evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none

I agree with the person who said they have a hard time believing you to have a bachelor's degree in Biology. You don't know the most basic things about biology, period, end of story. When presented with evidence, you compltely dismiss it.

Who in the world told you that I have a degree in Biology? I said I studied it in college.

Acts 10:42 (King James Version)
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
This is not correct Nygden.

This is actually Acts 10:42
42And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.

Mark 9:1 was not talking about his second coming. It was talking about his kingdom the CHURCH
Jesus tought that the Kingdom was at hand in his ministries. God's Kingdom began with the ministry of Jesus.

As for the flood nygden, there is evidence. Study fossil records from around the world. It only takes a few hundred years to fossilize an item. Much more than a few thousand years and you will lose most of the clarity of the items found. In Frankstown Mississippi there are shark and mosasaur fossils found that far inland that can't be explained by anything but flood. In Morrocco the exact same fossils are being found.
This is evidence of flood, not global ocean. Such a concentration of salt water fossils insinuates a massive intrusion of fresh water and flooding. You will go nowhere on this planet and fill a grocery sack with shark teeth from recent sharks. I realize that sharks loose a tremendous amount of teeth when they feed, but that does not explain the Frankstown and Morrocco sites.

Agreed, not everyone in the world with a scientific degree accepts darwin's theories. Its merely the vast bulk of them that do, and the ones that don't, like the alleged Ukrainian scientists, don't seem to have any evidence that refutes it

But none of the scientists that do believe have concrete evidence either. Both theories take a level of faith. You apparently choose to put your faith in one and I the other.
This thread will go nowhere. There is no proof on either side and both require faith. We can't argrue someone elses faith.
There is just no point in it.

Originally posted by melatonin
www.sciencedaily.com...

Linky to PNAS

Firstly, let me commend you for not attempting to use talkorigins as a viable source of scientific information. It speaks more on behalf of yours and the articles credibilities. Both of these are nice introductions, though again we run into a lot of issues with a great deal of speculation and a great lack of specifics. I'd mentioned pages ago, that went barely addressed, that there's an issue with taxonomy. That is, we do not have a concrete definition of what a species is. If you say one species is changing into another, one must first provide that definition, or their definition, or any definition for that matter. Reproductive isolation and allelic shifts are old news, hardly accounting for the grand claims and assertions evolution puts forth. Thanks again for the info, it was an interesting read, but again stops short of addressing proofs.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Skirting the issue? You do realize you are doing the exact same thing, don't you?

The topic is "evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none", this is the issue I'm addressing,

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
What does a majority have to do in science? It’s not a popularity contest when it comes to theories.

Totally agreed.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
It’s a matter of what which theory can hold up to falsifiable tests. So far evolution has withstood all of them.

On the contrary, see previous postings.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
If a theory is accepted by 99 percent of the population it doesn’t mean its correct. Likewise, if a theory is only accepted by 1%, it doesn’t mean its false.

We agree here.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
When did scientist refute evolution?

It undergoes constant criticisms and no longer exists in its original form. It requires constant revisions when it does not function correctly.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
How is the tool of science considered truth? Elaborate on this. I have no clue what that means.

I don't know, I do not consider the tool of science truth. You'd have to ask someone who does believe this. I merely understand it to be a mechanism that can help us discern the truth.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
While I haven’t read Diversity of Life and have read parts of Origin of Species, I can only say that there is other material to be read which does show mechanisms, models, tests, data and reproductions.

Let's see them. That's what this thread is about.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Why discredit the theory based on these two books not having enough data based on your standards? Why not research more than two books?

If you knew who the authors were, this question would be irrelevant. Why assume I've only read 2 books? That's a very absurd assumption.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
There is no way in hell you have a bachelor’s degree in biology and not understand that the modern theory of evolution, called modern evolutionary synthesis, is based on both of these gentlemen’s theories.

I do understand it and disagree until further evidence can be provided. Regarding the courses I've taken, be sure to call Direct Loans and tell them I do not owe them $58,000 in student loans.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
They compliment each other perfectly and have passed rigorous testing since then.

Of course they do, who do you think S.J. Gould templated his book after? Regarding testing, there has not be rigorous enough tests if thes question still exists.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Again, if you are qualified with a bachelor’s, you would know that natural selection occurs through genetic means. Natural selection and genetics go hand in hand and are related to evolution in every sense.

Natural selection and ecology could go hand-in-hand (if you hit it with a hammer hard enough), but in my concentration of Genetics courses I found many have difficulty reconciling the two. Genetics is the key. Find the genetic mechanism and there is no more argument. I'm not a know-it-all, I'm a "know what the university taught" at the level of a bachelor's degree. My testimony is they've yet to back their claims.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Why should we consider it a tabloid? Their sources all check out and their articles are supported by scientific documents. What more could you want?

Are you on ATS asking why we should not accept something at face value? How strange. Take a close look at the "scientific documents". Better still, try doing research for a university and see what kind of pressure you're put under to publish papers. There's a reason for this pressure. $_$ cha-ching.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I am having a hard time believing you are biologist. If you really were, you’d know that evolution has tons of data to back it up.

It's not about what we believe, it's about the facts.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Just exactly what was written in your textbooks? What did you study to pass your exams?

BISC 207 & 208 honors, General Biology - Dr. Steven Skopik
Genetics - Dr. Sheppherd
Microbiology - Dr. Diane Herson
Molecular Biology of the Cell
Physiology
Ecology - Dr. Lynn Mahaffy
Vertebrate Natural History - Dr. Lohtrich

There are others, but these had the most practical applications to what we're discussing.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Experience is not always to be trusted, as found by psychological experiments that deal with eye-witnesses and false memory. Trust in what? Understood principles? What are they?

I'd love to talk more about it on a more appropriate thread.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I gotta say, overall you have no basic knowledge of how evolution works, yet you somehow claim you have bachelors in biology. How is this possible? What school did you attend?

Univesity of Delaware. Read what I've said carefully and consider before making gross assumptions.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Nygdan
Saint, all you need to do is look through the numerous scientific journals that are out there, or attend some of the thousands of scientific conferences out there to see that there is overwhelming support, a consensus, amoung the scientific community that Darwin's theory is a darned good theory.

I did not say it is a "bad idea". I'm saying it's an unsupported theory, if we're allowed to call it a theory. Theories in science often qualify The Scientific Method.

Originally posted by Nygdan
It has not been refuted. Please point out who refuted it and how and we can discuss it.

Take Dr. Mahaffy's course and hear why Darwin's natural selection has issues. I severly doubt she's the only one. She's pro-evolution for sure, but there are many many mechanistic problems with his assertions. But, I'll give you the same answer you gave me --> There are a lot of people in the scientific community who have written about these problems. Look them up.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The theory of evolution is functional.

Nice claim. Now, if you can back it up, we'll have something called "progress".

Originally posted by Nygdan
Darwin provides a multitude of evidences for his theory, he explains the logical rational, and he rather clearly explains the mechanism.

What he provides is a multitude of observations which led to creative conclusions after reading a geology book on the HMS Beagle.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Natural Selection IS Darwin's theory of evolution.

True. But it's not the only or viable theory at present.

Originally posted by Nygdan
What is 'lacking' in it?

Multi-generational genetic mutation for starters. There's a host of others from an ecological standpoint as well, but if you can address this one I'd be happy.

Originally posted by Nygdan
No, it has not. Please provide the studies that have 'refuted' Darwin's theory of natural selection so they can be discussed.

Very few people want to chuck the idea all together. Rather, when there's a flaw, they try to revise it. It's admirable but again there's still issues. I'm not advocating chucking the idea. I say either say what you can support or say "I don't know", but science has a real issue with those three words these days.

Here are some who claim to have refuted it:
www.amazon.com...
""He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled `A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules'. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22." "

tech-meister.com...
"Nothing has ever been found to support the idea that one species has become another
one. There's more than one missing link in that argument.

The idea that life spontaneously started suffers greatly at the table of probability,
regardless of how much time is permitted. Time is not the friend of these theories
as time also works against their success as based upon the second law of thermodynamics.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything
wears out over time and does not become more complex.

the fossil record (there is none)

the unsolveable problems of evolution:
No explanation for why life contains only left-handed amino acids
No explanation for how life could start WITH or WITHOUT oxygen in the atmosphere
No explanation for how life could start in the oceans (hydrolysis)
No explanation for how evolution could occur in harmony with the Second Law of Thermodynamics
No explanation for the origin of information."

www.worldnetdaily.com...
"...I focus on six areas of evidence. First, mutations – long claimed by evolutionists to be the building blocks of evolutionary change – are now known to remove information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information – even in the rare cases of beneficial mutations, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics. That has been laid out by Dr. Lee Spetner in his book "Not By Chance."

I'm sure there are others, but I'm more of a fan of talking to scientists rather than reading books for sale. It's in print, it must be true, right?

Originally posted by Nygdan
I agree. Darwin didn't know what the source of the observed variation was, he didn't understand dna (and of course neither did mendel), and he favoured the theory of 'blending inheritance' as the mechanism of inheritance, which was refuted. None of that refutes Darwin's theory of evolution.

Mendel did however have a functional mechanism to describe variation. He could create a model, test, produce results and reproduce those results.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Infact, they are not. The genetic aspects of speciation are the same as the genetic aspects of mere 'sub-species level' change.

If you look at an ornothology book from 1930 and compare it with one today, would you have the same species? Nope. Why? Did birds change species in 76 years? Not at all. We cannot define what a species is because we haven't entirely mapped out alleliec capabilities. Once we do, then we're able to determine yes, this is a change or no this is a temporary frequency shift. Shifts happen. We know this, but it is not evolution.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I have no idea what experiements you have done. The fact is that genetic experiments on fruit flys show whats happening at the genetic level when a species if given different selection pressures. If they didn't respond to selection pressures, or couldn't, that would be evidence agianst natural selection.

It's no different than what Gregory Mendel was doing with peas. You can artifically select against them, then when optimal conditions are restored you reach the equilibrium allelic frequency. This phenotypic plasticity allows a species to adapt and return, not grow a new limb. The Hardy-Weinberg principle, as mentioned before, causes big problems for evolution.

Originally posted by Nygdan
What data is missing? We have naturally variable populations of species that change over human observable time. We have been able to detail, down to the genetic level, what is going on when selection pressures are applied and what is happening during a speciation event. We have both laboratory and real-life observed examples of speciation. What is wrong with those data?

The data supports temporary frequency shifts, not evolution. See previous statements.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Are you actually accusing me of purposely trying to take the discussion off topic??? Fine, we don't need to discuss faith anymore, I've removed my reponses to your statements on faith.

I appreciate it. I think we'll get a lot more done with a focused discussion. I've noticed dees and madness exchanges, but I'd like to approach the topic scientifically so I'm resolved to do so on my end. Again, I'm not saying I know, I'm saying if science is going to make the claim, they better provide support as they have for all other previous established findings. Religiously, evolution will not support or deny anything.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
Firstly, let me commend you for not attempting to use talkorigins as a viable source of scientific information. It speaks more on behalf of yours and the articles credibilities. Both of these are nice introductions, though again we run into a lot of issues with a great deal of speculation and a great lack of specifics. I'd mentioned pages ago, that went barely addressed, that there's an issue with taxonomy. That is, we do not have a concrete definition of what a species is. If you say one species is changing into another, one must first provide that definition, or their definition, or any definition for that matter. Reproductive isolation and allelic shifts are old news, hardly accounting for the grand claims and assertions evolution puts forth. Thanks again for the info, it was an interesting read, but again stops short of addressing proofs.

Yeah, cool.

That study shows statistical relationships between ecological divergence and reproductive isolation, it's not just an introduction, it is a scientific study. If you read it closely, you would see it also mentioned Coyne & Orr's fruit-fly experiments on speciation, as mentioned by Nygdan.

The difficulty in defining the species concept is more a support for evolution than a big issue. We expect species to not be discrete entities, we expect them to be undergoing different degrees of reproductive isolation, to have 'fuzzy' boundaries - that is what we expect if species are more continuous than discrete and speciation does occur

Different conceptions of species are best for different levels of analysis, the concept for fossils will not be ideal for living systems.

The fact you post about 2-LOT shows a 'lot' about the level of your argument - it shows that 'everything wears out and does not become more complex', hmmm, no. It suggests that the entropy of a CLOSED system will increase. Entropy can also be viewed as disorder. Thus, if the universe is a closed system, entropy increases over time.

However, the earth is not a closed system and complex snowflakes do form from water molecules, complex chemicals do form from elements, and complex organisms do form from a more simple blastocyst. Oh noes, we just broke 2-LOT...

All these examples are not working against 2-LOT, as the earth is not closed and has energy being pumped in continuously.

You also refuse to accept Talkorigins as a reliable source of information, then decide to post stuff from wingnutdaily, a website with no references, and books that are not peer-reviewed.

I don't have time for any of this saint, I have proposals and manuscripts to write. I'm sure others can provide the basics you require...

[edit on 26-2-2007 by melatonin]

blah blah blah genetics, science religeon,

just simple as this open your eyes explore the biology shifts noted in sealed cave environments, do some research and many might find this very interesting:

Chimpanzees in Senegal have been observed making and using wooden spears to hunt other primates

well then case closed? or are people still saying they "dont come from monkeys" whilst carrying guns, getting excited when other people in the room do and cuddling (preening) there friends?

In a number of cases, chimps also trimmed the ends of the branch and stripped it of bark. Some chimps also sharpened the tip of the tool with their teeth

BBC

REGARDS

ELF

And what in the world does a dang monkey using a spear have to do with humans. It means nothing. It sure as heck is not proof of evolution. For that very matter, I have watched my dog daily open a door by turning the door knob with his paws. Does this mean that nature is selecting the dog to be the next step in the evolution ladder?

Originally posted by melatonin
You also refuse to accept Talkorigins as a reliable source of information, then decide to post stuff from wingnutdaily,

Funny how the "wingnuts" have a scientific docterate degrees. What does that say about universities? What better institutions do you propose?

Originally posted by melatonin
a website with no references, and books that are not peer-reviewed.

I did not have to provide peer reviews, only those who have claimed to refute evolution. That's what the disagreement was about. Clearly one cannot say that the theory is not being refuted. End of my job.

Originally posted by melatonin
I don't have time for any of this saint,

Clearly you do else you would not post.

Originally posted by melatonin
I have proposals and manuscripts to write. I'm sure others can provide the basics you require...

I'm sorry that you were unable to provide the basics. I was looking forward to results.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
blah blah completely ignores relevant points blah blah[edit on 26-2-2007 by saint4God]

No, I don't have time.

If you can't see the the slight irony with you criticising Nygdan for posting perfectly valid information from Talkorigins, then posting even less reliable sources, not my problem.

Have fun.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by saint4God
blah blah completely ignores relevant points blah blah[edit on 26-2-2007 by saint4God]

No, I don't have time.

If you can't see the the slight irony with you criticising Nygdan for posting perfectly valid information from Talkorigins, then posting even less reliable sources, not my problem.

Have fun.

Where have I said, "blah blah completely ignores relevant points blah blah"? You're quoting me as saying this and it is not apparent where it comes from. Please do so else I'll be forwarding this libel/slander to a moderator.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
....I said, "blah blah completely ignores relevant points blah blah"...

That was my abstracted interpretation of your words - yours were barely worth quoting and wasting good bandwidth - didn't you realise that? Libel and slander is quite funny, guess your law is as good as your biology, they usually need to be a case of falsehood, that is actually a fair account of your post, you completely missed the relevant issues and focused on a well-known nickname of worldnetdaily and other associated drivel. I'm used to discussing with you by now, Saint, and denying your ignorance takes quite a chunk of time that could be well-spent elsewhere. I'm bored and tired of it of it all, I really do have better things to do - I don't blame mattison for doing one.

Go ahead and complain, I couldn't care less. It will actually do me a favour and if it makes you feel good, you should go ahead. If a mod wants to ban/warn one of the few here who actually cares about denying ignorance and the state of this forum, fine, increase the proportion of those spreading ignorance, it'll be clear what they prefer. Lolz a plenty.

Choosing between providing remedial science education here and spending more time completing proposals/manuscripts to ensure more years of science for myself, is not really much of a contest, heh.

thou must do what thou must...

Hwyl fawr

[edit on 26-2-2007 by melatonin]

Here's another waste of bandwidth, as posting refutations of these types of arguments is a total waste of time when you're faced with the intellectually dishonest who can just completely ignore the implications of scientific studies. Against my better judgement, but hey-ho...

In the book, I focus on six areas of evidence. First, mutations – long claimed by evolutionists to be the building blocks of evolutionary change – are now known to remove information from the genetic code. They never create higher, more complex information – even in the rare cases of beneficial mutations, such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics. That has been laid out by Dr. Lee Spetner in his book "Not By Chance."

First he needs to define what the hell he means by 'information' when applied to the genome. Dembski hasn't been able to provide a measure of it, in fact his maths is pretty much a joke and ignored by those in information science, his blog is one of the funniest things on the web.

So, lets produce evidence of a beneficial mutation, this must be an increase in 'information', gene duplication and subsequent mutation that provides a novel beneficial gene. whatever defintion you pull out your never-regions, that must be an increase in 'information'. No decrease here, just a new duplicated gene that then acquires mutations and takes on a novel function.

Lets have a very simplistic analogy, 'information' starting as:

bake

duplicated to:

bake bake

then mutated to:

bake cake

Seems to have more 'information' to me.

Labbe P, Berthomieu A, Berticat C, Alout H, Raymond M, Lenormand T, Weill M. (2007) Independent Duplications of the Acetylcholinesterase Gene Conferring Insecticide Resistance in the Mosquito Culex pipiens. Mol Biol Evol. [Epub ahead of print]

Gene duplication is thought to be the main potential source of material for the evolution of new gene functions. Several models have been proposed for the evolution of new functions through duplication, most based on ancient events (My). We provide molecular evidence for the occurrence of several (at least 3) independent duplications of the ace-1 locus in the mosquito Culex pipiens, selected in response to insecticide pressure that probably occurred very recently (< 40 years ago). This locus encodes the main target of several insecticides, the acetylcholinesterase. The duplications described consist of two alleles of ace-1, one susceptible and one resistant to insecticide, located on the same chromosome. These events were detected in different parts of the world and probably resulted from distinct mechanisms. We propose that duplications were selected because they reduce the fitness cost associated with the resistant ace-1 allele through the generation of persistent, advantageous heterozygosis. The rate of duplication of ace-1 in C. pipiens is probably underestimated, but seems to be rather high.

Searching pubmed will produce many more examples just like the above.

Next vacuous issue from this charlatan...

Second, cells are now known to be far too complex to have originated by some chance concurrence of chemicals, as Darwin hypothesized and is still being claimed. We detail that in the book. Third, the human body has systems, such as blood clotting and the immune system, that are, in the words of biochemist Michael Behe, "irreducibly complex," meaning they cannot have evolved step-by-step. Behe articulated that in his book "Darwin's Black Box." And then there is the whole issue of transitional forms.

Yeah, irreducible complexity is not an issue for ToE, and blood-clotting certainly is not. The infamous Behe hidden behind a mountain of literature on the evolution of the immune system, that he denied exists, should be the major funny of any movie they make about the Dover case.

“…none of the cascade proteins are used for anything other than the formation of a blood clot”.
Behe, DBB, p86

Now, I’ve presented three plausible scenarios above: (1) protothrombin as a haemocyte attractant, (2) protothrombin as a part of the complement system, and (3) prothrombin as an activator of Factor XIII. All of them are consistent with what we know of existing coagulation systems in vertebrates and invertebrates. All of them are potentially testable via molecular clocks and whole-genome studies on a variety of protoverebrates (we need the amphioxus genome, apparently due out this year) and vertebrates, as well as reconstruction of the common ancestral proteins.

However, Behe and other ID apologists will undoubtedly dismiss these scenarios as not detailed enough. This misses the point. The point is that Behe has claimed that his argument showed in principle that the coagulation system could not evolve from simpler systems. The simple fact that both sea squirts and amphioxus have thrombin-like enzymes, but no true fibrinogen (and, in the case of sea squirts, any other of the clotting components), demolishes Behe’s argument. Having evidence for the intermediate steps in the evolution of the clotting cascade is just the icing on the cake. Behe and others can complain all they like about the details, but the take-home message is that “irreducible complexity,” as described by Behe, is no barrier to evolution of complex systems.

www.pandasthumb.org...

The science just keeps knocking these 'IC' arguments over and we're still waiting for Behe's new version of IC...

There are three places to look for transitional forms. First, there's the living world around us. We see that it is distinctly divided – you have invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals. But we don't see transitionals between them. If these creatures ever existed, why did none survive? It is too easy to explain it away by saying they all became extinct. And of course, there is the question: Why aren't these creatures evolving into each other today? Why aren't invertebrates evolving into fish today? Why aren't fish growing little legs and so forth?

What an idiot. All species are transitional and species evolve into new species, not each other. We generally add the 'transitional' label in retrospect to fossil evidence, we see transitions to new species via the different degrees of reproductive isolation mentioned in a post earlier.

This just shows that an idiot with a PhD is still an idiot. Even the title of his book illustrates his status as total charlatan - 'tornado in a junk-yard', I would have thought 'one born every minute' would be more appropriate. Just the usual creationista canards, anything to honour the glory of the 'creator', even lying for jesus is acceptable.


next one...

tech-meister.com...

Second Law of Thermodynamics - The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything wears out over time and does not become more complex.

That's enough for me to know this guy is talking from where it should be physically impossible but seems to happen quite often with these guys.

last one...

Jonathan Sarfati's book.

More carp about being impossible to increase information in the genome. See paper abstract on gene duplication and novel genes above. Argument refuted in one article.

Anyone can claim to have refuted something, pseudoscientists do it all the time. All they have to do is publish their argument with reliable and valid evidence where science belongs, doesn't seem to happen though as they have only vacuous ramblings usually aimed at the scientifically illiterate.

ToE is not perfect, it is, like most theories, incomplete. Yet it has been fervently attacked by all kinds of people for 150 years and never shown to be false - over and over and over and over etc etc again, the theory holds.

Hwyl fawr.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by melatonin]

Ah, The Panda's Thumb. Studied that book too (which is what the website name references), it's required. You apparently don't have a clear understanding of the nature of deoxyribonucleic acid, transcription and translation, so no point discussing genetics. Also, we know insecticides, man-made materials, produce mutations. The issue is having those mutations passed along to successive generations naturally. Anyway, I'm tired of your condescending tone and will not respond further to perpetuate it. And yes, will be notifying a moderator of your intentional misquote. Good day.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by saint4God]

I Call "Hand-Waving"!

Originally posted by melatonin
Here's another waste of bandwidth, as posting refutations of these types of arguments is a total waste of time when you're faced with the intellectually dishonest who can just completely ignore the implications of scientific studies.

If you want to discuss the issues, that's fine. Please do so.

If you want to indulge in hand-waving and obtuse ad hominem attacks against other members, please do so somewhere else.

We don't need the wasted bandwidth.

saint, why haven't you responded to any of mel's points aside from his little play on the name of a news source?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
saint, why haven't you responded to any of mel's points aside from his little play on the name of a news source?

I haven't responded to his most recent posting citations and intentionally so. I'll discuss the topic with those who are interested in a progressive discussion. One cannot go around calling PhD's "idiots". It also implies that Universities hand out degrees like Wal-Mart coupons (thereby causing them to be idiots as well). This is simply untrue. Without the thirst for knowledge, there's no valid incentive to explore anything in life.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
saint, why haven't you responded to any of mel's points aside from his little play on the name of a news source?

As I see it, an impossible challenge has been made. There are two elements to this challenge, the assumption:

Everyone who disagrees with melatonin's understanding of science is wrong and should not even be quoted, let alone their evidences addressed

And the requested action:

Prove melatonin misunderstands science using a source melatonin will accept.

Would you take the time to meet that challenge? I certainly wouldn't... And if you would, I have a challenge for you:

Prove yellow, but you can only use purple. Not just any shade of purple, either, only the shade I'm thinking of. If your shade doesn't match the shade of purple I'm thinking of, I'll tell you that it's a false shade and you'll have to try again. So...prove yellow.

[edit on 2/27/07/27 by junglejake]

And here we see the disconnect between someone trained in the idea of rigorous science and those that go through the primary education system and then persue humanities degrees in college (or don't go at all).
Since it would do absolutely no good to repost replies on the scientific validity of Darwinism, evolution, and most importantly, natural selection; I would, instead, like to hear from the original poster what their definition of "proof" is and then, what their proof is for an alternative to evolution.

Originally posted by junglejake
As I see it, an impossible challenge has been made. There are two elements to this challenge, the assumption:

Everyone who disagrees with melatonin's understanding of science is wrong and should not even be quoted, let alone their evidences addressed

And the requested action:

Prove melatonin misunderstands science using a source melatonin will accept.

Would you take the time to meet that challenge? I certainly wouldn't... And if you would, I have a challenge for you:

I see the cavalry has arrived.

Who made the 'impossible' challenge?

I think you need to substitute 'SaintforGod' for 'melatonin' in that post, easy mistake I suppose...

JJ, if you actually look earlier in the thread you would clearly see it was saint who provided the restriction on the information to be posted, it was nothing to do with me - talkorigins was not a suitable source because saint says...

How about posting a scientific source? Talkorigins is the tabloids of wanna-be scientific data and grossly assumed generalizations. Anyone can post magazine bibliographies too.

about a site that is populated by real working scientists who use real evidence supported by real scientific references. He wanted scientific studies from scientific sources, yet himself posts an interview from wingnutdaily, some book which has no peer-review, and some totally unsupported website that drones on about 2-LOT, which snowflakes must apparently break.

When faced with a scientific study with evidence, statistics etc that supports NS and also mentions the studies Nygdan raised earlier (speciation in fruit-flies - which he says doesn't exist because he did an experiment on them), as he apparently prefers, saint states

Firstly, let me commend you for not attempting to use talkorigins as a viable source of scientific information. It speaks more on behalf of yours and the articles credibilities. Both of these are nice introductions, though again we run into a lot of issues with a great deal of speculation and a great lack of specifics

Oh, he liked it but completely ignores the relevant points it contained. So I reply with more specifics about species concepts, 2-LOT, the actual info he missed in the article I posted, and the slight irony that he actually posted even less reliable info than nygdan posted earlier, actually quite laughable info which is easily refuted (which has been done now) and he focuses on my use of wingnutdaily and a reference to authority.

Saint is not open to 'progressive' discussion, I've been in a similar situation before. His complete evasion of specifics and focus on irrelevancies make this obvious.


Saint, as for universities handing out degrees for anything but academic ability, yeah, they do. I see it all the time, universities are businesses now. We have a little joke that the entry requirements now require a wad of cash and a spinal cord. But at least accredited uni's expect some work of some standard. The standard is quite variable as is obvious from the graduates produced.



Hwyl fawr.

[edit on 27-2-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
saint, why haven't you responded to any of mel's points aside from his little play on the name of a news source?

He'd rather evade the points I made earlier?

In saintworld, 2-LOT is broken with every snowflake that forms, when complex crystals form from saturated solutions, when complex chemicals form from simple elements. There is also a rule that you can't call a person with a PhD an idiot. You must defer to authority, I guess.



[edit on 27-2-2007 by melatonin]