - [ Translate this page ]공룡들의 발자국에는 : 이들은 노아의 홍수와 같은 격변적 사건을... 수많은 공룡발자국들이 전 세계적으로 퇴적암들에서 발견되어져왔다. ...
www.kacr.or.kr/ - Cached - Similar.

Apparently you think Korean sites should be in English.

What a dumbass :lol

[z0sa]

You can't even understand a simple graph and what the word "many" means. :lol

You don't consider hundreds of millions of people to fit the definition of 'many'. Some more LOL material.

[Phenomanul]

I'm no scientist, but I read the research that has been done by real scientists and think for myself based on their conclusions.

You shoot down the scientific community at large yet you have not provided any of your own research. This makes you look like an idiot.

It's true... and you shouldn't be gloating or be proud of it.

I not only read the research. I scrutinize the methods involved, the variables, the context, and the data to see whether or not their conclusions can be drawn from their data pool.

Most research is black and white and does not remotely affect the "GOD-question".... The scientific process is terrific when it comes to those matters, the peer review process works effectively and objectively. Emprical equations... theories and new discoveries then follow.

When it comes to the formulation of conclusions that affect the "GOD-question" however, you'd be suprised to know how often the 'scientific community at large' throws out inconvenient observations. How often they jump to conclusions. How often they speak of truth for matters that cannot be ascertained. How often they rely on presuppositions to then formulate their own. Then they suppress dissent by suggesting that the scientific process, which works wonderfully for matters belonging in the former group (or a grand majority of published reports) is mostly flawless. They feel indignant that one would question that process.

It's like a bank syndicate suggesting that because their bankers were honest for 95 out of 100 transactions that they should be considered 'honest'. For that to hold, they would have to sustain the same level of integrity for all 100 transactions.

You go ahead and 'bank' on that syndicate... I'll continue to hold them accountable for those 5 transactions that they were less than honest about.




You called me 'godless' and that I have atheist buddies. This is a lie. I don't need to google to verify that you are a liar in this case.

Heres what I said:


But hey... we'll wait to see what creative scheme your athiest buddies can come up with to keep that wool's cloth over your eyes... I'm sure you'll accept anything.

It's a figurative allusion to the fact that the athiest writers on that site will convince you of their explanations, no matter what they choose to say.

But leave it to you to cling to that phrase as the only shred of evidence to call me a 'liar'... despite the semantical distinction.

...the "Godless Goggles" phrase just rolled off the tongue...



4th time, what is your theory on how we got here and how have you validated that theory.

I place my bets on me asking a 5th time.

You can continue to repeat it as many times as you like. One who points out that a pitcher of water is leaking doesn't have to provide you with an alternate pitcher... You just have to recognize that your own pitcher is leaking. It will do you no good to cling it and demand that I give you one of my own - that won't change the fact that your container is faulty. I would demand a pitcher 'recall' from the 'scientific community at large'...

[z0sa]

"creationist scientists"

a big fat motivated-reasoning oxymoron says hello :lol

Yeah, the idea of disproving the existence of god and anything that correlates with a deity never crosses any atheist scientists' minds. Never.

It's a two way street, butt-ins.

[DMX7]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Here. Educate yourself on the great work of Michael Behe and how well his testimony stood up to conservative (Geroge W. Bush appointed) Judge John E. Jones III.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

Still not a science, sorry.

[z0sa]

Michael Behe also admitted in a court of law that intelligen design is not a science. :lol

Behe doesn't think evolution is science, either.

[z0sa]

Irreducible complexity is science.

[DMX7]

Irreducible complexity is science.

It's also wrong.

Official Court Ruling: Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe' s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision2.html#p121

[z0sa]

When it comes to the formulation of conclusions that affect the "GOD-question" however, you'd be suprised to know how often the 'scientific community at large' throws out inconvenient observations. How often they jump to conclusions. How often they speak of truth for matters that cannot be ascertained. How often they rely on presuppositions to then formulate their own. Then they suppress dissent by suggesting that the scientific process, which works wonderfully for matters belonging in the former group (or a grand majority of published reports) is mostly flawless. They feel indignant that one would question that process.

Very well put. It's like global warming in ways - so much of the supposed 'science' is very flawed and inaccurate (read: unusable) because of unproven presuppositions and outright fallacies when collecting the data itself. However, unlike global warming, scientists simply keep assuming evolution is correct because a part of the evidence coincides with it.

The theory is constantly changing to accomodate the facts - only the facts and evidence never conclusively proves the theory and many times, outright contradict it until they are 'reassessed' or thrown out altogether.

[z0sa]

It's also wrong.

Official Court Ruling: Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe' s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision2.html#p121

:sleep I thought you never debated with creationists, hypocrite.

[DMX7]

:sleep I thought you never debated with creationists, hypocrite.

I guess creationists only see what they want to see.


It's worthless to debate people who don't believe in evolution. That's because they aren't swayed by facts or rational, which is why they don't believe in evolution in the first place.

Point Proven.

[z0sa]

I guess creationists only see what they want to see.

Ditto for evolutionists.




Point Proven.

You really thought I'd change my opinion because some dumbass joins the thread at the 20th page, posts some insults, posts a few talkorigins links I've read 1000 times out of personal curiosity and research (about the famous "creationism on trial", no less), while assuming I fit some stereotype?

Point Proven. It's your worthless time that's being used up.

[DMX7]

Ditto for evolutionists.


What do I need to see? More flagellums?



You really thought I'd change my opinion

No, I really didn't. That's why I said it.

[z0sa]

No, I really didn't. That's why I said it.

Yet you still sit here arguing with me and posting old talkorigins links like I've never seen em before.

[greyforest]

evolution is fact, scientists are just terrible at explaining it

[DarkReign]

Come to think of it... It's rather presumptuous to suggest that belief in evolution is what determines whether a nation is progressive or not. Who made that belief the ultimate criteria?

In that very post, I made it clear I wasnt trying to make that connection. I specifically said correlation did not mean causation.

I only find it amusing and tangentially related.

[Phenomanul]

In that very post, I made it clear I wasnt trying to make that connection. I specifically said correlation did not mean causation.

I only find it amusing and tangentially related.

Fair enough.

What have you to add in reference to the Godless dictatorships that afflicted our world over the last century? Is there no relation there?

Just curious to see what you think on those matters...

[Blake]

:lmao You changed your story.

what was my original story?


To prove your logic is wrong, of course. Which I did.

What exactly was my logic that you disproved?


I've gone over your head I see.

you went over your own head


We've only been discussing civilized, 1st world and predominantly Western countries, Blake. You could stay focused better if you read less quickly.

list exactly which countries you are referring to and give an exact number from each of these countries that do not believe in evolution.


Quote me where I said 15% of the planet thinks evolution is false.

stop reading so quickly.


While you're at it, show me some hard basis information from which you deduced the 15% of the planet's population number from. Hint: it's not the graph posted in this thread.

Hint: I didn't get 15% from that the graph posted in this thread. The "hundreds of millions" I quoted you on did not include any reference to the graph on your part.

Posting vague generalizations and changing the subject is nothing new for you. I don't think you even know what you are trying to argue.

[Blake]

His various credentials and degrees, his background, as well as developing and researching the actual hypothesis extensively beforehand is what makes him qualified to write about it.

You're definitely qualified to be an ignorant human being.

You don't believe in evolution and you believe in Behe. You're definitely qualified for the position of ignorant human being.

[Blake]

Apparently you think Korean sites should be in English.

What a dumbass :lol

obviously KARC doesnt find itself important enough to put in English and you don't find the founder and his awards important enough to post here yourself.

What a fucking dumbass :lol

[Blake]

I not only read the research. I scrutinize the methods involved, the variables, the context, and the data to see whether or not their conclusions can be drawn from their data pool.

Most research is black and white and does not remotely affect the "GOD-question".... The scientific process is terrific when it comes to those matters, the peer review process works effectively and objectively. Emprical equations... theories and new discoveries then follow.

When it comes to the formulation of conclusions that affect the "GOD-question" however, you'd be suprised to know how often the 'scientific community at large' throws out inconvenient observations. How often they jump to conclusions. How often they speak of truth for matters that cannot be ascertained. How often they rely on presuppositions to then formulate their own. Then they suppress dissent by suggesting that the scientific process, which works wonderfully for matters belonging in the former group (or a grand majority of published reports) is mostly flawless. They feel indignant that one would question that process.

It's like a bank syndicate suggesting that because their bankers were honest for 95 out of 100 transactions that they should be considered 'honest'. For that to hold, they would have to sustain the same level of integrity for all 100 transactions.

You go ahead and 'bank' on that syndicate... I'll continue to hold them accountable for those 5 transactions that they were less than honest about.

so do you instead bank on the Bible and all creationist scientists being honest and full of integrity?

How honest is Michael Behe?









It's a figurative allusion to the fact that the athiest writers on that site will convince you of their explanations, no matter what they choose to say.

so I reference a good argument from talkorigins (who in turn sourced their argument) and you think they are my atheist buddies.

Got it.


But leave it to you to cling to that phrase as the only shred of evidence to call me a 'liar'... despite the semantical distinction.

...the "Godless Goggles" phrase just rolled off the tongue...

you saying I am looking through "godless goggles" without a shred of evidence is lying... despite your attempts to change the semantics of your statement after I busted you on it.

Liar.


You can continue to repeat it as many times as you like. One who points out that a pitcher of water is leaking doesn't have to provide you with an alternate pitcher... You just have to recognize that your own pitcher is leaking. It will do you no good to cling it and demand that I give you one of my own - that won't change the fact that your container is faulty. I would demand a pitcher 'recall' from the 'scientific community at large'...

I recognize the theory of evolution has holes. Scientists are constantly researching those holes and new discoveries mean new changes to the theory and more holes getting filled.

I'll continue to repeat the request until you provide it: "Please provide a better theory for why we are here and how you came to validate that theory."

My theory is that you are scared of posting your superior theory or you would have posted it by now.

[DMX7]

Yet you still sit here arguing with me and posting old talkorigins links like I've never seen em before.

Change the topic. Predictable.

[Blake]

Ditto for evolutionists.

No, it's isn't ditto.

Evolutionists see evidence to support their theories. Creationists see flying spaghetti monsters.

[Blake]

The theory is constantly changing to accomodate the facts - only the facts and evidence never conclusively proves the theory and many times, outright contradict it until they are 'reassessed' or thrown out altogether.

what is your theory?

[Phenomanul]

so do you instead bank on the Bible and all creationist scientists being honest and full of integrity?
How honest is Michael Behe?

I'm not the one claiming the "scientific community at large" can't be questioned.

Nice try.




so I reference a good argument from talkorigins (who in turn sourced their argument) and you think they are my atheist buddies.

Got it.

you saying I am looking through "godless goggles" without a shred of evidence is lying... despite your attempts to change the semantics of your statement after I busted you on it.

Liar.

What I get is that you are still fully inept to discuss the actual technical incongruencies... with other than vague phrases such as "the theories of decay are changing"

The fact that you would rather focus your arguments against my objections on tangential irrelevants is quite telling. But keep going. Build your case on the fact that you think I'm a liar. Where it matters, on my understanding of things such as the basic chemistry involved in the degradation of organic material... you've got nothing. :wakeup

So... keep building strawmen.




I recognize the theory of evolution has holes. Scientists are constantly researching those holes and new discoveries mean new changes to the theory and more holes getting filled.

The basic evolutionary construct has a huge hole... more of a systemic flaw. NONE of the assumptions being used to "connect the dots", those linking taxonomic families to others, have any measurable, or quantifiable data to support them. Just observational guesses. Comparisons of similar structures from one set of bones to another, and the such... They can't even claim for certain that a particular set of bones (the organism they belonged to, rather) ever managed to procreate... How would anyone know? Like I said, evolution hinges their faith on a heap of such guesses... and those in your camp keep yelling that proof for evolution is 'hard science'.

All the measurable data for evolutionary experiments comes from "micro-evolutionary" processes which actually don't reveal anything more than mere adaptation. The incorporation of new genetic material has only been attained from the gentle 'directional prodding' of those conducting the experiments (such as the methods used by those working with the citrate tolerant E.coli.). None of the 'peer' reviews would dare raise that flag on such a monumental experiment however... Why would they? Even then, that team can't prove that the code-segment which brought about the tolerance wasn't a recombination of code already present in the E.coli genome. HUGE. In other words they can't even prove that the mutative processes which drive evolutionary speciation were responsible for the change. Furthermore, since bacteria are asexual organisms conclusions from those experiments cannot be transitively applied to suggest that the same mechanism was at work for sexual organisms. Don't get me wrong... they are still very good experiments; but they don't prove macro-evolution.



I'll continue to repeat the request until you provide it: "Please provide a better theory for why we are here and how you came to validate that theory."

And I'll continue laughing at the redirectional spirit of your request.

:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol


My theory is that you are scared of posting your superior theory or you would have posted it by now.
What I believe is irrelevant to the fact that what you believe isn't as full-proof as you claim it to be. ¿Comprende la hormiga?

Have you written the talkorigins staff to write you up an explanation that can justify the existence of Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissues? Hurry, I'm sure if you tell them you're a die-hard evolutionist that they'll happily oblige... you might even befriend them and come full-circle.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Very well put. It's like global warming in ways - so much of the supposed 'science' is very flawed and inaccurate (read: unusable) because of unproven presuppositions and outright fallacies when collecting the data itself. However, unlike global warming, scientists simply keep assuming evolution is correct because a part of the evidence coincides with it.

The theory is constantly changing to accomodate the facts - only the facts and evidence never conclusively proves the theory and many times, outright contradict it until they are 'reassessed' or thrown out altogether.

Too bad creationists don't base anything on facts. When their assertions and suppositions do not match up with reality typically tales of eternal damnation ensue if not imprisonment persecution or death.

The central thesis of genetic mutation and natural selection hasn't changed. Basically what you are claiming is that because a certain chain of polypeptides couldnt have formed given the acidity levels of prehistoric earth, the whole idea of evolution is debunked. Its called fleshing out a mechanism.

That is just like saying that because certain synaptic routes common within the brain structure are not consistent with a behavioral model that means that the brain doesnt control behavior. Its asinine

There is not question that organisms change over time from generation to generation. ITs evident from observation in human history as well as fossil records. The question comes down to how. If you want to say that Zeus causes it as well as lightning then you go ahead.

To me attributing reality to some singular, anthropocentric, masculine deity detailed to us by various autocrats, priest classes and despots from averaging over a thousand years ago is as arrogant as it is stupid.

If thinking that you get your own planet when you die if youre good during life, that certain people that can survive in a furnace turned up full blast for extended periods of time or that some diety that happens to look just like us created everything for us in 6 days or on the back of a turtle or out of a ball of clay or whatever makes you feel better than go for it.

Personally I refuse to be naive, stupid or intellectually lazy.

[Blake]

I'm not the one claiming the "scientific community at large" can't be questioned.

Nice try.

I'm not either.

Nice try.


What I get is that you are still fully inept to discuss the actual technical incongruencies... with other than vague phrases such as "the theories of decay are changing"


......Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”.....



Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=3#ixzz0frTHNcIm

I doubt you have done any hands on research of this magnitude.

What I get is that you are an idiot.


The fact that you would rather focus your arguments against my objections on tangential irrelevants is quite telling. But keep going. Build your case on the fact that you think I'm a liar. Where it matters, on my understanding of things such as the basic chemistry involved in the degradation of organic material... you've got nothing. :wakeup

So... keep building strawmen.

I know you are a liar. I have proof.

Apparently you really don't know much about the current studies regarding the 70 million year old dinosaur tissue. You are lying that you have an understanding of it.


The basic evolutionary construct has a huge hole... more of a systemic flaw. NONE of the assumptions being used to "connect the dots", those linking taxonomic families to others, have any measurable, or quantifiable data to support them. Just observational guesses. Comparisons of similar structures from one set of bones to another, and the such... They can't even claim for certain that a particular set of bones (the organism they belonged to, rather) ever managed to procreate... How would anyone know? Like I said, evolution hinges their faith on a heap of such guesses... and those in your camp keep yelling that proof for evolution is 'hard science'.

All the measurable data for evolutionary experiments comes from "micro-evolutionary" processes which actually don't reveal anything more than mere adaptation. The incorporation of new genetic material has only been attained from the gentle 'directional prodding' of those conducting the experiments (such as the methods used by those working with the citrate tolerant E.coli.). None of the 'peer' reviews would dare raise that flag on such a monumental experiment however... Why would they? Even then, that team can't prove that the code-segment which brought about the tolerance wasn't a recombination of code already present in the E.coli genome. HUGE. In other words they can't even prove that the mutative processes which drive evolutionary speciation were responsible for the change. Furthermore, since bacteria are asexual organisms conclusions from those experiments cannot be transitively applied to suggest that the same mechanism was at work for sexual organisms. Don't get me wrong... they are still very good experiments; but they don't prove macro-evolution.

you also apparently don't understand the scientific method.



And I'll continue laughing at the redirectional spirit of your request.

:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol

so you'll continue to laugh at what the scientific community considers as fact while coming forth with no valid theory of your own

:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol



What I believe is irrelevant to the fact that what you believe isn't as full-proof as you claim it to be. ¿Comprende la hormiga?

Very little in science can shown as being a full-proof fact.

What I believe is that you are too scared to give us your theory on origins.


Have you written the talkorigins staff to write you up an explanation that can justify the existence of Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissues? Hurry, I'm sure if you tell them you're a die-hard evolutionist that they'll happily oblige... you might even befriend them and come full-circle.

Nobody has figured out how soft tissue has lasted that long yet.

Have you written Mary Schweitzer at NCState and told her how TRexs could not have existed 68 million years ago?

Hurry before she discovers how the tissue lasted so long.

I'm sure if you tell her your a die hard young earth creationist and that she's done well at proving your point that she'll love you for it.

[Blake]

Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil

November 5, 2009 (PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have extracted organically preserved muscle tissue from an 18 million years old salamander fossil. The discovery by researchers from University College Dublin, the UK and Spain, reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B shows that soft tissue can be preserved under a broader set of fossil conditions than previously known.

http://www.physorg.com/news176660912.html

[DMX7]

you also apparently don't understand the scientific method.


Bingo!!!

And funny how he doesn't apply that same level of criticism to his pseudoscience.

[Blake]

Bingo!!!

And funny how he doesn't apply that same level of criticism to his pseudoscience.

he's not here to present his pseudoscientific theory.

He's only here to bash evolution........because it conflicts with his pseudoscientific theory......whatever theory that may be.....

[Blake]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (4 members and 1 guests)
Blake, DMX7, Phenomanul, rold50

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 AM.

Im curious at how long it will take him to come up with more bigworded asstalking.

[DMX7]

Clearly, he was not intelligently designed. Point Evolution.

[Blake]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (5 members and 2 guests)
Blake, DMX7, z0sa, Phenomanul, rold50

yay

[Phenomanul]

I'm not either.

Nice try.



I doubt you have done any hands on research of this magnitude.

What I get is that you are an idiot.



I know you are a liar. I have proof.

Apparently you really don't know much about the current studies regarding the 70 million year old dinosaur tissue. You are lying that you have an understanding of it.



you also apparently don't understand the scientific method.




so you'll continue to laugh at what the scientific community considers as fact while coming forth with no valid theory of your own

:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol




Very little in science can shown as being a full-proof fact.

What I believe is that you are too scared to give us your theory on origins.



Nobody has figured out how soft tissue has lasted that long yet.

Have you written Mary Schweitzer at NCState and told her how TRexs could not have existed 68 million years ago?

Hurry before she discovers how the tissue lasted so long.

I'm sure if you tell her your a die hard young earth creationist and that she's done well at proving your point that she'll love you for it.

The data isn't conclusive either way. Incongruencies stick out like a sore thumbs for both viewpoints. Actually, I find it quite funny that you would think I'm a young earth creationist.

:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol

(copy that one too... apparently you think it makes your arguements more full proof... All it does is masquerade your own inability to formulate counterarguments of your own, you literally feel compeled to piggy back on others' prosaic structure... :td annoying and lame :rolleyes).

I'll address the rest tomorrow.

Just know this... I've actually spoken to Mary Schweitzer; something I bet you weren't counting on... ant... :wakeup

[Phenomanul]

Im curious at how long it will take him to come up with more bigworded asstalking.

The fact that you use this as criteria for whether or not your belief in evolution is justified is also lame. :wakeup

It's no wonder people would rather ignore you.

[DMX7]

The data isn't conclusive either way.


No, it's pretty conclusive.



Actually, I find it quite funny that you would think I'm a young earth creationist.


Sure you do.

[Blake]

The data isn't conclusive either way. Incongruencies stick out like a sore thumbs for both viewpoints.

what data are you specifically referring to.


Actually, I find it quite funny that you would think I'm a young earth creationist.

:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol
:lol :lol :lol

Actually it was funny when you said I was looking through godless goggles and how you don't believe that dinosaurs couldn't have been around 70 million years ago.

What exactly do you think is the origin of our species?


(copy that one too... apparently you think it makes your arguements more full proof... All it does is masquerade your own inability to formulate counterarguments of your own, you literally feel compeled to piggy back on others' prosaic structure... :td annoying and lame :rolleyes).

By not showing any research, sources or any real substance in any of your posts, all you are doing is masquerading your lack of knowledge.

Lame, but entertaining.


I'll address the rest tomorrow.

I'm sure you will do more masquerading tomorrow.


Just know this... I've actually spoken to Mary Schweitzer; something I bet you weren't counting on... ant... :wakeup

Just know this... nobody cares about your name dropping.

I bet Mary Schweitzer pwned you.

[Blake]

The fact that you use this as criteria for whether or not your belief in evolution is justified is also lame. :wakeup

my belief in evolution has nothing to do with how long it takes you to post a response.

your believing that's the case is funny yet strange, even for you.


It's no wonder people would rather ignore you.

Why do you respond to my side posts, but refuse to answer my serious questions like: "what is your theory of the origin of our species?"

I believe you are full of shit.

[Blake]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (3 members and 2 guests)
Blake, DMX7, Phenomanul

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:32 AM.


I'll address the rest tomorrow.

I guess technically it's tomorrow.

[sabar]

Why do you respond to my side posts, but refuse to answer my serious questions like: "what is your theory of the origin of our species?"

I believe you are full of shit.

He is avoiding a trap, obviously. You cannot argue religion when it comes to a theory on where living things come from. It is unsustainable, and moreso, it makes the HUGE assumption that your religion is the right one out of the thousands of religions out there. Not only that, but his religion throws out so much pseudoscience that it is a bad stance to take without even saying a word.

He's attacking the actual theory, which is the scientific way to do things. Finding an alternative theory is a monumental task. One that pokes a hole in a complex system needs not make a substitute for that system. I can easily point out why Newtonian physics is flawed on large scales, but it would be absurd to require me to state my own model or even explain the accepted one.

Phenomanul is correct on a major point: evolution is not based on pure science, but on a lot of speculation and connecting the dots. There is no hard data. I worked on some research projects on the last year and there is no way my conclusions would of been acceptable if I just made assumptions when doing my tests.

Science is based on the scientific method. It must be testable! It must be repeatable! Natural selection clearly has this down pat. Evolution? No way. We need thousands of years of data as a species to be able to make a conclusion. As an alternative, we need a flawless computer simulation so we can simulate a small biosphere and see if things evolve. We have done neither.

Now, in my opinion, I think that if you connect the dots it is clear that evolution is the only thing that is possible. But you can't state it as fact quite yet. We need a clearer fossil record or faster computers or just plain time. All we have is anecdotal evidence. This is a lot like climate change, where scientists are trying to fit a very small sample size to trend a very large system over a very large amount of time.

It's just bad science. Is the conclusion wrong? Probably not, but the theory is still quite attackable from a scientific view.

I suggest you guys continue to debate the scientific points instead of preparing ad-hominem attacks based on your personal viewpoints.

The validity of the premise is NOT related to the validity of the person or their personal beliefs.

[Obstructed_View]

2 monkeys, 1 lion. Lion run after monkeys. Slower monkey get eaten. Faster monkey go make love to girl monkeys, have fast baby monkeys.

^evolution.

[DMX7]

Science is based on the scientific method. It must be testable! It must be repeatable! Natural selection clearly has this down pat. Evolution? No way.

Wow, this is a mind blowing contradiction.

[z0sa]

Wow, this is a mind blowing contradiction.

Can you prove macroevolution occurs?

[admiralsnackbar]

Can you prove macroevolution occurs?

Can you prove it doesn't occur in the same way what you call "microevolution" does? If so, can you offer a better explanation?

[Blake]

He's attacking the actual theory, which is the scientific way to do things. Finding an alternative theory is a monumental task. One that pokes a hole in a complex system needs not make a substitute for that system. I can easily point out why Newtonian physics is flawed on large scales, but it would be absurd to require me to state my own model or even explain the accepted one.

He's not just attacking a few holes. He is dismissing the entire theory, while mentioning a Creator and saying I am simply looking at things through my godless goggles:




It's a shame that you have to admit that YOU can't handle defense of your own beliefs. Cut&Paste jobs are still lame, considering you can't back up what they're saying anymore than you'd allow yourself to believe that what I was saying was actually true or even plausible. Fact of the matter is that those glasses you're wearing predetermine and bias what you perceive as truth... that convenient filtration however, in no way invalidates absolute TRUTH. And what is that exactly? Reality as perceived by the Creator. You can't change that reality no matter how hard you scream and kick in the process.

....Keep wearing your Godless Goggles blake! No one's stopping you.

-Peace

since this is the case, it is not unfair to ask what his theory of the origin of our species is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can you prove macroevolution occurs?

Whats sad is you think that evolution and a creator are mutually exclusive.

[z0sa]

Whats sad is you think that evolution and a creator are mutually exclusive.

I really don't think that.

I think scientists have, without them even knowing it on some conspiracy scale or anything, extended their assumptions far beyond reasonable means. Which leads me to my next point -

I completely agree that microevolution, or adaptation, occurs.

But

From what I've read and gathered, there's actually little evidence for macroevolution other than those very assumptions or should I call it presumptions, about the extent of microevolution.

Just because consecutive generations are capable of making small adaptations thanks to miniscule changes in their DNA does not mean, in effect, that such a system operates on a grander scale.

When one studies the way mutations occur and how often they are very harmful, it becomes nearly impossible imagining the actual progression with this method. It is, in fact, very much a leap of faith accepting macro evolutionary theory as currently constructed, and certainly it is an issue being debated around the globe whether any of our local ST residents accept that or not.

Finally (for this thread), while I have "chosen" a side, my opinion actually could be swayed if more than mere presumptions were the basis for much of evolution's factual data.

[admiralsnackbar]

Have you really chosen a side if you can't say what would be a better alternative to the present formulation of the theory of evolution?

[z0sa]

Have you really chosen a side if you can't say what would be a better alternative to the present formulation of the theory of evolution?

That's the thing: I really haven't chosen a side.

Because I speak out against some practices and ideas regarding evolution, one assumes I must be out to debunk the entire thing.

I'm not. I'm here asking questions a lot of people apparently don't want to ask, or answer. Phenomanul put it my own thoughts very well last page or two concerning what he calls the "GOD question."

Scientists of the now generally have an almost infallible method of separating fact from fiction, truth from fantasy.

EXCEPT when highly subjective evidence (and methods) are put under the microscope, at which point, conflict occurs. What we are seeing is this conflict.

[admiralsnackbar]

That's the thing: I really haven't chosen a side.

Because I speak out against some practices and ideas regarding evolution, one assumes I must be out to debunk the entire thing.

I'm not. I'm here asking questions a lot of people apparently don't want to ask, or answer. Phenomanul put it my own thoughts very well last page or two concerning what he calls the "GOD question."

Scientists of the now generally have an almost infallible method of separating fact from fiction, truth from fantasy.

EXCEPT when highly subjective evidence (and methods) are put under the microscope, at which point, conflict occurs. What we are seeing is this conflict.

Science doesn't pretend to be infallible: if you have issues, odds are scientists are working to figure out whether their theory still holds water or not. Agreeing with Phenomanul as I understand him doesn't lead to progress, it only supports the notion that "since we don't know everything now, we must be wrong." It's a dead end. Newtonian physics were wrong, but they led to a more fruitful theorization of physics. As I've said before, science is a process, not an end.

Nobody is claiming they know everything as much as they are supporting a theory that makes more sense than anything else out there. So again, I ask: do your misgivings about the theory of evolution preclude its plausibility? And if so, what theory do you offer to explain things more conclusively?

[Phenomanul]

Science doesn't pretend to be infallible: if you have issues, odds are scientists are working to figure out whether their theory still holds water or not. Agreeing with Phenomanul as I understand him doesn't lead to progress, it only supports the notion that "since we don't know everything now, we must be wrong." It's a dead end. Newtonian physics were wrong, but they led to a more fruitful theorization of physics. As I've said before, science is a process, not an end.

Nobody is claiming they know everything as much as they are supporting a theory that makes more sense than anything else out there. So again, I ask: do your misgivings about the theory of evolution preclude its plausibility? And if so, what theory do you offer to explain things more conclusively?

That's a misplaced attack.

Scientific progress is not attained from dwelling on the past. We can continue to study our genomes in search for genectic switches to disease, etc... We can continue to search for ways in which we could slow down our biological aging. Very little progress can come from trying to "connect the dots" between us and some extinct ancestor; or worse, an ameobic ancestor...

[Phenomanul]

Ok… where to start (had a full day at work)...


I'm not either.

Nice try.


You certainly act like it . I don’t believe in macro-evolution due to lack of hard data. I state and explain my objections, due to that pretty significant issue... and you pretend like I’ve insulted your family (all your spiteful discourse since doesn’t help substantiate your claim at feeling offended for being called a disbeliever... If you truly believed in GOD you wouldn’t be as predisposed to call people stupid and asses every time you get the chance... but that’s another topic)...

......Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”.....
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...#ixzz0frTHNcIm

One... Mary is a believer. She believes in the Judeo-Christian GOD, believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ but she also happens to reconcile her beliefs with evolution... she is certainly entitled to that opinion (ummm... her profession kind of depends on it...). Many Christians feel pressured to take this position... but hey, Doctorate or not... everyone makes a choice; ultimately her belief in Jesus remains unwavering... as is her disbelief in abiogenesis (come to think of it... I’ve noticed that for all of your demands that “I provide you with an alternate framework”... you’ve yet to state your own position on abiogenesis and how that is reconciled with your ‘alleged’ belief in GOD. Furthermore, how is that belief, by your standards, congruent with science???).

That said... she is a Paleontologist, and so are the other members from her team. She basically stated the same bewildering amazement that many others make when first confronted with the realization that biological material could actually endure millions of years without full degradation. And she faced this very question several years before the rex hip-bone discovery (after her work with the porphyrin structures of dinosaur heme). Thomas Holtz’s comment, however, is rather presumptuous in that he criticizes detractors for assuming ‘basic stuff about nature,’ concerning matters of biological decay. But he can’t explain it away anymore than the next scientist. And duh! Hello? Of course there would be other such specimens, and there will be many more (I believe I alluded that much… first finds from 1991 or 1992 IIRC)... the whole point of contention is that many (including myself) don’t believe that these creatures could have lived as long ago as the ‘establishment’ says they did. Operative word being that the subject ‘creatures’ is PLURAL. Every such find will continue to affirm the obvious.

You won’t hear an objective Doctorate in chemistry, or a biomolecular engineer, a biogeneticist state what Holtz said with that same conviction. Why? Because the physical chemistry that governs biological decomposition is far more sound than what Holtz is making it out to be...

There are a myriad of processes which breakdown organic compounds... and each of the byproducts from the incipient degradation step keep the process going... such is the law of entropy at work... Holtz’s statements, and lamentably Schweitzer’s take on the situation, arise from denial of those very processes.

Again, one of the reasons why all organisms maintain a surplus production of proteins and stabilization enzymes during their lifetimes coupled with the constant replication of genetic material is precisely to overcome these degenerative processes... to help overcome the relatively short lifespan of proteins and genes. Yet many are willing to put all that aside because it questions the very framework of their scientific worldview? Not surprising. It’s also not surprising that you would jump on that boat. What I still keep hearing from you and the ‘scientific community at large’ is “that the theories of decay are changing...” how convenient. Unfortunately, the 'laws' of thermodynamics are pretty sound. And you can google that all you want.


I doubt you have done any hands on research of this magnitude.

Which is why I have conversed at length with Dr. Schweitzer? Why I have had conversations with Richard Dawkins? Physicists such as Dr. Alan Guth and even Stephen Hawking himself… Ummm... ok… whatever you say.

I’m 1,000 times more qualified to speak about this subject than you and most of the other posters on this forum. I work in these fields. I’m constantly flooded by all such articles when they are published. [B]But this is not about me. It’s about recognizing that the framework for evolution is built on a pillar of assumptions. About recognizing that the hard data required to support the theory of evolution outright simply doesn’t exist.

Rather than admit that this is true, you have constantly sidetracked the discussion by attempting to discredit, mock, and disrespect me as a person. But doing this won't change the fact that macro-evolution can’t be quantifiably proven. Just because the theory is a plausible guess doesn’t make it valid, or certifiable truth.


What I get is that you are an idiot.

Well then, that would make you an amoeba by comparison... :rolleyes
Look, the more you continue to attack me as a person, the more you will continue to belittle yourself. (now... copy my prosaic structure in another spiteful comeback).


I know you are a liar. I have proof.

Proof??? Yeah... ok… :lol
You have ‘proof’ of me stating that you continue to view the world through ‘godless goggles’...

How does this prove that I know nothing about the subject matter at hand? (in my work field no less???) More wishful thinking on your part to try and associate the two. Topic derailment on your part, actually.

As an aside: your spitefulness serves as more than enough proof that you are not living a GOD-centered life. I’ve yet to see you give Him credit for anything. Your disingenuous indignation at being accused of seeing the world through a set of ‘godless’ lens embodies more of that derailment.


Apparently you really don't know much about the current studies regarding the 70 million year old dinosaur tissue. You are lying that you have an understanding of it.

Ha! I knew about it before the original article was published. And seeing how one of my doctorate degrees was obtained in Molecular Genetics I can tell you outright that any biological molecule will lose the battle to entropy given 70 million years of time... actually it was generally accepted that this would happen in less than 50,000 years even under sub-zero conditions... of course there’s probably a slew of atheist scientists out there desperately trying to explain away this blatant incongruence to the established framework. As I stated earlier, I’m sure that they’ll convince you no matter what they choose to say.





The basic evolutionary construct has a huge hole... more of a systemic flaw. NONE of the assumptions being used to "connect the dots", those linking taxonomic families to others, have any measurable, or quantifiable data to support them. Just observational guesses. Comparisons of similar structures from one set of bones to another, and the such... They can't even claim for certain that a particular set of bones (the organism they belonged to, rather) ever managed to procreate... How would anyone know? Like I said, evolution hinges their faith on a heap of such guesses... and those in your camp keep yelling that proof for evolution is 'hard science'.

All the measurable data for evolutionary experiments comes from "micro-evolutionary" processes which actually don't reveal anything more than mere adaptation. The incorporation of new genetic material has only been attained from the gentle 'directional prodding' of those conducting the experiments (such as the methods used by those working with the citrate tolerant E.coli.). None of the 'peer' reviews would dare raise that flag on such a monumental experiment however... Why would they? Even then, that team can't prove that the code-segment which brought about the tolerance wasn't a recombination of code already present in the E.coli genome. HUGE. In other words they can't even prove that the mutative processes which drive evolutionary speciation were responsible for the change. Furthermore, since bacteria are asexual organisms conclusions from those experiments cannot be transitively applied to suggest that the same mechanism was at work for sexual organisms. Don't get me wrong... they are still very good experiments; but they don't prove macro-evolution.

you also apparently don't understand the scientific method.

I will continue to stand by what I said.

As of yet, no one can substantiate the theory without having to rely on assumptions. NO ONE.



so you'll continue to laugh at what the scientific community considers as fact while coming forth with no valid theory of your own.
What I believe is that you are too scared to give us your theory on origins.

First of all... I’m laughing at the fact that you keep demanding something out of me. As if I owed you anything. :lol I certainly don’t.

Secondly, (for the umpteenth time) I don’t need to present an alternate theory to point out why the current theory is systemically flawed. Simply address why the use of so many assumptions is accepted for evolution and origins-related theories but not for any other fields? Or why people feel compelled to defend that premise as being ‘hard-science’?


Very little in science can shown as being a full-proof fact.

Hmmm... obviously mankind knows very little about the universe. Nevertheless, there is a wealth of science that is based on quantifiable, measurable, testable and repeatable data. Unfortunately, Evolution doesn’t fall in that category.

This will be my last response to this thread (to you anyway).

Feel free to pout, gloat or whatever... to claim pathetic victories by posting the activity bar below (as if that means anything). Be your snarky self. Just know this, no matter how hard you come at me, you still can’t substantiate the theory of evolution without having to rely on assumptions. Fact of the matter is that Evolution is not the 'hard science' you continue to claim it is... it simply doesn't meet the criteria. PERIOD.

[admiralsnackbar]

That's a misplaced attack.

Scientific progress is not attained from dwelling on the past. We can continue to study our genomes in search for genectic switches to disease, etc... We can continue to search for ways in which we could slow down our biological aging. Very little progress can come from trying to "connect the dots" between us and some extinct ancestor; or worse, an ameobic ancestor...

Scientific progress is not attained by dwelling on the past? I don't even know what you're trying to say.

How about you stop pussy-footing and tell everybody what your amazing amendment to extant evolutionary theory is. My guess is it has to do with pandas.

[admiralsnackbar]

Also, LOL at bringing up Stephen Hawking. I met Dan Hedaya once... can I include him in the discussion to buttress my club-footed ego?

[Blake]

That's a misplaced attack.

Scientific progress is not attained from dwelling on the past. We can continue to study our genomes in search for genectic switches to disease, etc... We can continue to search for ways in which we could slow down our biological aging. Very little progress can come from trying to "connect the dots" between us and some extinct ancestor; or worse, an ameobic ancestor...

I would post a response as to how ridiculous this statement is, but based on your previous posts, you would just dismiss it and the source as well so there is no point.

[Phenomanul]

Also, LOL at bringing up Stephen Hawking. I met Dan Hedaya once... can I include him in the discussion to buttress my club-footed ego?

Are you trying to make this about me as well?

All you've managed to say at this point is that science isn't perfect. But then you turn around and try to 'force' me to the accept the 'science' behind one of the most controversial theories around on the premise that they're working to get it right. Well, if that were really the case, they wouldn't use assumptions as the backbone for their arguments.

And :lol at your added insistence that I also provide an alternate theory. What I believe is a personal matter that involves elements of faith - but I'm fine with that.

BTW, when I first met Stephen Hawking he was more or less an atheist... now he considers himself an agnostic, and wholeheartedly rejects the athiest framework. Sounds remarkably similar to another groundbreaking change of heart that occured last century: when Albert Einstein admittedly became a Deist.

If I used him (and now Albert) as reference points is to show that even the brightest men around came to the realization that a higher power exists simply by looking at the majesty of Creation. They never fully shutout that possibility like others on this board have unfortunately done. :wakeup

[admiralsnackbar]

I've already stated numerous times in this thread alone that I don't believe science and religion are mutually exclusive... but I still have no idea why you bring up two physicists in a conversation about biology.

[admiralsnackbar]

As to your conviction that you're being personally attacked for your dissent, I'll tell you what: it's precisely because you tear down at a theory without putting anything of any practical value in it's place. You can be coy about revealing your beliefs all you want, but at the end of the day your very special private feelings about faith have no predictive power, and -- for better or for worse -- the theory of evolution does. That you want to confuse science qua tool with science qua dogma is your own affair.

[Blake]

Ok… where to start (had a full day at work)...


You certainly act like it . I don’t believe in macro-evolution due to lack of hard data. I state and explain my objections, due to that pretty significant issue... and you pretend like I’ve insulted your family (all your spiteful discourse since doesn’t help substantiate your claim at feeling offended for being called a disbeliever... If you truly believed in GOD you wouldn’t be as predisposed to call people stupid and asses every time you get the chance... but that’s another topic)...

What does a belief in God have to do with calling people stupid and asses?

I don't pretend like you insulted my family. What you did was say that I look at this through my "godless goggles" with no basis for saying that.

I don't find it offensive, I find it hilarious. What it tells me is that you really do base your conclusions on terrible assumptions.


One... Mary is a believer. She believes in the Judeo-Christian GOD, believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ but she also happens to reconcile her beliefs with evolution... she is certainly entitled to that opinion (ummm... her profession kind of depends on it...). Many Christians feel pressured to take this position... but hey, Doctorate or not... everyone makes a choice; ultimately her belief in Jesus remains unwavering... as is her disbelief in abiogenesis (come to think of it... I’ve noticed that for all of your demands that “I provide you with an alternate framework”... you’ve yet to state your own position on abiogenesis and how that is reconciled with your ‘alleged’ belief in GOD. Furthermore, how is that belief, by your standards, congruent with science???).

What makes you a better source of scientific information than Mary?

My position on abiogenesis is "I don't really know." It's not congruent or incongruent with science because I don't know any scientists working on any abiogenestic theories.

I also have not made any statements in this thread as to whether I believe in God or not and if I did, what that definition of God might be. More terrible assumptions on your part.


That said... she is a Paleontologist, and so are the other members from her team. She basically stated the same bewildering amazement that many others make when first confronted with the realization that biological material could actually endure millions of years without full degradation. And she faced this very question several years before the rex hip-bone discovery (after her work with the porphyrin structures of dinosaur heme). Thomas Holtz’s comment, however, is rather presumptuous in that he criticizes detractors for assuming ‘basic stuff about nature,’ concerning matters of biological decay. But he can’t explain it away anymore than the next scientist. And duh! Hello? Of course there would be other such specimens, and there will be many more (I believe I alluded that much… first finds from 1991 or 1992 IIRC)... the whole point of contention is that many (including myself) don’t believe that these creatures could have lived as long ago as the ‘establishment’ says they did. Operative word being that the subject ‘creatures’ is PLURAL. Every such find will continue to affirm the obvious.

He can't explain because nobody can explain it of yet. Duh!

There are 3 possibilities. It's either just slime from bacteria, it's really millions of years old tissue, or dinosaurs are really just thousands of years old.

Of the 3, based on dating methods that have been consistent across the board of all different departments of science, I'm using my own thinking skills and disregarding possibilty #3.



You won’t hear an objective Doctorate in chemistry, or a biomolecular engineer, a biogeneticist state what Holtz said with that same conviction. Why? Because the physical chemistry that governs biological decomposition is far more sound than what Holtz is making it out to be...

There are a myriad of processes which breakdown organic compounds... and each of the byproducts from the incipient degradation step keep the process going... such is the law of entropy at work... Holtz’s statements, and lamentably Schweitzer’s take on the situation, arise from denial of those very processes.

I'm sure real biomolecular engineers or biogeneticists aren't as close minded about the possibility of millions of years old tissue as you.

Anomolies that seem to break known rules of science occur all the time. Even someone like me that reads scientific news on a leisurely basis knows this. Strange that someone like you that tries to come off as being the smartest kid in the room doesn't know this as well.



Unfortunately, the 'laws' of thermodynamics are pretty sound. And you can google that all you want.

ok.


One of the most fundamental rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, has for the first time been shown not to hold for microscopic systems.....

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2572-second-law-of-thermodynamics-broken.html

that was easy.


Which is why I have conversed at length with Dr. Schweitzer? Why I have had conversations with Richard Dawkins? Physicists such as Dr. Alan Guth and even Stephen Hawking himself… Ummm... ok… whatever you say.

So they beat you down so often that you are reduced to conversing at length with a random poster like me on an NBA team's message board?

This doesn't really say much about you.


I’m 1,000 times more qualified to speak about this subject than you and most of the other posters on this forum. I work in these fields. I’m constantly flooded by all such articles when they are published. But this is not about me. It’s about recognizing that the framework for evolution is built on a pillar of assumptions. About recognizing that the hard data required to support the theory of evolution outright simply doesn’t exist.

What exactly are your qualifications and specifically, what work have you done? Please show your work.


Rather than admit that this is true, you have constantly sidetracked the discussion by attempting to discredit, mock, and disrespect me as a person.

Who the hell are you? You have no credit or respect to begin with any more than anyone else in this thread. There's nothing about you to credit or discredit.


But doing this won't change the fact that macro-evolution can’t be quantifiably proven. Just because the theory is a plausible guess doesn’t make it valid, or certifiable truth.

I agree, it doesn't make it a certfiable truth. I have already stated as much.

However, you rambling on about yourself and who you have talked to and how I look through godless goggles does not mean the theory of evolution should be dismissed.

You are basically telling everyone the theory is a sham just because you say it is.


Well then, that would make you an amoeba by comparison... :rolleyes
Look, the more you continue to attack me as a person, the more you will continue to belittle yourself. (now... copy my prosaic structure in another spiteful comeback).

You are misplacing my asking you for references and sources as an attack on you personally.

You simply saying that you are a source that deserves respect and credit does not mean that you do. You are belittling yourself.


Proof??? Yeah... ok… :lol
You have ‘proof’ of me stating that you continue to view the world through ‘godless goggles’...

And I don't view the world through godless goggles. That is a faulty assumption on your part and is a lie. You are a liar.


How does this prove that I know nothing about the subject matter at hand? (in my work field no less???) More wishful thinking on your part to try and associate the two. Topic derailment on your part, actually.

You bragging about how you have talked to a bunch of people is the actual topic derailment on your part.

You also bragging about it means that the burden of proof is on you to validate such claims. So far I, nor anyone else, has seen anything from you that completely invalidates the theory of evolution.


As an aside: your spitefulness serves as more than enough proof that you are not living a GOD-centered life. I’ve yet to see you give Him credit for anything. Your disingenuous indignation at being accused of seeing the world through a set of ‘godless’ lens embodies more of that derailment.

I am not spiteful, and even if that were the case, it is not proof of how I live my life.

More faulty assumptions leading to more lies on your part.


Ha! I knew about it before the original article was published. And seeing how one of my doctorate degrees was obtained in Molecular Genetics I can tell you outright that any biological molecule will lose the battle to entropy given 70 million years of time... actually it was generally accepted that this would happen in less than 50,000 years even under sub-zero conditions... of course there’s probably a slew of atheist scientists out there desperately trying to explain away this blatant incongruence to the established framework. As I stated earlier, I’m sure that they’ll convince you no matter what they choose to say.

Ha! Please post some of your work in molecular genetics.


I will continue to stand by what I said.

As of yet, no one can substantiate the theory without having to rely on assumptions. NO ONE.

So you being a molecualr geneticist, have you ever visually seen an electron?


First of all... I’m laughing at the fact that you keep demanding something out of me. As if I owed you anything. :lol I certainly don’t.

You don't owe me anything unless you are trying to convince that macro evolution is not at all a plausible theory.


Secondly, (for the umpteenth time) I don’t need to present an alternate theory to point out why the current theory is systemically flawed. Simply address why the use of so many assumptions is accepted for evolution and origins-related theories but not for any other fields? Or why people feel compelled to defend that premise as being ‘hard-science’?

Since you feel compelled to keep referring to my goggles as 'godless', I am curious as to what your opinion is on how we arrived here.

This is just a message board, not a debate hall.


Feel free to pout, gloat or whatever... to claim pathetic victories by posting the activity bar below (as if that means anything). Be your snarky self. Just know this, no matter how hard you come at me, you still can’t substantiate the theory of evolution without having to rely on assumptions. Fact of the matter is that Evolution is not the 'hard science' you continue to claim it is... it simply doesn't meet the criteria. PERIOD.[/SIZE]

Great. I'm not sure why you are entirely dismissing the theory though.

Since you are, how do you think we arrived here?

[mavs>spurs2]

I like how Blake evolved from a lurker into an obnoxious, evolution posting BEAST

[Blake]

Are you trying to make this about me as well?

BTW, when I first met Stephen Hawking he was more or less an atheist... now he considers himself an agnostic, and wholeheartedly rejects the athiest framework. Sounds remarkably similar to another groundbreaking change of heart that occured last century: when Albert Einstein admittedly became a Deist.

If I used him (and now Albert) as reference points is to show that even the brightest men around came to the realization that a higher power exists simply by looking at the majesty of Creation. They never fully shutout that possibility like others on this board have unfortunately done. :wakeup

You are very clearly trying to make this about you.

[Blake]

I like how Blake evolved from a lurker into an obnoxious, evolution posting BEAST

I've never been a lurker.

I like how you claim to be a near-genius. :tu

[mavs>spurs2]

Rawr!

[z0sa]

Blake asks a lot of questions but when it comes to stating his own opinion or position on an issue, his mouth shuts real quick.

[admiralsnackbar]

Blake asks a lot of questions but when it comes to stating his own opinion or position on an issue, his mouth shuts real quick.

That's not my experience :lol

[Blake]

Rawr!

That was pretty unintelligible. I don't think you are a near genius.

[Blake]

Blake asks a lot of questions but when it comes to stating his own opinion or position on an issue, his mouth shuts real quick.

I don't recall you asking for my opinion.

[Phenomanul]

Blake asks a lot of questions but when it comes to stating his own opinion or position on an issue, his mouth shuts real quick.


It's easier this way....



This message is hidden because Blake is on your ignore list.

I went ahead and put him on my list after last night's post.

Ahh... the bliss of not having to read his childish insults. Predictably he will gloat about it. But at this point I don't care.

[z0sa]

I don't recall you asking for my opinion.

Me either.

Like I said, when it comes to stating your own opinion or position on an issue, your mouth shuts real quick.

[z0sa]

Ahh... the bliss of not having to read his childish insults.

It's worth not ignoring him for me. Not much is funnier than when he argues strawmen for 5 pages because he can't understand your argument or simply doesn't read your posts. All the while not putting forth anything tangible on his own behalf.

[Blake]

It's easier this way....

I went ahead and put him on my list after last night's post.

Ahh... the bliss of not having to read his childish insults. Predictably he will gloat about it. But at this point I don't care.

That's a shame. I was hoping for more adultish insults from you.....specifically how I still wear godless goggles.

Too bad we'll never know what your expert opinion is.

[Blake]

Me either.

Like I said, when it comes to stating your own opinion or position on an issue, your mouth shuts real quick.

If nobody asks for my opinion on real issues, then I don't really make a point of putting it out there, although I do it on occasion. Do you make it a point of calling out people for not giving opinions when you don't ask for them?

My opinion is that you are an idiot.

[z0sa]

If nobody asks for my opinion on real issues, then I don't really make a point of putting it out there, although I do it on occasion.

That's because you're a pussy who only wants to belittle others and their opinions.

Secret's out.

[Blake]

That's because you're a pussy who only wants to belittle others and their opinions.

Secret's out.

If they can't come up with any real sources or research of their own, then they are ass talking and are belittling themselves.

I just help them realize it. Now the secret's out.

[z0sa]

Okay Blake, answer me this with only your opinion:

Why do you consider macroevolution a fact/hard science when it has never been observed, can't be repeated, and isn't testable under the scientific method? Try to tie it in with your new hypothesis on 'bisexual reproduction', whatever that is, if you can.

[Blake]

Okay Blake, answer me this with only your opinion:

Why do you consider macroevolution a fact/hard science when it has never been observed, can't be repeated, and isn't testable under the scientific method?

No other hypothesis has come forward as being a logical conclusion for the appearance of man. I'm not a hands on researcher by any means but the overwhelming consensus in fields such as biological and geological sciences is that evolution is a fact. Their corraborations have fit with each others' theories regarding genetics as well as age of the earth theories.

When I read these theories and conclusions, they make perfect sense and I rarely find anything agenda driven in their research.

When I read posts from phenomanul, all I see is a lot of hot air with no substance and he seems to feel his best argument is to question the scientific community's motives. If anything, it is the 7 day creationist who has the real motive to knock the theory of macroevolution because it makes Genesis a fraud of a book if taken literally.

My own opinion is that people are too afraid to admit to themselves that the Bible, (the Old Testament in particular) is just a book of myths with a few historical records thrown in. Evolution as a theory works for me just as good as continental drift does.



Try to tie it in with your new hypothesis on 'bisexual reproduction', whatever that is, if you can.

Apparently you forgot why I said the term "bisexual reproduction" that is found in a valid veterinarian's dictionary that I have copy and pasted the definition and the link to.

Obviously you would rather focus on semantics than the topic. This makes you an idiot.

[z0sa]

1) Your critical thinking sucks. I can see why you don't formulate your own opinions often.

You didn't answer either question with more than the vaguest of answers and examples. "When I read these theories.." what theories? What conclusions and theories fitting together make perfect sense?

You say you rarely find anything agenda driven - so you DO find agenda driven science by evolution apologists. When would that be?

You also make an assumption (opinion) about "people (who) are too afraid to admit [stuff about the Bible]," yet that has nothing to do with me or someone else whose religion is not Christianity. How can this be the basis for any sort of informed opinion?






2) Theories and conclusions can "make perfect sense" all they want, without hard evidence they aren't hard science or a fact. Christians who take the Bible literally think all their ideas "make perfect sense", too. A lot of ideas have made perfect sense then been revealed as completely wrong many, many times over the course of classical and modern science.

3) It's a made up word, Blake. Nothing you can copy and paste will change that fact.

[Blake]

1) Your critical thinking sucks. I can see why you don't formulate your own opinions often.

You didn't answer either question with more than the vaguest of answers and examples. "When I read these theories.." what theories? What conclusions and theories fitting together make perfect sense?

my conclusion is that macroevolution is a relevant theory.

Not surprising I have to spell it out for you in a long winded evolution thread where I clearly have shown this.


You say you rarely find anything agenda driven - so you DO find agenda driven science by evolution apologists. When would that be?

It so rarely happens that I can't think of any time that I've actually seen it happen......which again, is why I trust the scientific community.

Not surprising you would ask for something that I admit I rarely come across. If you have come across it, I'd love to see it.

of course, phenomanul is the one in this thread claiming that trusting the scientific community is foolish. If you are truly interested (which I doubt you are) then ask him as I have why he feels do distrustful and to please source his info as to where evolutionists are agenda driven.


You also make an assumption (opinion) about "people (who) are too afraid to admit [stuff about the Bible]," yet that has nothing to do with me or someone else whose religion is not Christianity. How can this be the basis for any sort of informed opinion?

The only other "theory" that gets any air time other than evolution is "intelligent design" which has mostly been by Christian Americans who have been constantly trying to shove it into public school classrooms.

Other than Islam and maybe a few staunch Jews, what other religion do you know of whose followers push hard for creation over evolution in classrooms and court rooms?


2) Theories and conclusions can "make perfect sense" all they want, without hard evidence they aren't hard science or a fact. Christians who take the Bible literally think all their ideas "make perfect sense", too. A lot of ideas have made perfect sense then been revealed as completely wrong many, many times over the course of classical and modern science.

What's to disagree with any of that?

Christians who take their modern version of the Bible literally may think it makes perfect sense, but unfortunately, that makes them ignorant, IMO.

Evolution makes perfect sense and has yet to be revealed as completely wrong. In fact, as time goes by, researchers make new finds that make more pieces fit.

Your critical thinking skills suck.


3) It's a made up word, Blake. Nothing you can copy and paste will change that fact.

It is the same thing as "sexual reproduction" but it is still a word. No amount of ignoring my copy and pasting will change that fact.

The reason you can't find it in "dictionary.com" is that it is reference in medical terms. Google "bisexual reproduction".....first link....4th entry.....


bisexual
1. having gonads of both sexes.
2. hermaphrodite.
3. having both active and passive sexual interests or characteristics.
4. capable of the function of both sexes.
5. both heterosexual and homosexual.
6. a patient which is both heterosexual and homosexual.
7. of, relating to, or involving both sexes, as bisexual reproduction.
Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, 3 ed. © 2007 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved

also


Title: Bisexual reproduction of a form of Aphis nerii B. de F. (Homoptera: Aphididae) from Hokkaido.
Personal Authors: Takada, H., Miyazaki, M.
Author Affiliation: Laboratory of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyoto Prefectural University, Shimogamo, Kyoto 606, Japan.
Editors: No editors
Document Title: Applied Entomology and Zoology

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=19931181617


Optimal rates of bisexual reproduction in cyclical parthenogens with density-dependent growth
Authors: Serra1; King2

Source: Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Volume 12, Number 2, March 1999 , pp. 263-271(9)

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/jeb/1999/00000012/00000002/art00006


http://rms1.agsearch.agropedia.affrc.go.jp/contents/JASI/pdf/society/14-0649.pdf

My theory that you are an idiot is quickly becoming fact.

[z0sa]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_basic_difference_between_asexual_repro duction_and_bisexual_reproduction



Technically, there is no such thing as "bisexual" reproduction.

www.dictionary.com and a random medical dictionary backs it up.

See, you can call semantics all you want, but it's clear you are not aware how very specialized that term is. "sexual reproduction" appears 62 times more often than "bisexual reproduction" (804,000 results compared to just 13,000) on google, but you just happened to Google evolution topics often enough to think that it's the appropriate term, right? :lol I'd like to know the odds on that happening.

You are a very disingenuous person, Blake; I can see why Phenomanul thinks you're godless. There's a reason for the term's rarity; additionally, it doesn't even fit in the context you used it. I'll let you figure that one out.


http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=622&m=1 - check this out.

It's one of the first links that shows up for "bisexual reproduction". It is literally a forum poster like myself correcting another forum poster like you on the fact that it's just "sexual reproduction." :lmao you'd get owned anywhere with that shit.



You just can't stand everyone knowing how ignorant you are. You don't know even basic terms and you want to down one's informed opinions on the subject. :lol Pathetic.

I don't need to propose a theory to know why you're considered by many here a retard on most topics; that is, beyond the first page of google (and even there you have trouble :lmao). I consider your stupidity an obvious fact, like the earth circling the sun once every 365 days.

I also know you must have a vendetta against people who expose that flaw of yours since you try so hard to project it on to others. Good. The secret's out now.

Now get ready for some unoriginal prosaic post stealing by Blake, followed by a "fail" or "you're an idiot" without actually answering why "bisexual reproduction" doesn't exist by popular standards (and outside of his content). That's his amazingly funny shtick: stealing someone's posting structure for the 5000th time in 7000 posts. When he gets really confused, he'll just say you made a "big worded asstalking." Yes, it's really the best he can do. :lol

[admiralsnackbar]

Whether or not Blake fudged his terminology, and whether or not Zosa wants to hang the weight of his argument against Blake on said alleged fudging, it seems that the central absurdity we're encountering is that some people want to interpret a theory as a truth, which, by definition, it is not. This so-called "macro-evolution" can stick in people's craws as much as they want it to, but it still remains the most likely explanation for our understanding of how species came to be, and it continues to be a useful tool in making scientific predictions -- particularly in genetic research.

The reason I, for one, continue to press Phenomanul (and perhaps Zosa?) about providing a compelling theory to challenge the theory of evolution is that listing real or imagined imperfections in a theory is not enough to render a theory implausible. There is no theory that is free of imperfection or uncertainty (one that would be would, after all, no longer be considered a theory), but it has to count for something that the people -- be they sympathetic, or contrary to, evolution -- that have been trying to disprove Darwin's idea since its inception continue to fall short of the mark, or that modern genetics research has -- more often than not -- borne out many of the suspicions of evolutionary biologists.

A few pages back, Phenomanul somewhat glibly remarked that elecro-magnetic theory was adequately fleshed-out and could be considered "hard science." But is it? We are able to perform experiments that consistently give us the results we expect, yet we still don't really understand the underpinnings of energy at the atomic level, or at the macro level, for that matter. That's the fundamental cross under which all current physisists labor -- the irreconcilability between the theories of quantum mechanics and astrophysics. That doesn't discount the remarkable things we can do, from nuclear fission to simply using an IC.

By the same token, biologists are able to consistently prove that micro-organisms subjected to various conditions will change in predictable ways. They don't know what "life" is, and I'm sure many of them question the legitimacy of what are admittedly arbitrary taxonomic categories (brought up because of the controversial species change that was observed in laboratory conditions a few years back), but they know how particular types of life will tend to change when exposed to particular chemical agents. That's the basis of modern medicine, and it is absolutely rooted in the common notions of the evolutionary theory.

It may yet turn out that "macro-evolution" doesn't operate according to the same mechanics that "micro-evolution" does, but I'm inclined to say that the burden of proof falls upon those who argue that the "dots" have been connected wrong, not the people whose theory has an explanation for how the dots are connected, and each day amass more data to support themselves. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that I have no doubt the theory of evolution is incomplete and stands on much that will one day be proven false... but to dismiss its usefulness outright because the scientific record contains some bone-headed assertions here and there seems to completely miss the point of what science is, how it operates.

[z0sa]

Whether or not Blake fudged his terminology, and whether or not Zosa wants to hang the weight of his argument against Blake on said alleged fudging,

What argument? My point, which hasn't been altogether subtle, is that Blake doesn't know what the hell he's talking about past what he can quickly google. He doesn't overcome opposing arguments or positions, he simply insults them from his own. That's not worth anyone's time.

As for your post, you're right in most regards. Problem is, you can't assert macroevolution is hard science (like mainstream scientists and media do so well) simply because it's the best explanation.

[admiralsnackbar]

Problem is, you can't assert macroevolution is hard science (like mainstream scientists and media do so well) simply because it's the best explanation.

I don't know what the obsession with "hard science" is with you guys... it's a theory for Pete's sake. A rather young theory, I might add.

I don't blame the majority of scientists for accepting evolution as a given since they have no real reason not to, and plenty of practical reasons to do so. It's a useful tool. As for the media... they have no reason to doubt it because the scientists tell them so, and, for good or ill, the media (like the rest of us) has begun to take science as the gospel of our modern age.

This notion that "macro-evolution" isn't a scientifically valid position because it can't be proven strikes me as intellectually dishonest, honestly. As your opinion, I respect it, but what it tells me is that you don't think science has the right to follow a pattern (what you call "micro-evolution") to its logical conclusion. Why would evolution occur only in bacteria and then cease in larger organisms? Even when these same larger organisms are clearly composed of what amounts to bacteria? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's like saying space is finite and there's a wall at the edge of it beyond which is... what? More space? This is why I can't help but feel the burden of proof necessarily falls on people who maintain your position -- you're asking me to reject or doubt an idea that interrupts the pattern I see in nature already ("micro-evolution") and that is not contradicted by logic or experience... all without providing the grounds to justify this skepticism.

Don't get me wrong: I think skepticism is healthy... but within reason. It can just as easily lead to absurd positions like Berkeley-style solipsism, which, while irrefutable, can be viscerally grasped as asinine and literally megalomaniacal.

[Blake]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_basic_difference_between_asexual_repro duction_and_bisexual_reproduction

:lol do you always go to wiki answers for your source of information?


www.dictionary.com and a random medical dictionary backs it up.

It's not random. It's an actual published dictionary that is used as a source at freedictionary.com:

http://images.bookbyte.com/isbn.aspx?isbn=9780702027888


See, you can call semantics all you want, but it's clear you are not aware how very specialized that term is. "sexual reproduction" appears 62 times more often than "bisexual reproduction" (804,000 results compared to just 13,000) on google, but you just happened to Google evolution topics often enough to think that it's the appropriate term, right? :lol I'd like to know the odds on that happening.

I have no idea what you are babbling about.

Clearly "sexual reproduction" is the general term used and would be listed more often . Since I was referring to "asexual reproduction" I also mentioned "bisexual reproduction" for clarity sake. Although it is seldom used, it was appropriately used.

I have also posted various points of reference including a medical dictionary and several research articles showing how the term is properly used. I really cannot make it any clearer for you.

Obviously you are trying so hard to win a meaningless semantics battle, and you are failing miserably.

I am betting you will again call it a fake word and I am curious how long you can go at purposely ignoring published works that clearly show this to be a real term.


You are a very disingenuous person, Blake; I can see why Phenomanul thinks you're godless. There's a reason for the term's rarity; additionally, it doesn't even fit in the context you used it. I'll let you figure that one out.

I make points and back them up with real sources. You purposely ignore a term that is published in a real dictionary most likely because you are butthurt about being shown up. You are very clearly the one that is being disingenuous.

Phenomanul thinks I am godless because I believe the theory of macroevolution is relevant and he somehow connects that to me "hanging out with atheists buddies."

There is a good reason why it's rare to find evolutionists with agendas against creationism. I have already figured out why that is.


http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=622&m=1 - check this out.

It's one of the first links that shows up for "bisexual reproduction". It is literally a forum poster like myself correcting another forum poster like you on the fact that it's just "sexual reproduction." :lmao you'd get owned anywhere with that shit.

I have already posted enough sources to show that the word is legit and that I did not make it up. An obscure post from an obscure poster from an obscure messageboard does not make you correct. All it does is show desperation on your part.

You are either an idiot with an extremely low reading comprehension level or you are desperately trying to still win this argument, which the longer it goes, the worse it gets for you.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just an idiot still trying to win a winless semantics argument that really has little to do with the context of the this thread.


You just can't stand everyone knowing how ignorant you are. You don't know even basic terms and you want to down one's informed opinions on the subject. :lol Pathetic.

You are still clinging to this failed attempt to show me up. :lol Pathetic.


I don't need to propose a theory to know why you're considered by many here a retard on most topics; that is, beyond the first page of google (and even there you have trouble :lmao). I consider your stupidity an obvious fact, like the earth circling the sun once every 365 days.

There are plenty of facts to prove you are acting like a retard in this topic.

Clearly you are the one having trouble with page one when googling "bisexual reproduction". :lmao


I also know you must have a vendetta against people who expose that flaw of yours since you try so hard to project it on to others. Good. The secret's out now.

I have no vendettas against anyone on a message board. It's no secret.

Apparently you have a vendetta against me and the term "bisexual reproduction." Since you have brought it up in another thread that has nothing to do with this one, the secret has been out for a few days now.


Now get ready for some unoriginal prosaic post stealing by Blake, followed by a "fail" or "you're an idiot" without actually answering why "bisexual reproduction" doesn't exist by popular standards (and outside of his content).

Bisexual reproduction doesn't exist by popular standards because it is more of scientific term used to be extremely specific instead of using the general term "sexual reproduction".

Your failure to realize this and keep hanging on to this very minor argument makes you an idiot.

[z0sa]

I don't know what the obsession with "hard science" is with you guys... it's a theory for Pete's sake. A rather young theory, I might add.

I don't blame the majority of scientists for accepting evolution as a given since they have no real reason not to, and plenty of practical reasons to do so. It's a useful tool. As for the media... they have no reason to doubt it because the scientists tell them so, and, for good or ill, the media (like the rest of us) has begun to take science as the gospel of our modern age.

This notion that "macro-evolution" isn't a scientifically valid position because it can't be proven strikes me as intellectually dishonest, honestly. As your opinion, I respect it, but what it tells me is that you don't think science has the right to follow a pattern (what you call "micro-evolution") to its logical conclusion. Why would evolution occur only in bacteria and then cease in larger organisms? Even when these same larger organisms are clearly composed of what amounts to bacteria? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's like saying space is finite and there's a wall at the edge of it beyond which is... what? More space? This is why I can't help but feel the burden of proof necessarily falls on people who maintain your position -- you're asking me to reject or doubt an idea that interrupts the pattern I see in nature already ("micro-evolution") and that is not contradicted by logic or experience... all without providing the grounds to justify this skepticism.

Don't get me wrong: I think skepticism is healthy... but within reason. It can just as easily lead to absurd positions like Berkeley-style solipsism, which, while irrefutable, can be viscerally grasped as asinine and literally megalomaniacal.

This post is reserved for a bravo on overcoming my objection with only your opinion and without insult. A sound logical retort, if I may. You reference both of our positions in relation to each other and treat my side of the spectrum with respect. Blake, take some notes son.

[Blake]

As for your post, you're right in most regards. Problem is, you can't assert macroevolution is hard science (like mainstream scientists and media do so well) simply because it's the best explanation.

Do you make it a point to discount all scientific theories that you don't see as being "hard science"?

[z0sa]

:lol do you always go to wiki answers for your source of information?



It's not random. It's an actual published dictionary that is used as a source at freedictionary.com:

http://images.bookbyte.com/isbn.aspx?isbn=9780702027888



i have no idea what you are babbling about.

Clearly "sexual reproduction" is the general term used and would be listed more often . Since i was referring to "asexual reproduction" i also mentioned "bisexual reproduction" for clarity sake. Although it is seldom used, it was appropriately used.

I have also posted various points of reference including a medical dictionary and several research articles showing how the term is properly used. I really cannot make it any clearer for you.

Obviously you are trying so hard to win a meaningless semantics battle, and you are failing miserably.

I am betting you will again call it a fake word and i am curious how long you can go at purposely ignoring published works that clearly show this to be a real term.



I make points and back them up with real sources. You purposely ignore a term that is published in a real dictionary most likely because you are butthurt about being shown up. You are very clearly the one that is being disingenuous.

Phenomanul thinks i am godless because i believe the theory of macroevolution is relevant and he somehow connects that to me "hanging out with atheists buddies."

there is a good reason why it's rare to find evolutionists with agendas against creationism. I have already figured out why that is.



I have already posted enough sources to show that the word is legit and that i did not make it up. An obscure post from an obscure poster from an obscure messageboard does not make you correct. All it does is show desperation on your part.

You are either an idiot with an extremely low reading comprehension level or you are desperately trying to still win this argument, which the longer it goes, the worse it gets for you.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just an idiot still trying to win a winless semantics argument that really has little to do with the context of the this thread.



You are still clinging to this failed attempt to show me up. :lol pathetic.



There are plenty of facts to prove you are acting like a retard in this topic.

Clearly you are the one having trouble with page one when googling "bisexual reproduction". :lmao



i have no vendettas against anyone on a message board. It's no secret.

Apparently you have a vendetta against me and the term "bisexual reproduction." since you have brought it up in another thread that has nothing to do with this one, the secret has been out for a few days now.



Bisexual reproduction doesn't exist by popular standards because it is more of scientific term used to be extremely specific instead of using the general term "sexual reproduction".

Your failure to realize this and keep hanging on to this very minor argument makes you an idiot.

That's his amazingly funny shtick: Stealing someone's posting structure for the 5000th time in 7000 posts. When he gets really confused, he'll just say you made a "big worded asstalking." yes, it's really the best he can do. :lol


that's not worth anyone's time.

[Blake]

This post is reserved for a bravo on overcoming my objection with only your opinion and without insult. A sound logical retort, if I may. You reference both of our positions in relation to each other and treat my side of the spectrum with respect. Blake, take some notes son.

There have been plenty of logical, sound retorts made in this thread that are similar to that one. I have taken note of your failure to read those other posts carefully and have come to the conclusion that you are an idiot, son.

[Blake]

it's obviously worth my time because I keep hanging on to a failed argument.

[z0sa]

You referenced evolution/my position first in the other thread :lol

Projection sucks.

[admiralsnackbar]

Hug it out, guys.

[Blake]

You referenced evolution/my position first in the other thread :lol

Projection sucks.

na, I referenced your butthurtness in the other thread.

You referenced "bisexual reproduction."

Denial sucks.

[z0sa]

Hug it out, guys.

Blake really does need a hug. The dude has thousands of posts calling people idiots, telling them they fail, stealing their post structure to be lame and annoying, and calling basically anyone out anytime when he knows he can belittle them and get a reaction.

Your classic e-tough guy is just like any other bully; hurting on the inside and in need of affection.

[Blake]

Hug it out, guys.

hugging it out isn't any fun. Watching z0sa continue to cry about bisexual reproduction not being a real word is.

[z0sa]

yeah, i referenced your position on evolution in the other thread.

You referenced "bisexual reproduction" in response and proved it's not a common word that would be known in the correct context by someone who only studies the first page of google searches for his rebuttals.

me denying a fact that could be easily linked sucks and is disingenuous.

fify

[Blake]

Blake really does need a hug. The dude has thousands of posts calling people idiots, telling them they fail, stealing their post structure to be lame and annoying, and calling basically anyone out anytime when he knows he can belittle them and get a reaction.

Na, I don't need a hug. I have thousands of posts calling idiots like you idiots.

I don't call anyone out just for the hell of it. It's usually just people like you or phenom that make claims with nothing but ass cheek to back it up with.


Your classic e-tough guy is just like any other bully; hurting on the inside and in need of affection.

:lol I'm not an e-tough guy and I don't wish any harm on you. I'm just letting you know that you are being an idiot.

[z0sa]

Any internet forum poster who has thousands of posts calling other posters idiots is an e-tough guy.

[Blake]

fify

:lol wow, you are really obsessed.

Again, I referenced you being "butthurt".

You came back with something along the lines of "lol, bisexual reproduction".

Please feel free to link whatever you like. Watching posters like you self own is great entertainment.

...incredible....:lmao

[Blake]

Any internet forum poster who has thousands of posts calling other posters idiots is an e-tough guy.

Unless you can provide a dictionary stating as much, I will say no it's not.

You being an idiot is more a truth than me being an "e-tough guy".

[z0sa]

Calling faceless anonymous internet posters idiots and failures because they're opinion doesn't coincide with yours indeed makes you an e-tough guy.

You not being able to see that is actually priceless. :lol

[z0sa]

:lol wow, you are really obsessed.

Again, I referenced you being "butthurt".

LOL you referenced my position on evolution as being the reason.

I said you don't know shit about evolution or this debate and don't have any kind of qualification to say that.

Not surprisingly, you deny it or simply don't understand what happened.




...incredible....:lmao

It is incredible just how far you're willing to go even when you've been proven ignorant on this issue.

[Blake]

Calling faceless anonymous internet posters idiots and failures because they're opinion doesn't coincide with yours indeed makes you an e-tough guy.

You not being able to see that is actually priceless. :lol

Calling a faceless anonymous poster that calls a published dictionaries "random" because it doesn't coincide with his argument an idiot does not make me an e tough guy.

It just means I have no problem telling you that you are being an idiot as you can't seem to or don't want to recognize it yourself.

You continually acting the idiot by disregarding the term even though it has been used in published works long before I started posting in this thread is greatness.

You not being able to see how you and phenomanul have been idiotic in this thread is actually priceless.

[Blake]

LOL you referenced my position on evolution as being the reason.

I said you don't know shit about evolution or this debate and don't have any kind of qualification to say that.

Not surprisingly, you deny it or simply don't understand what happened.

Exactly. I said you were butthurt because you were getting pwned in this thread.

You brought up "bisexual reproduction" in that thread, not me.

Not surprisingly you fail to understand or comprehend what is being said.


It is incredible just how far you're willing to go even when you've been proven ignorant on this issue.

You saying I have been proven ignorant is extremely ignorant on your part.

What is really incredible is how many times you have tried to discredit Saunders 3rd edition Veterinarian Dictionary as being a real dictionary.

Only an idiot would try more than once after I clearly showed it is legit in the simplest way possible by cutting and pasting the link, definition and even a picture of the cover. :lol

You are an idiot.

[z0sa]

:sleep more e-badass Blake bullshit

[admiralsnackbar]

This thread is turning into an argument against evolution.

[Mark in Austin]

You guys HAVE to watch this presentation.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30825_Recommended-_Ken_Millers_Only_a_Theory

Given by Ken Miller, who writes Biology textbooks, you may have seen this one:





Just watched the first 3 videos. Fantastic.

edit - just watched them all and it was a terrific lecture.

By the way, by the end of the lecture he makes the case that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive - and uses a clip of him being interviewed on the Colbert Report to support it.

Nicely done.

[admiralsnackbar]

Just watched the first 3 videos. Fantastic.

edit - just watched them all and it was a terrific lecture.

By the way, by the end of the lecture he makes the case that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive - and uses a clip of him being interviewed on the Colbert Report to support it.

Nicely done.

I thought the discussion of Phillip Johnson's "wedge strategy" was interesting, but all too brief. The idea of actively marketing the notion that evolution and religion are in direct opposition in order to promote a world-view that seeks to:


Defeat scientific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science) materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies.

and


Replace materialistic explanations with the theistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic) understanding that nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature) and human beings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being) are created by God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)


...seems so bloody loathsome, ignorant, and useless a position.

He starts with the flawed premise that science causes what amounts to depravity and divests the world of it's spiritual meaning (I guess he never met a scientist given that those guys, as a class, are more profoundly aware of the mysterious nature of reality than the average fundamentalist), then has the hubris to disseminate this giant failure of reason to ignoramuses like himself to create a pointless, counter-productive climate of antagonism towards education. He's preaching stupidity! Straight no chaser!

Most mystifying of all is that this isn't a yokel from the hills of West Virginnie, it's a law professor at UC Berkely! One of the better science colleges in the country! WTF!?!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson

[Blake]

:sleep more e-badass Blake bullshit

not really.

just more e-crying on your part that I'm e-bullying you.

[Blake]

This thread is turning into an argument against evolution.

or an argument for de-evolution.

[I. Hustle]

C'mon! I know you guys can make this thread reach 1,000!!!

[z0sa]

not really.

just more e-crying on your part that I'm e-bullying you.

The internet badass has spoken

[z0sa]

or an argument for de-evolution.

that's what he meant e-badass

[Kamnik]

Not believing in evolution is for me like not believing there is air around us.

I am not trying to be insultive, but I sincerely believe that.



Believing that the world is 10 000 years old goes into a separate category that is hard to describe...

[Blake]

The internet badass has spoken

the internet cryer is still crying.

[Blake]

that's what he meant e-badass

de-evolution is not the same thing as an argument against evolution.

your reading comprehension skills are very low, e-cryer.

[Blake]

C'mon! I know you guys can make this thread reach 1,000!!!

way to help meet the goal!!!

[z0sa]

de-evolution is not the same thing as an argument against evolution.

your reading comprehension skills are very low, e-cryer.

:lol The more you call me an idiot and a "cryer", the more of an e-badass you become.

care to fill him in on your joke snackbar?

[Blake]

:lol The more you call me an idiot and a "cryer", the more of an e-badass you become.

no, not really... I'm not looking to kick your ass. I'm just simply calling you an idiot and you are e-crying about it.


care to fill him in on your joke snackbar?

why don't you go ahead and fill me in on his joke.

[Kamnik]

Ricky Gervais on creation of man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlv4I0h5qZs&feature=related

[Phenomanul]

This is a long one fellas...


Whether or not Blake fudged his terminology, and whether or not Zosa wants to hang the weight of his argument against Blake on said alleged fudging, it seems that the central absurdity we're encountering is that some people want to interpret a theory as a truth, which, by definition, it is not. This so-called "macro-evolution" can stick in people's craws as much as they want it to, but it still remains the most likely explanation for our understanding of how species came to be, and it continues to be a useful tool in making scientific predictions - particularly in genetic research.

I don’t think you’re trying to be purposefully misleading… but this statement is incorrect (and it’s the second time you’ve implied as much). Macro-evolution cannot predict much of anything (in an applied sense)… it is a theory that was constructed to explain the history of our biodiversity; and can only posit vague and non-testable assumptions about the future of any given species... unless of course you feel that the rise of X-Men and ‘mutants’ is imminent, because macro-evolution predicts that this is a possible outcome for any given genome (“Cambrian Explosion” anyone?).

It doesn’t matter if the evolutionary theory is monophyletic or polyphyletic in nature, if the coding for certain ubiquitous proteins is established for all organisms (prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multi-cellular organisms alike), or if phylogenetic relationships are established between different species living today (some which surprisingly contradict the classical relationships long thought to have existed using evaluations of morphology and the fossil record). All a theory like macro-evolution can positively state is that our genetic make-up changes over time. Belief in genetic drift and mega evolution thus provides very little predictive power with regards to the betterment of mankind… sci-fi aside, of course.

In other words, Neo-Darwinian evolution is one way to view our past… but it is not the only way… more importantly; it can’t make but general statements about our genetic future.

For example, the fields of molecular genetics and microbiology don’t require a committed belief in evolution for work in those fields to be of actual, measureable, benefit. One can splice genes into the genomes of simple bacteria (using mRNA segments, transposons or retro-viral insertion techniques) to mass produce any number of enzymes and proteins such as lactase and insulin. One can modify bacterial genomes (through the transformational vectors supplied by the aforementioned techniques) to help us decompose waste and even petroleum products at refinery waste-water treatment plants… The applied-science benefits in these fields has little to do with whether or not the scientists/bioengineers involved believe in the concept of universal common ancestry that is proposed by the theory of macro-evolution. More importantly, the transgenesis methods that make all of this possible have little to do with that belief… the techniques for the coinjection of mRNA segments, DNA transposons and retro-viral segments were developed by studying the behavior of mRNA/tRNA/transposon segments and the behavior of retro-viruses in living organisms. Thus, the techniques themselves have absolutely nothing to do with the predetermined belief that all living organisms share common ancestry. Unfortunately, the academic world at large looks at all these applications and tries to claim them as victories for the evolutionary process. Nothing could be more misleading… or a flat out lie.

Fact is, every time you all make comment regarding the ignorance, and stubbornness of those who don’t hold the macro-evolutionary theory to be truth, suggesting that they’re holding back scientific progress for instead latching on to theologically-induced beliefs;

1) you all do so ignoring that the real-world application benefits of macro-evolutionary beliefs hold very little weight in a practical sense (i.e. you all routinely overrate and overstate the theory’s importance to the scientific knowledge-set).

2) you all mistakenly assume that the theory is being criticized for minor, unimportant flaws… flaws which don’t necessarily compromise the evolutionary premise itself… and hence ‘feel’ justified for continuing to hold on to those beliefs.

3) you all assume that since the theory of evolution is taught widespread, that by default it is the best explanation, and that as the best explanation… conflicting viewpoints hold no merit whatsoever.

4) you all likewise assume that en-masse support for the theory means that it must be true, “fallacy of consensus gentium,” (popular belief in anthropomorphic climate change is the redux dynamic of this phenomenon)

5) and that since this at-large support exists for the theory that quantifiable, testable data must also exist.

6) ironically, you all unfortunately act out of ignorance yourselves if you believe all that to be true and then call others out for disbelief. What’s worse is that certain people take a belligerent and spiteful position on the matter despite the fact that the evolutionary framework is based on nothing more than a slew of assumptions and not the hard evidence they claim.

Concerning assumption No. 4… this kind of diatribe - stating that evolution is a “fact” accepted by “all educated persons” except a “fundamentalist minority” - can make a real impact on people. The more people say it… the more others believe it to be true. I have no quarrel with you or Blake or anyone here that says that most “knowledgeable experts” (read that as “most scientists”) accept organic evolution, macro-evolution… etc... But my response is: So what?! Any argument based on a mere “counting of heads” is a fallacious argument.

No doubt, there are many “knowledgeable experts” who believe in evolution. And there are no doubt many reasons why that is so… Part of the reason for that, however, might just be: “that most educated people believe in evolution simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution.” Numerous people, including many scientists in unrelated fields, fall into this category... For the past several decades (almost a century), evolution has been taught from kindergarten to graduate school as a “fact that all reputable scientists believe.” As a result, people often believe that if they, too, wish to be viewed as “educated,” it is practically a prerequisite that they believe in evolution. As mentioned earlier, this dynamic is once again repeating itself with the politicized belief of anthropomorphic climate change. And for those of us who actually take notice the scientific-community isn’t always right… or completely honest.

Truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote. A thing may be, and often is, true even when accepted only by a small minority. The history of science is replete with such examples… If something is true, stating it a thousand times does not make it any truer. Similarly, if something is false, stating it a thousand times does not make it true… In an earlier post I described the difference between absolute TRUTH and truth. Unfortunately, Blake got his ‘panties in a wad’ :rolleyes because I attempted to define absolute TRUTH as how ‘reality’ was perceived by GOD. As if any mention of divinity somehow undermined the message I was trying to relate… which was that absolute TRUTH is inherently greater than our human perspective precisely because our perspective is very limited. The fact that I attributed that ultimate perspective as belonging to GOD was beside the point (I am entitled to that opinion).

Furthermore, on the subject of truth, the prestige of a position’s advocates has nothing to do with whether or not the fact in question is true or false. For example, it is incorrect to suggest that because a Nobel laureate or a renowned college professor states something that the statement is true by definition (my earlier references to Hawking and Einstein unfortunately fall into that category against my intention). Nevertheless, I should note that not all prominent scientists believe/believed in evolution.

As for my rigidity concerning the matter of ‘truth’… you ought to know by now that the controversy is entirely perspective driven. Part of the problem is that you all play the numbers game above non-stop (especially the drive-by posters) as if that were the weight of the argument itself. The other problem is that you all truly believe that the scientific community-at-large cannot be wrong. Sure, you all say, “they’re continually working to get things right – that’s how science works” – in your minds however, this process never applies to the premise surrounding GOD’s existence. Why would it? The presupposition of GOD’s existence or non-existence… lies entirely outside the scientific realm. And yet the primary basis for disbelief amongst most atheists today is founded on ‘scientific’ objections. You can’t have it both ways.

I hate to break it to you all… but the idea of strict objectivity in science is little more than a myth. While scientists like to think of themselves as broad-minded, unprejudiced paragons of virtue, the fact is that they, too, on occasion, suffer from bouts of bias, bigotry, and presuppositionalism. In this case… if not for an a priori commitment to the established belief that life arose on its own, the mechanistic means by which that life diversified remains second fiddle to that core assumption (that the origin of life itself arose from purposeless, chance processes). Those wishing to disassociate the two theories fail to reconcile that even evolution had to have a beginning, and that at ‘point zero’ evolution is highly intertwined with the ‘origins’ question because the very processes which produced life had to also lay the groundwork for evolution. Since questions surrounding the subject of “origins” can not be quantifiably addressed using the scientific method, what then is the point of making everyone believe that hard data exists for the assumed linkage between the different phylogenetic families? Or for making everyone believe that we all share a common ancestor?



The reason I, for one, continue to press Phenomanul (and perhaps Zosa?) about providing a compelling theory to challenge the theory of evolution is that listing real or imagined imperfections in a theory is not enough to render a theory implausible. There is no theory that is free of imperfection or uncertainty (one that would be would, after all, no longer be considered a theory), but it has to count for something that the people -- be they sympathetic, or contrary to, evolution -- that have been trying to disprove Darwin's idea since its inception continue to fall short of the mark, or that modern genetics research has -- more often than not -- borne out many of the suspicions of evolutionary biologists.

Much of what we observe in nature is fully compatible with the claim that multiple lineages were created independently and endowed with a degree of genetic adaptability (hint hint Blake, my plausible alternative belief). I can’t prove Divine intervention any more than the next guy can prove life arose from scratch. Nevertheless, no hard data exists to support the claim that creatures outside of those lineages share common ancestry with each other. Canines are canines, bears are bears, pachyderms are pachyderms… etc… All we know is that there is an element of diversification within those classes stemming from adaptation and nothing more, but there is no real, measureable, evidence to support the claim that the major phylogenetic orders endured evolutionary divergence sometime in the past.

LOL at “fall short of the mark”… and then using genetics research as your pitch to state your claim.

As alluded earlier, modern genetics research has actually introduced controversial twists to the classical relationships long thought to have existed between taxonomic families. These relationships, developed by using morphology and assessments of the fossil record differ greatly from the phylogenetic relationships identified by studying the genomes of today’s organisms.

I’ll tell you what… many more flaws in the evolutionary premise have surfaced since the discovery of DNA and not the other way around (support for evolution)… But I could almost bet that the majority here, in academia and ‘the scientific community-at-large’ believe the opposite to be true.

Evolutionary proponents, for example, like to point out the similarities between the chromosomal counts of different species and the genomic similarities between them (i.e. ‘X’ species is 86% genetically similar to ‘Y’ species), but they largely ignore the inconvenient questions brought about by other mind-blowing discoveries in the field of molecular genetics. For example, it was long believed that we were linearly ‘hard-wired’ i.e. each of our genes coded for a particular protein/enzyme (1 gene:1 protein). Now we’ve found that a singular gene can code for multiple proteins (as many as 50) and that the simple translation/transcription process, as complex as it was, is now far more complicated than the mechanism long taught.

Case on point, the human genome can code for roughly 300,000 different proteins using only 30,000 genes. What is surprising about this find is that any given gene can be transcribed for many different protein products that are themselves changed by other processes once they are produced. We’ve learned that the non-gene regions (their base-code lengths, their spacing and location) may hold the keys to the complexity that we see in ourselves. We’ve also learned that the environment acting on our biological pathways may be just as important as our genetic code in making us what we are.

Mathematically speaking, what this find suggests is that point mutations are actually more deleterious than initially assumed, and it deals a harsh blow to the idea that such mutations could potentially be beneficial towards the propagation of ‘improvements’ directly or by proxy… if anything it drastically reduces the frequency that such mutations are actually beneficial because a mutation would not only affect the translation of the primary protein (the one coded by sequential translation of the strand) but potentially the translation of many more proteins (the ones coded by rearrangement of its exons and introns). Under this context, deleterious, pathologic mutations in the non-genic regions of the human genome may also cause or predispose us to genetic disorders (including increased susceptibility to certain viral attacks). It also deals a blow to the core evolutionary notion that new information can arise from purposeless processes [more on that later]… as in, much of the genetic material present in our genomes is actually dormant (within an intron, or within non-genic code) until something in the environment induces a change. Before the advent of DNA research there is no way we could have known that…



A few pages back, Phenomanul somewhat glibly remarked that elecro-magnetic theory was adequately fleshed-out and could be considered "hard science." But is it? We are able to perform experiments that consistently give us the results we expect, yet we still don't really understand the underpinnings of energy at the atomic level, or at the macro level, for that matter. That's the fundamental cross under which all current physisists labor -- the irreconcilability between the theories of quantum mechanics and astrophysics. That doesn't discount the remarkable things we can do, from nuclear fission to simply using an IC.

If you had followed my comment closely I said that our understanding of electromagnetism was developed enough to produce valid correlations for practical use. Maxwell’s equations are sound. Experiments surrounding the use of those empirical equations (along with the Planck, Boltzmann, Faraday, and dozens of other equations) yield hard, reproducible data.

The correlations derived by our understanding of the electromagnetic theory define what science is capable of achieving. It has led to the development of literally thousands of technologies that work because we understand the concepts behind them. I also mentioned that the effects at the atomic level did little to affect the overall correlations themselves (and by corollary the technologies which are based off of them). But that didn’t mean I was suggesting that we should stop seeking to understand the theory from that perspective. I was simply stating that what we know so far has led to the formulation of equations that work, formulas that can predict what a system will do under any number of conditions. That, admiralsnackbar, is hard science. It is applied science.

Belief in Macro-evolution doesn’t provide any practical applied benefit that comes remotely close to what the science behind electromagnetism has produced. I think you’re being rather disingenuous by suggesting that they can be placed on equal footing.

Does it matter that we’re still trying to understand the electromagnetic relationship of gravity and dark matter/energy with the known theories??? That we’ve yet to finalize the ultimate Grand Unified Theory itself? It doesn’t change the empirical truths of what’s been quantifiably understood thus far. Discovering the elusive link between dark energy and the electromagnetic theory won’t make our radios suddenly stop working. [/sarcasm]

Guessing that Species A could be an ancestor of Species E without the benefit of any hard evidence other than pointing out observational similarity, or morphology is not true science. Anymore than suggesting GOD created distinct, separate lineages to the produce the biodiversity we see today is. Neither assumption is testable.. That is my gripe with your continued assertions that evolution is based on hard data.



By the same token, biologists are able to consistently prove that micro-organisms subjected to various conditions will change in predictable ways. They don't know what "life" is, and I'm sure many of them question the legitimacy of what are admittedly arbitrary taxonomic categories (brought up because of the controversial species change that was observed in laboratory conditions a few years back), but they know how particular types of life will tend to change when exposed to particular chemical agents. That's the basis of modern medicine, and it is absolutely rooted in the common notions of the evolutionary theory.

Ummm… that is based on genetics… on the transmission of genes. On the translation of proteins... on the known reactions of organic and biological compounds (whole branches called organic chemistry and biochemistry… you may have heard of them)… etc… etc… etc… not on the evolutionary theory. I’m beginning to see that the main problem here is that in your eyes (and others’ around here) biology = evolution… This is most definitely not the case.

I don’t need to believe that the rhesus monkey and humans allegedly shared a common ancestor 50 million years ago in order to know (and understand) that the phosphorylation of ATP (the conversion of ATP to ADP, Pi, and energy) requires the use of Cytochrome c and that this catalyzed hydrolysis reaction drives the energy pathways for all organisms. (random example I know...)

I don’t need to believe in any macro-evolutionary claim to understand how biological processes function (those that we can actually observe and study under a microscope… and not guess about). etc... etc... etc...



It may yet turn out that "macro-evolution" doesn't operate according to the same mechanics that "micro-evolution" does, but I'm inclined to say that the burden of proof falls upon those who argue that the "dots" have been connected wrong, not the people whose theory has an explanation for how the dots are connected, and each day amass more data to support themselves. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that I have no doubt the theory of evolution is incomplete and stands on much that will one day be proven false... but to dismiss its usefulness outright because the scientific record contains some bone-headed assertions here and there seems to completely miss the point of what science is, how it operates.

It’s not about the mechanics… it’s about the claims that can quantifiably be made by the experimental data sets. I’ll explain that in detail below.



I don't know what the obsession with "hard science" is with you guys... it's a theory for Pete's sake. A rather young theory, I might add.

I don't blame the majority of scientists for accepting evolution as a given since they have no real reason not to, and plenty of practical reasons to do so. It's a useful tool. As for the media... they have no reason to doubt it because the scientists tell them so, and, for good or ill, the media (like the rest of us) has begun to take science as the gospel of our modern age.

See “fallacy of consensus gentium” above.



This notion that "macro-evolution" isn't a scientifically valid position because it can't be proven strikes me as intellectually dishonest, honestly. As your opinion, I respect it, but what it tells me is that you don't think science has the right to follow a pattern (what you call "micro-evolution") to its logical conclusion. Why would evolution occur only in bacteria and then cease in larger organisms? Even when these same larger organisms are clearly composed of what amounts to bacteria? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's like saying space is finite and there's a wall at the edge of it beyond which is... what? More space? This is why I can't help but feel the burden of proof necessarily falls on people who maintain your position -- you're asking me to reject or doubt an idea that interrupts the pattern I see in nature already ("micro-evolution") and that is not contradicted by logic or experience... all without providing the grounds to justify this skepticism.

Don't get me wrong: I think skepticism is healthy... but within reason. It can just as easily lead to absurd positions like Berkeley-style solipsism, which, while irrefutable, can be viscerally grasped as asinine and literally megalomaniacal.


The skepticism is valid because the claims made by macro-evolution have never been demonstrated in a lab setting… nor can they be extrapolated from observed micro-evolutionary processes as you suggested in the bolded quote.

At this point no scientist can verifiably claim, “there… we’ve done it, the crowning achievement has been attained… the genetic changes to this Escherichia coli bacterium (i.e. example) certifiably prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we all share a common ancestor…” Such a statement would be absurd because none of the morphological changes and variations that are observed in modern populations or the lab setting justify the conclusion of universal common ancestry. In fact, the experimental data suggest that there are natural limits to the extent to which species can change.

Consider this: The use of X-rays has been used to increase the mutation rate in Drosophila fruit flies by 15,000 percent (a favorite test subject amongst evolutionists due to a relatively short gestation). Scientists have been able to catalyze the ‘evolutionary process’ of the fruit fly such that what is seen to occur in the progeny of test subjects is the equivalent of having endured many millions of years of normal mutations and 'evolution'.

Even with this tremendous speedup in the rate of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than a fruit fly. More importantly, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. We've managed to create 6 winged versions… smaller eyes versions… longer legs versions… albino versions… but they are all still fruit flies, all of the Drosophila variety... Conveniently enough these experiments rarely publish data concerning the mortality rate of the test subjects, or the number of infertile batches that result. If they did, people would realize just how deleterious mutations actually are… as if the world’s affliction with cancer wasn’t enough of a clue.

The same principles hold true for the genetic experiments conducted on E. coli bacteria, a species which is used extensively in mutation studies. This is because they reproduce rapidly, producing large populations and large numbers of mutants, because we have the E. coli’s genome mapped out and because they are easily maintained and their environments are easily manipulated in the laboratory… Despite all of their advantages, never has there arisen within a colony of test bacteria a bacterium with a primitive nucleus. Never has a bacterium within a colony of test bacteria been observed to make a simple multi-cellular formation. Although hundreds of strains and varieties of Escherichia coli have been formed, the progeny remain Escherichia coli and are easily identifiable as such. Even the citrate tolerant E. coli from the study frequently mentioned here continue to be called by that taxonomic name. Macro-evolution simply cannot be extrapolated from micro-evolutionary processes… the logical conclusion you wish to take is simply not warranted by the data or by any of the attainable morphological changes.

Speaking of changes, the functional changes observed in species do nothing to advance the claim of universal common ancestry. Interestingly, most if not all of the functional changes observed in species point away from random mutation as the explanation. They do so in two ways.

First, some of the changes are produced by a loss of information. That raises the question of how the information that was lost arose in the first place. Obviously, there are some point mutations that, under the right circumstances, do give the organism an advantage. There are point mutations that make bacteria resistant to antibiotics. There are some that make insects resistant to insecticides. There are some that increase quantitative traits in farm plants and animals (seedless fruit, etc…). But all of these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making the protein less specific. They add no information, and they add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all of the mutations that have been identified and studied so far destroy information. None of these can serve as an example of a mutation that can produce the large changes proposed by macroevolution. That’s also why Lancaster’s claim that the citrate tolerant E. coli attained their tolerance by gaining new information is suspect and still being researched.

The Neo-Darwinian would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the [Neo-Darwinian theory] is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are.

Second, some of the changes appear to be nonrandom responses to the environment, suggesting that the genome was ‘set up’ for an adaptive change to be triggered by a cue from the environment. That raises the question of how the genome came to be in that ‘prepared’ state (but that’s another matter entirely). I recall a study where a strain of E. coli that lacked a gene necessary for the metabolizing of lactose was prepared and introduced into a lactose environment. In the presence of lactose, two mutations were found in the same bacterium (one to a dormant and previously unknown structural gene and the other to its control gene) that in combination permitted it to metabolize the sugar... One should have had to wait thousands of years to see these double mutations, but in the presence of lactose 40 of them were found within a matter of days. These results suggest that presence of lactose in the environment induced these mutations… not random point mutations that evolution proposes. I mean, 40 bacteria had an identical genetic response to their environment (conversely, the odds for random point mutations accounting for that mass genetic change, in 40 individual bacteria, no less…. is flat out zero).

Darwinian evolutionists see the nonrandom interpretation of these experimental results as obviously incorrect because it contradicts the Neo-Darwinian dogma, their established worldview. Fortunately, this phenomenon has also been observed in other plants and animals… and not only on the bacterial level. Resistance to the nonrandom-variation interpretation stems from a refusal to abandon the Darwinian agenda. With that agenda, nonrandom adaptive variation, arising from an environmental signal turning ON an already present set of genes, is hard to account for… But just as some bacteria contain “cryptic” genes which encode for enzymes that are needed in some environments, so too higher order organisms may also have latent parts of their genome dedicated to be adaptive under a certain set of environmental conditions that may arise.

As an aside; that’s also why canine diversity is so overwhelmingly poignant as a counter to the suggestion that phenotypic changes require hundreds of thousands or millions of years (or thousands of generations) to become manifest. What we find is that drastic genotypic changes can be induced in as few as one generation.

Unlike macro-evolutionary claims these are processes that can actually be studied in a lab setting. They can be tested. They yield measureable data. The future will probably marginalize those who hold my viewpoint further, no matter. The point of this entire argument however is to point out that your authoritative claim to call your evolutionary view ‘hard-science’ is premature. Furthermore, there are other plausible mechanisms out there that can equally explain our current biodiversity. Lastly, you have no grounds to call me out for what basically amounts to your opinion vs. mine…

[mouse]

^ /thread

:wakeup

[Blake]

This is a long one fellas...



I didn't see anything new.

Basically you threw out a few more problems you have with evolution being called "fact".

You called out the scientific community again as being dishonest at times and called some "experts" out as just being sheeple, going with the flow.
You mentioned no specific names as to who exactly might be dishonest which is the definition of strawman.

I'll let you and z0sa in on another secret......I don't get into these debates strictly to change someone's mind. (The pwnage is just a fun sidebar to the debate). I really don't care enough about you to change your mind for the better or to try to chalk up a "win" to build up imaginary e-legendary status that nobody cares about.

I see if someone else can change my mind for my own benefit. I know, it can't be considered a hard fact either, but it's true. I'm open to new arguments and discoveries, but nothing you are saying is new including me getting called "godless". I'd love nothing more than to believe in the magic of God's omnipotent power mentioned in the Bible, but it's the same tired arguments I've heard over and over that do nothing but make me more jaded as time goes on.

I definitely have been around long enough to not allow posters to get under my skin. "Getting panties in a wad" is what happens to posters that use the ignore button like you and e-cry that I'm not giving them enough e-credit for using big intelligent sounding words and phrases. Frankly, I think you are doing yourself a disservice by dismissing evolution altogether because you believe God is the ABSOLUTE truth......whatever that means to you.

[Blake]

Lastly, you have no grounds to call me out for what basically amounts to your opinion vs. mine…

Evolution being simply 'opinion' is simply your opinion

[admiralsnackbar]

While I appreciate the thoughtful post, and can see where you're coming from, I agree that in the end, we won't agree, Phenom.

You say the theory has no predictive power, but I think using the theory, coupled with geology, to predict that we will find a transitional form between one animal and another in a certain stratum of earth -- then finding what was sought -- is compelling to me. By the same token, being able to predict that we will find a "Robertsonian translocation" in our genome that accounts for our having 2 fewer chromosomes than the great apes -- then finding it -- is, again, compelling. That we are able to originally base the theory on the morphology of bone structures in animals over time, then confirm those suspicions genetically is very encouraging. These are just two examples from the lecture posted earlier.

As to what happens in laboratories... how many generations of e. coli to be able to develop the ability to metabolize citrate? How does this compare with the number of generations of fruitflies to manifest just morphological changes -- not metabolic adaptations? I don't have to be a scientist to say there's no comparison. Beyond this, I think that unless the fruitfly experiments you point to are trying to determine whether a strain of fruitfly can be bred that is genetically resistant to x-rays, just crassly trying to create genetic mutations with x-rays will almost certainly result in un-viable generations. Viable changes would occur as gradual adaptations, not spontaneous mutations into other forms for the fun of it. We see the same thing in the amphibian world, where toxic runoff causes amphibians to mutate into un-viable life forms. Given time, some amphibians may adapt to the catastrophically sudden change of their environment and thrive, but it hasn't happened... all the worse for us. The overall chemistry of the biosphere probably hasn't changed this drastically in millions of years.

Beyond all of this, I can only wonder at your thinking. The laboratory results force you to grant that bacteria can change over time -- to the extent that they can even completely change their metabolic chemistry -- but you argue that life-forms have limits to the extent that they can change? Excuse me if I say your reasoning for this is as "unintentionally misleading" as anything I've said in the past. After all, prior to Lenski's experiment, e. coli was presumed to have the limitation that it couldn't eat citrate. As to there being no experimental data of bacteria forming a nucleus, or a multicellular entity, I agree, that is an interesting problem to consider: how do we create a situation in which it would be advantageous to a bacterium to team up with others? Do I have any reason to not believe such an experiment can be created? You tell me. Does the absence of such data bring the whole theory crashing down? I expect we'll disagree on the answer.

We have no idea what the ultimate limits -- if any -- on change are for any organism. From this uncertainty you come away with what appears to be certainty that species are irreducible identities (or if not, your skepticism seems uncharacteristically determinate about what is and is not possible), and I come away with optimism that there are ways to investigate these things which we are only beginning to understand. As I don't really have a teleological dog in the race besides being a fan of thinking, I'll be happy whether the theory is overturned or not, but I can't say your reservations give me any reason to doubt evolution is probable, or even possible.

[I. Hustle]

I disagree

[Blake]

I disagree

it took you a while to think about it

[IronMexican]

This takes me back. z0sa and Blake. Tru3 lov3

[GoodOdor]

lol creationism.

[I. Hustle]

lol creationism.

Lol lalakerism

[I. Hustle]

it took you a while to think about it

I had to think about it

[RandomGuy]

This is a long one fellas...



So much wrong, so little time.

Let's start with simple logical fallacies and work from there onto the stuff that is outright factually incorrect and/or generally misleading.

Ironically the first obvious logical fallacy involves a statement alluding to logical fallacy.

To paraphrase:

"You all assume that because evolution is widely believed, it must be true. This is a fallacy of consensus gentium".

I don't believe anybody has made the argument that evolutionary theory is correct simply because lots of people believe it.

If one distorts other's beliefs/ideas and then attempts to discredit the distortion, that is itself a strawman logical fallacy.

The argument is made that the people that study biology tend to think the theory is correct, and that is good enough to take them at their word as evolutionary theory being the most likely correct.

This is most definitely NOT a fallacy of consensus genitum.

One can't assume concretely that unanimity of opinion makes something true, but if an overwhelming majority of people who study something form a solid consensus, that would tend to logically indicate it is far more probable than not that theory is true and truly describes an aspect of our physical universe.

If 9 out of 10 doctors look at your test results, come to the THEORY that you have cancer, are you going to decide that since it is just a theory, you can safely not seek treatment?


If 9 out of 10 accountants have a theory that your treatment of expenses on your tax returns will be reversed by the IRS in an audit, do you keep filing that way?

At some point, one has to have some amount of deference to people who study something for a living when they come to a strong consensus about something.

While we can't 100% logically prove a theory simply based on a consensus, it is entirely logical to assign such theories a MUCH greater liklihood of being true.

Do scientists get stuff wrong? Yup.

Are scientists human with faults? Yup.

Are the vast majority of them either dumb or dishonest enough to push something without sufficient evidence? No.

Is that what you are saying? Are all those scientists unintelligent or dishonest?

[RandomGuy]

This is a long one fellas...

Second, some of the changes appear to be nonrandom responses to the environment, suggesting that the genome was ‘set up’ for an adaptive change to be triggered by a cue from the environment. That raises the question of how the genome came to be in that ‘prepared’ state (but that’s another matter entirely). I recall a study where a strain of E. coli that lacked a gene necessary for the metabolizing of lactose was prepared and introduced into a lactose environment. In the presence of lactose, two mutations were found in the same bacterium (one to a dormant and previously unknown structural gene and the other to its control gene) that in combination permitted it to metabolize the sugar... One should have had to wait thousands of years to see these double mutations, but in the presence of lactose 40 of them were found within a matter of days. These results suggest that presence of lactose in the environment induced these mutations… not random point mutations that evolution proposes. I mean, 40 bacteria had an identical genetic response to their environment (conversely, the odds for random point mutations accounting for that mass genetic change, in 40 individual bacteria, no less…. is flat out zero).




----------------

Factually incorrect on a lot of counts.

First off:

There are a lot of different kinds of mutations, some more probable than others.

You seem to talk a lot here about "point" mutations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
"point" mutations are only one kind of mutation out of about a dozen different documented kinds of mutations.

Secondly, you imply, that genes "respond" to their environment, i.e. "the presence of lactose *induced* those mutations"

This is not what evolutionary theory says happens in this case.

Evolutionary theory says that genes which provide some benefit that increases reproductive success will become more common.

The presence of lactose no more induced mutations than the fact that the lab assistant being named Larry induced mutations.

What the presence of lactose did do, was provide a non-random environmental factor that allowed bacteria possessing the potential to digest lactose a chance at much greater reproductive success.

Studies into this have shown that it doesn't take much difference to make a vast difference over time.

If a population of groundhogs in an area of dark colored soil without predators has a mix of black and white fur, and genes for both are equally present in the population as a whole those genes will be fairly stable.

Add in a predator that can more easily see the white groundhogs against the dark soil, and you have introduced a non-random selection that will decrease the reproductive success of the white-colored rodents, making them more rare over time, eventually quite possibly eliminating that genotype.

Lastly, you make a pretty solid claim, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, that the "odds of these mutations happening" were "flat out zero".

Seems to me to be a case of circular reasoning.

"Because evolution doesn't occur, if we see beneficial mutations happening, the odds must be flat out zero".

The law of large numbers and basic probability would beg to differ.

Odds of a certain mutation happening: one in a trillion.
A moderate population of bacteria: one billion
30 minutes per generation
No bacteria in starting billion has mutation.

Since we are looking for the odds, over time, for the population not to have the mutation at all, we can look at each individual new bacteria to start with.

Probability that one bacteria will NOT have the mutation, in any successive generation:
0.999999999999
That is pretty good odds for one bacteria. The closer to one the number is, the more certain it is. So far so good for the "it would never happen" theory.

Chances that any *billion* bacteria not having this mutation
0.999000522
(.999999999999 to the billionth power)
Still pretty good, but that is only for ONE generation.

Let's see how that pans out over the course of a day.
Any population of a billion bacteria not having this muation after one day at 1/2 hour per generation
0.953134799
Still a 95% chance. So far so good.

Any population of a billion bacteria not having this mutation after one week at 1/2 per generation
0.714628417

Any population of a billion bacteria not having this mutation after 30 days.
0.236935306

Any population of a billion bacteria not having this mutation after a year.
0.0000000246

If you were to wait a year, it is mathmatically a virtual certainty to see this particular mutation with a billion little test subjects dutifully reproducing themselves.

Mutations generally are much more frequent than one in a trillion, from what I understand and have read on the subject. I was being generous. This would imply that "flat out zero" seems to be inaccurate.

[Phenomanul]

Bringing up some memories... :lol Look RG I don't want to get dragged in to another pointless clash of viewpoints (even though that inevitably happens for me around these parts)... my previous post had more than enough explanation as to why I felt that calling 'macro-evolution' an unquestionable fact is rather premature. That opinion still holds true – as nothing has significantly changed between then and now.



Factually incorrect on a lot of counts.

First off:

There are a lot of different kinds of mutations, some more probable than others.

You seem to talk a lot here about "point" mutations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
"point" mutations are only one kind of mutation out of about a dozen different documented kinds of mutations.

The reason is simple. And I’ve explained the differences between the different mutation mechanisms before (so how is that factually incorrect?). Most of those other mutations draw on mechanisms that re-arrange existing genetic information. Point mutations (along with insertions and deletions – or small scale mutations as your own Wiki-link calls them) are the only means that new genetic information can be created. And ummm… the creation of new genetic information, via chance gradualism, is the key to macro-evolution. Specifically the bit about NEW coded functions.

By that premise, the belief that the production of massive genomes, billions of base-pairs in length arose from shorter ones is kind of a ‘given’ for both macro and micro evolution to hold true. But consider this; the smallest known genome for a free-living organism comes from a bacterium named Nanoarchaeum equitans and even it is comprised of ~490,000 base-pairs.

Continuing into the past, if we are to believe that those genomes arose from 'less evolved' precursor genomes THEN at some point in the past, the length of genomes was much, much, shorter (and the number of genes was far fewer). So how did they grow, and accrue new and viable genetic information if not through small scale mutations (point mutations being the most common)?

That simplistic approach doesn’t even factor the C-value paradox where it should follow that genome length and complexity should be functions of each other – a premise which we know doesn’t hold; otherwise amphibians would be 30 times more complex than humans seeing that they possess 30 times more DNA code than we do. Or why a certain sponge species (still around today) would have over 18,000 genes well before the ‘pre-Cambrian’ explosion [one of two alternatives: either you can say that the genes needed for vertebrate evolution were present long before they were needed; or, you can say that the sponge, once evolved, continued to add genes to its genome without use of their function. I’d hate to have to choose between those two options – either way it’s a conundrum for evolutionists].

Also, that simple approach (genomes grow via mutations over time) doesn’t begin to factor the fact that most genes within a genome actually interact with each other for an increase in functional specificity . Since, these regulatory networks (inter-gene interactions) function in a way similar to computer programming one would have to be pretty creative to suggest that the complexity of such code arose from purely naturalistic processes... As I have often said, Darwin would not be a Darwinist today given what we know about DNA.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100809142044.htm

Speaking of which, one has to think of the genetic code as a language to truly understand why changes alone [point mutations or other] don’t square with the dynamics we observe in nature. Darwinism should have died when we discovered that DNA is an informational molecule with highly complex, and most importantly, prescribed information that creates function (complex specified information, to use more popular terms). Funny how most people here believe the opposite to be true.

IMO prescribed information is formal and can never arise without intelligence. Often, posters here throw out the term “code” without fully understanding what that means (with reference to the genetic code). At its base definition, “code” is a symbolic convention for communicating information. Human language is such a "code". DNA is another. Neither simple encoded information nor specified codes like languages arise out of random processes and selection. They simply don’t, and one could set up ad nauseum experiments looking for the opposite to hold true… but they won’t yield a single instance where that premise can be validated.

Code implies intent; it implies syntax, semantics and pre-defined structure. There is no such thing as an abstract code without a ruling intelligence behind it. Furthermore, the "genetic sequences" are not analogous to code; they ARE code. The genetic code is mathematically identical to that used in human languages and computer code. That's why linguistic algorithms are so useful in DNA analysis.



Secondly, you imply, that genes "respond" to their environment, i.e. "the presence of lactose *induced* those mutations"

This is not what evolutionary theory says happens in this case.

Evolutionary theory says that genes which provide some benefit that increases reproductive success will become more common.

The presence of lactose no more induced mutations than the fact that the lab assistant being named Larry induced mutations.

What the presence of lactose did do, was provide a non-random environmental factor that allowed bacteria possessing the potential to digest lactose a chance at much greater reproductive success.

Studies into this have shown that it doesn't take much difference to make a vast difference over time.

The key principle being that said genetic information was pre-existing (dormant or other). The new function didn’t “evolve” from scratch. In this sense the organism does in fact respond to its environment.



If a population of groundhogs in an area of dark colored soil without predators has a mix of black and white fur, and genes for both are equally present in the population as a whole those genes will be fairly stable.

Add in a predator that can more easily see the white groundhogs against the dark soil, and you have introduced a non-random selection that will decrease the reproductive success of the white-colored rodents, making them more rare over time, eventually quite possibly eliminating that genotype.

That process is well understood. I'm not arguing against certain facets of "natural selection"... What I would point to, however, is the fact that the genes that code for fur color in your example are again pre-existing, not new.

Consider a more applicable example. IF the original population of groundhogs did not have the ability to code for say... PURPLE fur [no such code found anywhere in its original genome] and somehow managed to develop that feature [new code successfully expressed in a groundhog of a subsequent generation], then and only then, would one have a basis to suggest that mutations accounted for the new information. That statement could be made regardless of the predator / prey relationship and its effect on the transmission of the gene.

But that's not all; as responsible scientists we would need to compare the original genome to the 'evolved' one to show that the information was completely new, and that it had arisen from random changes to the code. That's how one would go about proving micro-evolution. To conclusively prove macro-evolution, however, one would have to observe many more of these functional changes to the tune of witnessing the emergence of a wholly new species. Each generation would require a complete genomic map so that all changes (successive or other) A --> B --> C etc... could be traced and accounted for (put some good ol' supercomputers to use :lol).

The reality is that many in your camp don't want to face the fact that the burden of proof for such a grand and an all-encompassing theory, like Darwinian evolution, would have to be ironclad no matter what our beliefs happened to be outside of the scientific arena. Anything less than that level of evidence, would be constituted as mere hand-waving, smoke & mirror, theoretical speculation.

Fortunately, the study of bacterial populations [which reproduce indefinitely, and quickly] is showing just how painstakingly slow minor genetic shift actually occurs. I mean, we wouldn't want to wait 600,000 years or so for one of our genes to change function (Lenski's experiments showed a "change" to allow citrate tolerance in E. coli bacteria after roughly 31,500 generations). <-- And that was just one gene expression.

Guess what that would mean for humans, seeing that we have just over 20,000 genes; each having the regulated capability for encoding multiple proteins? Oh... and given that we don't reproduce through asexual means (haploid vs. diploid where mutations would have to target the gamete cells specifically)... You're the statitician...



Lastly, you make a pretty solid claim, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, that the "odds of these mutations happening" were "flat out zero".

Seems to me to be a case of circular reasoning.

"Because evolution doesn't occur, if we see beneficial mutations happening, the odds must be flat out zero".

The law of large numbers and basic probability would beg to differ.

Odds of a certain mutation happening: one in a trillion.
A moderate population of bacteria: one billion
30 minutes per generation
No bacteria in starting billion has mutation.

Since we are looking for the odds, over time, for the population not to have the mutation at all, we can look at each individual new bacteria to start with.

Probability that one bacteria will NOT have the mutation, in any successive generation:
0.999999999999
That is pretty good odds for one bacteria. The closer to one the number is, the more certain it is. So far so good for the "it would never happen" theory.

Chances that any *billion* bacteria not having this mutation
0.999000522
(.999999999999 to the billionth power)
Still pretty good, but that is only for ONE generation.

Let's see how that pans out over the course of a day.
Any population of a billion bacteria not having this muation after one day at 1/2 hour per generation
0.953134799
Still a 95% chance. So far so good.

Any population of a billion bacteria not having this mutation after one week at 1/2 per generation
0.714628417

Any population of a billion bacteria not having this mutation after 30 days.
0.236935306

Any population of a billion bacteria not having this mutation after a year.
0.0000000246

If you were to wait a year, it is mathmatically a virtual certainty to see this particular mutation with a billion little test subjects dutifully reproducing themselves.

Mutations generally are much more frequent than one in a trillion, from what I understand and have read on the subject. I was being generous. This would imply that "flat out zero" seems to be inaccurate.

But you're looking at this particular example with the wrong set of lens [and nonspecific math]. The fact that the lactose tolerant E. coli bacteria even showed up after only a few generations was the crux of the argument [after 15 generations IIRC]. Point mutations couldn't have accounted for the same change in multiple petri-dishes... a different mechanism was clearly at play. Here's what I stated last year:



Second, some of the changes appear to be nonrandom responses to the environment, suggesting that the genome was ‘set up’ for an adaptive change to be triggered by a cue from the environment. That raises the question of how the genome came to be in that ‘prepared’ state (but that’s another matter entirely). I recall a study where a strain of E. coli that lacked a gene necessary for the metabolizing of lactose was prepared and introduced into a lactose environment. In the presence of lactose, two mutations were found in the same bacterium (one to a dormant and previously unknown structural gene and the other to its control gene) that in combination permitted it to metabolize the sugar... One should have had to wait thousands of years to see these double mutations, but in the presence of lactose 40 of them were found within a matter of days. These results suggest that presence of lactose in the environment induced these mutations… not random point mutations that evolution proposes. I mean, 40 bacteria had an identical genetic response to their environment (conversely, the odds for random point mutations accounting for that mass genetic change, in 40 individual bacteria, no less…. is flat out zero).

BTW, lactose intolerant bacteria wouldn’t reproduce at the clip you’ve assumed. Lack of food typically results in population death or highly diminished reproduction rates. But you’re missing the point altogether… the odds themselves are irrelevant if the result was nearly “spontaneous” in the context of genetic timescales. My comment ([I]flat zero odds) was made in hyperbole to emphasize that context - it wasn't the central focus of my argument.

A dormant switch being activated by some other process is hardly proof of macro-evolution much less micro-evolution [especially when the genetic "know-how" - the sequencing - was there (in the genome) from the get-go].



The argument is made that the people that study biology tend to think the theory is correct, and that is good enough to take them at their word as evolutionary theory being the most likely correct.

This is most definitely NOT a fallacy of consensus genitum.

No, that's called free will... I clearly said 'educated people' who believe that evolution is true simply because that's what 'educated people are supposed to believe in' fall under the umbrella of the consensus gentium fallacy.

Most people (I'm generously guessing greater than 90%) have never fully studied molecular genetics or taken advanced courses in biochemistry, organic chemstry in combination with any other in-depth course in the field of biology [and no, High School Biology doesn't really count - as that just simply scratches the surface]. They wouldn't know the intricate differences between lipase or oligoromerase, the triplet codes that produce the 20 amino acids we find in proteins, any real details concerning the translation/transcription process, protein function, etc...

But ah... they believe in evolution; specifically the naturalistic process that purports that all life on the planet descended from a common ancestor. When no real proof for that premise has ever been given to them.

Yeah, there are tons of articles wherein Darwinists set their own strategies of "proof," because the standards required by "simple reason" are clear evidence of the ability of random mutations + natural selection to produce all 13 million est. life forms on earth from some alleged first single cell common ancestor.

Have we seen this evidence? Of course not. We know that it is still missing. And that's an undisputed fact. Furthermore, where are the sequential mutational/selection pathways that lead from one single celled organism to ANY multi-celled one? If you know your stuff you know there are none. Zero. Just stories, speculations and conjecture ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Darwinists claim that men and modern chimps (or orangutans these days) are both descendants of some common ancestor primate. Have we any proof of this after over 100 years of searching? No. Nothing but more stories, more alleged ancestors that can never be demonstrated to be true ancestors of man.

Lucy is a dead duck since the late 1990's. All of the other alleged links, though still highly touted by Darwinists to be ancestors of man, are still out of range of anything even close to proof or even just viable evidence. Lining up skulls, fragments of bone, or even a single tooth, on a work bench and claiming that they are linked by an evolutionary sequence is evidence of nothing but ones own imagination run wild.

Darwinists turn the other way when confronted by the problems that prescribed information and even meta information found in DNA poses to their inane theory. Of course NOTHING is sufficient evidence against macro evolution for Darwinian fundamentalists. In their befuddled minds evolution HAS to be TRUE because there is no god (and Richard Dawkins is his prophet)!

FYI, No fossil comes unearthed with its pedigree nor a list of its progeny. No fossil can tell who its ancestor was nor who its descendant was... and yet we like to think we have it all figured out. But enough of that rant.





One can't assume concretely that unanimity of opinion makes something true, but if an overwhelming majority of people who study something form a solid consensus, that would tend to logically indicate it is far more probable than not that theory is true and truly describes an aspect of our physical universe.

But that's just it... not all biologists believe in macro-evolution. You're just assuming that the ones that believe like you do are correct, and that those that don't are not. So much so, that you all dismiss them from the get go. They number far greater than you would believe. Again, you must resort to the fallacy of consensus gentium to pick one group over the other in the absence of true evidence.



If 9 out of 10 doctors look at your test results, come to the THEORY that you have cancer, are you going to decide that since it is just a theory, you can safely not seek treatment?

Biopsies are not theories. They are hard physical evidence that would reveal whether or not cancer was present. If a doctor, however, attempted to tell me I had cancer based on only my body temperature or some other triviality... well then his credibility would have to be questioned.



If 9 out of 10 accountants have a theory that your treatment of expenses on your tax returns will be reversed by the IRS in an audit, do you keep filing that way?

My personal "treatment of expenses" would never be filed as a "controversial theory". There are rules and laws that govern that realm. And accounting hardly classifies as a naturalistic conundrum.



At some point, one has to have some amount of deference to people who study something for a living when they come to a strong consensus about something.

While we can't 100% logically prove a theory simply based on a consensus, it is entirely logical to assign such theories a MUCH greater liklihood of being true.

Do scientists get stuff wrong? Yup.

Are scientists human with faults? Yup.

Are the vast majority of them either dumb or dishonest enough to push something without sufficient evidence? No.

Is that what you are saying? Are all those scientists unintelligent or dishonest?


Among the general scientific community, I would say that the issue is "ignorance" moreso than "dishonesty." But among the staunch athiests... either is possible.

You must admit, very few scientists are "fully versed" in all fields of study. So they choose to rely on the consensus of what the experts in those fields believe. IMO those in your camp have simply deluded the world with a slew of circular reasoning.

[mouse]

I don't believe anybody has made the argument that evolutionary theory is correct simply because lots of people believe it.


If I pm you will you sell me some of what your smoking?

Talk about circular reasoning...dude first off the "text books" in the "schools"

show man "Evolving" from "ape"

the text books have dates and fossils how can you say ....



I don't believe anybody has made the argument that evolutionary theory is correct simply because lots of people believe it.


not to mention the countless evolution topics here @ ST where many posters not only "believe" in evolution they say its a fact.

please tell me you posted that quote to bait someone. I really don't think you actually believe what you posted.

[RandomGuy]

... IMO those in your camp have simply deluded the world with a slew of circular reasoning.

Most of your post comes down to either circular reasoning or bad logic.

That's ok.

One of your main claims is that known mechanisms of mutation really can't be responsible for "new" information or mechanisms in DNA.

Such a claim is only really possible if one doesn't really consider, or understand, other mechanisms of mutation.

Consider an abbreviated example.

Gene for enzyme A:
GAGA GAGA (oor rama ma)

Organism requires enzyme A to live. Mutations to this gene are therefore, always fatal.

Introduce a duplication error that adds an extra copy of this gene.

GAGA GAGA (stop/start sequence) GAGA GAGA (stop sequence)

The organism now has two copies of the gene coding for enzyme A, both functional. A bit more A is produced than otherwise would be the case, but a neutral permutation of the genome.

Gene for enzyme B:
GAGA GACA

One simply needs a substitution error in the second copy of the gene to introduce the following gene sequence:

GAGA GAGA (stop/start sequence) GAGA GACA (stop sequence)

You now have an organism with two different enzymes A and B.

Additional information has been added, fully functional, to the genome.

This is not some secret, little-studied process.

Adding to this is that beneficial mutations can be spread by sexual reproduction in bacteria.

The creation of new genetic material happens, and has been observed in the lab and in the field.

Please don't mispresent that as either less than likely or impossible.

[RandomGuy]

BTW, lactose intolerant bacteria wouldn’t reproduce at the clip you’ve assumed. Lack of food typically results in population death or highly diminished reproduction rates.

Not having seen the study, it is hard to say exactly what was taking place.

You are entirely correct, but if the environment probably included nutrients for the existing bacteria and lactose.

The addition of an extra amount of available energy would simply allow any organism capable of utilizing the extra food a pretty large edge, even if that ability was fairly rudimentary. Once the ones capable of using the extra food started crowding out the others, a "race" gets on as new mutations that provide for better and better lactose digestion "solutions" allow their owners to outcompete previous versions.


But you’re missing the point altogether… the odds themselves are irrelevant if the result was nearly “spontaneous” in the context of genetic timescales. My comment (flat zero odds) was made in hyperbole to emphasize that context - it wasn't the central focus of my argument.

A dormant switch being activated by some other process is hardly proof of macro-evolution much less micro-evolution [especially when the genetic "know-how" - the sequencing - was there (in the genome) from the get-go].

Again, you are taking the results of this study and fitting them into your starting assumptions in a flawed.

"Because lactose digestion arose so fast, the results show no new information was created " is an example of poor reasoning.

The ONLY thing that one can logically conclude is that the mutations involved must have been fairly common, because that is the only statement that the data as you presented it can reasonably support.

You can't really claim that no new information was created without sequencing the genome, which you didn't really get into at all.

The problem for your arugment is that is precisely what is being done in the study of these mutations and mutation methods.

Studies like this routinely do exactly this to show the exact nature of the gene changes, how it changed, and when.

These studies do occasionally show "dormant switches being activated", but they also show, despite your claims otherwise, the precise nature of how new things are created out of old ones, including new genetic sequences.

[RandomGuy]

By that premise, the belief that the production of massive genomes, billions of base-pairs in length arose from shorter ones is kind of a ‘given’ for both macro and micro evolution to hold true. But consider this; the smallest known genome for a free-living organism comes from a bacterium named Nanoarchaeum equitans and even it is comprised of ~490,000 base-pairs.

Again, an example of poor reasoning and factually inaccurate statements.

It is reasonable, that complex organisms will tend to have longer genomes.
This is implied by, but *not* one of the "given" assumptions of, evolution.

Essentially what you have is yet another permutation of the "God in the gaps" fallacy that creationists have been trying to hang their hat on for centuries.

The key word here is "known". We know about what is very likely a depressingly small proportion of all bacteria/single-celled organisms. Of this subset, there is an even smaller subset that represents those organisms with sequenced genomes.
The usefullness of evolution as a predictive theory comes into play here.

It is strongly implied by evolutionary theory that the simpler the genome or sequence of protiens/DNA/RNA the more likely that group of chemicals could happen by random chance given enough time.

Just as the intermdiary forms being discovered between modern creatures and known past fossils get discovered and become problems for creationsists who insist that if evolution were true we wouldn't find such things, organisms with smaller and smaller genomes will present a similar problem at the other end.

If we never do find something simpler than 490,000 base pairs that is indeed a problem for evolutionary theory. Given how recently we started looking, it shouldn't come as a shock that we haven't found something simpler just yet.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when you have only begun to start looking in the right places. I tell myself this daily when looking for my car keys.

Time will tell.

The intital self-replicating molecule is probably a pretty unlikely event. But as I have shown, even unlikely events become more and more probable given enough time.

Self-replication of a simple molecule is something that would take simple chemistry in the order of seconds. Given that there are 31million seconds in a year, and the earth has had billions of years for life to arise, that suggests that even that highly unlikely event was not only possible, but certain. Make of *that* what you will.

I have little doubt we will find simpler and simpler organisms to the point where that "smallest known" schtick will wear thin just like the "where is the intermediate form?" schtick has.

When will you abandon that bad logic? when it is 100,000? 1,000? 100?

[RandomGuy]

Darwinists claim that men and modern chimps (or orangutans these days) are both descendants of some common ancestor primate. Have we any proof of this after over 100 years of searching? No. Nothing but more stories, more alleged ancestors that can never be demonstrated to be true ancestors of man.

Intellectually dishonest, and provably so.

Not all climates are created equal when it comes to fossil preservation.

Dry, dusty plains really suck for preserving complete fossilized skeletons that make for good evidence. For that you want wet places with a lot of flooding and sediment.

If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

[lebomb]

So basically what you are saying RandomGuy.............. is that since both believe bananas are scrumptious, man definitely came from monkey. Correct?

[RandomGuy]

But that's just it... not all biologists believe in macro-evolution. You're just assuming that the ones that believe like you do are correct, and that those that don't are not. So much so, that you all dismiss them from the get go. They number far greater than you would believe. Again, you must resort to the fallacy of consensus gentium to pick one group over the other in the absence of true evidence.

No actually, I am not assuming that the ones that believe like I do are correct simply because they believe the same thing.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is an honest misunderstanding rather than a deliberate distortion.

Acting on that stated assumption, I will state clearly what I believe.

My assumptions:

People who study something generally have more information about that topic than I do, especially if they hold somethign approaching a doctorate, the culmination of years of formal, rigorous study.
More information generally leads to more accurate theories.

If the overwhelming number of people with the most information on a topic form a consensus on a theory about that topic, that means that theory has a much greater chance of being correct.

The "much greater chance" here voids your contention that I believe it is true "because" some group of people believe the theory correct.

It allows for the possibility that the theory is indeed wrong, despite the number of people who believe it to be true.

The reasons I believe evolution to be true are the following:

What I have read seems to confirm what the theory posits. I have seen little to nothing that outright contradicts it, despite having spent no small amount of time reading creationist arguments attempting to poke holes in the theory.

This by itself isn't quite it. I allow for the possibility of my own confirmation bias.

What really puts it over the edge for me, is conversations like this one, and creationist arguments themselves.

I see a LOT of creationists doing intellectually dishonest things, or making claims based on ignorance of the science involved.

Occasionally, in all the creationist claims I see a good point. That rare occasion gets far outweighed by the logical mistakes, factual misstatements, and outright distortions put out in these conversations.

When given two conflicting versions of events or interpretations of evidence it is absolutely, positively, NOT a fallacy to attempt to decide which one is more probable.

The irony is that, in the same sentence criticizing people for a consensus gentium fallacy, you strongly imply that the number of doubters, being "greater than I would beleive" means that somehow evolution is more or less true because of the number of people that doubt it.

If the truth or falsity of evolution is not dependent on the number of people that BELIEVE in it, why do you bring up the number of people that doubt it?

Is a large number of people doubting a theory logical proof of its falsity?

[RandomGuy]

So basically what you are saying RandomGuy.............. is that since both believe bananas are scrumptious, man definitely came from monkey. Correct?

Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

:lol

[Phenomanul]

No actually, I am not assuming that the ones that believe like I do are correct simply because they believe the same thing.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is an honest misunderstanding rather than a deliberate distortion.

Acting on that stated assumption, I will state clearly what I believe.

My assumptions:

People who study something generally have more information about that topic than I do, especially if they hold somethign approaching a doctorate, the culmination of years of formal, rigorous study.
More information generally leads to more accurate theories.

If the overwhelming number of people with the most information on a topic form a consensus on a theory about that topic, that means that theory has a much greater chance of being correct.

The "much greater chance" here voids your contention that I believe it is true "because" some group of people believe the theory correct.

It allows for the possibility that the theory is indeed wrong, despite the number of people who believe it to be true.

The reasons I believe evolution to be true are the following:

What I have read seems to confirm what the theory posits. I have seen little to nothing that outright contradicts it, despite having spent no small amount of time reading creationist arguments attempting to poke holes in the theory.

This by itself isn't quite it. I allow for the possibility of my own confirmation bias.

What really puts it over the edge for me, is conversations like this one, and creationist arguments themselves.

I see a LOT of creationists doing intellectually dishonest things, or making claims based on ignorance of the science involved.

Occasionally, in all the creationist claims I see a good point. That rare occasion gets far outweighed by the logical mistakes, factual misstatements, and outright distortions put out in these conversations.

When given two conflicting versions of events or interpretations of evidence it is absolutely, positively, NOT a fallacy to attempt to decide which one is more probable.

The irony is that, in the same sentence criticizing people for a consensus gentium fallacy, you strongly imply that the number of doubters, being "greater than I would beleive" means that somehow evolution is more or less true because of the number of people that doubt it.

If the truth or falsity of evolution is not dependent on the number of people that BELIEVE in it, why do you bring up the number of people that doubt it?

Is a large number of people doubting a theory logical proof of its falsity?

That's not even remotely where I was going with that... I stated that only to enlighten (or remind) you that many biologists (many doctorates if that suits your liking better) don't believe in evolution because the evidence really doesn't support the leaps required by the theory. The fact that dissension exists doesn't mean that what they believe is any 'truer'.

But face it... many of you all repeatedly hide under the umbra of the prevailing 'scientific' notion... and attack others simply for believing otherwise. That's the dynamic I wanted you all to recognize.

Many posters here, including yourself at times, keep implying that to not believe in macro-evolution is illogically stupid. Were that the case 'learned' astrophycistis, biologists, geneticists, geologists, etc... wouldn't have made the conscious choice to reject the underlying premise in the theory. The problem is that you all also imply that if we've come to that rejection that somehow we're being intellectually dishonest. But why on earth would we want to lie to ourselves..??? I gain nothing from lying to myself. I simply believe what I do, and have shown the reasons why.

Not having an alternate theory that suits your naturalistic framework doesn't mean that belief in Darwinian-evolution is my only real choice.

[Phenomanul]

Again, an example of poor reasoning and factually inaccurate statements.

It is reasonable, that complex organisms will tend to have longer genomes.
This is implied by, but *not* one of the "given" assumptions of, evolution.

The C-value paradox?

I stated as much... if you had simply read what was written instead of scoffing as you read...



Essentially what you have is yet another permutation of the "God in the gaps" fallacy that creationists have been trying to hang their hat on for centuries.

I don't believe I've fallen back to my "belief in GOD" anywhere in this thread to substantiate any of my arguments. You know that I'm a believer because I've stated as much elsewhere on this forum. My rejection is based wholly on lack of true evidence that would support the claims purported by macro-evolution.


The key word here is "known". We know about what is very likely a depressingly small proportion of all bacteria/single-celled organisms. Of this subset, there is an even smaller subset that represents those organisms with sequenced genomes.
The usefullness of evolution as a predictive theory comes into play here.

It is strongly implied by evolutionary theory that the simpler the genome or sequence of protiens/DNA/RNA the more likely that group of chemicals could happen by random chance given enough time.

Just as the intermdiary forms being discovered between modern creatures and known past fossils get discovered and become problems for creationsists who insist that if evolution were true we wouldn't find such things, organisms with smaller and smaller genomes will present a similar problem at the other end.

If we never do find something simpler than 490,000 base pairs that is indeed a problem for evolutionary theory. Given how recently we started looking, it shouldn't come as a shock that we haven't found something simpler just yet.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when you have only begun to start looking in the right places. I tell myself this daily when looking for my car keys.

Time will tell.

The intital self-replicating molecule is probably a pretty unlikely event. But as I have shown, even unlikely events become more and more probable given enough time.

Self-replication of a simple molecule is something that would take simple chemistry in the order of seconds. Given that there are 31million seconds in a year, and the earth has had billions of years for life to arise, that suggests that even that highly unlikely event was not only possible, but certain. Make of *that* what you will.

I have little doubt we will find simpler and simpler organisms to the point where that "smallest known" schtick will wear thin just like the "where is the intermediate form?" schtick has.

When will you abandon that bad logic? when it is 100,000? 1,000? 100?


I just love how you just attach "bad logic" to whatever argument doesn't suit your viewpoint. Face it; we view the world with entirely different sets of lenses.

The recently discovered gene networks that I pointed out in the Science Weekly article ('a reputable source' according to you all) further wedges the possibility that changes to single gene expressions are responsible for Darwinian gradualism. Each gene interacts with as few as 10 other genes (and as many as 300) to "meet" other functions 'demanded' by the cell. Your examples (much like the prevailing ones) are far too linear in this context. Changing a triplet code (or offseting a chain) not only disturbs the production of one protein; it affects the production of those 10 other enzymes that rely on the replication fidelity of the source code. Why do you you think that we begin to age, and enter stages of cellular 'disrepair' as the years go by? Because cellular replication takes its toll on the fidelity of the code (telomerase aside). As that deteriorates so too does our cellular fitness.

So if random changes to a gene affect more than just the 'primary' expression. That poses a huge problem for your mechanisms... and that while neglecting the effect of introns and exons on gene expression, which further wedge those probabilities (here's the thing... any further complexity that we discover in genetic expression will do this to your precious odds).

[Phenomanul]

Intellectually dishonest, and provably so.

Not all climates are created equal when it comes to fossil preservation.

Dry, dusty plains really suck for preserving complete fossilized skeletons that make for good evidence. For that you want wet places with a lot of flooding and sediment.

If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

Provably so...?

We've mapped out the genome of one of our alledged ancestors? When did this happen?

[Phenomanul]

Not having seen the study, it is hard to say exactly what was taking place.

You are entirely correct, but if the environment probably included nutrients for the existing bacteria and lactose.

The addition of an extra amount of available energy would simply allow any organism capable of utilizing the extra food a pretty large edge, even if that ability was fairly rudimentary. Once the ones capable of using the extra food started crowding out the others, a "race" gets on as new mutations that provide for better and better lactose digestion "solutions" allow their owners to outcompete previous versions.



Again, you are taking the results of this study and fitting them into your starting assumptions in a flawed.

"Because lactose digestion arose so fast, the results show no new information was created " is an example of poor reasoning.

The ONLY thing that one can logically conclude is that the mutations involved must have been fairly common, because that is the only statement that the data as you presented it can reasonably support.

You can't really claim that no new information was created without sequencing the genome, which you didn't really get into at all.

The problem for your arugment is that is precisely what is being done in the study of these mutations and mutation methods.

Studies like this routinely do exactly this to show the exact nature of the gene changes, how it changed, and when.

These studies do occasionally show "dormant switches being activated", but they also show, despite your claims otherwise, the precise nature of how new things are created out of old ones, including new genetic sequences.

That is not generally the norm... more like the exception....

For that matter, why hasn't Lenski revealed the genomic changes from his experiments? He has all the necessary cultures?

[RandomGuy]

Dry, dusty plains really suck for preserving complete fossilized skeletons that make for good evidence. For that you want wet places with a lot of flooding and sediment.

If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?


Provably so...?

We've mapped out the genome of one of our alledged ancestors? When did this happen?

That doesn't really answer my question as asked.

2nd time:
If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

(given: full skeletal fossils are much more likely to form in wet climates than drier ones)

[RandomGuy]

That's not even remotely where I was going with that... I stated that only to enlighten (or remind) you that many biologists (many doctorates if that suits your liking better) don't believe in evolution because the evidence really doesn't support the leaps required by the theory. The fact that dissension exists doesn't mean that what they believe is any 'truer'.

But face it... many of you all repeatedly hide under the umbra of the prevailing 'scientific' notion... and attack others simply for believing otherwise. That's the dynamic I wanted you all to recognize.

Many posters here, including yourself at times, keep implying that to not believe in macro-evolution is illogically stupid. Were that the case 'learned' astrophycistis, biologists, geneticists, geologists, etc... wouldn't have made the conscious choice to reject the underlying premise in the theory. The problem is that you all also imply that if we've come to that rejection that somehow we're being intellectually dishonest. But why on earth would we want to lie to ourselves..??? I gain nothing from lying to myself. I simply believe what I do, and have shown the reasons why.

Not having an alternate theory that suits your naturalistic framework doesn't mean that belief in Darwinian-evolution is my only real choice.

Rejecting a theory on the basis of evidence is not intellectually dishonest.

Deliberately distorting the views of others or the theory itself in an attempt to disprove it is.

I have no doubt that some of the distortions or misstatements are honest mistakes, but the sheer volume of mis-information, and the way it is presented gives me cause to believe that not all of this is unintentional.

[Phenomanul]

That doesn't really answer my question as asked.

2nd time:
If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

(given: full skeletal fossils are much more likely to form in wet climates than drier ones)

While your observation may be logical (lack of fossilization tendencies for plains' people - where unicorns also frolicked :lol). The fact that we've yet to find conclusive linkages to a common primate ancestor, after hundreds of years of searching for said link, after multiple fraudulent attempts to claim as much, one would begin to think that the people in your camp are hinging on blind faith.

Those links haven't been found. Their genomes haven't been mapped. Hence there is no proof said linkage[s] exist.

[Phenomanul]

Rejecting a theory on the basis of evidence is not intellectually dishonest.

Deliberately distorting the views of others or the theory itself in an attempt to disprove it is.

I have no doubt that some of the distortions or misstatements are honest mistakes, but the sheer volume of mis-information, and the way it is presented gives me cause to believe that not all of this is unintentional.

Who makes you the judge of that?

Distortion implies 'bending' or 'steering' away from absolute truth. So again, you are implying evolution is a form of 'absolute' truth all while stating that you don't hold it to that standard. Which is it?

Anyways... I must go... peace!

[RandomGuy]

That is not generally the norm... more like the exception....

For that matter, why hasn't Lenski revealed the genomic changes from his experiments? He has all the necessary cultures?


Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say "data not shown", which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website.

It is my impression that you seem to think we have only paper and electronic records of having seen some unusual E. coli. If we made serious errors or misrepresentations, you would surely like to find them in those records. If we did not, then - as some of your acolytes have suggested - you might assert that our records are themselves untrustworthy because, well, because you said so, I guess. But perhaps because you did not bother even to read our paper, or perhaps because you aren't very bright, you seem not to understand that we have the actual, living bacteria that exhibit the properties reported in our paper, including both the ancestral strain used to start this long-term experiment and its evolved citrate-using descendants. In other words, it's not that we claim to have glimpsed "a unicorn in the garden" - we have a whole population of them living in my lab! [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unicorn_in_the_Garden] And lest you accuse me further of fraud, I do not literally mean that we have unicorns in the lab. Rather, I am making a literary allusion. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allusion]

So, will we share the bacteria? Of course we will, with competent scientists. Now, if I was really mean, I might only share the ancestral strain, and let the scientists undertake the 20 years of our experiment. Or if I was only a little bit mean, maybe I'd also send the potentiated bacteria, and let the recipients then repeat the several years of incredibly pain-staking work that my superb doctoral student, Zachary Blount, performed to test some 40 trillion (40,000,000,000,000) cells, which generated 19 additional citrate-using mutants. But I'm a nice guy, at least when treated with some common courtesy, so if a competent scientist asks for them, I would even send a sample of the evolved E. coli that now grows vigorously on citrate. A competent microbiologist, perhaps requiring the assistance of a competent molecular geneticist, would readily confirm the following properties reported in our paper: (i) The ancestral strain does not grow in DM0 (zero glucose, but containing citrate), the recipe for which can be found on my web site, except leaving the glucose out of the standard recipe as stated in our paper. (ii) The evolved citrate-using strain, by contrast, grows well in that exact same medium. (iii) To confirm that the evolved strain is not some contaminating species but is, in fact, derived from the ancestral strain in our study, one could check a number of traits and genes that identify the ancestor as E. coli, and the evolved strains as a descendant thereof, as reported in our paper. (iv) One could also sequence the pykF and nadR genes in the ancestor and evolved citrate-using strains. One would find that the evolved bacteria have mutations in each of these genes. These mutations precisely match those that we reported in our previous work, and they identify the evolved citrate-using mutants as having evolved in the population designated Ara-3 of the long-term evolution experiment, as opposed to any of the other 11 populations in that experiment. And one could go on and on from there to confirm the findings in our paper, and perhaps obtain additional data of the sort that we are currently pursuing.

Before I could send anyone any bacterial strains, in order to comply with good scientific practices I would require evidence of the requesting scientist's credentials including: (i) affiliation with an appropriate unit in some university or research center with appropriate facilities for storing (-80ºC freezer), handling (incubators, etc.), and disposing of bacteria (autoclave); and (ii) some evidence, such as peer-reviewed publications, that indicate that the receiving scientist knows how to work with bacteria, so that I and my university can be sure we are sending biological materials to someone that knows how to handle them. By the way, our strains are not derived from one of the pathogenic varieties of E. coli that are a frequent cause of food-borne illnesses. However, even non-pathogenic strains may cause problems for those who are immune-compromised or otherwise more vulnerable to infection. Also, my university requires that a Material Transfer Agreement be executed before we can ship any strains. That agreement would not constrain a receiving scientist from publishing his or her results. However, if an incompetent or fraudulent hack (note that I make no reference to any person, as this is strictly a hypothetical scenario, one that I doubt would occur) were to make false or misleading claims about our strains, then I'm confident that some highly qualified scientists would join the fray, examine the strains, and sort out who was right and who was wrong. That's the way science works.

I would also generally ask what the requesting scientist intends to do with our strains. Why? It helps me to gauge the requester's expertise. I might be able to point out useful references, for example. Moreover, as I've said, we are continuing our work with these strains, on multiple fronts, as explained in considerable detail in the Discussion section of our paper. I would not be happy to see our work "scooped" by another team - especially for the sake of the outstanding students and postdocs in my group who are hard at work on these fronts. However, that request to allow us to proceed, without risk of being scooped on work in which we have made a substantial investment of time and effort, would be just that: a request. In other words, we would respect PNAS policy to share those strains with any competent scientist who complied with my university's requirements for the MTA and any other relevant legal restrictions. If any such request requires substantial time or resources (we have thousands of samples from this and many other experiments), then of course I would expect the recipient to bear those costs.

So there you have it. I know that I've been a bit less polite in this response than in my previous one, but I'm still behaving far more politely than you deserve given your rude, willfully ignorant, and slanderous behavior. And I've spent far more time responding than you deserve. However, as I said at the outset, I take education seriously, and I know some of your acolytes still have the ability and desire to think, as do many others who will read this exchange.

Sincerely,
Richard Lenski

The man says he would be happy to share the base data, with a qualified scientist, and within normal channels.

I have not kept up with the saga, but Mr. Lenski appears to have been more than patient with people calling him a quack or worse, and pestering him for the results of years of hard work.

Has someone of appropriate qualifications acceded to his fairly reasonable conditions to acquire his research data?

[Phenomanul]

The man says he would be happy to share the base data, with a qualified scientist, and within normal channels.

I have not kept up with the saga, but Mr. Lenski appears to have been more than patient with people calling him a quack or worse, and pestering him for the results of years of hard work.

Has someone of appropriate qualifications acceded to his fairly reasonable conditions to acquire his research data?

Kind of wish I had the money to take him up on it.

[RandomGuy]

While your observation may be logical (lack of fossilization tendencies for plains' people - where unicorns also frolicked :lol). The fact that we've yet to find conclusive linkages to a common primate ancestor, after hundreds of years of searching for said link, after multiple fraudulent attempts to claim as much, one would begin to think that the people in your camp are hinging on blind faith.

Those links haven't been found. Their genomes haven't been mapped. Hence there is no proof said linkage[s] exist.

That is the perfect example of an intellectually dishonest answer.

I asked a simple, clear, question with either of two possible responses, not once but twice.

Instead of answering it, you have chosen to deflect both times.

Intellectual dishonesty

the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

Not only that, but have done what amounts to Moving the goalposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)


informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.

Even if such an ancestor were produced, and its genome sequenced, you would then call for all such ancestoral genomes.

This is where the goalpost got moved after scientists started finding all the intermediary forms of things creationists said wouldn't exist in the fossil record.

I will ask a simple question in good faith one last time.

If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

(given: full skeletal fossils are much more likely to form in wet climates than drier ones)

[RandomGuy]

Has someone of appropriate qualifications acceded to his fairly reasonable conditions to acquire his research data?


Kind of wish I had the money to take him up on it.

Again, not what I asked.

You claimed rather directly that he has not "revealed the genomic changes from his experiments"

He has explained, in 2008 why he has not shared with one particular person, and the fairly reasonable conditions under which he would do so.

I can only assume that since you asked "why" he hasn't revealed his research data, you were aware of his initial refusal, as mentioned in his 2008 letter. Yet you didn't mention that it seems he has only really refused one particular requestor.

Were you unaware of those conditions, or did you simply choose to ignore them?

[mouse]

:corn:

[RandomGuy]

Who makes you the judge of [what is intellectually dishonest]?


Anyways... I must go... peace!

The answer to that question is "no one".

That must be determined on the basis of observed behavior, using one's own judgment.

Some examples of intellectual dishonesty:
Ad hominem logical fallacies
Making statements that are only half-true, and deliberately leaving out the portion of the truth that one does not wish to admit to.
Avoiding honest questions asked in good faith.
Strawman logical fallacies

Among others.

I try, to the best of my ability to answer questions asked of me with honest answers, even when it might not support my case, and when I am aware of some relevant bit of information am compelled by the principles of intellectual honesty to put that forth, again, even if it doesn't support my case and especially when it doesn't.

If one wants more concrete examples, start surfing infowars.com or any 9-11 "truther" website.

Hell, start reading the Apollo Moon Hoax thread, if you have the stomach.

(edit)

Distortion implies 'bending' or 'steering' away from absolute truth. So again, you are implying evolution is a form of 'absolute' truth all while stating that you don't hold it to that standard. Which is it?

I have implied nothing of the sort.

Half-truths would be leaving out half of a relevant data set.

You and your brother both decide not to wait for after dinner to eat the wonderful cake mom has prepared. You divide it in half and each eat it.

When your mother asks "who ate all the cake" you both respond with a half truth. "not me". Sure you have told part of the truth, you didn't eat ALL of the cake. But you left out the part where together you both ate it, a fact mom would find VERY relevant.

The half-truths given by creationists tend to be along these lines.

Sure I will get the part of the truth about research topic A or B that some creationists want me to hear, and it always sounds reasonable.

Then, when I go digging, I almost invariably find the other half of the truth, the inconvenient part that was left out, usually very obviously deliberately.

Time after time I have found this through decades of such discussions. There is a very logical reason that I tend to treat creationist claims with some very guarded skepticism.

[RandomGuy]

By that premise, the belief that the production of massive genomes, billions of base-pairs in length arose from shorter ones is kind of a ‘given’ for both macro and micro evolution to hold true.


It is reasonable, that complex organisms will tend to have longer genomes.
This is implied by, but *not* one of the "given" assumptions of, evolution.


The C-value paradox?

I stated as much... .

No, actually, you didn't.

You said that "that complex organisms will tend to have longer genomes" was a "given for.. evolution to hold true".

It is not one of the underlying assumptions of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma

The logical way to disprove theories is to disprove the underlying assumptions. That is what real science does.

It is obvious you want to make this implication into one of those underlying assumptions, so you can put it forth to disprove the theory.


The C-value enigma, unlike the older C-value paradox, is explicitly defined as a series of independent but equally important component questions, including:

1.What types of non-coding DNA are found in different eukaryotic genomes, and in what proportions?
2.From where does this non-coding DNA come, and how is it spread and/or lost from genomes over time?
3.What effects, or perhaps even functions, does this non-coding DNA have for chromosomes, nuclei, cells, and organisms?
4.Why do some species exhibit remarkably streamlined chromosomes, while others possess massive amounts of non-coding DNA?

The observed large genomes of simple bacteria being larger than that of complex organisms like humans is fully consistant with that of evolution.

We have observed something that we might not have thought would be implied and have started answering why reality didn't conform to our expectations, by answering the above questions.

[Phenomanul]

EDIT: after responding to your last array of comments. I will have to say that this is the end of the road for me (unless of course you decide to bump it in another 10 months... :lol). We've irreconciliable views that can't produce effective dialouge by any means. So once it begins getting personal, I've no desire left to continue (from whatever frustration... you think that I'm purposefully deceiving which clearly frustrates you; while I believe you misread and latch on to the slightest triviality in my arguments, derailing them - which becomes a frustration for me).

Like I've told you before... I've no desire to come off as arrogant or condescending, which unfortunately given the controversial nature of these topics becomes rather unavoidable.

Please don't take whatever statements I may have written out of frustration below personally... See you in the next worthwhile-to-chat topic, since you may be surprised to know that we share other common beliefs... :tu

Just not this one.


That is the perfect example of an intellectually dishonest answer.

I asked a simple, clear, question with either of two possible responses, not once but twice.

Instead of answering it, you have chosen to deflect both times.

Intellectual dishonesty

First off, I did answer it... by stating that your observation was logical... so quit getting all sassy. Or did you want an actual "YES" or "NO" response??? {in my Mark Jackson impersonation} "You're better than that."

Implicitly however, your observation is nothing more than an excuse. We've managed to find fossils of hundreds of specimens (all over the world) of creatures that roam[ed] the prairies... Or why else would early man [the hunters] have lived in the prairies if not to follow their source of food and their livelihoods? [I recommend you watch Dances With Wolves for a little elightenment on how plains people lived as far back as a century ago, with potential insight on how they may have lived eons ago...] So if we've found numerous fossils of Bison ancestors, Mammoths, early Antelope, etc. etc. etc. we should also find early primates - specifically one that can link humans to primates.

Seems like you need to pick more suitable arguments on which to throw hissy fits. You've just burned a freebie.

Your talk of intellectual dishonesty, from a rather condescending position no less, is nothing more than a diversion tactic [whether or not your willing to even admit it]... Why? Because for all that talk... you haven't presented one more fragment of evidence that man shares a common ancestor with the primates... You've instead decided to focus on strawmen knowing fully well in the back of your mind that nitpicking my statements won't ever register as evidence in your favor... "Picking" at my credibility or lack therof is hardly proof of anything. You should know that.



Not only that, but have done what amounts to Moving the goalposts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts)


:lol Oh that's rich....

Call it what you want... Again, to prove an all-encompassing and grand theory such as Macro-evolution one needs ironclad proof. I've stated exactly what would suffice. And anything short of that fails (the scientific method fully requires as much). Since you know it doesn't exist, you keep trying to play games about what it is I'm trying to do... I'm simply pointing to the fact that said evidence doesn't exist. Funny that you would presume to judge what intellectual dishonesty is all about all whilst ignoring what the scientific method requires for validating the evolutionary premise. Who's the one moving the "goalposts"?

If anything, the discovery of DNA 'moved the goalposts' on what would suffice as valid evidence for conclusively proving Darwinian evolution (considering that the theory was developed before the discovery of DNA/RNA - even despite our limited knowledge of Mendelian genetics at the time).

Like I've stated before, every additional level of biological complexity that we discover only serves to drive the wedge further on Darwinian thought because it keeps raising the level of robustness that 'conclusive proof' must possess in order to validate the evolutionary premise.

The existence of gene networks is the latest incarnation of that "problem". Or how about the problems that are raised by mapping ancient genomes? The genomes of bacteria, revived from ancient spores millions of years old show very little genetic drift when compared to their modern day relatives? That's why I kind of laughed at your 'more than certain' odds statement earlier; when you suggested that billions of iterations acting on bacterial cultures over eons could produce any gene observed today. That it was a "given". Some of those bacteria are 35, 150, even 250 million years old.... and yet they haven't genetically drifted all that much. Moving goalpost? More like "better evidence" shredding the incompatibilities of evolutionary thought against reality.



Even if such an ancestor were produced, and its genome sequenced, you would then call for all such ancestoral genomes.

This is where the goalpost got moved after scientists started finding all the intermediary forms of things creationists said wouldn't exist in the fossil record.

I will ask a simple question in good faith one last time.

If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

(given: full skeletal fossils are much more likely to form in wet climates than drier ones)

The answer to your 'front-loaded' question is DUH! of course not... Which is also the very reason why we've yet to find unicorn fossils either...

But consider that:

1) Not all people lived in the plains... you assume too much.
2) Fossils of many other plains' creatures have been discovered... I guess they ingested far more calcium.
3) Our ancestors were probably as dependent on fresh water as we are today. Surely some of them died near a source of water. Again, you're the statistician... the odds are probable.

But alas none of this matters... you've already made up your mind. [I]"We must share a common ancestor with the primates, damn it!!!! Because... because... because we do!! And because it's intellectually dishonest to think otherwise!!"

[Phenomanul]

The answer to that question is "no one".

That must be determined on the basis of observed behavior, using one's own judgment.

Some examples of intellectual dishonesty:
Ad hominem logical fallacies
Making statements that are only half-true, and deliberately leaving out the portion of the truth that one does not wish to admit to.
Avoiding honest questions asked in good faith.
Strawman logical fallacies

Among others.


All of that is mere perception... Funny that I would perceive everything you do as falling in those categories... Like I said, we view our world with different lenses. Except I can admit as much, and you.... well, you would rather see this as some big exercise... I'm simply stating my opinions and my belief on the matter...

You pry open doors and then call me out for explaining what's inside. That's not cool. Especially when you suggest and imply my "agenda" is deceptive... Wait... I have an agenda?

Good faith? That's a good one. You keep getting hitched on the tiniest fragments of inconsistency in my statements. I'm not here writing a thesis. I'm on a message board, stating my thoughts. Do you wish to see a list of all of my citations and references? Well, if you should know... most are off the top of my head. I don't typically go around making sure that every single one of my statements is perfectly consistent with all the other ones, or perfectly consistent with the latest finds (since the field is in constant flux). If I did, I would never have the time to do this at all. Sure, there are logical issues with some of my arguments but many of them arise simply because I don't have the time to fully expound on them... Nevertheless, you pounce on said statements as if:

1) I was trying to deceive you.
2) I was purposefully trying to omit something... anything.
3) I were trying to establish some other truth.
4) I were playing some 'cute' game of wits.
5) I were distorting mainstream truths.

I'm simply describing why I believe Darwinian evolution is inadequate. It is my opinion and nothing more.



I try, to the best of my ability to answer questions asked of me with honest answers, even when it might not support my case, and when I am aware of some relevant bit of information am compelled by the principles of intellectual honesty to put that forth, again, even if it doesn't support my case and especially when it doesn't.

If one wants more concrete examples, start surfing infowars.com or any 9-11 "truther" website.

Hell, start reading the Apollo Moon Hoax thread, if you have the stomach.

(edit)

You may think you try when it comes to this subject... But your beliefs are so entrenched that even valid objections 'must have' some 'coniving half truth about them'... you approach them that way and have robbed yourself of the ability to be fully objective about them. Your scrutiny is driven by the motif that somehow these 'other' studies are deceptive; because even when they err out of ignorance you would rather suggest that they tried putting something past you - "oh the nerve of those people".

There is no such thing as scientific proof for "origins" theories... and yet your 'scientific' viewpoint is defined by it. Who has actually slipped one past you? Who is kidding who here?




I have implied nothing of the sort.

Half-truths would be leaving out half of a relevant data set.

You and your brother both decide not to wait for after dinner to eat the wonderful cake mom has prepared. You divide it in half and each eat it.

When your mother asks "who ate all the cake" you both respond with a half truth. "not me". Sure you have told part of the truth, you didn't eat ALL of the cake. But you left out the part where together you both ate it, a fact mom would find VERY relevant.

The half-truths given by creationists tend to be along these lines.

Sure I will get the part of the truth about research topic A or B that some creationists want me to hear, and it always sounds reasonable.

Then, when I go digging, I almost invariably find the other half of the truth, the inconvenient part that was left out, usually very obviously deliberately.

Time after time I have found this through decades of such discussions. There is a very logical reason that I tend to treat creationist claims with some very guarded skepticism.


Again, funny that you would talk about half truths... Evolutionists depend on it.

"We had to descend from something..."

You say creationist... I say Darwinian evolutionist [aka athiest, aka naturalist]... interchange those two classes of people, and I could have written the above paragraph too by substituting the opposite term. :downspin:

[Phenomanul]

No, actually, you didn't.

You said that "that complex organisms will tend to have longer genomes" was a "given for.. evolution to hold true".

It is not one of the underlying assumptions of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-value_enigma

The logical way to disprove theories is to disprove the underlying assumptions. That is what real science does.

It is obvious you want to make this implication into one of those underlying assumptions, so you can put it forth to disprove the theory.

The observed large genomes of simple bacteria being larger than that of complex organisms like humans is fully consistant with that of evolution.

We have observed something that we might not have thought would be implied and have started answering why reality didn't conform to our expectations, by answering the above questions.

Funny, 'cause my actual belief is that our genomes [and the genomes of other creatures] were once perfect...

That is... we've actually been losing genetic wealth, and function over the years - not gaining it.

Even some of the catalogued genetic changes observed in some of today's experiments are attained from loss of genetic code... not from the gain of new segments. And many perceived improvements come via the activation of pre-existing genetic material.

But this is more nitpicking on your part and a nice attempt at subverting the argument once more [you really have a knack for wanting to venture down those tunnels]... So I'll present an expounded version of argument I was making.

In the naturalistic framework, genomes don't just pop into existence do they? No, of course not, hence they had to commence from something smaller and shorter. Since genomes are large today, it follows that certain small genomes eventually made it to the longer lengths we see today. My argument wasn't that every genome today came from a smaller precursor. My point was that because the larger ones exist, and since we've established that they didn't 'pop into existence' fully formed and functional THEN they must have developed from smaller ones. By Occam's Razor it's the most logical explanation. Unless you would want me to believe that some super massive genome from our past with no real genetic value at all (that is key), shrunk, split and diverged to create the genomes we see today. Because if that's what you're implying... or are even fathoming the possibility, then you don't fully understand the nature of DNA.

Anyways, that was just the subtext. The real beef of the argument [the one you seem to ignore repeatedly] is that a tremendous volume of information was also accrued from the time of the first true genomes to present, genome A(prime) to genome A(current). And since we've already established that languages don't just grow on their own, how is it we can believe that the language of genetics did? That dichotomy is poignant.

[RandomGuy]

[SIZE="3"][B][COLOR="Yellow"]EDIT: after responding to your last array of comments. I will have to say that this is the end of the road for me (unless of course you decide to bump it in another 10 months... :lol). We've irreconciliable views that can't produce effective dialouge by any means. So once it begins getting personal, I've no desire left to continue

The closest thing to "personal" I have gotten is to charactorize your lack of response to a question as intellectually dishonest.

If you were to ask someone a yes or no question, and their answer was "unicorns", would you say that was an honest answer?

(note, this is a yes or no question in and of itself)

[RandomGuy]

If a species arose in dry plains, would you expect it to be more or less difficult to construct lineages than a species that arose in an wetter climate with more sediment?

(given: full skeletal fossils are much more likely to form in wet climates than drier ones)



The answer to your 'front-loaded' question is DUH! of course not... Which is also the very reason why we've yet to find unicorn fossils either...

But consider that:

1) Not all people lived in the plains... you assume too much.
2) Fossils of many other plains' creatures have been discovered... I guess they ingested far more calcium.
3) Our ancestors were probably as dependent on fresh water as we are today. Surely some of them died near a source of water. Again, you're the statistician... the odds are probable.

But alas none of this matters... you've already made up your mind. "We must share a common ancestor with the primates, damn it!!!! Because... because... because we do!! And because it's intellectually dishonest to think otherwise!!"

Finally, something close to an answer. I will take "of course not" as being equivalent to "it is more difficult to construct lineages of species that arose in plains/drier environments, given that fossilization of complete skeletons is more probable in wet invironments".
The rest of your points seem to indicate a lack of awareness of what evolutionary theory and current thinking says about human evolution.


1) Not all people lived in the plains... you assume too much.

The topic of human transitional forms is not "people" i.e. Homo Sapiens, but rather the species that proceeded humans.

Of course *people* live and have lived in every environment on the planet, after they evolved somewhere else to become communicating tool-users.

Human ancestors, the ones that you indicate we haven't found, are thought to have arisen in a fairly small area of Africa, although there are some who believe this may have been south Asia.

Here is a fairly good summary of the state of current knowledge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

We have found quite a few intermediate forms. I'm not sure what exactly you think it is we haven't found. I would say that is factually incorrect.

[RandomGuy]

Some examples of intellectual dishonesty:
Ad hominem logical fallacies
Making statements that are only half-true, and deliberately leaving out the portion of the truth that one does not wish to admit to.
Avoiding honest questions asked in good faith.
Strawman logical fallacies

Among others.

All of that is mere perception... Funny that I would perceive everything you do as falling in those categories...

Perceive what you like.

I have committed no logical fallacies, nor have I given any half-truths that I am aware of. I have answered your questions honestly, and to the best of my ability and will continue to do so.

The one logical fallacy you have attempted to attribute to me, turned out to be either a misunderstanding or a strawman logical fallacy on your part.

As for "mere perception", I say: "bullshit". Logical fallacies are quite easily demonstrated. Their forms are fairly formal, and readily available.

Here is a list of formal logical fallacies, although not entirely comprehensive:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Bullshit has been called. Either you can demonstrate at least one logical fallacy I have committed, or you can't.

If you perceive what I am doing to be logically flawed, but can't prove it, what does that say about your perception?

[tlongII]

Game. Set. Match. RandomGuy must have been on a debate team at some point in his life.

[RandomGuy]

1) Not all people lived in the plains... you assume too much.
2) Fossils of many other plains' creatures have been discovered... I guess they ingested far more calcium.
3) Our ancestors were probably as dependent on fresh water as we are today. Surely some of them died near a source of water. Again, you're the statistician... the odds are probable.

But alas none of this matters... you've already made up your mind. "We must share a common ancestor with the primates, damn it!!!! Because... because... because we do!! And because it's intellectually dishonest to think otherwise!!"

1, 3, 5, ... 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, ... 139, 141, 143, 145, ... 2265, 2267, 2269.

Do we need to have every digit in this sequence to draw a reasonable conclusion as to the governing rule?

Existance of a fossil is only part of the chain. Finding it is quite another matter entirely. It requires the right person, in the right place. If conditions preclude us finding a fossil, then we will not find it.

If you were attempting to be intellectually honest or rigorous, you might have alluded to this. I assume you are aware of the various civil wars, lack of scientific education, and lack of physical infrasctructure in Africa.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume it was simple lack of thoroughness, as opposed to an attempt to mislead.

The same cannot be said with your last point. That is an outright strawman logical fallacy.

My beliefs, as I have clearly stated:

It is reasonable to conclude that, based on the evidence, it is highly likely that we share common ancestry with modern apes in the distant past.

This evidence includes, but isn't limted to: similar genetics and similar morphology.

Evolutionary theory states that animals with similar forms will have more recent common ancestors, than animals with dissimilar forms. It does NOT state that we will find EVERY intermediary species of every modern animal going into the past.

Description of Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

In this case
X = I think that the evidence I have seen of human ancestory supports evolutionary theory as being the most likely explanation.
Y = "[you think that] We must share a common ancestor with the primates, damn it!!!! Because... because... because we do!!"

The obvious implication is that X is flawed, because Y is illogical/circular reasoning.

I have clearly stated my beliefs. You chose quite deliberately to distort them.

That isn't my perception. That is demonstrable fact.

As I have said before, when I see mostly one side in a debate committing these types of logical fallacies in almost every argument they make, that leads me to start assigning their arguments in general less and less weight as time goes by.

[RandomGuy]

Game. Set. Match. RandomGuy must have been on a debate team at some point in his life.

Thank you.

Actually, no, I have never been on a formal debate team. Probably should have.

I have been arguing on the internet for over a decade in one place or another, and on a lot of topics that tend to attract people with illogical, dogmatic belief systems. My discovery of Nizkor.org, a website devoted to fighting Holocaust deniers, was one of my better finds.

To be clear: creationists are not morally reprehensible as most Holocaust deniers are. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy no matter who makes the mistake, and yes, even people who believe in evolution commit them on occasion.

The human tendency towards comfirmation bias being what it is though, means that people with really illogical belief systems tend to arrive at conclusions the same way, and resist information that contradicts their particular dogma the same way.

If one only knew the Ad hominem (he is wrong because he is a bad person) or Strawman logical fallacies (see how illogical his position is, I distorted it to make fun of it, and that proves how wrong it is), that is almost all you need to know.

[MultiTroll]

An Austin rhino is caught coming out.
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1334Yz.img?h=416&w=799&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

[RandomGuy]

Yet another conversation that went no where.

The people who think that some magic man in the sky created everything out of whole cloth will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to keep that belief.