So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

originally posted by: testingtesting
People don't bother he is a self confessed troll.
A few of us are attempting to find his admission as we speak.

He's not a troll!

There's plenty of names he's worthy of but troll isn't one of them.

I would call him stubborn and ignorant, but he'd say the same back and be right.

All the changes happened when no one was looking.

oopsy

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

He wants someone to spell it out for him...

This fish turned into a pig... Type thing

Yet he also knows thats not how it works, which is his troll... Expecting something that he knows isn't going to happen

Then the typical response... Why do you hate science

This shtick is old

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here is a peer reviewed journal specifically on evolution that is published monthly..

Test the whole journal is devoted to evolutionary science..

So you can just scroll down the list..

phys.org...

No thanks Josh, I asked for "A" peer reviewed article, I can respond to only one at a time, not a list, common sense buddy
Concerntrate on the op question

If I am going to do this, it has to be done on here in front of everyone

You scared to post an article on its own, or just cant find one relevant on your own

So people are providing you with links to what you claim to be looking for but then refuse to read anything?
Poor form, you're just being a trolling wanker

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I will find his confession after work.

Would love for the OP telling us his idea on how we all got here with empirical evidence of course.

And here he does again (rolling eyes just fell out of my evolutionary head)

a reply to: weirdguy

Man,I should send you a bottle of jacks best #7 blend

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

He wants someone to spell it out for him...

This fish turned into a pig... Type thing

Yet he also knows thats not how it works, which is his troll... Expecting something that he knows isn't going to happen

Then the typical response... Why do you hate science

This shtick is old

I agree, but he wouldn't be asking questions if there wasn't doubt there.

Raggedyman is always honest. I believe he's wrong, mislead etc. etc.
Always honest tho.

And for that reason alone he should be respected even tho I think his views are foolish.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I would consider telling actual scientists that they hate science ignorant and dishonest

Especially since he barely knows what the word means

But this is not the topic of the thread... We should not be talking about the member...

Only the topic of the thread... No matter how redundant it may be

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Try THIS site for a list of what some of the known evidences are and use that to go and find the peer reviews.

Thank you

You're very welcome.

originally posted by: weirdguy

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

Here is a peer reviewed journal specifically on evolution that is published monthly..

Test the whole journal is devoted to evolutionary science..

So you can just scroll down the list..

phys.org...

No thanks Josh, I asked for "A" peer reviewed article, I can respond to only one at a time, not a list, common sense buddy
Concerntrate on the op question

If I am going to do this, it has to be done on here in front of everyone

You scared to post an article on its own, or just cant find one relevant on your own

So people are providing you with links to what you claim to be looking for but then refuse to read anything?
Poor form, you're just being a trolling wanker

Raggedy's request was clear and simple.

It should be simple for someone to raise a single reference to a peer reviewed paper that unequivocally evidences macro-evolution such as a species transition.

If no such paper can be referenced there must be a valid reason.

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Try THIS site for a list of what some of the known evidences are and use that to go and find the peer reviews.

Thank you

You're very welcome.

The points raised in evidence of evolution on that site can also be explained by other things, even in combination.

It also seems somewhat convoluted to take points from a website and then look for scholarly papers that relate to the topics.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The points raised in evidence of evolution on that site can also be explained by other things, even in combination.

If you want to be stubborn, then sure. You could take any point and argue it's all from God or some other non-real entity.

The point that website makes, which, given its reputation and credentials I put far above about 99% of anyone on this place, is there IS evidence for the points it makes. Actual evidence. And as I suggested, if you didn't want to believe was just 'posted' there, you could investigate those points independently. The site was great because it gave facts and listed some of the more prominent points of evolutionary fact into a single place.

It also seems somewhat convoluted to take points from a website and then look for scholarly papers that relate to the topics.

Sorry if it was confusing and complicated to understand. I never meant to cause you such kerfuffle.

FYI - you know that when people say 'theory' in science, it doesn't mean conjecture or 'what-if'. It's a verifiable, substantiated explanation based on facts. Facts that have been observed multiple times, repeatedly. Basically, it isn't guess work. It's real.

a reply to: Raggedyman

yes - i did read the OP

and i actually understood the depths of its dishonesty

i asked the question i did - for a reason - and HOPED you would have the decency to actually answer it

but as you didnt .....................

my assertion :

this thread is a dishonest trolling exercise for " reasons "

the evidence for this - is the OP :

Simply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact

why would any peer review state that ANYTHING is a " proven fact "

in the real world only papers on mathematics and philosophy offer any stamement that " x is proof of y "

real science - does not make claims of proof

if any one wishes to reffute this - then the counter challege is simple :

locate a peer review paper that claims " < evidence > is proof of < claim > "

as ^ mathematics and philosophy journals are not permited

i contend that the OP knows this - and thus the thread

EDIT - to get a sentence correct

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
my assertion :

this thread is a dishonest trolling exercise for " reasons "

the evidence for this - is the OP :

Simply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact

why would any peer review state that ANYTHING is a " proven fact "

in the real world only papers on mathematics and philosophy offer any stamement that " x is proof of y "

real science - does not make claims of proof

if any one wishes to reffute this - then the counter challege is simple :

locate a peer review paper that claims " < premise > is proof of < claim > "

as ^ mathematics and philosophy journals are not permited

i contend that the OP knows this - and thus the thread

No it's not trolling or dishonest, it's a question asking for answers
Isn't that what the scientific method is all about
Ask a question, find answers

I can't understand why people here don't understand science, why they hate science

I ask a question and look at the hate, anger and fear it generates
That indicates something to me

If someone questions my beliefs, cool, I can live with it, live with them.
Many of you, can't, you are acting like fundamentalist religious nut jobs

Have a look at yourselves, seriously, a good long hard look at yourselves
You want to control me
Normal people don't act this way

a reply to: Raggedyman

The short answer to the question in your OP is: No.

The reason it is "No" is because Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It's a theory because of how the scientific method works.

Ask a Question.
Do Background Research.
Construct a Hypothesis.
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment.
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
Communicate Your Results.

The above is the steps in the scientific method. Here's an example of how it makes something a "fact":

"How fast is the speed of light?" - The question.

Look for any evidence that it's been measured before. Observe the evidence that may suggest an answer to that question. - this is part of the Research.

Based upon the research, it appears that light travels very, very fast. Studies suggest it goes somewhere between 100,000 miles per second to 200,000 miles per second - This is the Hypothesis.

It's at that point a scientist could publish that Hypothesis, so that other scientist can try testing it.

The same or other scientist conduct experiments to try and measure the speed of light - The experiments.

They take a look at their data and find that it always measures 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum - Reviewing and analyzing the data.

They then publish their results.

But it doesn't stop there: other scientist read those results and do the same experiments themselves, to see if they get the same results. If the experiments always produce the same results, then at that point scientist consider the answers as an actual "fact"

Yes, but what about theories?

Giant Impact Theory - the theory that our Moon was created by a giant impact with a Mars sized planet back at the beginning of our solar system.

The same scientific method was followed......and the evidence that supports is very good and accepted by most scientist. However, unless we invent a time machine to go back in time and actually document the event (or lack of) there is no way to prove that it's a "fact", there for it stays a theory.

That does not make it wrong or right. It simply means that there is evidence to support the hypothesis, and that most scientist accept that this is what most likely happened, because other theories either just don't seem to work, or the existing evidence is either not enough, or doesn't support other theories.

Evolution is the same thing: it's a theory with a lot of supporting evidence. But unless you have a time machine so you can go back and look, document, take blood samples and other biological samples, or better yet: live samples of those living things, it will remain a theory, that has a lot of supporting evidence for it and that most scientist accept as how things happened.

Any scientist publishing a paper and claiming evolution as a "fact" is not going to have a very good career after that, mainly because it shows they are not using the scientific method correctly.



Does the lack of any published papers or scientific journal specifically saying evolution is a "fact" prove that it's wrong?

Absolutely not. It simply means that we don't have a way to prove it as a "fact". But we do have overwhelming evidence that the theory is correct.

If scientist did not work this way, then you'd never have the device you are using right now to read this post, or make your own (how sub atomic particles work within semi conductors, etc, etc).

No scientist could prove that atoms existed and that if you split one it would generate a very large amount of energy and have a chain reaction. It was all theory.......right up until the first atomic bomb was detonated.

Scientist work with both "facts" and theories. Theories can change, some can fall out of acceptance because better theories come about that have much more supporting evidence.

That's how science works.

So no: you will not find any peer reviewed journal that states evolution is a "fact" that is accepted by scientist. Because it's a theory.

But that does not make it wrong either.

originally posted by: ziggypogo
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well, you are asking the wrong questions. Your request for definitive proof hinders your ability to enter the scientific realm. Proof only occurs in geometry and law...and maybe pudding.

Why does it appear a system is in place that wants to evolve things for a reason?

The constant claim that from necessity changes are made claims an intelligent response.