What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: borntowatch


Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

WHAT!?

You really make rational people want to bash their head against a wall.

You are completely misusing the micro vs macro argument. I've pointed it out, others have pointed it out, the internet has multiple sources pointing it out. Your comments about microevolution vs macroevolution have no validity and that is 100% fact. You are misinterpreting terminology and applying your own MISunderstanding to the terms. Is it opposite day on whatever planet you're from?

If I start spouting nonsense about Christians believing that Jesus was actually a goat and Mary was a piece of toast, those are empty comments with no validity. I've provided the actual definition of macro vs micro evolution which proves you wrong and you have the audacity to claim that I'm making invalid comments? You've got a lot of nerve.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

You've received that dozens of times in this thread. You've probably received that thousands of times in all the various online debates you've started. You are a liar if you claim that's what you want to see because you simply dismiss it out of hand every single time.

My clear concise opinion based on peer-reviewed data and backed up with scientific evidence: your sole purpose in these threads is to get a rise out of others and claim superiority using your downright invalid interpretations of legitimate information and completely illogical acceptance of whatever hokey pseudo-science supports your world view. You are THE straw man. In other words, you are the worst type of intellectually-dishonest proponent of creationism and you give anyone with similar beliefs a bad reputation.

I'm not attacking you personally... just your god-awful method of debate.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

I can use science to prove the earth goes around the sun, but its not worth it to you. You have already made your mind up.

You could also use science to see the evidence for evolution for yourself, but you're content not to. You have already made your mind up.

Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

Only to you. The scientific community defines and understands the difference in the way Answer described. It's you who's trying to redefine the terms to suit your needs.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

That's been presented to you, you choose to ignore it. All you're really saying here is, "I want to read, but not too much, and only if it'll reinforce the conclusion that I've already reached."

Stop preaching at me, back it up with science, I am sick of your religious connotations and evangelism.
USE SCIENCE
Do it of your own bat and not of someone elses, prove you are not a drone repeating what you are taught by messrs Dawkins, justify your point of view.
Prove you know what you are talking about because most evolutionists havnt a clue howtheir beliefs work

If you knew what science was, you wouldn't be asking the same question a hundred times. Get a dictionary.

Phantom, it's quite clear what he expects of us.

We should form a group, go out into the field, locate some fossils, come back to our lab, study those fossils using our lab equipment, then go back into the field, somehow locate some fossils that are the ancestor of the species we have in the lab, bring those back to the lab, study those fossils using our lab equipment, post our findings in a scientific journal, wait for the peer review results, publish our final results, then present him with our evidence and our peer-reviewed findings.

Then he can say it's all bullsh1t and we don't know what we're talking about.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Please by all means support anything you have to offer with references, references is a little different to using someone elses 50 pages of information to support one single point you want to bury under a pile of irrelevant dribbles

LOL! Stop asking for references when you won't accept links and aren't going to even read them anyway. If you can't read more than a couple paragraphs on a topic, the problem is with you and your unwillingness to learn about a topic you know nothing about. You can't just dismiss something because the explanation is long and detailed. Science is all about the details. If you don't like that and won't even look at these details, then why even bother arguing against it?

You believe in magic over scientific fact and are ignorant when it comes to anything related to evolution. That sums up your entire viewpoint, there's no reason to even argue further. You have made blatantly false claims about evolution, that's the bottom line. You can't prove that micro and macro use a different mechanism, you wrongly assume it. Why are you even arguing at this point?

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

But whatever you do, don't post a link to that scientific evidence. If you do, he won't read it and it doesn't count!!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

You are hypocritical. You get mad at people for posting links to scientific studies and evidence so then people try to explain the science to you in their own words and you get mad at them for "preaching" to you. There really is no talking to you.

Yes I am sorry, its just frustration

So far no one has tried to explain anything scientifically at all, a few varied and baseless statements and a lovely little picture on what people think happens....not much else.

Its all baseless, has been since the get go

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: borntowatch
Please by all means support anything you have to offer with references, references is a little different to using someone elses 50 pages of information to support one single point you want to bury under a pile of irrelevant dribbles

LOL! Stop asking for references when you won't accept links and aren't going to even read them anyway. If you can't read more than a couple paragraphs on a topic, the problem is with you and your unwillingness to learn about a topic you know nothing about. You can't just dismiss something because the explanation is long and detailed. Science is all about the details. If you don't like that and won't even look at these details, then why even bother arguing against it?

You believe in magic over scientific fact and are ignorant when it comes to anything related to evolution. That sums up your entire viewpoint, there's no reason to even argue further. You have made blatantly false claims about evolution, that's the bottom line. You can't prove that micro and macro use a different mechanism, you wrongly assume it. Why are you even arguing at this point?

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

But whatever you do, don't post a link to that scientific evidence. If you do, he won't read it and it doesn't count!!

Look another post with out evidence, nil content and not a drop of science, hee hee heee, I see what you cant do

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

You are hypocritical. You get mad at people for posting links to scientific studies and evidence so then people try to explain the science to you in their own words and you get mad at them for "preaching" to you. There really is no talking to you.

Yes I am sorry, its just frustration

So far no one has tried to explain anything scientifically at all, a few varied and baseless statements and a lovely little picture on what people think happens....not much else.

Its all baseless, has been since the get go

Seriously?

I'm starting to think that your definition of "science/scientifically" is farrrr different than the actual definition.

I also think that "baseless" does not mean what you think it means.

originally posted by: Answer

We should form a group, go out into the field, locate some fossils, come back to our lab, study those fossils using our lab equipment, then go back into the field, somehow locate some fossils that are the ancestor of the species we have in the lab, bring those back to the lab, study those fossils using our lab equipment, post our findings in a scientific journal, wait for the peer review results, publish our final results, then present him with our evidence and our peer-reviewed findings.

Then he can say it's all bullsh1t and we don't know what we're talking about.

Please dont give up your life, faith for me.
I dont expect you to go searching for fossils, there are plenty of others doing that.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch

I can use science to prove the earth goes around the sun, but its not worth it to you. You have already made your mind up.

You could also use science to see the evidence for evolution for yourself, but you're content not to. You have already made your mind up.

Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

Only to you. The scientific community defines and understands the difference in the way Answer described. It's you who's trying to redefine the terms to suit your needs.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

That's been presented to you, you choose to ignore it. All you're really saying here is, "I want to read, but not too much, and only if it'll reinforce the conclusion that I've already reached."

Stop preaching at me, back it up with science, I am sick of your religious connotations and evangelism.
USE SCIENCE
Do it of your own bat and not of someone elses, prove you are not a drone repeating what you are taught by messrs Dawkins, justify your point of view.
Prove you know what you are talking about because most evolutionists havnt a clue howtheir beliefs work

If you knew what science was, you wouldn't be asking the same question a hundred times. Get a dictionary.

Phantom, it's quite clear what he expects of us.

We should form a group, go out into the field, locate some fossils, come back to our lab, study those fossils using our lab equipment, then go back into the field, somehow locate some fossils that are the ancestor of the species we have in the lab, bring those back to the lab, study those fossils using our lab equipment, post our findings in a scientific journal, wait for the peer review results, publish our final results, then present him with our evidence and our peer-reviewed findings.

Then he can say it's all bullsh1t and we don't know what we're talking about.

Well as a matter of fact, I did link to several publications whose authors are at MIT which is my university. Of course, that would never do for BornToWatch. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology I am sure is on his S*&^%T list as a bogus university!

originally posted by: borntowatch
So far no one has tried to explain anything scientifically at all, a few varied and baseless statements and a lovely little picture on what people think happens....not much else.

Its all baseless, has been since the get go

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16, RSV).

Lie after lie after lie with you. I don't think your god is happy right now with your behavior. Jesus must be wondering WTF gospel you have read because you are going against everything he stands for by attacking science unjustly. But it makes perfect sense now. You can barely read English. This is why you never respond to counter points, and won't read links or anything more than a few sentences long. The hilarious part is that you keep asking for sources now that you have made it clear you won't accept links and won't read any of them. You are a hypocrite or a troll. Either way, you aren't worthy of being in this discussion.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer

We should form a group, go out into the field, locate some fossils, come back to our lab, study those fossils using our lab equipment, then go back into the field, somehow locate some fossils that are the ancestor of the species we have in the lab, bring those back to the lab, study those fossils using our lab equipment, post our findings in a scientific journal, wait for the peer review results, publish our final results, then present him with our evidence and our peer-reviewed findings.

Then he can say it's all bullsh1t and we don't know what we're talking about.

Please dont give up your life, faith for me.
I dont expect you to go searching for fossils, there are plenty of others doing that.

A serious question:

If I asked you to type out the entire story of Genesis and then give me your interpretation of that story without copying and pasting from another source, would you do that or would you link to a page that already has the information that aligns with your viewpoint?

You're essentially asking us to do FAR more work than that when others who are much smarter than us have already done it in a clear concise way with illustrations and references that would take us months to gather.

You should have properly learned about evolution in school. Don't ask us to take you back to the basics you missed out on or ignored and teach it all over again just so you can dismiss it all over again.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: borntowatch


Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

WHAT!?

You really make rational people want to bash their head against a wall.

You are completely misusing the micro vs macro argument. I've pointed it out, others have pointed it out, the internet has multiple sources pointing it out. Your comments about microevolution vs macroevolution have no validity and that is 100% fact. You are misinterpreting terminology and applying your own MISunderstanding to the terms. Is it opposite day on whatever planet you're from?

If I start spouting nonsense about Christians believing that Jesus was actually a goat and Mary was a piece of toast, those are empty comments with no validity. I've provided the actual definition of macro vs micro evolution which proves you wrong and you have the audacity to claim that I'm making invalid comments? You've got a lot of nerve.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

You've received that dozens of times in this thread. You've probably received that thousands of times in all the various online debates you've started. You are a liar if you claim that's what you want to see because you simply dismiss it out of hand every single time.

My clear concise opinion based on peer-reviewed data and backed up with scientific evidence: your sole purpose in these threads is to get a rise out of others and claim superiority using your downright invalid interpretations of legitimate information and completely illogical acceptance of whatever hokey pseudo-science supports your world view. You are THE straw man. In other words, you are the worst type of intellectually-dishonest proponent of creationism and you give anyone with similar beliefs a bad reputation.

I'm not attacking you personally... just your god-awful method of debate.

Well all the talking doesnt bring any evidence to the table
I havnt seen any, not a drop, wat have you provided, a definition?

Definition

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

You are hypocritical. You get mad at people for posting links to scientific studies and evidence so then people try to explain the science to you in their own words and you get mad at them for "preaching" to you. There really is no talking to you.

Yes I am sorry, its just frustration

So far no one has tried to explain anything scientifically at all, a few varied and baseless statements and a lovely little picture on what people think happens....not much else.

Its all baseless, has been since the get go

It's sad that you actually believe that.

originally posted by: Answer
A serious question:

If I asked you to type out the entire story of Genesis and then give me your interpretation of that story without copying and pasting from another source, would you do that or would you link to a page that already has the information that aligns with your viewpoint?

You're essentially asking us to do FAR more work than that when others who are much smarter than us have already done it in a clear concise way with illustrations and references that would take us months to gather.

You should have properly learned about evolution in school. Don't ask us to take you back to the basics you missed out on or ignored and teach it all over again just so you can dismiss it all over again.

I would think that your interest in Genesis would be invalid so wouldnt take on the challenge.
Beating my head against a tree to prove something you wouldnt accept is an exercise in futility.

I also know that Genesis is subjective and without evidence except for the creation we live in and on, that can be denied, so.

If its beyond your ability to defend your beliefs then I accept that, if you cant justify why you believe in your faith then fine.
If the basics are good enough for you to believe what you want to believe then thats great for you, basics are not enough for me. I want evidence

Just saying microevolution is macroevolution is just a statement, there is no evidence in a statement, it needs to be tested and shown in an experiment, observable and testable

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: borntowatch


Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

WHAT!?

You really make rational people want to bash their head against a wall.

You are completely misusing the micro vs macro argument. I've pointed it out, others have pointed it out, the internet has multiple sources pointing it out. Your comments about microevolution vs macroevolution have no validity and that is 100% fact. You are misinterpreting terminology and applying your own MISunderstanding to the terms. Is it opposite day on whatever planet you're from?

If I start spouting nonsense about Christians believing that Jesus was actually a goat and Mary was a piece of toast, those are empty comments with no validity. I've provided the actual definition of macro vs micro evolution which proves you wrong and you have the audacity to claim that I'm making invalid comments? You've got a lot of nerve.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

You've received that dozens of times in this thread. You've probably received that thousands of times in all the various online debates you've started. You are a liar if you claim that's what you want to see because you simply dismiss it out of hand every single time.

My clear concise opinion based on peer-reviewed data and backed up with scientific evidence: your sole purpose in these threads is to get a rise out of others and claim superiority using your downright invalid interpretations of legitimate information and completely illogical acceptance of whatever hokey pseudo-science supports your world view. You are THE straw man. In other words, you are the worst type of intellectually-dishonest proponent of creationism and you give anyone with similar beliefs a bad reputation.

I'm not attacking you personally... just your god-awful method of debate.

Well all the talking doesnt bring any evidence to the table
I havnt seen any, not a drop, wat have you provided, a definition?

Definition

I asked you to define what would suffice as evidence or proof. You did not answer me.

How about an evidentiary question: if man and apes did not evolve from a common ancestor, why are some children born with a vestigial tail?

The greatest evidence of evolution is called Morphological Homology in which structures are derived from a common ancestral structure (that may or may not be used for the same function in the species in which it occurs).

Forgive me for using another picture but it illustrates my point so very well:



The evolutionary history of a species can be seen in its DNA sequences. The more closely related two species are, the more similar their DNA sequences.
The very existence of DNA in every living thing on earth is, in itself, strong evidence of common ancestry. It would be highly unlikely for DNA to have evolved independently so many times, over and over.

I'm sure you'll dismiss everything I just typed but, at this point, the thread is no longer about you.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: borntowatch


Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

WHAT!?

You really make rational people want to bash their head against a wall.

You are completely misusing the micro vs macro argument. I've pointed it out, others have pointed it out, the internet has multiple sources pointing it out. Your comments about microevolution vs macroevolution have no validity and that is 100% fact. You are misinterpreting terminology and applying your own MISunderstanding to the terms. Is it opposite day on whatever planet you're from?

If I start spouting nonsense about Christians believing that Jesus was actually a goat and Mary was a piece of toast, those are empty comments with no validity. I've provided the actual definition of macro vs micro evolution which proves you wrong and you have the audacity to claim that I'm making invalid comments? You've got a lot of nerve.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

You've received that dozens of times in this thread. You've probably received that thousands of times in all the various online debates you've started. You are a liar if you claim that's what you want to see because you simply dismiss it out of hand every single time.

My clear concise opinion based on peer-reviewed data and backed up with scientific evidence: your sole purpose in these threads is to get a rise out of others and claim superiority using your downright invalid interpretations of legitimate information and completely illogical acceptance of whatever hokey pseudo-science supports your world view. You are THE straw man. In other words, you are the worst type of intellectually-dishonest proponent of creationism and you give anyone with similar beliefs a bad reputation.

I'm not attacking you personally... just your god-awful method of debate.

Well all the talking doesnt bring any evidence to the table
I havnt seen any, not a drop, wat have you provided, a definition?

Definition

You're blind. It's all in this thread. You just don't read it.

originally posted by: Answer


Seriously?

I'm starting to think that your definition of "science/scientifically" is farrrr different than the actual definition.

I also think that "baseless" does not mean what you think it means.

You know science has to take an issue and experiment on that issue, the results then have to be quantified and clarified. The experiment must be repeatable observable and testable.
Outside of that and you have a lame assumption at its very best



What you consider as science is not science, its not repeatable observable and testable

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: borntowatch


Nice comment about Micro/Macro but its a comment that has no validity, its empty.

WHAT!?

You really make rational people want to bash their head against a wall.

You are completely misusing the micro vs macro argument. I've pointed it out, others have pointed it out, the internet has multiple sources pointing it out. Your comments about microevolution vs macroevolution have no validity and that is 100% fact. You are misinterpreting terminology and applying your own MISunderstanding to the terms. Is it opposite day on whatever planet you're from?

If I start spouting nonsense about Christians believing that Jesus was actually a goat and Mary was a piece of toast, those are empty comments with no validity. I've provided the actual definition of macro vs micro evolution which proves you wrong and you have the audacity to claim that I'm making invalid comments? You've got a lot of nerve.

and I want a clear concise opinion based on a peer review that is backed up with scientific evidence. Ho Hum

You've received that dozens of times in this thread. You've probably received that thousands of times in all the various online debates you've started. You are a liar if you claim that's what you want to see because you simply dismiss it out of hand every single time.

My clear concise opinion based on peer-reviewed data and backed up with scientific evidence: your sole purpose in these threads is to get a rise out of others and claim superiority using your downright invalid interpretations of legitimate information and completely illogical acceptance of whatever hokey pseudo-science supports your world view. You are THE straw man. In other words, you are the worst type of intellectually-dishonest proponent of creationism and you give anyone with similar beliefs a bad reputation.

I'm not attacking you personally... just your god-awful method of debate.

Well all the talking doesnt bring any evidence to the table
I havnt seen any, not a drop, wat have you provided, a definition?

Definition

You're blind. It's all in this thread. You just don't read it.

I also provided a detailed description of speciation which you didn't acknowledge. And I know why. Because it is direct evidence, solid, hard evidence - which you have to ignore or declare yourself wrong.

And that ain't going to happen any time soon.

a reply to: borntowatch

Well why don't you show something repeatable, observable and testable. We all did. You're the only one who hasn't.
Doubt if you will though.

Just for your edification, here's the post about speciation again. Please learn the definition of speciation once and for all.

Critics of evolution, like BornToWatch who doesn’t understand the first thing about evolution, always fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that’s clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it’s also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

First, get this through your head: A NEW SPECIES IS DEFINED AS A LIFEFORM WHO CANNOT REPRODUCE WITH ITS ANCESTOR. IT CAN ONLY REPRODUCE WITH ITS OWN KIND, OR THE NEW SPECIES.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers – the western salsify, the meadow salsify and the oyster plant – were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren’t sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species – the classic definition of a new species.

And just because we can’t see all speciation events from start to finish doesn’t mean we can’t see species splitting. If the theory of evolution is true, we would expect to find species in various stages of separation all over the globe. There would be ones that have just begun to split, showing reproductive isolation, and those that might still look like one species but haven’t interbred for thousands of years. And that’s exactly what scientists find.

The apple maggot fly is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. Over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples and began switching trees. While alone this doesn’t explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they’re born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types – those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns – have different allele frequencies – in other words a different code for their genome.

Creationists have no legs to stand on. Speciation happens and happens frequently. The fossil records are full of examples. I'm not going to include any links because I don't want to give BornToWatch acid indigestion or a stroke.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Answer
A serious question:

If I asked you to type out the entire story of Genesis and then give me your interpretation of that story without copying and pasting from another source, would you do that or would you link to a page that already has the information that aligns with your viewpoint?

You're essentially asking us to do FAR more work than that when others who are much smarter than us have already done it in a clear concise way with illustrations and references that would take us months to gather.

You should have properly learned about evolution in school. Don't ask us to take you back to the basics you missed out on or ignored and teach it all over again just so you can dismiss it all over again.

I would think that your interest in Genesis would be invalid so wouldnt take on the challenge.
Beating my head against a tree to prove something you wouldnt accept is an exercise in futility.

So why are you still participating in this thread after so many pages? Why do you keep resurrecting this thread?

If its beyond your ability to defend your beliefs then I accept that, if you cant justify why you believe in your faith then fine.
If the basics are good enough for you to believe what you want to believe then thats great for you, basics are not enough for me. I want evidence.

Don't act like a pretentious clown. You believe the bible without evidence so don't pretend that you suddenly have some high standard for proof. You've been buried under mountains of evidence in this thread but you dismiss it out of hand. Just because you refuse to call it evidence does not make it the truth.

Just saying microevolution is macroevolution is just a statement, there is no evidence in a statement, it needs to be tested and shown in an experiment, observable and testable

What? You still don't get what we're trying to tell you. You're using the terms improperly as a description of two different processes. They are not two different processes. You've made this up. You are wrong. It is not a matter of PROVING that you're wrong. If you looked at an apple and called it a potato, you would be just as wrong as you are about this. I do not have to perform an experiment to prove to you that the apple is not a potato. You're applying a false definition to the terms. Please stop with the madness! If you said that geologists study marine mammals, I would link to a definition showing that you are wrong. This is the exact same thing.