Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

quote:

---

We've seen thousand of people like you here

---

We've seen even more people like you, full of arrogance, but hardly any useful contribution, almost always hostile.

AZPaul3:

---

Because the religious stupidity in the face of overwhelming reality is quite boring.

---

Overwhelming reality? How is reality overwhelming to you?

Tanypterix:

---

Reality overwhelms religious mythology with real data, that's why we call it reality.

---

Your made up reality is not real though. You don't have a single fact to prove your theory.

AZPaul3:

---

Wishful thinking on your part. Tons of evidence that you refuse to see. As usual, your religious fantasy cannot stand before the reality.

---

You already lose credibility the moment you bring up religion on a scientific topic. And you do it repeatedly. Not surprised here, because you don't have facts to argue with.

Tangle:

---

Evolution is happening in every species alive on earth today. It's just not what you think evolution is. That's because you haven't the first clue what evolution is. What you imagine it is, is not what science says it is. And luckily for the world, how science defines science is not affected by what you think it is.

---

Weak response to his concrete example. You are deflecting here. And also reverting to cheap tactics, claiming that those who do not agree with you, don't have any understanding on the matter, which is simply not true. Luckily, I see through your lies, easily.

quote:

---

You must have been shown evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution a hundred times since you've been here.

---

Then you should be able to easily find one example where your evidence proves common ancestry of all animals (not even asking for proof of common universal common ancestry of animals, plants, fungi, etc, which is the most common theory of origin of species).
Show me one example, or I will take it as you admitting that you are the one that is lying here.

quote:

---

Your are a religious nutjob trying to dabble in a science thread.

---

You are the one bringing up religion in almost everyone of your replies. I would very much like to ignore you, but you just keep replying with your nonsense arguments and no facts. All you prove is that you are low IQ.

quote:

---

All life falls into nested hierarchies based on morphology, but also based on genetics, and ERV positions in the genomes, and proteins produced for specific functions. The patterns in these nested hierarchies (cladograms) show clear relationships that could happen through inheritance.

---

Cute argument, but very, very weak and far from being close to being any proof. Nowhere is there a rule that says that a pattern is proof of relationship. That is made up by supporters of your theory and repeated over and over again. For gullible people or low IQ and for your pseudo scientists, that may be acceptable. Not for real science and for real and respectable researchers.So out of all the hundreds of times you supposedly have shown me proof, this is the best you can come up with? How weak!

quote:

---

My IQ is so low I don't believe in talking snakes.

---

Go somewhere else if you want to debate or talk religion, you dumb fool!

Taq:

---

The nested hierarchy is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that animals share a common ancestor.

---

And how have you determined that? How have you scientifically measured this level of doubt. And how high or how low is it?Don't come to me with these wild claims. It may work for you. But I have no use for claims, that cannot be substantiated with facts or proven rules. You have zero facts and no prove still.

quote:

---

Here

---

I only see odds of certain observations.You clearly don't understand the difference between the odds of an observation and the odds or level of doubt for a theory being true or not.So your claim remains wild and unsubstantiated.

quote:

---

This is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry. This evidence is exactly what we would expect to see if our models are true.

---

This is good evidence, as I admitted before, in all honesty. And I still stand by that.
It fits the model. And that is what we look for in science.However, it does not prove as much as you want everyone to believe it does.Because by similar reasoning, goes like this.
We see that diet changes can happen quite a lot. But most often, it does not change from carnivore to herbivore or the other way around. Far more often, carnivor remains carnivor and herbivor remains herbivor.
So lets compare changes in diets within one species. Well, we see the same pattern, mostly changes in same type of food, instead of going from meat to plants or vice versa.
And same applies when we compare the species with its close relatives.This is no smoking gun proof of anything here. A herbivore most often remains herbivore, because their metabolism is built in a certain way.With mutations in DNA, it is built in a certain way so it can function. If one change in DNA changes the structure more than another change, than that change is also more likely to cause a decrimental change in function.So bottom line is, even without your model, with two distinct species without common ancestry, the idea that the species were built in certain ways and the observations that you showed, could easily fit and be compatible as well.If DNA was all random, then you would have a strong point. But DNA has function, by its structure also.

quote:

---

Those are one in the same. The often used p value in science refers to the chances that a random set of data will produce a false positive.

---

Common mistake in statistics. Those are certainly not the same.If I have a model where every coin toss is 50-50 random, and I find 10 successive coin tosses to be tails, those odds would be less than 0.1%.That does not mean that my model has of 50-50 random, has less than 0.1% chance to be true. You need to go back to statistics lessons.

quote:

---

First, if species were separately created why would they even use the same genetic systems?

---

Are you really this clueless?Why do cars from different brands, have same systems? Because they function in the same way. How is it that you ask this question even? I really thought that you were smarter than this, out of all the active members on this board.

quote:

---

Yes, they are.

---

Lol, no they are not. If you are so clueless on this matter (especially even after I showed a clear example), you should not do science, honestly.