What is evolution, not what some think

originally posted by: borntowatch



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

So what you're saying is, you don't know what "repeatable, observable, and testable" mean in the scientific sense.

You're using your own colossal misunderstanding of the scientific method to discredit anything that disagrees with your world view. How noble of you.

I'm going to go teach particle physics to a 3 year old. I'll have much better luck. At least they'll be willing to learn something.

a reply to: borntowatch

I don't care to get involved with this circular tot for tat argument, except to ask you if an invalidation of "macroevolution" is supposed to further validate your religious beliefs in some way?

Your view of how things work is clearly based on a belief system, not any sort of evidence. Which is fine, as a vast majority of humans believe in something not having to do with evidence, or at least a misinterpretation thereof. But I'm confused as to why you would be incessant about asking for evidence of something that has ZERO to do with your beliefs, which are themselves based on scant evidence

Evolution has nothing to do with religion. Nothing. They are two different subjects entirely. Religion is concerned with genesis. Evolution is not. So in my eyes this discussion is moot, and a complete waste of time.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me you may be misunderstood in both what you believe in, and what you are arguing against. Or perhaps you don't have much faith in your own faith?

I hope you one day you might find what it is you're actually looking for.

Is there an ignore feature on this site? I can't take the blatant hypocrisy any more.

originally posted by: Barcs
Is there an ignore feature on this site? I can't take the blatant hypocrisy any more.

I've wished for that many times.

If someone could be banned for how much they frustrate the living piss out of people, borntowatch would have been gone a long time ago.

originally posted by: Phantom423

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.

So a goatsbeard turns into a goatsbeard, so a plant becomes a plant, or a type of goatsbeard plant turns into another goatsbeard plant

Of course there are issues. Can you tell me exactly how much information was added to the new species of Goatsbeard, you dont have to be exact.

Going down in flames, no evidence, just a silly story about plants called goatsbeard, ZERO evidence as usual, just a silly story you want me to believe....EVIDENCE???.

originally posted by: Phantom423
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.

Can you tell me if there is a gene flow between the apple loving flies and the hawthorn loving flies. If a gene flow exists are they then two separate species?

While
some change in allele frequencies is observed, significant
morphological change is not claimed to have occurred. www.discovery.org...

One paper cited by the FAQ (McPheron et al., 1988) notes that “speciation by the formation of
host races (parasite populations associated with different plant or animal hosts) has been the 30
subject of great controversy”107

107 Bruce A. McPheron, D. Courtney Smith, and Stewart H. Berlocher, “Genetic differences between host races of
Rhagoletis pomonella,” Nature, Vol. 336:64-66 (November 3, 1988).

originally posted by: Phantom423
And that’s exactly what scientists find. 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.

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. 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 all this filler, no wonder I ignored or missed your vain attempt at evidence, it was lost in irrelevant rantings

a reply to: borntowatch

You really do have no shame do you? You either fail to understand, or you wilfully fail to understand due to dogmatic stubbornness, or you are trying to drag this thing out by pretending that no-one has ever answered your questions. They have. Again and again and again.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: borntowatch

I don't care to get involved with this circular tot for tat argument, except to ask you if an invalidation of "macroevolution" is supposed to further validate your religious beliefs in some way?

Your view of how things work is clearly based on a belief system, not any sort of evidence. Which is fine, as a vast majority of humans believe in something not having to do with evidence, or at least a misinterpretation thereof. But I'm confused as to why you would be incessant about asking for evidence of something that has ZERO to do with your beliefs, which are themselves based on scant evidence

Evolution has nothing to do with religion. Nothing. They are two different subjects entirely. Religion is concerned with genesis. Evolution is not. So in my eyes this discussion is moot, and a complete waste of time.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me you may be misunderstood in both what you believe in, and what you are arguing against. Or perhaps you don't have much faith in your own faith?

I hope you one day you might find what it is you're actually looking for.

Once upon a time I thought I could believe in evolution, thought that if enough of my questions were answered scientifically I could become a christian who could accept evolution, simple.
So far I havnt had the evidence to the answers

Lots of answers sure, just no evidence, being told a fly turns into a fly, a weed into a weed is not evidence, its actually rather childish that some believe because of that sort of logic

lets make it clear, I am looking for evidence of evolution that is backed up with science, not statements about flies turning into flies, or weeds or what not

Evolution is a religion if it has no evidence, its the same thing

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Barcs
Is there an ignore feature on this site? I can't take the blatant hypocrisy any more.

I've wished for that many times.

If someone could be banned for how much they frustrate the living piss out of people, borntowatch would have been gone a long time ago.

Just walk away, I dont have you under a hypnotic spell.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: borntowatch

You really do have no shame do you? You either fail to understand, or you wilfully fail to understand due to dogmatic stubbornness, or you are trying to drag this thing out by pretending that no-one has ever answered your questions. They have. Again and again and again.

I am a patient man, I am not denying millions of answers, just that they are backed up with no evidence. They like to answer but they dont prove their answers Again and again and again

originally posted by: Answer

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 once saw a pig that looked human, search it. Other animal deformities that were human like, does that mean animals evolved from humans.

Can you prove vestigial organs have no use today in modern man. The muscles of the rectum are connected to the tail bone, the tail bone is not vestigial. So it grows longer in some people, can you prove it was a tail once and not just a simple mutation. Maybe we are evolving with tails, how handy would that be?

and you are welcome to use a picture, I just want it supported with evidence. i am glad you like Morphological Homology but I see it as evidence of common design, in fact Morphological Homology has many issues that are unexplained in relation to common ancestors, sharks and camels? Hmmmm.

a reply to: borntowatch

Once again, you did not read the definition of speciation. Why don't you write a letter to authors and tell them that they're wrong. They'll come back at you with the same question that everyone has been asking you: where's your evidence that it's NOT speciation.

And please don't link to irrelevant articles. I don't accept links. Only your direct, scientific, observational evidence

I think it is time guys to just stop responding to Born.

a reply to: Phantom423

When it's regarding God, it's up to the believer to prove that God DOES exist, and asking the non-believers to prove he doesn't exist is stupid.

Apparently, when it's regarding anything correlated to evolution, in this case speciation, it's up to the non-believer to prove that x IS NOT speciation, and asking the supporters to prove that it is, is stupid.

Yay for double standards.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: borntowatch

You really do have no shame do you? You either fail to understand, or you wilfully fail to understand due to dogmatic stubbornness, or you are trying to drag this thing out by pretending that no-one has ever answered your questions. They have. Again and again and again.

I am a patient man, I am not denying millions of answers, just that they are backed up with no evidence. They like to answer but they dont prove their answers Again and again and again

Thank you for proving my point. Damned out of your own mouth. You cannot see what is right in front of you. Or, worse, you cannot admit that it's there.

a reply to: borntowatch

Or we could just use evidence to shut me up, you know prove evolution with science, prove one species can evolve in to another Surely it cant be that hard if its been proven by science....surely. What made you believe, what experiment, what test won you over.

LOL! If evidence could shut you up, you would have shut up on page one!

You got it wrong, religion requires you to believe unevidenced claims. I don't believe in evolution, I understand evolution as a word describing a natural process. It's no different than asking " do you believe in rain?"

a reply to: borntowatch

Evolution is a religion if it has no evidence, its the same thing

You see evolution as a religion, just like all other religions. Baseless in their assertions, it would seem, since there's "no evidence" for the foundation of their beliefs, is that right? This only makes you guilty of the very same things you are accusing others of. Although something tells me you don't really care what others think.

If you are a Christian, as you claim, then wouldn't you believe that your god was at the beginning, and set all the laws of the universe in motion? Would this not include evolution to some extent?

There's no debate here. Your beef is not with evolution, it's with the people who attack you for what you believe in. Disproving evolution (good luck with that) is misguided, and will not in any way validate your belief system. Nor does the existence of evolution necessarily invalidate them either. The two have nothing to do with each other. You do see that, right?

originally posted by: borntowatch
in fact Morphological Homology has many issues that are unexplained in relation to common ancestors, sharks and camels? Hmmmm.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Are you saying that because a shark and a camel are so different, they don't share a common ancestor?

I once saw a pig that looked human, search it. Other animal deformities that were human like, does that mean animals evolved from humans

No, you saw a pig with a massive birth defect. There is a difference between Atavism and birth defects.

You're intentionally distorting the issue yet again.

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Phantom423

When it's regarding God, it's up to the believer to prove that God DOES exist, and asking the non-believers to prove he doesn't exist is stupid.

Apparently, when it's regarding anything correlated to evolution, in this case speciation, it's up to the non-believer to prove that x IS NOT speciation, and asking the supporters to prove that it is, is stupid.

Yay for double standards.

There are mountains of evidence to support speciation.

You can't watch it happen in a lab because it takes a very long time.

This thread has become a merry-go-round of lunacy.

a reply to: borntowatch

Yes I am sorry, its just frustration

Yes, we're all well versed in frustration at this point in the thread.

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.

No, people have presented evidence in droves for you. You ignore it. Do you not understand that you ignoring evidence isn't the same thing as "no one trying to explain anything scientifically at all"?

Its all baseless, has been since the get go

Except the basis has been provided to you. Multiple times. By multiple people. It's been spoon-fed to you on a level that I don't think I've ever seen here. Just because you keep your mouth closed doesn't mean it's not food in front of you.

I honestly think borntowatch is just playing with you guys.

He knows there are many of you who will respond regardless,

Not for his sake so much as the sake of lurkers and whatnot.

He obviously just wants to keep you busy repeating things.

At this point, over the past months, in this thread and others,

Introductory books on evolution have been written, and rewritten.

The guy has got to be a troll to repeatedly ask the same things,

And continuously ignore, ignore, ignore..

He don't need no education, he don't need no thought control.

Unless he can start providing some counter arguments for his stance,

E.g. Give some evidence for faulty dating methods.

E.g. Provide some reason macro and micro are not the same.

Someone should alert the mods.. Just my humble opinion.