Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

It's from episode of 'south park' en.wikipedia.org...
Even worse is that I'm being double-teamed here, haha. @cinosamnita - I'll respond tomorrow.

Chewbacca never made any claim that he was our ancestor, but you did and I suppose I’m supposed to watch South Park to understand why this is so funny?

Just as Darwinists made a claim, a claim for which they have offered no scientific evidence proving a language of design. Since, neither "the other person who gangs up on you”, nor I made any claim about people evolving from a Chewbacca, I think it only fair for you to not feel ganged up on but rather you should hold face and prove this theory of evolution, no?

I look forward to yet another cultish response, from the religious followers of Darwinism.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Just as Darwinists made a claim, a claim for which they have offered no scientific evidence proving a language of design.

Ummmm.... look bro... I'm sympathetic to your position... I might not agree with many of the points you are making, but I am sympathetic to your position.

In any case, isn't what you're asking for somewhat of an oxymoron? You're asking for supporters of NDT to provide you with scientific evidence "proving a language of design."

This is more or less the antithesis of NDT, Darwin, offered an explanation for why things that 'aren't' designed appear to be.

If I'm misunderstanding you, perhaps you can clarify.

Ummmm.... look bro... I'm sympathetic to your position... I might not agree with many of the points you are making, but I am sympathetic to your position. In any case, isn't what you're asking for somewhat of an oxymoron? You're asking for supporters of NDT to provide you with scientific evidence "proving a language of design." This is more or less the antithesis of NDT, Darwin, offered an explanation for why things that 'aren't' designed appear to be. If I'm misunderstanding you, perhaps you can clarify.

The title of the thread was to mention a scientific theory which does not have any supporting evidence. Evolution is “a theory” and I am not making any claim other than, please show me the scientific proof that evolution is anything more than just “a theory”. The title is an oxymoron, or a little bit misleading because a theory is "not scientifically sound ", until it is factual. A theory can be a part of the scientific method or process along with a hypothesis. But to clarify my position on what I mean by “language of design”:

“There is nothing scientific in assuming the process of natural selection, or mutation over a period of time, is enough to thereby bridge the gap between the lower life forms and human beings”.

Do you know any scientist today who has studied evolution in a laboratory over millions of years and can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we originated from lower life forms? Do you know any person who has been alive for this long a period? A language of design would be required to prove that the lower life forms which are not known to move beyond the “two-leaved stage” of formation can with the application of mutation, adaptation, or natural selection connected directly with the Anthropogenesis of a human being. A language of design is evidence proving that the lower life forms all of a sudden, decided to go against their very natures and not be involved with a “two-leaved stage of formation” and thus move on through natural selection and mutation to become a human being.

Thus far, no evidence has been presented and as such, I ask only for those people making the claims to provide the proof.



[edit on 11-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
The title of the thread was to mention a scientific theory which does not have any supporting evidence. Evolution is “a theory” and I am not making any claim other than, please show me the scientific proof that evolution is anything more than just “a theory”.

How ironic that I, of all people on ATS, have to state this. But perhaps you should consider the context of the word "theory." In the colloquial sense, it is appropriate to refer to things as "simply a theory," however when a scientist uses the term, they are referring to an idea that they feel is "a well supported explanation of nature."

Whether or not you agree with the 'well supported' portion is another issue entirely - and certainly worthy of discussion; but honestly, the whole "just a theory argument" is really... not good. The word means something very specific to the scientific community. Like I said, whether or not you agree with an idea being well supported or not is another issue, but the the scientific community, for the most part, does agree with this notion. Even if somehow evolution is disproven, it's likely that it will still be referred to as evolutionary theory, much like steady state theory is still referred to as such, despite its disfavor with the majority of the science community.

In any case, I believe it more relevant to address the evidence specifically, and not offer the semantical arguments generally utilized by the ID opposition.

The title is an oxymoron, or a little bit misleading because a theory is "not scientifically sound ", until it is factual.

sigh... scientific theories don't become "factual." If you're speaking about the 'fact of gravity,' you're referring to the fact that if you jump off a cliff, you will fall. When you refer to the 'theory of gravity,' you're talking about the ideas regarding the nature of gravity's relationship with mass, etc. Gravity was never elevated from theory to fact. Gravity has always been a fact, but the theory of gravity has continued to change.

“There is nothing scientific in assuming the process of natural selection, or mutation over a period of time, is enough to thereby bridge the gap between the lower life forms and human beings”.

I notice the quotes... are you quoting someone specific? You should provide a ref. Thanks.

Okay... so? How does this speak to a 'language of design' I asked about?

Do you know any scientist today who has studied evolution in a laboratory over millions of years and can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that we originated from lower life forms? Do you know any person who has been alive for this long a period?

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question.

But in any case, I am fully aware that origins theories (colloquial), including ID, creationism, AND evolution, are not provable in the traditional sense of the word. They are inferences based on evidence and empirical observation... I suppose this is debatable in any case here, but I am trying to tread on objective ground as much as possible.

A language of design would be required to prove that the lower life forms which are not known to move beyond the “two-leaved stage” of formation can with the application of mutation, adaptation, or natural selection connected directly with the Anthropogenesis of a human being.

Well... I really can't agree or disagree with this, since I still don't really know what you mean be 'language of design.' Are you saying that they need a specific set of mutations, and other mechanisms in place to describe the transition of one species to another? That's sort of what it sounds like.

In any case, if you're suggesting that the NDTists offer a detailed mechanism for the progression from single celled life to humans, I think you're making an unreasonable request. You're talking probably billions of individual genetic events, maybe hundredes of billions, which is currently pretty much outside the realm of scientific possibilty... unless, mel is going to surprise me with a ref.

A language of design is evidence proving that the lower life forms all of a sudden, decided to go against their very natures and not be involved with a “two-leaved stage of formation” and thus move on through natural selection and mutation to become a human being.

Oh yeah... and what in the heck is this two leaved stage of formation... not a term I am familiar with... unless I'm talking about the cotyledons on a seedling or something.

Of course evolutionary theory doesn't postulate that a microbe or other lower life form "all of a sudden, decided to go against their very natures and not be involved with a “two-leaved stage of formation” and thus move on through natural selection and mutation to become a human being." ToE doesn't suggest this at all.

Thus far, no evidence has been presented and as such, I ask only for those people making the claims to provide the proof.

Okay, but you do realize that what you're asking for is not what the evolution crowd has ever suggested, nor does the theory (scientific) imply this.

In any case, I believe it more relevant to address the evidence specifically, and not offer the semantical arguments generally utilized by the ID opposition.

In the first 3 paragraphs you stated the above argument of the usage of semantics. Theoretical evidence is not defined as proof and you may require much less evidence than someone else but that does not suggest better evidence, only that more evidence is required. “Proof” is in the eye of the beholder and some people require a mountain of evidence before making it “their” final proof. I use “theory” to define anything not “proven to me” and I prefer not to call anything proven, which I KNOW is still a theory. When I refer to evolution as being a theory, I mean I KNOW it is still ONLY theory because the evidence is not conclusive via trial and error, or cause and effect and thus it has never been proven. Now, if you doubt this fact, find out why many Universities are slowly backing away from teaching evolution as a science. Evolution is as namby-pamby as Psychology is; it is not a science and quite simply you cannot find me one scientific chemical brain study which proves a personality disorder, just as you also cannot conduct a single study on evolution within any laboratory, on a single organism. I wish you the very best of luck dear friend in attempting this experiment for yourself and if the results are substantial, perhaps the evidence will become my proof. Please let me know what you find out.

sigh... scientific theories don't become "factual." If you're speaking about the 'fact of gravity,' you're referring to the fact that if you jump off a cliff, you will fall. When you refer to the 'theory of gravity,' you're talking about the ideas regarding the nature of gravity's relationship with mass, etc. Gravity was never elevated from theory to fact. Gravity has always been a fact, but the theory of gravity has continued to change.

Yes, it’s theoretical once it has already been proven mathematically. So, have you defined that formula I requested called “language of design”, or did you really think me so unscientific as to trust your theory without an equation? We can test gravity, but can you test evolution and come up with a proper mathematical formula like we already have with gravity? Please do show me the stage from where the “hypothesis of evolution” has gone into being experimentally proven and thus since you claim it’s proven theoretically, you mention it has some relevancy in theory! Well, sorry but the theory is only a hypothesis until it can be experimentally tested on some mathematical level. Perhaps semantics again is the issue here and if so my apologize but until you can show me some experimental data, I prefer to MEAN what I SAY when referring to something as being a hypothetical theory.

quote: “There is nothing scientific in assuming the process of natural selection, or mutation over a period of time, is enough to thereby bridge the gap between the lower life forms and human beings”.

I notice the quotes... are you quoting someone specific? You should provide a ref. Thanks.

Okay... so? How does this speak to a 'language of design' I asked about?

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question. But in any case, I am fully aware that origins theories (colloquial), including ID, creationism, AND evolution, are not provable in the traditional sense of the word. They are inferences based on evidence and empirical observation... I suppose this is debatable in any case here, but I am trying to tread on objective ground as much as possible.

The answer to your first question on the quote: “NO”. But see if you can find out who said it.
Now call it whatever you like but I require experimental data of at least one test subject. If you cannot provide me BUT ONE example, than I must stress again, I cannot accept it just yet. But don’t give up, we have much work to do and in the end you may come to find out what I did long ago, about “who you are as a human being”.

Well... I really can't agree or disagree with this, since I still don't really know what you mean be 'language of design.' Are you saying that they need a specific set of mutations, and other mechanisms in place to describe the transition of one species to another? That's sort of what it sounds like.

So wait just a minute here….you are acting confused by my asking for some kind of mathematical formulation that proves the transition from point a) to b) to c)? Is it so difficult for you to understand that I have yet seen any equation or a language of design which would be applicable to a specific set over time consisting of mutations? We have many such equations in closed systems but few when defining randomness within an open-system.

In any case, if you're suggesting that the NDTists offer a detailed mechanism for the progression from single celled life to humans, I think you're making an unreasonable request. You're talking probably billions of individual genetic events, maybe hundredes of billions, which is currently pretty much outside the realm of scientific possibilty... unless, mel is going to surprise me with a ref.

Since you find it so difficult to stop laughing, I bet you also spend time laughing at those who are the religious, yet you expect the religious to accept that billions of random events are somehow interpolated and form the creation of man. Wow! Now if I didn’t mention that you were expecting someone to become a “faithful evolutionist”, would you even have understood me saying so?
You think I make an unreasonable request but you seem to know very little of the occult sciences. And I will tell you that replacing my spiritual connections with that of a raving mad-man, for who’s hypothesizes I’m supposed to accept as science today, until a better one is found in the morning – as if this is to be fulfilling that space in the darkness which exists in each and every heart. Your condition is such that you demand blind faith in someone’s idea without even really looking into the forces which came into effect during this age that began from the time of Copernicus! Before you go on asking me for my blind faith, why not learn that Darwin was opposed by many Greats of that time who have more than refuted him; yet have had their truths swept under the rug, just like what happened to Tesla.

Oh yeah... and what in the heck is this two leaved stage of formation... not a term I am familiar with... unless I'm talking about the cotyledons on a seedling or something. Of course evolutionary theory doesn't postulate that a microbe or other lower life form "all of a sudden, decided to go against their very natures and not be involved with a “two-leaved stage of formation” and thus move on through natural selection and mutation to become a human being." ToE doesn't suggest this at all.

May be if you researched up on Haeckel you would find out the answer to your question? Unless you would rather think that the stage of evolution goes something like:
If we claim that A is the beginning form and z the final: Than we must as scientists accept that we cannot necessarily trace the beginning point of A. But we may be able to one day trace from point D to E to Z and have to just guess about the stages from A, B and C. In other words, if the basic life-forms which are living today can be used as a reference point than they tend to not grow out of the basic stage of change between birth to death. Whereas humans tend to go through various stages, so what this entails in terms of a to b to c, is that the human being must have had a starting point from a lower form, between point A, to point Z. If this be true, than all forms would have disappeared through natural selection and only complex forms, similar to man would be found today. Thus we could find no ameba’s etc because they would also evolve past their present stage. In other words, to assume that man evolved from a mammal is not much different than saying man evolved from a Protozoa! But as we know, these tiny creatures have never evolved and if they did, than what did they evolve from?

Okay, but you do realize that what you're asking for is not what the evolution crowd has ever suggested, nor does the theory (scientific) imply this.

So then define the suggested claim and please do spell it out so that no more rumors abound regarding the poor, misunderstood souls of the evolution crowd.


[edit on 11-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
Well, sorry but the theory is only a hypothesis until it can be experimentally tested on some mathematical level. Perhaps semantics again is the issue here and if so my apologize but until you can show me some experimental data, I prefer to MEAN what I SAY when referring to something as being a hypothetical theory.

Now call it whatever you like but I require experimental data of at least one test subject. If you cannot provide me BUT ONE example, than I must stress again, I cannot accept it just yet. But don’t give up, we have much work to do and in the end you may come to find out what I did long ago, about “who you are as a human being”.

You do realise that you too have to provide at least one example of your theory! Or some experimental results that can be expressed on a mathematical level or the language of design.

If this be true, than all forms would have disappeared through natural selection and only complex forms, similar to man would be found today.

How do you define complex forms? What about plants or are you talking only about animals? Define how a plant would be similar to the man found today. Don't we need the plants for the production of oxygen? And about waste/decay products? Would we have to eat our own feces? Would we have to eat our deads? How do you think dead bodies disappear?
The decay process is an evolutionary niche for fungi and bateria. That's why we still have fungi and bacteria!!
And how come we are finding fosiles of plants/animals that no longer exist today? If those plants/animals were also created in some manner, why did they disappear? By the intervetion of some sort of supernatural being? Should we not be affraid that lets say our beloved cats or even worse, WE also one day may disappear in the same way?

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
I THINK THEREFORE I AM

That's off-topic

Name 1 valid scientific theory with no supporting evidence

That's not science, it's philosophy (Descartes philosophy). And is not generaly accepted as valid. Just like my signature!

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
I was hoping you would respond in this manner because it proves the basic assumption of you; for you confuse the very personality of a man, which includes his thoughts and emotions with his soul-ego, having the ability to use the “mind”. You once again “assume” that since these physical habits, or rather functions which include thoughts and emotions are in similar fashion to the animals, that it means we are ONLY animals, yet smarter animals. As flesh and blood, we certainly are similar in the organic sense but to call us mere animals is very insulting to those people who have learned how to raise their consciousness to higher levels. So, without writing too esoteric, I wish to advise you on a very basic concept that few scientists can deny today, after sitting and speaking with me face to face.
Now, as human Beings who start off small and fragile and grow older and eventually die, we have undergone a complete alteration in our physical bodies. We can scientifically say that we are not the same person as we were when we were 3 years old. We can say this by scientifically verifying that every part of our body, including the thoughts and emotions have changed within our lifetime. In fact, we have completely different cells in the brain, the skin, all organs, and so there is nothing that connects us to our Soul-Ego except that idea that “I am I”, or “I AM”. Now of course no scientist denies that we do grow older and tend to look different and as such we also change our personalities. But how many people mistake their own personalities for “themselves”.
What I mean is they say “I am George, or Mike, or Mary and I am a writer or a Chemist and if I am not my personality, than I have nothing!”
This response I have heard from people very commonly and it is not that they are inherently incorrect but rather they do not realize they are in control of their own personality. So, the personality itself is defined as the sum total of all your thoughts and emotion, whether they be positive or negative. Thus, we Human Beings – unlike the animals - can control these thoughts and emotions, or desires over time with practice. If we CAN CONTROL these thoughts and emotions then it means we are NOT BOUND by them and thus, we are MORE THAN them, see? If we are not our thoughts and emotions, than what ARE WE? Can you tell me this, dear Professor?

Of course there are scientists who will agree with you that we have a sense of self. They will also agree that in many instances we can control our thoughts and emotions (but not always, ask someone who suffers PTSD), I hope you don't base any of this on psychological science, after all according to you, it is not a science is it?

You say genetic change but without defining what exactly this entails? Are you using this genetic change as a method of proving some language of design which says that human beings came from Monkey-like creatures? I’m still awaiting the evidence.

I think it is better that we move step-by-step. DNA, the basis of heredity, is an imperfect replicator. When it is copied it can produce errors, some of these errors will persist in the genome - some will be detrimental, many neutral, a few beneficial to the organism. This is the basis of variation within a species. Nature will select the most adaptive variations via capacity to survive and reproduce. That is, those who adapt best, pass on their genes most successfully. The more unadaptive genes will reduce in frequency or even be lost.

Is that understood? We'll move on to the next stage when you are ready.

This is true but in which nations and what does religious believe ‘being a norm’ have to do with using herbs, instead of RX medications? Certainly, when Edgar Cayce and Roy Rife spoke of using light and sound to heal us, we must find this method used today for cancer victims? Hmm, seems to me that the materialism scientific approach is to study the human organism like a little guinea pig, and while they radiate people and kill both the cancer and the healthy cells, they have the nerve to call it a treatment! Also it has much to do with politics. Allergies are also getting worse today and many people cannot even bare sitting in a room with a slight touch of perfume, thus many are far weaker today, looking very pale-skinned do to lack of natural salts, healthy fats found in the foods etc. Vaccinations are also a great form of population control, as they tend to cause ‘oversensitivity’ in the young and old – take a look on the package of this witch potion and tell me we should be taking something developed in caterpillar eggs, just because it’s cheap than using chicken eggs. But diet and spirituality is the prime cause of longevity and hard physical labor in other nations today can also lead to premature death. Thus, unless you study this in a balanced approach, you cannot claim that modern science has helped longevity, or anything else.

You were talking about how lack of spirituality causes illness. Superstitition - the cure-all. Didn't help those in the dark ages.

If you compare Russia to Kenya, you may find their health and longevity is better. If you compare sweden to russia, the swedes health is better. Maybe something to do with health-care provision and education rather than spirituality (I cut the bit out due to word limitation)?

Of course it is true, this is because of advances in medical health and scientific understanding rather than divination. Did herbal knowledge appear by divination or maybe trial and error? Are all herbs safe or is there documented instances negative health effects? If the herbs act chemically, they are drugs.

I can claim it, it is documented. Whether people are happier now than in the past is something else to consider. Maybe if psychology was a science, we could investigate it scientifically...

It is true that having a faith does seem to improve health and well-being, again it is documented by those awful ghost-writing scientists. However, that doesn't mean that your faith is correct, there are social and biological reasons why having faith can help protect against illness.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Cinosamitna

I think you misunderstand science. Scientists will generally not accept any results another produces. How do you think scince moves on if we can't disagree and falsify other scientist's theories?

Really? I guess you exclude those ghost-writers who seem to say that vitamin-E is great today and then decide that it is bad tomorrow. What about the ADA which says fluoride should be added to toothpaste, are they an example of pure science at it’s best? At least Henry Ford, before the foundation was corrupted by the Fabian Collectivists knew how to run a car on healthier oil but somehow science today seems run up to the highest bidder, so to speak.

So you are criticising scientists for letting the data speak for itself. We don't claim to have 'perfect truth' from divination and faith like some.

I just watched the google video you posted earlier - I can see why he isn't a scientist. Here is comparable logic - table salt is sodium chloride, chlorine gas is a poison, the evil bosch gassed soldiers with it you know. If we put dogs in a chlorine atmosphere 7 days a week, they die. High salt in the diet is bad for you, causes high blood pressure etc, consume enough and you will die. Therefore remove all salt from food and water and save humanity, and no more chlorine in our water supply. We must rid ourselves of salt and chlorine now! Blame the ghost-writers. I am doing this for your good alone, oh and buy my book at all good bookshops

Try it out. See how it goes...

No, I don't think we evolved from some sort of flying mammal. Do you actually believe we consciously forced spinal marrow into our skulls to create a brain. How could we force it if we had no brain and no way to make a decision? If we could make such a decision, why did we need a brain.

Well what makes you think we humans have no instinct? We have the sensitivity of crystals, the sensibility of plants, the instinct of animals but we also have MIND – not the brain but “MIND” itself to ask “who am I”, which animals do not have. The brain and the mind are not the same thing but to use mind we have a choice – either you wish to be animal like a Darwinist, or you choose to use ‘MIND’ and free yourself from the illusion of matter being all that is real.

So you still think that an instinct caused some sort of ancestor of humans to force spinal tissue into the skull to form a brain. Just because we have certain mental abilities doesn't separate us from animals.

Do dolphins have special status too? They use the amazingly fishy system of sonar. Therefore dolphins are not animals. Pigeons have some amazing homing mechanism, therefore they are not animals. Bees possibly use dance to communicate, that is the sign of a non-animal.

If nature does the selection, “natural selection” than how come humans have proven that ‘survival of the fittest’ only applies to the animals? If humans are only mere ‘smarter’ animals who were under the law of survival of the fittest, than how come Apes are still looking like Apes today and jelly fish are still Jelly-fish? Obviously, humans survived interpedently from mere natural selection and we are not evolving from lower forms of life.

We are not immune from the forces of nature. Watch the video I posted earlier and see evidence of natural selection in action in africa.

What does memory and instincts coming from the brain have to do with the abilities coming from MIND? The ability to control, thoughts and emotions comes from the human mind and a dog can learn many things but they do this out of instinct and adaptation using the brain, they are not using MIND as Super-substance. A cow or an ape has never done it, and it shall NEVER DO IT.

What do memory and instincts have to do with the supernatural abilities coming from sonar in a dolphin?

How do you know what an ape thinks? They have the basic components of the human mind, show empathy, emotion, a sense of self, language, decison-making, learning, problem-solving. Seems awfully like there might be a way these capacities evolved into the human mind.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Cinosamitna

It's from episode of 'south park' en.wikipedia.org...
Even worse is that I'm being double-teamed here, haha. @cinosamnita - I'll respond tomorrow.

Chewbacca never made any claim that he was our ancestor, but you did and I suppose I’m supposed to watch South Park to understand why this is so funny?

Just as Darwinists made a claim, a claim for which they have offered no scientific evidence proving a language of design. Since, neither "the other person who gangs up on you”, nor I made any claim about people evolving from a Chewbacca, I think it only fair for you to not feel ganged up on but rather you should hold face and prove this theory of evolution, no?

I look forward to yet another cultish response, from the religious followers of Darwinism.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Cinosamitna]

I claimed chewbacca was your ancestor?

If you want to suggest people who accept the ToE as valid are part of a religion, then the term religion becomes meaningless.

But did chewbacca live with ewoks on endor, that is the question. If so, the theory of evolution is proven...

[edit on 12-9-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
But did chewbacca live with ewoks on endor, that is the question. If so, the theory of evolution is proven...

(sorry for this one line post..and yes, it doesn't add nothing to the discussion...but he was so funny )

Originally posted by bothered
Sub-atomic particles (well, most of them). Particle or wave nature?

Sub atomic particles can be evidenced with a cyclotron.

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
In the first 3 paragraphs you stated the above argument of the usage of semantics.

Yes, youll note that I specifically argued against using such tactics.

Theoretical evidence is not defined as proof and you may require much less evidence than someone else but that does not suggest better evidence, only that more evidence is required. “Proof” is in the eye of the beholder and some people require a mountain of evidence before making it “their” final proof. I use “theory” to define anything not “proven to me” and I prefer not to call anything proven, which I KNOW is still a theory. When I refer to evolution as being a theory, I mean I KNOW it is still ONLY theory because the evidence is not conclusive via trial and error, or cause and effect and thus it has never been proven.

Okay, if you're for some reason married to your semantical arguments, you're certainly free to use them. But most people, on either side of the issue pretty much consider it to be a weak and superfluous argument, and they don't really help to elucidate your point.

Now, if you doubt this fact, find out why many Universities are slowly backing away from teaching evolution as a science.

This is patently and utterly false. In fact, with the current ID/Evo controversy, the push is on in academia, more than ever in my experience to include evolution in the science cirriculum. No universities I am aware of are "backing away from teaching evolution as science." It's quite a ridiculous claim really.

Though if "many" universities are doing this, you should be able to provide us with a documented example of just a single one. Name it.

Evolution is as namby-pamby as Psychology is; it is not a science and quite simply you cannot find me one scientific chemical brain study which proves a personality disorder,

Mel... seems like this is your department.

just as you also cannot conduct a single study on evolution within any laboratory, on a single organism.

I suppose this depends on how we define 'evolution.' But in any case I think you should read this paper. If you don't have journal access, I can get you a .pdf. This article documents the appearance of two completely new enzyme activities in single organism. IOW, it stands as a single study, performed in a laboratory, on a single organism, that has results relevant to 'evolution.'

I wish you the very best of luck dear friend in attempting this experiment for yourself and if the results are substantial, perhaps the evidence will become my proof. Please let me know what you find out.

Please read the above, or comment on why it isn't an example of 'evolution.'

Yes, it’s theoretical once it has already been proven mathematically.

This seems to make little to no sense, and in fact seems to stand in opposition to

I use “theory” to define anything not “proven to me”

, which you wrote above.

So, have you defined that formula I requested called “language of design”, or did you really think me so unscientific as to trust your theory without an equation?

Huh? Dude... what in the world are you talking about? Have I defined the formula you requested called "language of design"?!? Ummmm... no... I've more or less asked you repeatedly to please clarify what in the world you mean when you say "language of design," I have no idea what this nebulous phrase is supposed to mean, which precludes me from 'defining'it. See how that works?

And with respect to my thinking you are "so unscientific as to trust [my] theory without an equation?"
I got to respond with another big Huh?!? My theory?!? I've offered you no theory. I merely pointed out that

1. semantical arguments are weak
2. Scientists mean something specific when they say "theory"
3. You should provide a ref. for your quotes
4. This "language of design" you are so fond of is a nebulous and meaninless statement
5. "Two-leaved Stage" is not a biologically relevant term, except when one is speaking about things that have two leaves, and
6. that evolutionary theory doesn't imply that "that the lower life forms all of a sudden, decided to go against their very natures and not be involved with a “two-leaved stage of formation” and thus move on through natural selection and mutation to become a human being"

We can test gravity, but can you test evolution and come up with a proper mathematical formula like we already have with gravity?

No one says the evolution must comply with some mathematical model. In fact, the random nature of variation argues against effective mathematical modeling of evolution. Lots of people have modeled it mathematically though, simulated it with computers, and developed equations around the theory. A little hunting through the literature reveals this quite nicely.

Please do show me the stage from where the “hypothesis of evolution” has gone into being experimentally proven and thus since you claim it’s proven theoretically, you mention it has some relevancy in theory!

I claim nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that "the scientific community, for the most part, does agree with" the notion that evolution is a well supported explanation of observed phenomena. This does not speak to my personal beleif. If you want to converse with scientists, and indeed converse about science topics, you have to be willing to use the appropriate language. Your claims that 'theory' mean something different to you are not relevant in a topic about science theories, where theory has a specific meaning. It's like you're trying to argue with your genetics prof that while genes may be discrete units of heritable information, in your mind genes are actually garments constructed out of denim that you wear to work on casual friday.

Well, sorry but the theory is only a hypothesis until it can be experimentally tested on some mathematical level.

For the 15th time you're misinterpreting the scientific meaning of the word 'theory.' In science theories aren't elevated to facts or laws. Laws and facts are the stuff that theories are built around... not the other way around. Furthermore, there is no requirement that theories be demonstrated mathematically. This appears to be some bizarre and not quite relevant restraint that you've placed on your own definition of the word 'theory,' that isn't relevant in a discussion about scientific theories.

Perhaps semantics again is the issue here and if so my apologize but until you can show me some experimental data, I prefer to MEAN what I SAY when referring to something as being a hypothetical theory.

I think what you actually mean to say here is you prefer to manipulate the meaning of words to fit your peculiar definition of the word, which doesn't happen to be relevant to the discussion at hand.

The answer to your first question on the quote: “NO”.

My first question:

are you quoting someone specific?

You respond:

"No".But see if you can find out who said it.

Okay... you're not quoting someone specific, but you want me to see if I can figure out who said it... What am I missing here?



[edit on 12-9-2006 by mattison0922]

Now call it whatever you like but I require experimental data of at least one test subject. If you cannot provide me BUT ONE example, than I must stress again, I cannot accept it just yet. But don’t give up, we have much work to do and in the end you may come to find out what I did long ago, about “who you are as a human being”.

Call what whatever I like? I did provide you with an example of what could be described as evolution. What do you think about it?

So wait just a minute here….you are acting confused by my asking for some kind of mathematical formulation that proves the transition from point a) to b) to c)?

To my knowledge this is the first time you've associated the "language of design" with "some kind of mathematical formulation that proves the transition from point a) to b) to c)." This is the most clear you've ever been about this "LOD" you seem to be so fond of... and right now it's about as clear as mud.

Is it so difficult for you to understand that I have yet seen any equation or a language of design which would be applicable to a specific set over time consisting of mutations? We have many such equations in closed systems but few when defining randomness within an open-system.

Who says that mutation and variation in organims is subject to 'proof' via some sort of mathematical equation? What you're asking for is proof that evolution obeys some fixed mechanism that can be accurately modeled, which would appear to imply that evolution has some fixed forms that it must go through. ToE claims nothing of the sort. Most supporters believe the process can't be modeled and if it were repeated 1000 times you'd get 1000 different and mutually exclusive outcomes. Thus variation is not believed to follow any fixed pattern.

Since you find it so difficult to stop laughing, I bet you also spend time laughing at those who are the religious, yet you expect the religious to accept that billions of random events are somehow interpolated and form the creation of man. Wow!

Hmmm... I think I only had a single in that last post... not sure how that equates with not being able to stop laughing... *shrug*

MODS: Could I perhaps receive some kind of special recognition or something for this? Seriously, how often is it that someone can be accused of being a fundamentalist Christian, and be accused of "laughing at those who are the religious" in the same thread?

Now if I didn’t mention that you were expecting someone to become a “faithful evolutionist”, would you even have understood me saying so?

Well, I don't even understand what you're asking here, but what I can discern from your question indicates to me, and pretty much everyone who follows this forum that you're clueless.

You think I make an unreasonable request but you seem to know very little of the occult sciences.

I know about the occult, and I know about science. In fact, I know enough about both to know that the phrase 'occult sciences' is an oxymoron.

And I will tell you that replacing my spiritual connections with that of a raving mad-man, for who’s hypothesizes I’m supposed to accept as science today, until a better one is found in the morning –

Am I the raving mad man here? Just curious.

Who said anything about your spiritual connections? I never brought 'em up. In fact, I never mentioned replacing anything of yours. Please refer to the list above for arguments/points that I did make. Thanks.

as if this is to be fulfilling that space in the darkness which exists in each and every heart. Your condition is such that you demand blind faith in someone’s idea without even really looking into the forces which came into effect during this age that began from the time of Copernicus!

Mel... we don't often agree... but Perhaps you are onto something with this Chewbacca thing.

Before you go on asking me for my blind faith, why not learn that Darwin was opposed by many Greats of that time who have more than refuted him; yet have had their truths swept under the rug, just like what happened to Tesla.

I've not asked for any faith, especially not blind faith. I would again refer you to the list above.

Oh and I am quite aware of the history of the controversy surrounding Darwin's idea.

May be if you researched up on Haeckel you would find out the answer to your question?

Oh, I am familar with Haeckel. "Two-leaved" is not a phrase from embryology that I am familiar with. Of course, I'm not an embryologist. I am familiar enough with Haeckels work to know that he believed in conservation of form from lower vertebrate forms to higher vertebrate forms, that in fact if there is a two leaved stage, it's likely something possesed by all vertebrates.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Evolution is as namby-pamby as Psychology is; it is not a science and quite simply you cannot find me one scientific chemical brain study which proves a personality disorder,

Mel... seems like this is your department.
[edit on 12-9-2006 by mattison0922]

It's the second time I've had to defend the scientific merits of psychology today. Is it 'poop on psychology day' or something? The criticism from the physicist was more hurtful, but just as misguided.

Because physics cannot 'prove' or completely explain various concepts doesn't mean it is not a science. Same for psychology.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by melatonin]

Mr. Apass, I do not have to prove a negative and I never made the claim of evolution being the true origins of man did I? I already explained that language of design is a mathematical equation showing the transition from point a to point z. I require more evidence of this theory before I do accept it. If I were ask you to blindly believe in some sort of deity and you did not, and then I proceeded to ask you to define your theory on “non-belief”, would that make sense to you? Non-belief is not a theory and thus there is little defining other than terminology. But I’m sure the spell-police here, who pride themselves on philistinism, will be correcting the semantics!

The simple forms of plants found in fossils are still related to the other simple forms found living today. But if the simple forms found in fossils are somehow supposed to point toward man’s origins, than I disagree. There is a huge gap between the earliest find of man and of the other humanoid animals. That gap is not filled by conjecture and I need more evidence. Furthermore, to go from simple organisms to mammal is another area which I have not seen enough evidence. As for man eating his feces, I’m not sure where you are headed with this but let’s try the KISS approach shall we?

Melatonin wrote,

Of course there are scientists who will agree with you that we have a sense of self. They will also agree that in many instances we can control our thoughts and emotions (but not always, ask someone who suffers PTSD), I hope you don't base any of this on psychological science, after all according to you, it is not a science is it?

When someone is unable to control their thoughts and emotions, it means that they under the control of the “petty personality” and not of the Ego-self. Almost all human beings are sub-consciously aware and that means while we are carrying out advanced mathematical equations we are only using the brain and not the mind. To find your EGO is to remove the “egoism” by cleansing the personality from all negativity. When I define “EGO”, I separate it from the personalities’ “egoism”. Now when a person allows his thoughts and emotions to take hold of him, we can see many different forms of disease. Thus, the brain can also not function as it should. When the Mind is not functioning properly it can have an effect on the brain and prevent the person from reaching the inner “Self”, I consider this to be the “Ego-soul”, or the “selfhood” and thus it is not the personality. Psychological mistakes the “I am Melatonin” or the egoism of the personality, for the “I AM I” which is that of the EGO-SOUL. Psychological and Psychiatry ARE NOT a science because they are coming up with labels for every unclean personality disorder without understanding the difference between the egoism and the EGO! So, yes it is not a proper science and I shall prove it to you with a solid example.

I know a man “Sam” was suffered from manic-schizophrenia and several other mental disorders. He was diagnosed by Psychiatrists who unanimously agreed on his conditions. He had since that time been on 15 different psychotropic drugs. I asked Sam if there was a single chemical study of the brain done to verify his condition and he said “not one”. But he believed in the doctors who were supposedly scientists, see? Now I spent time with him and eventually, I discovered that he became worse through reinforcement of certain thoughts and emotions. Now what I am referring to is that he was approached by the doctors as having a problem, a problem which the psychiatrists knew not where it originated. All they knew was how to treat the same condition – with the exact same approach through a method of trial and error. Now their approach is to first have the patient say to himself that “I am sick, and I need help”. They teach this as the first step toward healing. Now, what was wrong with this approach? Well, In Sam’s case, what was making him sicker, mentally was his low self-esteem. He grew up in a home where his father was very abusive and mentally tore him down. This had an effect on Sam that he became very depressed and tried to commit suicide. He had no friends because he was a very nervous person. Now, this approach by the doctors was very harmful because what they were doing was akin to “becoming that which you believe”. Thus, what Sam saying to himself over and over, that “I am sick”. As he continued to accept this he crated thought formations which reinforced the thoughts and emotions and thus intensifying them. What needed was peace and comfort and to be told that “You are well” and “you are good” and that “you are not sick” but “you are sick and tired of feeling miserable” and thus need your space etc. So basically, the so-called science of Psychology and psychiatry has a one size fits all approach. I CANNOT CALL THAT SCIOENCE! If you wish to bring your expert here to debate me, go right ahead. I spent time with Sam and over the years he became well - and I am not any Psychologist! I am able to see the thought-forms manifest and as these forms do take a specific shape and they tend to return to a person and eventually gain control over their personality. I do not expect to be proving this but I do know that Sam is well today and I also know that the doctors meant well, because they have had some success rates with other patients but this proves that even the exact same symptoms can have a completely opposite cure. So, perhaps instead of arguing with me, may also prefer to hear it from them on this video clip.

www.cchr.org...

Now tell me, are you sure you know what it is you speak of as something being a science? I mean, if you were in court, would you trust these so-called scientists with being a proper expert of your mental health? May be you would sponsor Mr. Blair’s new airport “mental scanners”, detecting terrorists – I’m sure they would pay you well!

I think it is better that we move step-by-step. DNA, the basis of heredity, is an imperfect replicator. When it is copied it can produce errors, some of these errors will persist in the genome - some will be detrimental, many neutral, a few beneficial to the organism. This is the basis of variation within a species. Nature will select the most adaptive variations via capacity to survive and reproduce. That is, those who adapt best, pass on their genes most successfully. The more unadaptive genes will reduce in frequency or even be lost.

Is that understood? We'll move on to the next stage when you are ready.

The DNA you are focusing on is only a small portion of the entire DNA. The other part which is often referred to as “junk DNA” is not ‘junk’ at all and is the major part you have missed. But as for your limited approach, we may certainly begin here.

You were talking about how lack of spirituality causes illness. Superstitition - the cure-all. Didn't help those in the dark ages. If you compare Russia to Kenya, you may find their health and longevity is better. If you compare sweden to russia, the swedes health is better. Maybe something to do with health-care provision and education rather than spirituality (I cut the bit out due to word limitation)?

I see you assume that spirituality is the same thing as superstition, but you failed to answer my question to you earlier regarding the fact that you can control the personality, and as such are not BOUND by it. Those who think negatively do become sick but if they can balance this with physical methods than it is certainly worth doing. Why pray when you can eat of the leaf? I agree that health is not defined ONLY by spirituality but you cannot simply ignore the health befits of reinforcement of thought and emotion and the spiritual connection to health.

Of course it is true, this is because of advances in medical health and scientific understanding rather than divination. Did herbal knowledge appear by divination or maybe trial and error? Are all herbs safe or is there documented instances negative health effects? If the herbs act chemically, they are drugs.

Back in the time of the Old Testament and of Atlantis and Lemura, do you have any idea how long people lived? Would you care to examine the historical records provided by Mystics which verify such long life without modern medicine? What do you suppose goes into a RX drug today? Do they not take mostly an herb and simply intensify it, or remove the alkaloids and enzymes? What about mental health? Are people mentally healthier taking the vaccines today and do you think that “Sam” whom I spoke of above, was getting better with all those Psychotropic brain altering drugs he was taking? Ever wonder why all those youngsters decided to murder their entire families? I’ll tell you it’s not because of television but has something to do with Psychotropic drugs.

It is true that having a faith does seem to improve health and well-being, again it is documented by those awful ghost-writing scientists. However, that doesn't mean that your faith is correct, there are social and biological reasons why having faith can help protect against illness.

I never made any claim about my faith being something for you to accept, or teach to students. That is personal but if you agree with me on this than might suggest that the thought and emotion does indeed, carry a life of its own and can have an effect over the human beings personality. Are most Ghost-writers really scientists, may be that is the question I should have made clear, as to not insult those Greats in the field of science.

So you are criticising scientists for letting the data speak for itself. We don't claim to have 'perfect truth' from divination and faith like some. I just watched the google video you posted earlier - I can see why he isn't a scientist. Here is comparable logic - table salt is sodium chloride, chlorine gas is a poison, the evil bosch gassed soldiers with it you know. If we put dogs in a chlorine atmosphere 7 days a week, they die. High salt in the diet is bad for you, causes high blood pressure etc, consume enough and you will die. Therefore remove all salt from food and water and save humanity, and no more chlorine in our water supply. We must rid ourselves of salt and chlorine now! Blame the ghost-writers. I am doing this for your good alone, oh and buy my book at all good bookshops Try it out. See how it goes

Another link on Fluoride but I hate to throw links.

www.westonaprice.org...

Now which salt are you referring to? Have you ever heard of sea salt? Hmm, is it even the same salt as table salt, containing those wonderful minerals that the body shoots straight up into the head? I highly recommend that MD’s stop telling patients to remove the excess salt in their diet and instead learn to ask them the switch to REAL salt instead. You think like you live in a box, dear Melatonin. Your laboratory is very tiny, whereas mine is the universe. What has happened to proper science since Mr. Carnegie and Rockefeller, the Guggenheim foundation decided to dumb down the educational system? Have you noticed the recent SAT scores? Text-book graduates of twisted Aristotle science which resemble nothing of proper reasoning is not “science” in my opinion and the difference between Einstein and Tesla is that Tesla knew the theory of relativity was wrong because Tesla was an advanced mystic who understood that the spaces between electrons and the electrons themselves, were far different in terms of mass. I am not anti-science but we have too many scientists today not willing to conduct their own studies in a fashion which explains how there can be different types of Vitamin-E and thus, find it good today and bad tomorrow. It’s called “spin” and the data speaks nothing less than that of the very limitation which the study allows. If the study is limited to one brand of Vitamin-E then it should be sold as inconclusive without further spin. Once again, I’m bashing the method of corporate science today, not the scientists. Do you understand me?

So you still think that an instinct caused some sort of ancestor of humans to force spinal tissue into the skull to form a brain. Just because we have certain mental abilities doesn't separate us from animals.

Just because we are like the animals does mean that we are only animals, and to assume so is both foolish and insulting. You think animals can learn to heal another at a distance? Have you ever met a cow that can decide to become self-aware and through introspection can go to bed at night and ask questions of his action being correct or incorrect? Do you have any proof that the human brain being bigger or different is sole reason why we can practice nightly introspection; asking ourselves how to not make the same error again, through concentration, visualization, meditation and prayer and a monkey cannot?

Do dolphins have special status too? They use the amazingly fishy system of sonar. Therefore dolphins are not animals. Pigeons have some amazing homing mechanism, therefore they are not animals. Bees possibly use dance to communicate, that is the sign of a non-animal.

Everything of thought goes into their abilities of instinct. They do not reason but they just do it through instinct. I am disturbed that you know so little about WHO YOU ARE that you actually believe yourself an authority based solely upon similarity and you see nothing of the fact that only A God could control thoughts and emotions – no animal’s feel guilty of any crime because it’s wrong, they feel guilt because of the reaction they receive but still have no ability to learn through cause and effect other than conditioning the brain. We humans can be conditioned also but we also can break through ANY conditioning by becoming spiritually advanced. Animals cannot do this – and they shall never do it!

What do memory and instincts have to do with the supernatural abilities coming from sonar in a dolphin? How do you know what an ape thinks? They have the basic components of the human mind, show empathy, emotion, a sense of self, language, decison-making, learning, problem-solving. Seems awfully like there might be a way these capacities evolved into the human mind.

Supernatural abilities, are you turning spiritual on me? Can you tell me what is supernatural about the moon having an effect on the waves? I’m just acting Philistine as you have been, so please enlighten me professor! Dolphins have a sense of personality of “self” but that is not a “Soul-ego”. Animals are not Holy Logoic as humans are. A dolphin can learn to feel emotional and think but they do not have the ability to practice introspection. If the size and genetic make up of the brain were the only thing which matters then, why cannot monkey’s swallow pride and learn to be as “a God” by washing the dirty feet of another man? You see, the sense of losing the egoism is simply to shed away the illusions surrounding the EGO-Soul. The animals cannot do this and self-realization is not about gaining anything, it is about stripping away the falsehoods.

mattison0922, they were my own quotes – do stop fussing. And I am reading the paper you provided before responding back in detail. This may take some time but it would be un-polite of me, if I did not read it before responding.

I think what the topic asks is impossible to answer...
if a real and serious scientific theory is made, it needs to be suported by some kind on evidence, our it will not be scientific at all.

Exemple:

- Some kind of evidence is find.
- It can raise some serious questions/doubts.
- A theory is formed.
- Untill some kind of Scientific experiment to be made, or a proff to be presented, it will continue to be just a theory.

it's not possible to create scientific theorys with out any kind of evidences.

[edit on 12-9-2006 by Umbra Sideralis]

Originally posted by Cinosamitna
When someone is unable to control their thoughts and emotions, it means that they under the control of the “petty personality” and not of the Ego-self. Almost all human beings are sub-consciously aware and that means while we are carrying out advanced mathematical equations we are only using the brain and not the mind. To find your EGO is to remove the “egoism” by cleansing the personality from all negativity. When I define “EGO”, I separate it from the personalities’ “egoism”. Now when a person allows his thoughts and emotions to take hold of him, we can see many different forms of disease. Thus, the brain can also not function as it should. When the Mind is not functioning properly it can have an effect on the brain and prevent the person from reaching the inner “Self”, I consider this to be the “Ego-soul”, or the “selfhood” and thus it is not the personality. Psychological mistakes the “I am Melatonin” or the egoism of the personality, for the “I AM I” which is that of the EGO-SOUL. Psychological and Psychiatry ARE NOT a science because they are coming up with labels for every unclean personality disorder without understanding the difference between the egoism and the EGO! So, yes it is not a proper science and I shall prove it to you with a solid example.

I know a man “Sam” was suffered from manic-schizophrenia and several other mental disorders. He was diagnosed by Psychiatrists who unanimously agreed on his conditions. He had since that time been on 15 different psychotropic drugs....
.....

I think your are conflating scientific psychology with the practitioning of clinical psychology and psychiatry.

Personality disorders are very poorly understood. They are generally untreatable, if there are elements of the condition that can be treated, for example, someone with the obsessive-compulsive personality disorder may be treated with SSRI's, which are an effective treatment for OCD. However, it will not completely solve the problem. There are no cures in psychiatry, they treat the symptoms, not the underlying cause. There is more than one personality disorder, so I think it is you who is suggesting the one-size fits all scenario.

Oh, to my knowledge, there is no such condition as manic-schizophrenia, so I'm not surprised there are no studies on it. There is manic-depression, there is a spectrum of schizophrenic conditions but not manic-schizophrenia. And neither are defined as personality disorders.

For every one single case you show where treatment didn't help, there will be others that did. As a researcher who has mixed with schizophrenics, I can assure you that clozapine and the new atypicals do improve negative symptoms in these patients. However, atypicals also have side-effects, they are not perfect, they don't suit every schizophrenic. But they do help an individual have a chance of normality, some even hold down jobs where this was previously impossible. It a useful option. You can try any talking cure you like with schizophrenia, you won't get anywhere.

Back to psychology, I can't talk about clinical psychology in wherever you find yourself, but in the UK, clinical psychologists are not medical doctors. They cannot prescribe. They use talking cures, behavioural treatments, cognitive-behavioural therapy, exposure therapies, and other non-medical treatments. They can in some circumstances suggest to a medical doctor possbile medicative solutions, but the MD must agree and prescribe.

Some clinical psychologists are the most fervent opposition to the widespread overmedication of certain conditions, in the UK a researcher I know of has forced a review that led to the banning of SSRIs for the treatment of children due to obvious issues with increased risk of suicide in this group.

But that is clinical psychology, scientific psychology has a totally different focus - advancing knowledge and understanding of the mind and behaviour.

What you are discussing is very freudian and is not considered science, sorry. It is due to the history between psychology and freud, jung et al, that some see psychology as non-scientific. They are more commonly seen in psychiatry than psychology. So what you propose is that psychology should roll-back to its dark-ages.

Is psychology a science? An eleven year old boy can tell you it is...

Kids know psychology is a science

[edit on 12-9-2006 by melatonin]