A few points for argumentative Creationists to consider.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: spygeek

A few points for Evolutionary Scientists to Consider.

So let me get this circular reasoning straight.

Do I really need to explain myself again? You abandoned your last thread where you claimed Evolution wasn't a legitimate scientific theory once you got a direct response from the opposition. Are you going to run away again?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: spygeek
I have to believe in evolution from single cell to man even though it's not proven because science doesn't claim to prove anything.

Here's a direct quote from the thread where you already made this exact same argument, and ran away from it:

"Science does not, nor has never dealt with the term 'Absolute Proof'.

Science is solely presented as 'our current best understanding - subject to change upon further evidence' "

No one is forcing you to believe anything. Science relies on criticism by other scientists. It is how they can refine their definitions of how a phenomena functions. Science works because other scientists are allowed to accept or reject any and information, hypothesis, theories and laws that have formed by other scientists.

Evolution just so happens to be very well backed up by evidence. You are free to reject that evidence if you wish.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: spygeek
I have to believe given enough time an organism will create a new genus even though the hypothesis can not be proven through experimentation, which means it fails the scientific method. But I have to believe it can and did happen because evolution said it happened and science doesn't claim to prove anything.

You have to believe? No. You don't have to. However, I will show you how your claims are yet again missunderstood. Perhaps if you stayed on your original topic, instead of abandoning it when many people addressed this very issue of yours the first time, I wouldn't have to, but here it goes anyway...

Here is a direct quote from the topic you abandoned:

There is no difference between the evolutionary process of the divergence between single celled organisms to multi celled organisms, or genus to genus or the divergence between species to species. There is only a larger timescale.

Which means we don't have to sit there and see a genus to genus divergence, because we already know how that occurs because we have done experiments that involve speciation, mutation, change in allele frequency, so on and so forth.

Take

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: spygeek
I have to believe in single cell to multi cell evolution, even though the hypothesis can not be duplicated through experimentation which means it fails the science method. Yet I have to believe in single cell to multi cell evolution because science doesn't claim to prove anything.

Already explained above, and in the topic that you asked the same question in, yet abandoned after we answered this very question.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: spygeek
I have to believe in a common ancestor between man and ape because evolution says it happened. And since scientists don't have to prove anything they can hypothesize anything that sounds possible and I have to believe it.

We actually do have evidence for this. It's not just a "hey we kind of look alike, there for it must be" scenario. The Hominid timeline is actually one of our most apparent timelines in the fossil record. Not to mention all the other evidence, such shared DNA, bone structure, brain structure, and the direct evolutionary events of those physical features in the fossil record and DNA.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: spygeek
So let me get this straight.

I have to believe in unproven science because science doesn't claim to prove anything?

~ Nope, you are free to reject it if you wish. You are right, Science doesn't deal with Absolute proof, But that doesn't mean the evidence it has gathered is moot.

~ We have so much evidence in all the various different fields of science, that people accept a particular hypothesis or theory because it makes the most sense.

~ People accept those theories because the conclusions, based on the evidence they found, is the most plausible explanation.

~ People understand that Science is fallible because the only way that something can be considered 'Scientific' is if it's falsifiable. Why? Because it is impossible to 100% verify that anything we can see in the natural universe is absolute.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: spygeek
Isn't that the same as saying you have to believe in God because theists don't claim to prove anything?

I don't know where you have been, but Theists all claim to know with absolute certainty that their god exists. Otherwise they wouldn't be theists, they would be agnostics.

Your conclusion is a bit ridiculous. Even if it were a valid statement (which i've just shown that it isn't), then similarities do not make it the same.

For instance, Berries grow on plants, so do flowers, so do roots, but that doesn't make them the exact same thing by taxonomic definition.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: spygeek
Circular Reasoning is Very Evolutionary.

'Circular reasoning' is what a person does when they ask a question and make statements in another topic, it gets answered, they abandon that topic, and then they ask the same question and make the same statements in a different topic

a reply to: Isurrender73

It is likely that I understand Evolution better then 99% of you that claim I must be a moron.

I don't know about your hypothetical 99%, but you certainly don't understand it. You don't even understand the scientific method. I'm very sorry, but this is blindingly obvious from everything you have posted.

I have looked at the Fossil record. I understand adaptation and speciation. I think the yeast study was cool but it doesn't prove anything. I also am more up to date on the genome project then most.

No. You have read popular articles about these things, written by Creationists seeking to dismiss them. That is not the same thing at all.

How can I tell? I can tell because your counterarguments repeat the common shibboleths and falsehoods about evolution peddled by the Creationism lobby. And because you just misused the word 'adaptation'.

I challenge you to explain, in your own words the theory of evolution by natural selection as it exists today. I will not accept links or quotes. In fact, I will put phrases from your explanation into Google to check on you, so if you plan to do any plagiarizing you will have to do it from a real book about evolution.

I am tired of the arrogance in ATS.

Then leave. Nobody's keeping you here. I notice you've only been a member for four months.

I am literally a genius...

Oh, really? Who tells you this? Nobody can judge themselves a genius, you know. It's for others to decide.

...who understands and can explain evolution better then 99% of you who think you know something.

Go ahead. We're waiting.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I didn't abandon anything. I was confronted 50 times with;

"Your stupid, you don't understand, do some research".

But no one refuted the science with counter science. The thread was dead and derailed. I reposted the science in the OP several times to encourage anyone to actually have a science debate, but no one did.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I didn't abandon anything. I was confronted 50 times with;

"Your stupid, you don't understand, do some research".

But no one refuted the science with counter science. The thread was dead and derailed. I reposted the science in the OP several times to encourage anyone to actually have a science debate, but no one did.

Yes.... Everyone answered yours questions, actually. In fact, right when you made a big 7 or 10 question list, both Astyanax and myself went through each and every single one of those questions and answered every one. And then you abandoned the topic and no one heard from you there again...

a reply to: spygeek

In one clear concise paragraph and without referring to any sources, can you please explain how humans and all of the other living flora and fauna came to be - making reference to the universe as we currently know it, historical word-of-mouth testimony subsequently recorded from many different civilizations through-out our recorded history as well as the myriad of data collected by NASA?

I mean, surely it's a simple explanation that leaves absolutely no doubt in anyones mind - from the extremist God-based religious individuals through to the extremist science-based individuals.

So far in my life neither argumentative creationists nor argumentative evolutionists nor argumentative scientists nor argumentative realists have been successful in answering this simple question - everyone of them think they have the answer except they do not - and never have.

One concise logical paragraph that addresses all human knowledge - no sources.

Cheers.

I cannot tell a truth yet to be believed. Your being bully-boyed Isurrender (NOT EVEN YOUR THREAD) The rest of you abstracts are missing "cheer leading" or "Yearbook" compilation, A Future Business Leader of America meeting or a 4H discussion regarding this years prize goats. Why do people fear you Isurrender?

originally posted by: Isurrender73
I am tired of the arrogance on ATS. I am literally a genius

Bit of an oxymoron? You must be trolling at this point.

I would (contemplate) paying to hear your own personal, non-copy and paste definition of Evolution and how it functions.

a reply to: Isurrender73

No one questioned the science that I presented [in my previous thread]

That's because it wasn't science.

1. Some rubbish creationist article about how redshift can't be due to cosmic expansion because it's quantized. Of course it's bloody quantized: photons are quanta. And all redshift isn't due to cosmic expansion, some is just due to ordinary recession. Redshift: distinguishing between cosmological and local effects. Every astronomer knows this.
   
   
2. A silly attempt by you to cast doubt on the reliability of 'standard rulers', which fails to take into account the number of galaxies in the universe — the reason why, statistically speaking, the ruler is reliable. Supported by a link to a genuine page about Hubble's Law that doesn't say what you seem to think it is saying.
   
   
3. Some objections to the constancy of c, supported with a link to a space-cadet pseudoscience website...

And more of the same twaddle. Rather than waste time debunking what has already been debunked, Ghost and I showed you what was correct. And yet you have the cheek to come online again an say that 'nobody questioned my science'.

If you're so religious an' all, shouldn't you try to be truthful?

a reply to: Isurrender73

Yes you did, go back to your most recent thread and look at the last page or so.
Plenty of people answered and shoot I sent you a U2U about one of your questions.

originally posted by: ShayneJUK

and this is different to the brainwashing of religious dogma how?

It isn't. Religion is a primary source of inspiration for the aspiring propagandist.

One can be a creationist without being a dogmatic religionist, you know.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: ShayneJUK

I wasn't just throwing the word "Nazi" around haphazardly, like is done so often by so many. When you start talking about breeding certain kinds of people out of existence...

...you can't get much more Mengele than that.

Replace "religious" with "homosexual" and what do you have?

A liberal with focus issues...however what does this have to do with the thread?

originally posted by: Astyanax
Ghost and I showed you what was correct. And yet you have the cheek to come online again an say that 'nobody questioned my science'.

Actually, since the last time he posted in that topic (which was 5 days ago, and the topic is still active [just without him in it]) Isurrender73 has been online every day up to the present, and has posted in various other topics since then as well.

So he hasn't really gone offline (for any period of time). He simply just abandoned that original topic after direct confrontation to his list of questions.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

In one clear concise paragraph and without referring to any sources, can you please explain how humans and all of the other living flora and fauna came to be

You are right, no one does know that answer.

Hardly a simple question either, so it isn't a surprise that no one has been able to answer it in one paragraph, especially with your qualifiers of saying to do it without using what we know today.

Just to add, what I am saying is about creation as that is what I read your statement to be about.

a reply to: Ghost147

So he hasn't really gone offline (for any period of time). He simply just abandoned that original topic after direct confrontation to his list of questions.

Of course. Standard Creationist SOP. I think there's a dispatching hub somewhere in the American Midwest that rotates them. As soon as one has been slapped down they send out another to replace him. Then they drag the used-up one away and send him back to Creationism Central for reprogramming.

They've had to get a lot better at the reprogramming, because turnover keeps getting higher as science and rationality gain more and more public traction. Back when I joined ATS, we had resident Creationists who lasted for years, posting every day. The ones we have now are used up after a few weeks.

I hear the big churches are working on disposable versions because reprogramming is getting so expensive. Maybe we're dealing with a beta version of one of those. Not working too well, is it?

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: ShayneJUK

and this is different to the brainwashing of religious dogma how?

It isn't. Religion is a primary source of inspiration for the aspiring propagandist.
One can be a creationist without being a dogmatic religionist, you know.

Yet this is your and others preferred forum to expound/exchange ideas and generally bash/demean others in disagreement?

a reply to: Astyanax

An explanation of evolution.

Natural selection tells us a bacteria may be able to produce 100 different natural occurring variations not including mutations which could be potentially limitless.

Out of those variations all 100 will happen at some point. Sometimes these variations are beneficial. However, this is not always the case. Some variations might contain no benefit but still have the ability to reproduce and under favorable conditions will reproduce.

Adaptation occurs when the 100 variations, or all existing viable variations are subjected to some extreme, as is the case of antibiotic resistance. Only those variations which are able to resist antibiotics can adapt, and thus they are the only bacteria that reproduce. Subsequently the entire colony, outside of variations caused by natural selection, will be antibacterial.

One way we have determined non benefitial variations occurs and can even become dominate is in the field of antibiotic resistance. Over several generations resistant bacteria can loose their resistance when they are no longer subjected to antibiotics.

Currently Natural Selection does not appear to be the cause of single cell to multi cellular evolution. If natural selection was able to account for single cell to multi cellular evolution we should have observed this in a lab by now.

The best hypothesis is mutation. But it appears that mutations that lead to viable more complex life forms are a rarity, as this has yet to be observed through laboratory experiments.

Once a viable mutation occurs and begins to reproduce the process of natural selection begins for the new organism.

And through the process of natural selection and mutations life has evolved from single cell to man over 4.3 billion years.

Genetic drift between parents is another factor that can lead to increased variations for natural selection to choose from and an increased chance for mutations.

Evolution is not complicated to understand.

Because we have seen evolution lead to speciation, and we see genetic similarities in various organisms we hypothesis that this process can explain how all life originated from one single cell.

But evolution is not the science of Abiogenesis.

a reply to: Isurrender73

All you needed to say is "I'm not quite sure how to define evolution"


For instance: I'm not quite sure why you're going from case to case to case in your explanation on how Evolution functions, but this is more accurate:

Evolution is when mutations occur (through changes in allele frequencies) within a biological population over successive generations

You also throw in some random tidbits of false information that really has nothing to do with the actual process of evolution at all. So you have shown that you really have no idea what you're talking about. However, I am glad to see that you can distinguish a distinction between Abiogenesis and Evolution. It seems you're improving after all!

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Isurrender73

All you needed to say is "I'm not quite sure how to define evolution"

What did I get wrong? Should I have written 10 pages? I understand evolution is multi-facited, I presented a simple explanation.

What random tidbits?

a reply to: Ghost147

Why does someone have to use all the scientific words, when giving a simple explanation?

Why did I need to be as specific as saying allele frequency? Isn't Genetic Drift the generic term used to explain the genetic variation of genes. And doesn't the allele account for the variations.

Because someone wants to feel smart?

One doesn't have to remember 100 scientific terms to understand the process.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Isurrender73

All you needed to say is "I'm not quite sure how to define evolution"

What did I get wrong? Should I have written 10 pages? I understand evolution is multi-facited, I presented a simple explanation.

10 pages? I just summed it up in one sentence.

The main issue I'm seeing in your post is your understanding of natural selection. You're kind of making it seem like natural selection is the process of evolution, when it's merely a mechanism within evolution.

Natural selection merely shows how specific mutations have a greater or lesser chance at surviving and reproducing. However, Natural selection doesn't really cause anything to form new genetic material.

As for Adaptation, you're sort of on the right track, and Natural selection does indeed drive adaptation (although I'm not quite sure if your goal was to really make that statement). For instance, if a particular mutation is beneficial to a certain population, it will have a greater chance at reproducing, and there for that mutation continues to exist, if not increase in the population thanks to the greater likelihood of that mutation to reproduce, there for increasing that species' adaption to a particular environment.

You are right to say that natural selection (alone) doesn't account for single-cell to multi-cell divergence. However, Evolution does account for that (and natural selection is an intrinsic mechanism within evolution, so it does indeed assist in that divergence). Again, we don't need to verify that in a lab to know that it occurs because the process of Evolution does not change over time.

Evolution does show both an increased complexity in an organism and a decrease. Again, It's the same process, just with different outcomes. It depends on what particular environment an organism is adapting to. A good example would be when a fish that previously had functional eyes begins to adapt to an environment that has no light (there for losing sight, or the eyes all together).

Genetic drift isn't another process that leads to increased variation, because genetic drift isn't a process, it's just a term used to describe accumulated mutations over successive generations.

So You are sort of on the right track, but still not totally accurate. It's kind of looking through a fun-house mirror