|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is not science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I gave examples, and you call them babble. The tail-lights was an anology to show that humans emulate other life forms to 'adapt', w/o the factor of speciation. Perhaps you want to prove that emulation = speciation, but the criteria used is open to numerous other factors than speciation. Definitely it is so in our midst and in realtime: humans emulate in realtime. Examples are not explanations. An explanation tells how the facts came to be, then uses examples to demonstrate it, then provides a prediction for a way to tell the difference between explanation {A} (evolution) and explanation {B} (IamJoseph Babble). Your example of humans making tail lights does not show how organisms speciate, and last time I checked there were no humans with tail lights on their bodies.
That bable means, if the original millions of years factor is irrelevent in an on-going process, so is the transit changes of ToE's speciation. Unless, ToE factors took a pause and never recovered; whereas in a contueing on-going process, its effect do not cease. This is still meaningless babble -- you are not saying anything, just stringing words together. Your assertions (what phrases seem to have meaning) are completely un-supported by any evidence nor do they have any basis in reality: Babble.
Its not meaningless if you accept the factors applicable in an on-going process; its non-acceptance is meaningless, which I described as casino science. In fact, it appears a double-edged slight of hand: the transic factor excuses appear to deflect from the requirements of proof in realtime. This is a good possibility, and yet you deny even that it can be so - w/o any basis. To conclude this point, 'IF' you accept the logic in an on-going process, there is no requirement for speciation to be limited to millions of years, and if this is the only evidence of ToE - it is casino science: no arguement here. If you do not accept, then you have to show why: I gave you further examples: marbles adaoting every 10 days do not become impacted by time. You responded with: NOTHING. It's not meaningless if you accept babble? Marble babble is not biology, there is nothing of meaning to respond to: it's irrelevant.
Ok, so millions of years ago, certain changes occured in life forms, and these cannot be evidenced again: then it is NOT a continueous process. Correct it is not a continuous process, it is a continuing process.
Change continues to occur in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generations, but the change is not a continuous process from some {A} point to some {B} point.
Sure. Crouching tiger is a martial arts stance, derived from studying tigers - in the absence of any speciation or genetic lineage: humans did not come from tigers in this example, not even indirectly. Even if a fossil showed an imprint of a human crouching. Here, the proof is to show a half-tiger/half-human, or half and hapf of any other two life forms, w/o resorting to millions of years: the system is on-going, meaning it occurs today also. So now you are mixing learned behavior with inherited genetic traits. Curiously, by behaving like a fighting tiger (the martial arts form) does not turn the people into tigers. They don't hunt, mate, eat like tigers.
Can you explain why the need to resort to the million years scenario, if the process is ongoing? My point is, if it takes one million years to produce B from A, this process is also valid for 1M minus 5 seconds years ago; thus the change will be seen today, now, anytime - because the change instant is also on-going. Yes/no? There is no " need to resort to the million years scenario" as evolution is valid from generation to generation. It is also valid as continuing over the course of history, and further for continuing over the course of the fossil record. That the fossil record exists over a period covering billions of years is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. It's just a fact that evolution is still valid over the course of that record. You are again confusing the evolution of species {A} over millions of years resulting in species {B} with the need to result in species {B}. This is false. Likewise repeating the timescale will not repeat the evolutionary steps that happened to occur in one period as species {A} evolved by stages into species {B}. This is a typical post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
How so: if all changes in A to Z is all black colored, then the change factor in B to C is also black. Not what you said: The statement "{all change from A to Z is all black colored} is faulty" is TRUE if {A} is white even though the statement "{all change from B to Z is all black colored} is faulty" is FALSE (ie they are all black).
Not so: they are aligned by the principle employed. The marbles refer to on-going changes and how time does not impact; the tail-lights refer to emulation by a life form of another life form - w/o speciation occuring. They are not biological life and do not represent the behavior of biological life, nor do they explain the fossil evidence OR the genetic evidence in any way. This is nothing but a post hoc ergo propter hoc fantasy. The "lost marble theory" would predict that you would find fossils totally unrelated in time and space, and this does not happen.
In ToE, all speciation occurs by the same principle. That the changes are compound factored [incorporating additionally adapted/evolved embellishments] - does not alter the equation. Again your babble misuse of terminology show that you neither understand the terms or the topic. There is no such thing as "compound factored" -- it is just your attempt (pathetic as it is) to sound scientific, when all it does is make you seem silly. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Sometimes one way, sometimes another. There is no overall equation.
No sir. The first chronological recording of life forms is in genesis; so is the mode of life form continuence from the seed, able to transmit all traits: well before toE was coined. Now your in denial too: Darwin, a religious man, was of the opinion he found a contradiction of 'GENESIS'. The observation factor does not invalidate a precedent recording of these issues, and their blatant similarity of the premises, given different reasonings only. False the first chronological recording of life forms is in the fossil record. The first chronological recording of life by humans is in cave paintings - paintings that agree with the fossil record for the species alive at the same time, some of which are similar and some of which are totally different from life known today). Both these chronological records validate evolution.
Common ancestry is babble: there is no ToE w/o the seed factor; there is repro and continuance w/o ToE. The dif! Except that your "seed factor" has been shown to necessarily == DNA or it doesn't exist, and thus it supports common ancestry.
Maybe Cfrog can explain why an on-going process is effected and proven only with what happens millions of years ago, and not manifest always and at all times: because you have not. There is no "on-going process" - no directed evolution towards some goal, just continuing change in the hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Change is continuing to occur, but what results cannot be determined. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Maybe you didn't hear me. I'll say it again:
If you want to make a cogent argument about the accuracy of the Hebrew Calendar, propose a new topic - this one is coming to its end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: An example exemplifies. There is no deficiency.
quote: But they exemplify a principle, the intention here.
quote:No problem with Uninterrupted & continual. quote: That's ok too, but I wouldn'y accept 'prolonged period' - this is not continual or continueing, and is probably expressionism, not actual, in one of its listed definitions.
quote: That is ok too, as long as the principle of the change is a continueing one. It means zebras become humans via stages of changes, but based on the same principle as any and all changes. This confirms also that the time factor is irrelevent: the changes never cease, and its manifestation is always seen in the presence. Every second, everywhere. Basic maths fells the casino science.
quote: Generation to generation is not a continuous process, nor is this evident in a generation, which you have not defined. If it is continual, it does not cease an instant, as between generations. If the changes are too subtle, but actually occuring, it is fine. But it is not occuring, because while one change is too slow to view, there would be millions of the same change every succeeding second, graduating to a point which is not subtle, and thus viewable. This is not the case, making the said speciation an imaginative academic thesis only, but not reflected in reality. Go back to the marble analogy: If red marbles turn blue every 10 days, continuely, unceasingly, then the critical point of change can be captured with no impact of the time factor - even if the changes are as slow as you wish to nominate. If this maths is not understood - forget about science.
quote: Not so. The equation is not effected by what something changes to, but that it changes per se. No matter what A changes to, the same 'principle' applies with B to C, regardless if B is a zebra and C is a human. There is a linear thread here from zebras to humans, with no effect to this thread whatever differences appears between the zebra and the human. All changes are classed as adaptation and speciation in ToE.
quote: There is still a connectivity from A to Z, and from all points in-between, to either extremity. It means humans came from/via a zebra, from A.
[quote]
Not so: they are aligned by the principle employed. The marbles refer to on-going changes and how time does not impact; the tail-lights refer to emulation by a life form of another life form - w/o speciation occuring.
quote: It does not matter its not biological life. The principle applies, and it does. Its not hoc or fantasy, but your denial - or worse..
quote: It allows for your stages of changes. It was meant to explain your process, its just language, and not a scientific term. Like, on-going process.
quote: The applicable factor here is, 'changes' - this is continual even by your description. It must be active at 'all' times, even between generations, and as we speak. And because this occurs with all life, every instant - there can never be an instant when these changes are not occuring or their effect not viewable. The million years scenario is thus superfluous, and thus not a factor as used by ToE supporters.
quote: And very co-incidently, genesis got it right, by copying this info from the fossills, but no one else bothered to write it down?! Of course it is first recorded in genesis, and Darwin's fossil records are only a factor to show his variation theme from genesis.
quote: No seed, no repro, no adaptation, no speciation, no dna. The dna also shows variations of species, as opposed they all came from one source, and those variations are 'new' in the thread [no human gene in a zebra's dna], emulating the host parentage. While genesis is vindicated of its decared factors, ToE is not.
quote: No need for determination what life form will result. Your problem is, this continueing change does not require millions of years to occur, and even if it did - it would have no effect: because the changes continue every second and nano-second. This means, nothing is so slow it cannot be seen. Its called maths and logical reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
An example exemplifies. There is no deficiency. But they exemplify a principle, the intention here. But without the principle, the explanation, they are random examples of irrelevant material.
No problem with Uninterrupted & continual. Except that continual doesn't apply.
That's ok too, but I wouldn'y accept 'prolonged period' - this is not continual or continueing, and is probably expressionism, not actual, in one of its listed definitions. Wrong. No surprise.
That is ok too, as long as the principle of the change is a continueing one. It means zebras become humans via stages of changes, but based on the same principle as any and all changes. This confirms also that the time factor is irrelevent: the changes never cease, and its manifestation is always seen in the presence. Every second, everywhere. Basic maths fells the casino science. Wrong again.
Generation to generation is not a continuous process, nor is this evident in a generation, which you have not defined. If it is continual, it does not cease an instant, as between generations. If the changes are too subtle, but actually occuring, it is fine. But it is not occuring, because while one change is too slow to view, there would be millions of the same change every succeeding second, graduating to a point which is not subtle, and thus viewable. This is not the case, making the said speciation an imaginative academic thesis only, but not reflected in reality. Go back to the marble analogy: That would be one of the reasons why 'continuing' is a better descriptor than 'continuous'.
If red marbles turn blue every 10 days, continuely, unceasingly, then the critical point of change can be captured with no impact of the time factor - even if the changes are as slow as you wish to nominate. If this maths is not understood - forget about science. Still irrelevant.
Not so. The equation is not effected by what something changes to, but that it changes per se. No matter what A changes to, the same 'principle' applies with B to C, regardless if B is a zebra and C is a human. There is a linear thread here from zebras to humans, with no effect to this thread whatever differences appears between the zebra and the human. All changes are classed as adaptation and speciation in ToE. Still wrong.
There is still a connectivity from A to Z, and from all points in-between, to either extremity. It means humans came from/via a zebra, from A. Your original statement remains falsified. If you are changing it now you are equivocating.
Not so: they are aligned by the principle employed. The marbles refer to on-going changes and how time does not impact; the tail-lights refer to emulation by a life form of another life form - w/o speciation occuring. Still irrelevant.
It does not matter its not biological life. The principle applies, and it does. Its not hoc or fantasy, but your denial - or worse.. Still wrong.
It allows for your stages of changes. It was meant to explain your process, its just language, and not a scientific term. Like, on-going process. Still meaningless babble.
The applicable factor here is, 'changes' - this is continual even by your description. It must be active at 'all' times, even between generations, and as we speak. And because this occurs with all life, every instant - there can never be an instant when these changes are not occuring or their effect not viewable. The million years scenario is thus superfluous, and thus not a factor as used by ToE supporters. Still wrong.
And very co-incidently, genesis got it right, by copying this info from the fossills, but no one else bothered to write it down?! Of course it is first recorded in genesis, and Darwin's fossil records are only a factor to show his variation theme from genesis. Still wrong. Where is the saber-toothed lion, the wooly rhinoceros, the cave bear, the mastodon and the ground sloth (just to name a few)?
No seed, no repro, no adaptation, no speciation, no dna. The dna also shows variations of species, as opposed they all came from one source, and those variations are 'new' in the thread [no human gene in a zebra's dna], emulating the host parentage. While genesis is vindicated of its decared factors, ToE is not. Still irrelevant, there is still no differentiation between "seed" and DNA.
No need for determination what life form will result. Your problem is, this continueing change does not require millions of years to occur, and even if it did - it would have no effect: because the changes continue every second and nano-second. This means, nothing is so slow it cannot be seen. Its called maths and logical reasoning. And still not one thing you have said either demonstrates that evolution is not science, nor that evolution is wrong. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yes, its a good way to agree your on-going process is not really on-going: because while it is continueing, its not continual. Semantics will get you anywhere you want to go. But now that we've agreed speciation is not viewable because its not continuous, we can easily see why we cannot continually see it while it continues. Contrastingly, my marbles scenario performs differently: the difference is non virtual maths and logics apply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yet the fact exists that speciation has been observed, speciation is a FACT.
This shows that your conclusion is false, which means that the structure that leads to your conclusion is false. Babble is like that. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Its wrong, and no such creature as evolution or nature exists. But the seed factor does work - w/o ToE, w/o the million years resorting, and w/o any casino science applied to an on-going process. I won't hold my breath when the next speciation will occur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yet the fact exists that evolution has been observed, evolution is a FACT.
This shows that your conclusion is false, which means that the structure that leads to your conclusion is false. Babble is like that. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Does the seed factor exist - does the seed transmit all data and is able to perform the reproduction cycle of each life form in an on-going process, including dna, and how then does ToE assist in this process? What deficiencies did you notice? - because ToE doesn't have a clue where evolution comes from or where it started.
Its not that there should not be an intelligent process, because we see that all the universe constructs are intelligent process based. Its that ToE fails in this regard: its unscientific when examined closer and rests on casino science, while also being superfluous. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The genes controlling growth, development and hereditary traits on DNA have been observed, and these genes, growth control, development control and hereditary traits as a part of DNA are a fact.
Environmental, behavioral and cultural elements may affect growth and development of individuals, and thus natural selection, but the hereditary traits involved are on DNA. This too is a demonstrated fact. This shows that your conclusion is false, which means that the structure that leads to your conclusion is false. Babble is like that. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3699 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Sure. But its got nothing to do with ToE! Hereditary is strictly and exclusively seed derived, namely from a thread of human parentage - going back upto four generations. It is easily proved: try to perform the hereditary trick w/o the seed?
quote: here too, when environmental impacts occur, it is to do with 'environmental impacts' - no connection to a fictional thing called ToE. If one lives in a hot sunny country, chances are they and their offspring will be darker: ToE?
quote: Nothing is babble or false, and can be checked via first hand experemantation. It is true many ToE-ists display attitudes very similar to the most fanatical religious adherents, as if their ToE diety is sacred and holy. Most are in denial and cannot see themselves that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
does the seed transmit all data and is able to perform the reproduction cycle of each life form in an on-going process No, sometimes there is a mutation.
and how then does ToE assist in this process? It doesn't. It explains it.
What deficiencies did you notice? Some mutations are lethal.
because ToE doesn't have a clue where evolution comes from or where it started. ToE came from the observation of mutations, it started when people began to investigate biology. ToE does not have clues, it would be more appropriate if you had said "ToE doesn't explain...". Evolution came from mutations, it started when there was a mutation.
It is easily proved: try to perform the hereditary trick w/o the seed? Try to perform the mutation trick without change.
If one lives in a hot sunny country, chances are they and their offspring will be darker: ToE? No, suntan. Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sure. But its got nothing to do with ToE! Hereditary is strictly and exclusively seed derived, namely from a thread of human parentage - going back upto four generations. It is easily proved: try to perform the hereditary trick w/o the seed? Try to perform the hereditary trick without DNA. We are talking basic biology, modern biology, biology informed by all the knowledge accumulated in the field, including evolution and basic genetics. Heredity has everything to do with the theory of evolution, because without heredity there would be no evolution. Perhaps you think your (nebulous) concept of "seed" is a new\fresh\different idea. Sorry, it is old, a concept that was in existence before genetics, back in the 1800's. Before they knew that genes were located on the DNA there were lots of ideas about where and how hereditary information was kept and how it was transmitted to offspring. Perhaps you think your concept of "seed" is a robust idea, one that has more explanatory power than current paradigms in biology. Again, this is a false impression, as scientific studies since those early days of genetics have shown how hereditary information is passed by the DNA in eggs and sperm. It was shown that does not come from various parts of the body, as was once considered possible, Nor is heredity limited to four generations.
... when environmental impacts occur, it is to do with 'environmental impacts' - no connection to a fictional thing called ToE. If one lives in a hot sunny country, chances are they and their offspring will be darker: ToE? Except that this is false. The Dutch settled in South Africa in 1652, where natives were exclusively black, and since that time they have remained white. Nor have people living in North America begun to look like native indians even though they have been in America since 1565. If you assume that parents will get darker (tanned) in a hot sunny country, and then pass this trait on to their offspring, then what you are talking about here is a concept called Lamarckism where acquired traits could be passed from parent to offspring. Parents with skin cancer (also due to the hot sunny environment) do not pass that skin cancer on to offspring. There is no communication from cells in the body to the DNA in the egg and sperm cells, and without this communication there can be no way for such changes to be incorporated into the hereditary information passed from parent to offspring. The other possibility is that the environment directs mutations to the hereditary DNA, and this too is not possible for the same reason: there is no mechanism. Both these concepts were tried and they were falsified.
Nothing is babble or false, and can be checked via first hand experemantation. It is true many ToE-ists display attitudes very similar to the most fanatical religious adherents, as if their ToE diety is sacred and holy. Most are in denial and cannot see themselves that way. The attitudes of people is irrelevant. The evidence of scientific studies and investigations are what show which ideas are valid and invalid. Yes it can be checked with experimentation -- that is how science operates, that is how evolution operates. In fact it is the results of many such studies that have invalidated false concepts like Lamarckism and directed evolution, it is the result of such studies that show the hereditary information is carried in DNA, that random mutations to DNA cause changes in hereditary traits. Enjoy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
This thread is nearing 300 posts and will close soon, so those who would like should post their summations now. No replies should be posted to summations. I'll leave this thread open another 24 hours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The thesis of the OP is that evolution is not science, yet this has not been demonstrated.
"Science is based on repeated Observation" this simple statement is ignored by many scientists who accept evolution. This statement is based on the absolute or willful ignorance of the many repeated studies done in evolution, both in the field and in the lab. Fossil evidence is also repeatedly observed and evaluated by many different scientists. Thus the above statement is false. It is also seems to be based on a bit of misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what science really is. The basic elements of ALL science are:
Science limits its focus on the present. This is another absolutely false assertion, as then there would be no physics, and no astronomy, to mention just a few.
"Facts" declared about what allegedly happened billions of years ago are not really facts, but strongly-advocated faith points. Theories about what happened billions of years ago are theories, based on the evidence that was left. This evidence, being billions of years old though involves actual facts of what happened billions of years ago.
There may be evidence to back up these "facts" but that evidence can easily be re-interpreted. And yet those people who proclaim this repeatedly also fail repeatedly to make alternative interpretations that deal with all the evidence. Picking what evidence to use and ignoring contradictory evidence is NOT an alternative explanation, it is denial. The FACT is that evolution is a science -- it is based on observation, it uses a theory to make predictions, and it tests those predictions against reality. So far it has not been invalidated. Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. This has been observed. This is fact. There are also several theories about how change occurs, how it is transmitted, and how it affects populations. The theory of evolution can be stated as "a synthesis of several validated theories on how species change over time" ... ... or basically it states that the mechanisms of hereditary change we observe today are sufficient to explain all the diversity of life we see today, what is recorded in history, what is recorded in the fossil record, and what is recorded in the genetic record. So far there are no contradictions. To show that this is not science you need to show a lack of one of these items:
This thread has focussed more on what evolution is and isn't, along with all the creationist misrepresentations that crop up along the way, than on the actual question of meeting the criteria of being a science. The only conclusion I can reach on that is that the fact that evolution is a science is not that controversial in reality. Creationists make the argument (gleaned from some creationist website) fail to refute the rebuttals presented that show evolution has all the elements of science, and they change the topic or go away. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024