Evolution, not a fact??????

Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Your inability to comprehend the scientific method is attributable to stubborness. ”

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena
I understand the scientific method, what I don’t understand is why macroevol is a scientific FACT. Why don’t you explain it?

The scientific method, as Renrue has pointed out, and as you are perfectly well aware , involves building upon prior work. To demonstrate macro-evolution, from scratch, as you are demanding is a lifetimes work, or more. The power of the scientific method is that this work can be distributed amongst many individuals.

It is a clear indication of your abundant intellectual dishonesty that you set as your repeated request that we not use such prior work to support our proofs.

As I have observed before, such behaviour marks you as a snivelling, cowardly, vile excuse for a human. Clear evidence that not all have completed the evolutionary step from beast to woman. Go fuck yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is a scientific fact because the scientific community, using the scientific method, have deemed it so, based on all the evidence that exists to date - and the simple matter that evolution FITS EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF DATA.

Now you could argue it is not an OBJECTIVE fact - that is up to you - and it is doubtful whether any fact can be proven to be an OBJECTIVE fact - i.e. proven to hold true in every area of space-time.
But evolution IS a scientific fact.

To explain to you how scientists have reached the conclusion would take an explanation of every single piece of evidence, and how it does fit.

There are holes, massive ones, in the various THEORIES of evolution. Again, probably not disputed by anyone here.

But there are no holes in evolution itself.
As soon as someone comes up with a "hole", a piece of evidence that doesn't fit - then the scientific fact of evolution will be no more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not asking you to demonstrate it, I am asking why it is a scientific fact.
It is being taught as such, so people have a right to ask why.

So it is a scientific fact, but we shouldn't ask why, we should just accept it on blind faith?

You are pathetic Ophiolite.

LOL!!!
Carry on, you're just making yourself look worse with each post.

Jan.

 

So it should be accepted without question?

What does that mean exactly?

Well it most certainly is not an objective fact (from my POV), but I disagree with your doubt, as I do believe, like you, that evolution is a scientific fact, an objective scientific fact. The idea of macroevol, to me, does not reprisent "evolution", which is why I am enquiring.

Then explain how you have come to the conclusion that it is a scientific fact.

When you say "evolution" do you mean "micro", "macro" or both?
I would apreciate the distinction.

Why is macroevol, presently, a scientific fact?

Jan.

 

It is a scientific fact because it has been demonstrated by the scientific method.

No, you cretin, you should accept it because it has been established by rigorous observation, testing and validation, via the scientific method on repeated occasions. If you choose to reject it you should do so because you can offer clear, substantive evidence that clearly contradicts the prior evidence, as per the scientific method.

From you that is a badge of honour. All I ask is that you never praise me.

I am not embarassed to berate you with crudities. Your singleminded obstinancy and obtuseness are vastly more rude, offensive and inconsiderate than any obsecenity of mine could be.

 

Jan,
I would encourage you to respond to my post, if you do respond, in a direct fashion. Should you choose to use the shamefull evasive style you have employed in replying to Sarkus you will have the singular honour of having instituted my banning from these forums.
Your secret admirer,
Ophiolite

Edit: It is very clear that God is not seated in your heart Jan. The occupant has much more the look of Satan to my eye.

 

No - it should be accepted for what it is - something that the scientific community have determined to fit all the known data that, until something comes along to discredit it, it should be classed as a scientific fact.

It means that for every piece of evidence ever presented has fitted with evolution (the fact of evolution, not the theory of evolution).

Okay - great - but the "objectivity of a fact" is another discussion entirely and depends how anal someone wants to be.

Macroevol doesn't "represent" evolution - it is merely what some people use to differentiate the sub and super-species changes.

Because the scientific community have said so, and are able to support their claims with the detailed experiments that follow the scientific method of examination.

Is your issue one of people "believing" something without observing it first hand?

There is only evolution.
Micro- / macro- are both parts of the same thing.

Because it is the same fact that is being called microevolution.

There is no distinction in the fact - only in the theories behind the fact.

 

Jan:

*sighs* I see that Jan is still selling his snake oil, and ignoring any evidence which blows his assertions right out of the water. Have you read that thread I linked you to many pages back, Jan? Or are you still 'too arsed to read it'? It wouldn't surprise me, since you're obviously too arsed to read the many excellent explainations and responses which have been submitted in response to your childish questions.

That's rich, coming from someone who can't even comprehend the basics of evolution and the scientific method.

Go back to selling used cars, Jan. You've worn out any credibility you may have initially had on this thread. Time and time again you pop up like some sort of gram positive bacteria, spewing your ignorance on this forum, and then run away whenever someone points out your gross inaccuracies. When the dust has settled, you pop up yet again to sell the same old party line.

 

Ophiolite,

And you say I'm being evasive.

Blind faith and this so called rigorous observation amounts to the same thing.

Reject what?
Ideas?
Ideas can be rejected.

You're completely out of order, whereas all i have done is ask questions regarding macroevol, namely "how do you know there is a common ancestor?" and "what is the scientific evidence that makes macroevol a scientific fact?"
As far as I can tell they are fair questions, and the fact that I am not convinced by the evidence presented on talk origins, should not pose a problem to you if you are confident of your position.

As far as I can tell, that is exactly what I have done, but to be fair, I posed the question first, plus also, the thread (in a round-about way) questions the credibility of the theory of evolution.

That is a stupid accusation, please point out where I have employed an evasive tactic with Sarkus. I am, in all seriousness and sincerity, unconvinced about the subject matter, and seek to understand why it is taught as a scientific fact in every medium, without question.
It seems it is you and others who shamefully evade my enquiries with childish, insulting remarks, and fobbing me off with lame and empty rhetoric.
And accusing me of being insincere.

I doubt very much that you will be banned as it is known that I am a theist, so you can pretty much say what you like, I'm sure.
However, I am not affected by your savage remarks as I have come to understand how it works, and why it works the way it does. I am also confident of my position, as I know my enquiries are sincere, and do not deserve such responses.
If I am wrong, and the mods decide to ban you, then I ask you to please stop your behaviour, as I would like you to answer my questions, probably more than anyone else.

You misunderstand. That text has nothing to do with belief, neither is it bathed in sentiment, but I won't go further into it unless you want to.

Jan.

 

Sarkus,

Macroevol refers to changes in body type or function (eg new organs or extreme physiological changes), creating new populations, to be clear.

Based on the clear definition of macroevol, can you cite any of the detailed experiments that makes it a scientific fact.

My enquirey is "why is macroevol a scientific fact?"

Then please explain how it is known (scientifically) that we (humans) evolved from a common ancestor.

This is not entirely true, microevol is the shifting of gene frequencies in a local population which does not only depend on mutation or natural selection, wheras macroevol (ultimately) is classed as the changing of bodies (putting it bluntely).

Which is my point, why is macroevol a scientific fact?

JAN.

 

Jan

So it is a scientific fact, but we shouldn't ask why, we should just accept it on blind faith?

If you understand the scientific method as you claim you do, then you wouldn't be asking that question. Obviously, you do not understand it.

 

If you understand the scientific method as you appear to do, by your response, then you wouldn't claim that I "obviously" don't understand the scientific method, by asking that question.
Obviously you cannot answer the question "why is macroevol a scientific fact".

Jan.

 

Jan:

And Jan continues to stick and fingers in her ears and shout 'LA LA LA!!!'.

 

Have we heard Jan's theory of how life and species came to be?

 

Kenny:

GODDIDIT!

 

Even if God did it, then evolution is 'his' way. I don't see a conflict. Perhaps Jan just likes the mystery, but I still haven't heard how he/she thinks how life and the species came to be, and what his/her evidence is for thinking this...

 

I think the best idea, (which has probably been stated some dozen times), is that Jan explains exactly what he finds conflict with. Many of us have provided links with the information he wants in detail, and even though he claims to have read it all, has not mentioned any specific grievances. That would certainly help this go smoother, but he seems unwilling to do so. The information you require is all there Jan, you just need to make the effort.

 

What causes things to evolve?