Getting to the Bottom of Evolution

reply to post by itsthetooth


Sorry you still didn't address the evidence. Good luck with that. Regurgitating lie after lie doesn't change anything! You still need to address the evidence contained in the link. Until you do, you have completely failed. Go ahead, show me which parts are hypothesis and which parts are scientific theory. I doubt you even understand 1% of what that link talks about.

tooth

You are trying to obscure your lack of knowledge and evidence by piling on mountains of BS.
Rolling out the same old nonsense that we've all seen a thousand times parroting more creationist babble.

If evolution could ever be proven false, it would come from science, and not some random twit on the internet.

I understand you do not accept the information being spoon fed to you, your brief dismissals give us no idea why and provide no hint whether you even understand it.

Why should anyone respond to a new set of assertions based on misrepresentations and misinformation when you have yet to respond to the information provided to you on your previous assertions based on misrepresentations and misinformation?

reply to post by Barcs

Sorry you still didn't address the evidence. Good luck with that. Regurgitating lie after lie doesn't change anything! You still need to address the evidence contained in the link. Until you do, you have completely failed. Go ahead, show me which parts are hypothesis and which parts are scientific theory. I doubt you even understand 1% of what that link talks about.

Maybe I'm persistant for a reason, and telling me I need to adressed in what link? There are many links and from I can tell I'm the one posting most of them. All links I have been directed to clearly indicate that evolution is nothing more than a hypothesis.

reply to post by flyingfish

You are trying to obscure your lack of knowledge and evidence by piling on mountains of BS.
Rolling out the same old nonsense that we've all seen a thousand times parroting more creationist babble.

If evolution could ever be proven false, it would come from science, and not some random twit on the internet

No one has to be a twit to prove anything wrong, its never been proven true. Get the hint guys, if parts of it are a hypothesis, that means it's not proven, silly goose.

I understand you do not accept the information being spoon fed to you, your brief dismissals give us no idea why and provide no hint whether you even understand it.

I think the real question here is do YOU understand that anything that is a hypothesis is an unproven theory, and just because some parts are verified doesn't make the theory a fact as a whole. Your polishing a turd.

Why should anyone respond to a new set of assertions based on misrepresentations and misinformation when you have yet to respond to the information provided to you on your previous assertions based on misrepresentations and misinformation?

Simple because mine are all backed up with links and facts, and yous are not.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Your going to have to repost this with the original post, when you just put your reply in there its easy to forget what the question was.

No, I linked to your post for all to see. The fact that you're denying your own words or you can't remember your own words is incredible. It's like when you start catching a pathological liar contradicting themselves.

At least your admitting its not all fact now. From what I read about them, it would seem that I'm right on track.

Now? I never stated otherwise. You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

Look, I respect that you trying to polish a turd, but when parts of this are an hypothesis, thats sort of a clue dont you think.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical". Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

But again, your arguing against something that is not repeatable, as there is no guarantee that evolution will occur, it's not recreatable, as its not repeatable, and its not predictable, your aren't able to predict what changes will happen before they do, and if you could, you would be able to tell us what new species we are evolving into.

Evolution is reproducible and the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You're confusing the concepts of something being predictive and something being predictable. What matters in science, as someone of your academic credentials should already know, is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right.

Ah, but a scientific theory must be falsifiable, and I wasn't aware that evolution is, exactly which part is?

I provided you a single example of how modern evolutionary synthesis is falsifiable. There are myriad more, the evidence of which have been provided to you in this thread and others.

Maybe we can clear this up if you first get a better understanding of what a scientific theory is... This answer explains what must happen in order for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory. If there are parts of evolution that are an hypothesis, then it obviously can't stand as a scientific theory, unless you have all of a sudden passed that stage.

My concept of what constitutes a scientific theory is demonstrably clearer than yours. Maybe you should try a source other than "wiki.answers.com", which doesn't have any citation attached to it.

Can you please explain to me the test that is used on something that is not predictable? How are they going to test it when it appears to be random.

You're confusing the concepts of something being predictive and something being predictable. What matters in science, as someone of your academic credentials should already know, is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right.

I don't recall any, and if there were any, they would have also of been able to identify exactly what was making the changes, and also realize that it's another force and not just random changes.

It's not my problem that you don't recall. It's yours.

I dismissed any other tests as they were written to be only hypothetical.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

I guess where you find evidence and where I find evidence are two different places.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.

But do any of those others exercise ideas of our existence?

It doesn't matter. You're willing to embrace the Bible as a scientific reference even though its veracity as such was shown to be demonstrably wrong hundreds of years prior to the theory of evolution.

Actually quite the opposite, it is evolution that has taken the word and placed a double meaning on it, to support the idea of evolution. Not the other way around.

By all means, show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Since that what you're claiming.

reply to post by JameSimon

Welcome! And I can see you haven't been properly introduced to itsthetooth.

At one point he believed that there was some kind of "blue laminate" on the "backbone" of DNA and that, if a species were altered intentionally via "genetic manipulation", somehow the "blue laminate" would disappear. This understanding of his was based on a computer animation where the phosphate linkages of a DNA strand were colored blue and the fact that a pastor (or some other religious figure) told him so at some kind of a lecture or conference.

Enjoy!

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by JameSimon

 

Welcome! And I can see you haven't been properly introduced to itsthetooth.

At one point he believed that there was some kind of "blue laminate" on the "backbone" of DNA and that, if a species were altered intentionally via "genetic manipulation", somehow the "blue laminate" would disappear. This understanding of his was based on a computer animation where the phosphate linkages of a DNA strand were colored blue and the fact that a pastor (or some other religious figure) told him so at some kind of a lecture or conference.

Enjoy!

The amazing is that a Pastor, Mendel, proved evolution right even before Darwin... I was just answering to him, but it seems he's too delusional to answer anything he can't explain. Thanks for the feedback, I'm a long time reader but only sporadic writer. "Blue laminate"? Amazing what I learn here

reply to post by iterationzero

No, I linked to your post for all to see. The fact that you're denying your own words or you can't remember your own words is incredible. It's like when you start catching a pathological liar contradicting themselves.

You can't lie about it when you don't know what the question was, thats all I'm asking, and its like pulling teeth to get an answer.

Now? I never stated otherwise. You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

Well you don't think that when evolution is introduced to be a both a theory and a hypothesis, that it's automatically all a theory do you?

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical". Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

Well sure it does, it means there are parts that are unproven.

Evolution is reproducible and the evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You're confusing the concepts of something being predictive and something being predictable. What matters in science, as someone of your academic credentials should already know, is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right.

Prove it.

I provided you a single example of how modern evolutionary synthesis is falsifiable. There are myriad more, the evidence of which have been provided to you in this thread and others.

Well of course, there might be confirmable changes, but that doesn't prove that I share a common ancestor with apes. .

My concept of what constitutes a scientific theory is demonstrably clearer than yours. Maybe you should try a source other than "wiki.answers.com", which doesn't have any citation attached to it.

Well its clear that you have YOUR OWN concept because you believe that something titled as both a theory and hypothesis is a scientific theory, and YOUR WAY OFF.

scientific theory click here

You're confusing the concepts of something being predictive and something being predictable. What matters in science, as someone of your academic credentials should already know, is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right.

Well of course, who would want or expect a support basis on false predictions?

It's not my problem that you don't recall. It's yours.

It was my way of being nice and saying I don't believe you have shared any. At least any that were credible.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

You seem to be confused about the difference between embraces a plurality of theories and hypothesis and it being a total theory.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.

The version that is being spoon fed to me by the individuals on ATS does not match with what I"m reading for myself on all the links I'm being sent to. Need I say there is a tad of BS on the ATS side or a little to much imagination at work. As you can see the argument isn't making it past the definition because its apparen't that if people want to believe in evolution, they are willing to connect dots, where there aren't even any dots to connect.

It doesn't matter. You're willing to embrace the Bible as a scientific reference even though its veracity as such was shown to be demonstrably wrong hundreds of years prior to the theory of evolution.

I want to know more about this supernatural experiment that proved the bible wrong.

By all means, show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Since that what you're claiming.

adaptation click hrer

It is now clear that habitats and biota do frequently change. Therefore, it follows that the process of adaptation is never finally complete.[35] Over time, it may happen that the environment changes little, and the species comes to fit its surroundings better and better.

A good example of a hypothesis,

reply to post by iterationzero

By all means, show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Since that what you're claiming.

Notice how its written in such a way that its unsure, they are guessing, it's not observed, and they don't have the cold facts on what happens.

reply to post by JameSimon


If your comments were directed at me, I apologize but they were not addressed to me.

reply to post by iterationzero

reply to post by JameSimon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome! And I can see you haven't been properly introduced to itsthetooth.

At one point he believed that there was some kind of "blue laminate" on the "backbone" of DNA and that, if a species were altered intentionally via "genetic manipulation", somehow the "blue laminate" would disappear. This understanding of his was based on a computer animation where the phosphate linkages of a DNA strand were colored blue and the fact that a pastor (or some other religious figure) told him so at some kind of a lecture or conference.

You know itero, its a good thing you chose to discredit, and embarass me, as oposed to proving your theory. Thats one thing I have learned about evolutionists, if you can't win a debate, try something else.

You know itero, its a good thing you chose to discredit, and embarass me, as oposed to proving your theory. Thats one thing I have learned about evolutionists, if you can't win a debate, try something else.

LOL! It's not his theory and he does not have to prove it
The burden is on you to disprove it and receive your Nobel Prize...
Furthermore if you are seriously worried about being embarrassed you should have stopped posting pages ago. Your making creationist look bad

Your lucky this is not a proper science forum you would have been dismissed long ago.

reply to post by flyingfish

LOL! It's not his theory and he does not have to prove it

Well he sure is suggesting many times that I go back to review material for someone that isn't trying to prove something

The burden is on you to disprove it and receive your Nobel Prize...

No the burden is placed on the first claim that its a scientific theory, which I'm still waiting to see. Why would it be up to me to disprove something that has yet to be proven

Furthermore if you are seriously worried about being embarrassed you should have stopped posting pages ago. Your making creationist look bad

I don't see how thats possible, as I'm not a creationist.


But there you have it, score one for evolutionists assuming .

Your lucky this is not a proper science forum you would have been dismissed long ago.

Not until after the aleged theory of evolution was dismissed as a hypothesis .

reply to post by itsthetooth

You can't lie about it when you don't know what the question was, thats all I'm asking, and its like pulling teeth to get an answer.

I quoted your post, with a link to the post, and you claimed that you never said it.

Well you don't think that when evolution is introduced to be a both a theory and a hypothesis, that it's automatically all a theory do you?

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

Well sure it does, it means there are parts that are unproven.

The same can be said about any scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

Prove it.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

Well of course, there might be confirmable changes, but that doesn't prove that I share a common ancestor with apes.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

Well its clear that you have YOUR OWN concept because you believe that something titled as both a theory and hypothesis is a scientific theory, and YOUR WAY OFF.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

Well of course, who would want or expect a support basis on false predictions?

Evolution is both testable and falsifiable, and has yet to be falsified.

It was my way of being nice and saying I don't believe you have shared any. At least any that were credible.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.

You seem to be confused about the difference between embraces a plurality of theories and hypothesis and it being a total theory.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

The version that is being spoon fed to me by the individuals on ATS does not match with what I"m reading for myself on all the links I'm being sent to. Need I say there is a tad of BS on the ATS side or a little to much imagination at work. As you can see the argument isn't making it past the definition because its apparen't that if people want to believe in evolution, they are willing to connect dots, where there aren't even any dots to connect.

Your lack of comprehension of what is being presented to you isn't my problem. You've made it clear that you have little to no understanding of the basics of science in general or biology in particular. The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level, apparently because you don't really understand it. The fact that you were barely half right when asked about the difference between some basic biological concepts shows that.

I want to know more about this supernatural experiment that proved the bible wrong.

Geocentricity vs heliocentricity. Look it up.

adaptation click hrer

From your own link:

An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection.

You've failed to back your claim by failing to show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Try again.

reply to post by iterationzero

I quoted your post, with a link to the post, and you claimed that you never said it.

I'm honestly not seeing where I said that, in the link your providing, either the meaning was taken out of context or I'm looking right over it.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

Well sure it does, hypothesis don't stand as a scientific theory. I'll give you a clue, a hypothesis is a hypothesis, and a scientific theory is a scientific theory. I even provided an explanation for you of how one can become the other, but just because it's intermixed with some theory doesn't automatically make it all a theory.

The same can be said about any scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

ok

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

I'm sorry but the theory of evolution has never been proven to me, at least not in the way that it's being presented from other among ATS.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

Common DNA does not prove we share a common ancestor with apes, I'm sorry your wrong.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

Well sure it does, its a weaker theory.

Evolution is both testable and falsifiable, and has yet to be falsified.

It was falsified in the example I gave about ADHD genes. It was a clear deduction that prior to us learning about these ADHD genes that show changes, they would have been recognized as evolution. I took it one step further and also determined that it was the introduction of lead, which could come from ciggerette smoke, could cause ADHD.

If you honestly believe that ANY changes are evolution, then you also believe that when somone smokes while pregnant, they are causing evolutionary changes

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level.

Thats my personal decision, I choose not to accept hypothesis as fact.

You still seem to be confused about what it means to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses" in the context of a scientific theory. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embrace a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

Well sure it does, its a weaker theory.

Your lack of comprehension of what is being presented to you isn't my problem. You've made it clear that you have little to no understanding of the basics of science in general or biology in particular. The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting it on a scientific level, apparently because you don't really understand it. The fact that you were barely half right when asked about the difference between some basic biological concepts shows that.

And I'm suppose to take this at face value from someone that believes that a hypothesis is the same as a scientific theory?

Geocentricity vs heliocentricity. Look it up.

This just confirms what I have been saying all along that the bible clearly talks about these things as we are from another planet.

You've failed to back your claim by failing to show the existence of a definition of adaptation in a scientific context that predates its use in relation to evolution. Try again.

: the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2: adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment
3: something that is adapted; specifically : a composition rewritten into a new form

[url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dic

reply to post by iterationzero


adaptation

I said it before, and I'll say it again, adjusting as an ability has nothing to do with evolving.

lulz!!! tooth does it again...posts a link to back up his claim, doesn't bother to even read it and low and behold, it actually disproves his claim. Classic tooth Here's but one clip that goes completely opposite of what tooth was trying to prove, and there's many more.


tooth's link on scientific theory

The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.[2]

reply to post by Connector


It didn't go opossite of what I was trying to prove. Your making an assumption like all evolutionists do that all hypothesis become scientific theorys and your wrong. .

Sure, its an accepted fact according to the evolutionist that wrote the article.

another clip from his link...

Like all knowledge in science, no theory can ever be completely certain, since it is possible that future experiments might conflict with the theory's predictions.[4] However, theories supported by the scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge; for example, that all objects are subject to gravity or that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.[11]