It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You know science has to take an issue and experiment on that issue,
the results then have to be quantified and clarified.
The experiment must be repeatable observable and testable.
Outside of that and you have a lame assumption at its very best
originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: borntowatch
You know science has to take an issue and experiment on that issue,
Right, and the "issue" of evolution -- what someone who actually understood the first thing about science would call a "phenomenon" -- is the heritability of traits. The Lenski experiment, which has been explained to you ad nauseum in this thread, was conducted to further our understanding of a few different facets of evolution: how the rate of evolution varies over time, how repeatable are evolutionary changes in populations that are kept separate but exposed to the same conditions, and the relationship between evolution at the phenotypic and genomic levels.
the results then have to be quantified and clarified.
Which the Lenski experiment did. But you can't be bothered to read about the experiment or the results. And, just so we are completely clear, the Lenski experiment isn't even remotely the only experiment carried out in the field of evolutionary biology. Thousands upon thousands of papers are published each year in the field.
The experiment must be repeatable observable and testable.
You're conflating the phenomenon being studied by an experiment and the experiment itself. The experiment, and the phenomenon being observed during the experiment, must both be reproducible. Interestingly, the Lenski experiment was designed to show whether or not evolution was reproducible. If you could be bothered to read the results, you'd see that it was. Unequivocally. The phenomenon must be observable, which evolution is. And the hypothesis must be testable, which it obviously is. You continue to spout this misconception as if it's truth, even though it's been show to you that you're completely wrong in your understanding of the nature of science in general and evolutionary biology is particular. But you can't be bothered to read anything that might conflict with your religious faith, so you wouldn't know that.
Outside of that and you have a lame assumption at its very best
The only lame assumptions here are from the person who doesn't understand and refuses to try and educate themselves at the risk of their religious beliefs.
originally posted by: flyingfish
Sick I know, but entertaining none the less watching them squirm, lie and cheat.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: borntowatch
Once again, you did not read the definition of speciation. Why don't you write a letter to authors and tell them that they're wrong. They'll come back at you with the same question that everyone has been asking you: where's your evidence that it's NOT speciation.
And please don't link to irrelevant articles. I don't accept links. Only your direct, scientific, observational evidence
originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: borntowatch
You see evolution as a religion, just like all other religions. Baseless in their assertions, it would seem, since there's "no evidence" for the foundation of their beliefs, is that right? This only makes you guilty of the very same things you are accusing others of. Although something tells me you don't really care what others think.
If you are a Christian, as you claim, then wouldn't you believe that your god was at the beginning, and set all the laws of the universe in motion? Would this not include evolution to some extent?
There's no debate here. Your beef is not with evolution, it's with the people who attack you for what you believe in. Disproving evolution (good luck with that) is misguided, and will not in any way validate your belief system. Nor does the existence of evolution necessarily invalidate them either. The two have nothing to do with each other. You do see that, right?
Is it just me or is the second sentence explaining why there is no evidence, while we supposedly have evidence?
originally posted by: Answer
There are mountains of evidence to support speciation.
You can't watch it happen in a lab because it takes a very long time.
originally posted by: vasaga
Is it just me or is the second sentence explaining why there is no evidence, while we supposedly have evidence?
originally posted by: Answer
There are mountains of evidence to support speciation.
You can't watch it happen in a lab because it takes a very long time.
originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I honestly think borntowatch is just playing with you guys.
He knows there are many of you who will respond regardless,
Not for his sake so much as the sake of lurkers and whatnot.
He obviously just wants to keep you busy repeating things.
At this point, over the past months, in this thread and others,
Introductory books on evolution have been written, and rewritten.
The guy has got to be a troll to repeatedly ask the same things,
And continuously ignore, ignore, ignore..
He don't need no education, he don't need no thought control.
Unless he can start providing some counter arguments for his stance,
E.g. Give some evidence for faulty dating methods.
E.g. Provide some reason macro and micro are not the same.
Someone should alert the mods.. Just my humble opinion.
What is the evidence then (or mountains of evidence as you call it), if we can not watch the process happen in real time? Honest question.
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: vasaga
Is it just me or is the second sentence explaining why there is no evidence, while we supposedly have evidence?
originally posted by: Answer
There are mountains of evidence to support speciation.
You can't watch it happen in a lab because it takes a very long time.
You mistake "evidence" with "watching a process happen in real time."
originally posted by: vasaga
What is the evidence then (or mountains of evidence as you call it), if we can not watch the process happen in real time? Honest question.
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: vasaga
Is it just me or is the second sentence explaining why there is no evidence, while we supposedly have evidence?
originally posted by: Answer
There are mountains of evidence to support speciation.
You can't watch it happen in a lab because it takes a very long time.
You mistake "evidence" with "watching a process happen in real time."
originally posted by: vasaga
What is the evidence then (or mountains of evidence as you call it), if we can not watch the process happen in real time? Honest question.
originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: Answer
I'm just hoping he brings up target food so this will all make more sense.