Evolution, not a fact??????

No you dont.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. The answers are contained within those pages, you disagree with something contained therein for some bizarre reason. For me to be able to explain it further, you need to state exactly what it is you disagree with and why.

You would like me to retype that entire collection of pages in full for you here?

I understand perfectly.

1) You ask for the evidence

2) It is provided

3) You say it's not good enough, and ask for the evidence

4) It is provided

5) You say you don't believe it, without being able to give any details over what it is you have issue with

6) ZzZzZz

Go through the links and point out what you have specific problems with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SnakeLord,

Try and get it into your head.
You believe the answers are contained within those pages…… I don’t.
The fact that I don’t believe may seem bizarre to you, but that does not mean the answers are actually contained within those pages.

I’m not asking you to FURTHER explain anything, I’m asking you to explain why macroevol is a scientific fact.
Can you understand that?
You believe it, explain it………. I don’t believe it, so I’m asking you to explain it.

Did you not understand my question?
Please read it again.

I don’t think you do otherwise you wouldn’t keep foisting those links on me especially when;

a) I told you that I have read them, and still fail to answer my enquiries.
b) I am asking YOU to explain why you accept macroevol as scientific fact,
not; are there any links which support the conclusion

I’ve already stated that I fail to see the scientific evidence which regards macroevol as a scientific fact, which is why I’m asking you to explain why you accept it. You seem reluctant and/or afraid to offer an explanation. Why is that?
Why don’t you just explain what you see?
Please answer those two questions as they are extremely important.

Where did I say it is not good enough?
I said I am not convinced of the so-called evidence.
I understand the explanations (homology, genetic mutation, natural selection..), or maybe I don’t, but I fail to see how it is classed as a scientific fact.
Do you understand my point?
So to provide me with material which I have already read, does not satisfy my enquiry, which is why I am asking for someone to explain to me the nitty-gritty.

I don’t have any issue with any particular detail, having read through many documents (including those), I fail to see how, with the available facts, macroevol can be considered a scientific fact, its that simple.
It appears to me that you and others see it as obvious, so I am asking you to explain why it is so obvious.
In short, there is no single, isolated issue, it is the overall conclusion which appears to be a forgone conclusion, that I don’t get.

You do seem a bit groggy. :m:

You keep insisting I have a problem, okay.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My problem is; why is macroevol classed as a scientific fact, as I can find no explanation in any of the links you have provided, or any of the books, links, formal-debates, that I have (which includes the ones you provided)?

I cannot simplify it anymore.
Do you think you can explain it to me?

Thanks
Jan Ardena.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's a thread just for you Jan. Go read that thread.

 

Ok...

Let's ammend that to say that I consider the information on those pages to be accurate as does all of science. Little old you doesn't.

Try and get this into your head:

You need to point out specific grievances with the information contained in those pages, what you disagree with and why you disagree with it. Don't think that your personal disagreement with something you probably haven't read and don't understand has any meaning to anything unless you are willing to state what your specific problem is. You can disagree with all of science - that is your right, but if you expect anyone to pay attention, you need to say why.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Funnily enough, I explained it 10 pages ago. I follow the evidence - nothing more. I have already pointed out to you that speciation is macroevolution, (whether you personally want it to be or not), and - as it has been observed, macroevolution is a 'scientific' fact. That is keeping it basic of course, but answers your question adequately.

Ok, so you fail.. That does not change things.

You seem reluctant to read even though I offered an explanation some 10 pages ago.

All over this thread. The whole "bullshite jargon", to name but one instance.

No, you do.. You keep telling me how you 'fail', how explanations are just "bullshite jargon", etc and 16 pages of repeating the same questions over and over while ignoring the answers you are given and avoiding to answer any questions posed to you. That indicates a problem.

See?

 

Why is there no option for His Noodly Appendage? It was the Flying Spaghetti Monster who begot us all!

http://www.venganza.org/

"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

AAAAAARRRRRR! Set sails to plunder and save the planet from global meltdown!

 

SnakeLord,

Whether you consider or believe it makes no difference, and your assumption that the whole of the scientific community considers or believes macroevol to be a scientific fact is incorrect.

I've already explained this.

Why do you think I haven't read it?

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).

"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved."—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks of Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

Thanks, but I have already read these links.

Funnily enough I am asking you to explain that evidence, as I don't see it.

Macrovevol implies that species change from one organism to another, with an increase of new genetic material. Experiments and selection have only yielded genetic variation (e.g. fruitflies/peppered moths), which come under microevol. Why/how do you come to the conclusion of macroevol?

It explains mircroevol, not macro.

I have read the threads, that you don't believe me shouldn't prevent you from answering my question unless your accusations are just a avoidance tactic.

That was directed to mountainhare's thread which started with the insult "creationuts....".

I don't recall uttering "bullshite jargon" to you or your posted links.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jan.

 

Of course it doesn't.

Whole of science meaning the different fields of science that compliment each others findings.

By the attitude you portray.

Just a shame it's nearly two decades old. That's a long time when it comes to science.

Just a shame it's thirty five years old. That's a long time when it comes to science.

Just a shame it's twenty six years old. That's a long time when it comes to science.

A question I asked some 10 pages ago that still requires an answer: Did you understand everything presented?

Funnily enough I tried. For several pages in fact, I tried to get you to answer one simple question to aid the process. You still haven't answered it. Of course if it's evidence you're after, try: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Try again.

Wrong. Perhaps the way you consider it, but wrong nonetheless.

 

SnakeLord,

Please elaborate.

Which is?

Can you cite any new development which shows the mechanics of macroevol since the time of this quote?

But not when it come to the theory of evolution.

Same as above.

Maybe, maybe not, this is part of the reason for my enquiry.

I have tried but am unsucsessful, which is why I have put the question to you. Do you think you can answer why macroevol is classed as a scientific fact, something which is known to occur?
I imagine you must have some idea, otherwise you wouldn't accept it as such.

That is my understanding, which is documented on the talkorigins cite, the one you accuse me of not reading. Perhaps you can stop avoiding my question now, and correct it, as by your response it appears that I am wrong.

LOL!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I eagerly await the right understanding in your next post.

Thanks
Jan.

 

Wow, typical. When a Creationut lacks an argument, they go and cut and paste a few out of context quotes from scientists. In these supposed quotes, evolutionists are publically claimed that no evidence supports evolution. Zounds, how believable! As if a few quotes from a few scientists somehow invalidates the mountains of evidence which demonstrate that evolution has, is, and continues to occur.

Oh, and Jan. Please tell me exactly what credentials did Lipson have? Did he have any credentials in the life sciences. Or was he a PHYSICIST, you NITWIT!? You're so desperate for an argument, that you're quote mining a physicist in the pretense that he is an authority in the life sciences. While I'm at it, I might quote a chef as an authority regarding global warming.

Once again, Jan displays her dishonesty for all to see. Bloody pathetic.

 

James R:

But then the Creationist dipshits shift the goalposts, quibbling over whether the speciation which we have observed is a 'large enough change' to be labelled as macroevolution. They won't be satisified until they see a rat give birth to a dog.

 

Just an observation, Jan, but we're not discussing the THEORY of evolution - but the FACT that is evolution.

The various THEORIES of evolution are NOT CONSIDERED SCIENTIFIC FACT.


But EVOLUTION is a FACT.
AND there are also numerous THEORIES of evolution.


Likewise Gravity is a FACT. (It is also a LAW.)
There are also numerous theories of gravity - which are not fact but try to describe the mechanics of gravity.


So, Jan, until you stop going on about the THEORIES of EVOLUTION and try and understand the difference, this debate is going to keep going round in the same circles that is has done almost since it began.

 

James R,

Can you cite evidence which shows that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen?

Unless you can answer the above question, the distinction needs to be made, otherwise both statements are purely subjective.

What has been observed is microevol the shifting of gene frequencies in a local population, or in other words genetic variation. Macro speciation requires
changes in body type or function new organs and/or physiological changes.
This has not been observed, and to infer that this process occurrs does not make it a scientific fact unless you change the meaning of "scientific fact".




Sarkus,

What do you regard as theory of evolution, and what do you regard as fact of evolution?

Such as?

Micro =FACT
Macro =THEORY

Does that clear things up for you?

Jan.

 

Jan:

Can you cite evidence that an increase in both 'quality and quantity 'of genetic information is needed for macroevolution? Oh, and why don't you give an example of what an increase in 'quality and quantity' of genetic information actually is, since those terms aren't actually ever used by scientists. They are vague terms used by Creationists, in an aim to bamboozle and shift the goalposts. Please clarify (something which you have failed to do in your 1+ years on sciforums).

And why can't enough 'shifts' cause evolutionary change? And have you ever heard of mutation? Or gene duplication? Or chromosomal duplication? In fact, have you ever even read a book on genetics which wasn't written by a Creationut?

*Edited* I deleted the rest of my post. I will go no further until Jan answers the above questions adequately.

 

I repeat my previous observation:
Jan is either monumentally stupid, or intellectually dishonest to an exceptional degree.
It just occured to me that she could actually be both.

 

To prove whether the complete theory of evolution is true someone needs to create life from inert elements. This would prove that life can proceed forth without a supernatural power.

Better yet, someone can take a corpse that's a couple of days old and bring it to life -- perhaps this would make the job a little easier. The Bible matches this feat with the claim that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. But then again Jesus is also claimed to be God Himself in the Bible.

With the theory of evolution, what useful purpose is served by the aging process? All organisms age but they don't necessarily die of old age. Why do some people consider "aging" an evolutionary necessity?

Has any species ever died out because its life span was too long?

 

Just what does it take to educate people like yourself?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Once again, the fact of evolution has bugger all to do with the orgin of life.
The theories of evolution have bugger all to do with the origin of life.
God may have fabricated the first living cells by divine hand and it would have bugger all to do with the fact of evolution or the theories put forward to account for that fact.
What is it about this you fail to understand?

Again, this would have bugger all to do with evolution. What is it in your mind set, intellect or education that prevents you from understanding the irrelevance of the example you have posited?

Simple. If organisms do not die, then their species cannot adapt genetically to their environment. It cannot evolve. A species that does die at a suitable rate will become fitter for the environment than the one that does not die off. Then those poor bastards will die off, because they have been out competed.
Let us know which other fundamental aspects of evolutionary theory you are completely ignorant about and we shall seek to educate you.

 

Ophio,

I see I have hit an emotional chord with you. I don't know what "bugger all" means, so it would help me understand if you used plain english to explain things.

You said:

"God may have fabricated the first living cells by divine hand and it would have bugger all to do with the fact of evolution or the theories put forward to account for that fact."

Woody says: I looked at the evolution poll and you said evolution is the only answer to the origin of life. I don't think you have changed your mind, so your answer appears to be ambiguous.

You said:

"A species that does die at a suitable rate will become fitter for the environment than the one that does not die off."


Woody says:

I tried to help you avoid this trap by my original statement and the caveats, but it appears you chose to fall in it anyway. You say aging and death are a neccessity for evolutionary theory to work. So if a species evolves to have an immunity to all diseases, or evolves to be less likely to die from an accident or predatory attack, this species has become "too fit." Too fit for what, survival? You can't have it both ways.

I also asked for an example and you gave none.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!