Can you prove evolution wrong

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Depends on what your referring to. If its just speciation according to the details presented on wiki, then ya, I agree. Anything else is speculation.

I already said what I'm referring to. The process of evolution. It's proven. End of story.

Only problem is we don't have any documentation telling us that the puff marsh mellow man did it. On the other hand there is a book with documentation telling us a creator did it.

There is also documentation saying the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. That doesn't make it true.

Yes it does!

All hail to His Noddly Appendage.

Long live the pastafari

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Google human mutation rates. I'm not posting any sources for you as I already posted that a hundred pages back and was ignored, and you refuse to show me the same courtesy.

Ok done, just like last time, but how does this prove evolution.

Depends what you mean by done.

Thats not true at all, there is no way to verify that it is evolution causing it.

Evolution is just the name we give to genetic mutation. Just like my rain example. When water evaporates enough it builds up and eventually falls back down to earth in water droplets. This is called rain. Similarly genetic mutations are what the word evolution means. Simple as.

"Ok so water falls to the earth, but how can you prove that it's rain causing it?"

Then we should be able to verify them through fossils and we can't so now what.

Depends what you mean by "can't". If that means that 99% of all scientists agree that we can, then sure. We can't.

Originally posted by iterationzero
Are you really asking a person who has shown complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to look up scientific information on the internet, discern a credible source from one that's not, read past the first paragraph even though he admits that he gets bored when he has to read for too long so he likes teh yootoob videuhs instead, and then process that information via something approaching rational thought? May you be guided by the genius (not genus) of A Fish Called Wanda

At this point it's only about comedy to me. I'm curious how long he'll keep going and repeating the same doodoo and getting owned. How dedicated is he to this concept he knows nothing about?

reply to post by PurpleChiten


But Darwin was right, he only knew the very basics and had very limited understand of it back then. No, scientific theories are not possibilities. They are based facts like the modern theory of evolution. We are discussing the biological process and modern theory of evolution, not the layman's term which simply means "change". Of course everything changes. This thread has evolved slightly, but not much. Biological evolution is genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. We can prove this happens. It's just amusing arguing with guys like Tooth above, who are completely scientifically illiterate yet think they know more than a scientist about a field of science. I love it. Great way to start my day

reply to post by colin42


You know Colin I think the thing that your totally missing here is that I never denied we were once hunter gatherers. We had obviously adapted and needed food and found no other way to get it. This doesn't mean that hunting is the ideal mode, or I should say the intended mode to feed us.

If hunting was the intended mode we would have been born with crossbows afixed to our bodies when we were born. Just plain and simple. If we were suppose to shoot other animals for food, we would have been born with rifles afixed to our arms. But instead we adapted.

I sersiously think you need to take a look and get a good understanding of what it means to adapt and why...

a·dapt/əˈdapt/Verb: 1.Make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify.
2.Become adjusted to new conditions.
Synonyms: adjust - fit - accommodate - conform - suit

So as you can see when things are naturaly suitable, they can be modified to make them work. In other words we are changing things into something that wasn't meant to be to begin with. Probably the best word to help you understand this is that it's not natural.

If we had to build tools to hunt and gather, its not natural. The reason is simple we are not in our element. There is no food here that you can honestly say appears to be meant for us here. You never answerd my question about what if any target food we have, and its obvious why, there are none here. You thought you would be slick an try to thwart off the argument by claiming that you don't understand my definition of target food, but in reality, you were just stumped and you knew it.

As was the case with all of my questions. Even about coming up with any species that has a natural relationship with man, and the best you could do was give us the house sparrow. Only problem was he has a relationship with the house not with the people, so you failed again. As was also the case in sealed fish tanks. In trying to prove to you that everything is suppose to be in a balanced eco system, you had no other way to thwart off the conversation except to raise an argument that its inhumane what they are doing to the aquatic life in these tanks, as they appear to be forced into a shortened life span. Again, all just to curve the conversation into another direction because it was obvious that you had lost your credibility to my ideal questions.

You lost Colin.

You don't know how to debate, all you know how to do is change the subject and play stupid when you don't want to accept definitions.

reply to post by Barcs


Could you explain one thing to me. How is it that your telling me that evolution happens to slow to be witnessed in humans, yet your trying to tell me it has been observed in humans.

Which is it.

And how can it be observed if it happens to slow.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by iterationzero
Are you really asking a person who has shown complete lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking skills to look up scientific information on the internet, discern a credible source from one that's not, read past the first paragraph even though he admits that he gets bored when he has to read for too long so he likes teh yootoob videuhs instead, and then process that information via something approaching rational thought? May you be guided by the genius (not genus) of A Fish Called Wanda

At this point it's only about comedy to me. I'm curious how long he'll keep going and repeating the same doodoo and getting owned. How dedicated is he to this concept he knows nothing about?

I'm in the same boat, he has never been interested in data he simply is trying to come up with clever (in his mind) contradicting answers.
You say black he's going to say white no matter how black it is.
He's probably some 39 year old still living with mom thinking this is all just a game.
I guess we will still continue to entertain you- simply because it is funny to see what outrageous crap you can come up with.
Oh well... let the comedy continue

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Could you explain one thing to me. How is it that your telling me that evolution happens to slow to be witnessed in humans, yet your trying to tell me it has been observed in humans.

Which is it.

And how can it be observed if it happens to slow.

Perfect example.. complete idiocy...

Originally posted by Barcs


No, scientific theories are not possibilities. They are based facts like the modern theory of evolution.

No, a Theory is a possiblility that is accepted at the time. It is not absolute fact. There was once a theory that the earth was flat, that theory was proven wrong. There was once a theory that the universe was Geocentric, that theory was proven wrong. You're thinking of "Law", not "Theory".

You don't have to agree with other theories that are brought up, and you can put all your support into the one you like best and some theories are better than others, but they are still theories. They may even become "Laws" some day with enough proof, but for now, they're theories, that is, a set of possibilities supported by whatever data is pesented to support them but not proven beyond absolution.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

No, a Theory is a possiblility that is accepted at the time. It is not absolute fact. There was once a theory that the earth was flat, that theory was proven wrong. There was once a theory that the universe was Geocentric, that theory was proven wrong. You're thinking of "Law", not "Theory".

You don't have to agree with other theories that are brought up, and you can put all your support into the one you like best and some theories are better than others, but they are still theories. They may even become "Laws" some day with enough proof, but for now, they're theories, that is, a set of possibilities supported by whatever data is pesented to support them but not proven beyond absolution.

I have tried telling Barc as well as others on this thread the same thing and they just laugh at me.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

I don't think evolution is the problem, it's Darwin's Theory of Evolution that people have contention with.

I disagree. I see as many people denying that the phenomenon of evolution occurs, or that a limited form of it occurs, as disagree with the overarching scientific theory.

Evolution means change and we all know that changes take place, there are just some that don't believe it happens to the extent that Darwin claimed way back then.

Can you explain what you mean by "to the extent that Darwin claimed way back then"?

He even took issue with it himself before he died.

False. The "Darwin recanted on his death bed" tale is a fraud spun out of whole cloth. The woman who he purportedly recanted to, Lady Hope, wasn't even there. Even Answers in Genesis admits that the story is completely untenable and most likely false.

Theories aren't facts, their just possibilities and they stand until a better possibility is thought of.

I think you're using semantics to downplay the importance of a scientific theory. It's an explanatory framework used to tie together all of the facts relevant to a particular phenomenon. Saying that it's "just a possibility" is like the old creationist chestnut of "it's just a theory".

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

No, a Theory is a possiblility that is accepted at the time. It is not absolute fact. There was once a theory that the earth was flat, that theory was proven wrong. There was once a theory that the universe was Geocentric, that theory was proven wrong. You're thinking of "Law", not "Theory".

You don't have to agree with other theories that are brought up, and you can put all your support into the one you like best and some theories are better than others, but they are still theories. They may even become "Laws" some day with enough proof, but for now, they're theories, that is, a set of possibilities supported by whatever data is pesented to support them but not proven beyond absolution.

I have tried telling Barc as well as others on this thread the same thing and they just laugh at me.

At least we can take a little comfort in knowing we aren't the only ones I guess.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

I don't think evolution is the problem, it's Darwin's Theory of Evolution that people have contention with.

I disagree. I see as many people denying that the phenomenon of evolution occurs, or that a limited form of it occurs, as disagree with the overarching scientific theory.

Evolution means change and we all know that changes take place, there are just some that don't believe it happens to the extent that Darwin claimed way back then.

Can you explain what you mean by "to the extent that Darwin claimed way back then"?

He even took issue with it himself before he died.

False. The "Darwin recanted on his death bed" tale is a fraud spun out of whole cloth. The woman who he purportedly recanted to, Lady Hope, wasn't even there. Even Answers in Genesis admits that the story is completely untenable and most likely false.

Theories aren't facts, their just possibilities and they stand until a better possibility is thought of.

I think you're using semantics to downplay the importance of a scientific theory. It's an explanatory framework used to tie together all of the facts relevant to a particular phenomenon. Saying that it's "just a possibility" is like the old creationist chestnut of "it's just a theory".

You can disagree as much as you want, but the fact still stands that those who favor creationism over Darwin's theory of evolution think of Darwin every time they hear the word "evolution" and until that changes, their minds will be automatically shut down every time the word is uttered.
Your last line there shows exactly what I was saying and exactly what you were claiming to refute. A theory is a possibility. Some are more likely than others, some more grounded than others, some actually become Scientific Law when adequate proof is given as opposed to data to support. There's a big difference in support and proof. A theory is just a possibility regardless of probability. You may not like it, but that's what it is.

reply to post by PurpleChiten

No, a Theory is a possiblility that is accepted at the time. It is not absolute fact. There was once a theory that the earth was flat, that theory was proven wrong. There was once a theory that the universe was Geocentric, that theory was proven wrong. You're thinking of "Law", not "Theory".

True. Scientific theories are superseded when they are tested and shown to be unreconcilably wrong. However, this has yet to happen to modern evolutionary synthesis.

You don't have to agree with other theories that are brought up, and you can put all your support into the one you like best and some theories are better than others, but they are still theories.

True. And no other theory attempting to explain biodiversity has the weight of evidence that evolution does by a wide margin. I'd argue that no other theory of biodiversity has any unequivocal evidence to date supporting it.

They may even become "Laws" some day with enough proof, but for now, they're theories, that is, a set of possibilities supported by whatever data is pesented to support them but not proven beyond absolution.

False. No offense, but this displays a clear misunderstanding of the words theory and law in a scientific context. Theories never become laws. They are two completely different types of knowledge -- laws are descriptive, theories are explanatory. To get away from just using evolution as an example, take gravity -- the law of gravity describes the relationship between the attraction between objects based on their mass, the theory of gravity seeks to explain why this is the case.

Just so I can make both extremes upset with me for not adhering to their ideas...
Did you know there were TWO creation stories in Genesis? Yup, two of them that are different and contradict one another. That's because the folks that put the book together couldn't decide between the two since both had a great number of followers. So, they combined them and put one in chapter 1 and the other in chapter 2 and sewed them together into a nice transition to make people think they were still reading the same story.
Here's a nice, unbiased place to start if you want to know more about it. I'm not so wrapped up in either of them (creationism or Darwin's theory) that I'm going to expend the effort to do all the research and try to convince people either way, but would like to provide the starting point for those who do have a strong interest in either theory.
www.bing.com...

reply to post by PurpleChiten

You can disagree as much as you want, but the fact still stands that those who favor creationism over Darwin's theory of evolution think of Darwin every time they hear the word "evolution" and until that changes, their minds will be automatically shut down every time the word is uttered.

I think you misunderstood. You were claiming that creationists believe that evolution, the phenomenon, is real. Spend some time here on the O&C forums and I guarantee you'll see people denying that evolution takes place. I'm not talking about people denying the theory of evolution, I'm talking about people denying that the observed instances of evolution have ever taken place.

And with regard to their minds shutting down when the name Darwin is uttered, it's their loss.

Your last line there shows exactly what I was saying and exactly what you were claiming to refute. A theory is a possibility. Some are more likely than others, some more grounded than others, some actually become Scientific Law when adequate proof is given as opposed to data to support.

False. A theory will never become a law, regardless of how much evidence is gathered to support it. They are two completely different and distinct informational constructs. The fact that you've claimed a theory can become a law twice now betrays a lack of understanding on your part about how those words are used in a scientific context. Laws are descriptive, theories are explanatory. To get away from just using evolution as an example, take gravity -- the law of gravity describes the relationship between the attraction between objects based on their mass, the theory of gravity seeks to explain why this is the case.

There's a big difference in support and proof. A theory is just a possibility regardless of probability. You may not like it, but that's what it is.

True. There's no such thing as a proven scientific theory. I never claimed there was. But, again, you're playing semantic games to downplay the amount of evidence supporting modern scientific theories.

But back to the other substantive points I raised in my reply...

Can you explain what you mean by "to the extent that Darwin claimed way back then"?

Do you realize that the "Darwin recanted on his death bed" tale is a fraud spun out of whole cloth?

reply to post by PurpleChiten

False. A theory will never become a law, regardless of how much evidence is gathered to support it. They are two completely different and distinct informational constructs. The fact that you've claimed a theory can become a law twice now betrays a lack of understanding on your part about how those words are used in a scientific context. Laws are descriptive, theories are explanatory. To get away from just using evolution as an example, take gravity -- the law of gravity describes the relationship between the attraction between objects based on their mass, the theory of gravity seeks to explain why this is the case.

I guess we stand corrected and all this time I thought there was such a thing called a proven theory.

reply to post by Connector


It's an extreme example, but it does get the point across. It's the people that think its funny that have no idea of it's magnitude. There is nothing funny about it, it's only funny if you lack the ability to understand the truth within it, which I can totally see is the case here.

Nope sorry, your wrong, and not very insightful. You lack the ability to understand the larger picture that is haunting us, and that its one that will continue to haunt us. People like you are the reason why we will continue to ignore everything that is right in front of our noses. All of the things that I have been presenting that are all to obvious.

Originally posted by iterationzero

I think you misunderstood. You were claiming that creationists believe that evolution, the phenomenon, is real. Spend some time here on the O&C forums and I guarantee you'll see people denying that evolution takes place. I'm not talking about people denying the theory of evolution, I'm talking about people denying that the observed instances of evolution have ever taken place.

And with regard to their minds shutting down when the name Darwin is uttered, it's their loss.

I would have to say that those are the ones who refuse to see the world around them. Everything changes over time. The giraffe for instance had a much shorter neck at one time. It evolved into having a longer neck in order to reach the branches that were higher up. However, it didn't become a kangaroo.
I just see it as having two extremes going after one another and the truth lying somewhere between the two and neither will acknowledge it.
I suppose they feel that evolution would discredit there being a God and would refute the bible, but it doesn't. Those with intelligence can entertain both ideas without them conflicting. They'll never listen to an explanation of how and why, so nobody bothers giving the explanation any more.
I also feel that mankind has evolved a great deal. We haven't stopped being human, bu we have changed in our muscle tone, in our immune systems, in intelligence and many other ways. That doesn't exclude creationism at all, but the creationists would automatically tune out because they reject the original premise because they feel it contradicts their deep held beliefs.
Christianity may or may not be the correct "story" of God's interaction and God may not be our view of him at all but something totally different, I don't know. But, until I do know otherwise, I'm going to stick with my present belief system while also entertaining the observations of what happens in the world around me. They aren't in conflict as so many would believe, they are just in conflict of their limited understanding of BOTH concepts.