Getting to the Bottom of Evolution, page 7

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

What I'm saying is that the findings made under the umbrella of evolution have no proof that they are related, its only assumed, and accepted as evolution. For example there is no proof that speciation is part of evolution or that macroevolution is either, much less is there proof of it happening.

You've been presented with ample objective evidence for speciation events in other threads. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting on a scientific level. Ignoring the fact that speciation has been observed -- and is the same thing as macroevolution, by the way, further showing that you really don't understand what you're trying to argue against -- it's one of the processes that drive the phenomenon of evolution, by definition.

A protein is part of the building blocks of DNA
Chromosomes carry genetic information in the fom of genes.
A gene is located on a chromosome.
Base pairs are the double helix that contribute to both DNA and RNA.

One completey wrong, one mostly right, partial credit on the other two... 50%. Better than before, still not good enough.

You seem to be a pretty smart guy itero, how can people believe in evolution when its not falsifiable, it's not testable, it's not predictable, it's not traceable, and not repeatable? It appears to have no scientific value.

Except it's all of those things. Not matter how loud and how often you want to scream it from the top of your lungs here and where you work and in the streets of your town, it is all of those things.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

You've been presented with ample objective evidence for speciation events in other threads. You've chosen to reject that evidence in a variety of ways that included everything except refuting on a scientific level. Ignoring the fact that speciation has been observed -- and is the same thing as macroevolution, by the way, further showing that you really don't understand what you're trying to argue against -- it's one of the processes that drive the phenomenon of evolution, by definition.

Microevolution is NOT the same as macroevoution, which is why it is noted with a seperate term. What I'm saying is that assuming macroevolution is just microevolution many times over, does not prove that it happens that way. Not to mention there is no proof that different changes occur in that process. How do we not know that only certain changes would occur?

When you guess that a scientific event takes place, then you are subject to the possible options.

One completey wrong, one mostly right, partial credit on the other two... 50%. Better than before, still not good enough.

I think your wrong, as I looked them up.

Except it's all of those things. Not matter how loud and how often you want to scream it from the top of your lungs here and where you work and in the streets of your town, it is all of those things.

It is not falsifiable, when you confirm that evolution has occured, and I mean tell the difference between evolutionary changes happening, and other things like ADHD and changes? Evolution is NOT testable, there is no way for you to determine that changes happened in evolution or that something else caused them unless you were specifically looking at how those others would happen. It's not predictable, If scientists could predict evolution then we would know what new species we are trying to evolve into right now, and they don't, in fact they can't even name our common ansestors for sure. Evoluton is not repeatable because there is no guarantee it will happen, much less that the same events will happen. Again it has no scientific value.

Now I understand you might have accepted it as such, but there isn't even redundant reasons given to believe in such things. The belief of evolution is built entirely on speculation and fantasy, with no proof.

Thats not to say that adaptation in the name of speciation doesn't occur, it does, but it's adaptation not evolution. And adaptation is NOT evolution, adaptation is adaptation, thats another false claim made by this belief.

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

Your fruit salad above is pure comedy...



Even after all you still fail...



To see...


The elephant in the room...


EVOLUTION

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

---

It's an assortment of different observations, that aren't accurate.

That's 100% not what I asked you. If you say that natural selection and speciation aren't part of evolution, then please define for me what you think evolution is or what it attempts to describe?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
I think your wrong, as I looked them up.

He is not. So you definitely didn't understand what you read.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Evolution is NOT testable

But there is, and it has been done.It's even been referenced in this very thread.

there is no way for you to determine that changes happened in evolution or that something else caused them unless you were specifically looking at how those others would happen

Erh, yes there is. As soon as there is an evolved advantage, it is evolution.

. It's not predictable

No, and that is why people like you don't like it I guess?

If scientists could predict evolution then we would know what new species we are trying to evolve into right now, and they don't, in fact they can't even name our common ansestors for sure. Evoluton is not repeatable because there is no guarantee it will happen, much less that the same events will happen.

Exactly.

Again it has no scientific value.

That is a *really* stupid statement.

The belief of evolution is built entirely on speculation and fantasy, with no proof.

And that is ignorance at its highest level. Evolution is one of the most well documented facts in science.

Thats not to say that adaptation in the name of speciation doesn't occur, it does, but it's adaptation not evolution. And adaptation is NOT evolution, adaptation is adaptation, thats another false claim made by this belief.

You seriously don't want to get what evolution is, right?

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

Microevolution is NOT the same as macroevoution, which is why it is noted with a seperate term.

I agree, but that's not what you said. From your own post:

For example there is no proof that speciation is part of evolution or that macroevolution is either, much less is there proof of it happening.

Speciation and macroevolution are the same thing or, more properly, speciation would be the lowest level of observable macroevolution. Microevolution is something different entirely. If you think microevolution and speciation are the same thing, then you've just provided yet another example of how you don't even understand what you're arguing against.

What I'm saying is that assuming macroevolution is just microevolution many times over, does not prove that it happens that way. Not to mention there is no proof that different changes occur in that process. How do we not know that only certain changes would occur?

How do you know that an automobile has an engine of some type? Because that's one part of how an automobile is defined. How do you know that microevolution and macroevolution are really evolution? Because they are parts of how evolution is defined.

When you guess that a scientific event takes place, then you are subject to the possible options.

Correct. And then you start eliminating those possibilities based on the observable evidence, at least temporarily, to find the probabilities.

I think your wrong, as I looked them up.

If you really looked them up as you claim, then you're either using a very unreliable source or you didn't understand anything that you read. Given the conversations we've had in the past, it's probably some combination of the two.

It is not falsifiable, when you confirm that evolution has occured, and I mean tell the difference between evolutionary changes happening, and other things like ADHD and changes? Evolution is NOT testable, there is no way for you to determine that changes happened in evolution or that something else caused them unless you were specifically looking at how those others would happen. It's not predictable, If scientists could predict evolution then we would know what new species we are trying to evolve into right now, and they don't, in fact they can't even name our common ansestors for sure. Evoluton is not repeatable because there is no guarantee it will happen, much less that the same events will happen. Again it has no scientific value.

You have been presented with ample evidence in this thread and others that evolution is testable, falsifiable, predictive, etc. I'm not going to repost a wall of links for you to either not read at all or read and completely misunderstand, like your "blue laminate".

Now I understand you might have accepted it as such, but there isn't even redundant reasons given to believe in such things. The belief of evolution is built entirely on speculation and fantasy, with no proof.

Says the person who claims that the Bible is some kind of accurate historical record.

Thats not to say that adaptation in the name of speciation doesn't occur, it does, but it's adaptation not evolution. And adaptation is NOT evolution, adaptation is adaptation, thats another false claim made by this belief.

Your self-proposed definition of adaptation is meaningless. Adaptation, in a scientific sense, is part of evolution. I'm not entirely sure how someone who actually has the extensive scientific background you claim to have can keep regurgitating the same ignorance.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

I agree, but that's not what you said. From your own post

I had many posts on this page and was unable to locate the one you are referring to.

Speciation and macroevolution are the same thing

Why is it given a new name if they are the same thing?

or, more properly, speciation would be the lowest level of observable macroevolution. Microevolution is something different entirely. If you think microevolution and speciation are the same thing, then you've just provided yet another example of how you don't even understand what you're arguing against

Yes I had them backwords, they do make more sense now that you have pointed out that macroevolution is speciation.

How do you know that an automobile has an engine of some type?

Your comparison has no basis, as we made automobiles, and we did not make evolution, or did we?

Because that's one part of how an automobile is defined. How do you know that microevolution and macroevolution are really evolution? Because they are parts of how evolution is defined.

There is nothing that scientifically connects the two under the term of evolution, it's just assumed they are all part of an ongoing process, but where is the proof?

Correct. And then you start eliminating those possibilities based on the observable evidence, at least temporarily, to find the probabilities.

Which isn't possible as we are still in the early stages of identifying changes that occur from NON evolution. As an example ADHD has been noted to share differences, but this was only recently realized, which means that those changes could have been viewed as evolution prior to this find.
The question is how many other scenerios could there be just like this where changes have occured but it's assumed to be evolution?
ADHD links
ADHD missing genes

These are caused from the introduction of LEAD into ones system. I get an assumption from reading these that the introduction of lead causes ADHD which in turn alters the DNA. If they have made the basis that lead is the reason, then they must have ruled out the idea that it's hereditary.

If you really looked them up as you claim, then you're either using a very unreliable source or you didn't understand anything that you read. Given the conversations we've had in the past, it's probably some combination of the two.

You mean just like how I supposedly miss understood this part as well.

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Evolution
Which clearly proves to be me that there are parts, probably most, of evolution that are just hypothesis.

You have been presented with ample evidence in this thread and others that evolution is testable, falsifiable, predictive, etc. I'm not going to repost a wall of links for you to either not read at all or read and completely misunderstand, like your "blue laminate".

No but you could just copy and past the EXACT sections that would prove me wrong rather than flood me with garbage.

Says the person who claims that the Bible is some kind of accurate historical record.

True with the idea however that we have reason to believe the bible is correct to begin with. It wasn't until the hypothesis of evolution came out that it was in question.

Your self-proposed definition of adaptation is meaningless. Adaptation, in a scientific sense, is part of evolution. I'm not entirely sure how someone who actually has the extensive scientific background you claim to have can keep regurgitating the same ignorance.

Adaptation is adaptation, its not evolution, what proof do you have that adaptation is part of the evolution belief?

reply to post by flyingfish

---

You are trying to obscure your lack of knowledge and evidence by piling on mountains of BS.
Rolling out the same old nonsense that we've all seen a thousand times parroting more creationist babble

There does seem to be mountains of evidence against you, and thank you for pointing that out.

If evolution could ever be proven false, it would come from a science, and not some random twit on the internet.

It's not an issue of it being disproven, it appears that it has yet to be proven, from what all I have read.

Evolution is not a well drawn out theory, its a big mess of a hypothesis, and I can see people are floored with overload on infomation. There are parts of evolution that are real. Like microevolution, which doesn't mean I share a common ancestor with apes.

I understand you do not accept the information being spoon fed to you, your brief dismissals give us no idea why and provide no hint whether you even understand it.

There probably are parts I don't understand, but what I do understand, is clear to be that my BS meter is full.
There seems to be a lot of assumptions made in these findings and I spot them left and right.

Why should anyone respond to a new set of assertions based on misrepresentations and misinformation when you have yet to respond to the information provided to you on your previous assertions based on misrepresentations and misinformation?

Yes well, I notice there is a lot that goes unanswered when I ask any question that seems to threaten the proof of the theory.

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

I had many posts on this page and was unable to locate the one you are referring to.

I provided a link directly to your post where you stated that. You're either lying, physically unable to click a link, or simply ignored your own words.

Yes I had them backwords, they do make more sense now that you have pointed out that macroevolution is speciation.

So we've uncovered yet another concept that you didn't understand before using it in your arguments.

Your comparison has no basis, as we made automobiles, and we did not make evolution, or did we?

We defined it. You seem unclear about the distinction between defining a thing and inventing a thing.

There is nothing that scientifically connects the two under the term of evolution, it's just assumed they are all part of an ongoing process, but where is the proof?

Except there is, as macroevolution can be described as aggregated microevolution. Evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others for it.

Which isn't possible as we are still in the early stages of identifying changes that occur from NON evolution. As an example ADHD has been noted to share differences, but this was only recently realized, which means that those changes could have been viewed as evolution prior to this find.

You're constructing a strawman argument here -- you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the position of what constitutes evolution in order to argue against it. Evolution is a change in allele frequency within a given population over time. It's not assumed by scientists that all observed changed are evolution. I'm not sure what lead you, someone of the academic credentials that you've claimed to have, to have that misunderstanding.

The question is how many other scenerios could there be just like this where changes have occured but it's assumed to be evolution?

More faulty understanding of the basics of the scientific method on your part. It wouldn't be "assumed" that there are changes that are not evolution and then taken as gospel. A scientist would observe a change, propose a hypothetical mechanism for that change, then perform some kind of experiment to confirm or falsify that mechanism.

You mean just like how I supposedly miss understood this part as well.

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.

Which clearly proves to be me that there are parts, probably most, of evolution that are just hypothesis.

Yes, in constantly bringing this specific quote up, you've made it incredibly clear that you don't understand the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "is completely hypothetical". Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". Atomic theory certainly does, yet I don't see you arguing against the scientific validity of atoms, which were directly observed much more recently than evolution was.

No but you could just copy and past the EXACT sections that would prove me wrong rather than flood me with garbage.

To what end? You ignored all of the information the first several times it was spoon fed to you. I'm sorry that there's no Dr. Seuss version of modern evolutionary synthesis that would cater to your short attention span. If you can't take the time to read and comprehend scientific information, maybe you shouldn't be engaging in scientific debates.

True with the idea however that we have reason to believe the bible is correct to begin with. It wasn't until the hypothesis of evolution came out that it was in question.

Nice to see that your understanding of history is equivalent to your understanding of science.

Adaptation is adaptation, its not evolution, what proof do you have that adaptation is part of the evolution belief?

An adaptation, as defined in a scientific sense, is a trait with a functional role that is evolved by means of natural selection. You can keep trying to apply your homespun definitions to the word to try and confuse the argument, but your personal definition of adaptation is meaningless. You may as well start calling it an itsthetoothation.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

I provided a link directly to your post where you stated that. You're either lying, physically unable to click a link, or simply ignored your own words.

Neither, your deduction skills are off, as the problem is that while the link takes me to the page, it doesn't show which post your referring to, and I didn't see any that seemed to apply.

So we've uncovered yet another concept that you didn't understand before using it in your arguments.

That would accoding to YOUR understanding anyhow, there could be a difference between what you have explained and what others have explained, non of which is my fault.

We defined it. You seem unclear about the distinction between defining a thing and inventing a thing.

Quite the opposite, as evolution appears to be invented with multiple tasks claiming to be related, with no proof of that. Thats invented.

Except there is, as macroevolution can be described as aggregated microevolution. Evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others for it.

But I'm not looking for explanations, I'm looking for proof.

You're constructing a strawman argument here -- you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the position of what constitutes evolution in order to argue against it. Evolution is a change in allele frequency within a given population over time. It's not assumed by scientists that all observed changed are evolution. I'm not sure what lead you, someone of the academic credentials that you've claimed to have, to have that misunderstanding.

So then by your own admission, there is no proof that any of the changes are in fact evolution.

More faulty understanding of the basics of the scientific method on your part. It wouldn't be "assumed" that there are changes that are not evolution and then taken as gospel. A scientist would observe a change, propose a hypothetical mechanism for that change, then perform some kind of experiment to confirm or falsify that mechanism.

And where is this proof that eludes you to believe that changes are tested and identified?

Yes, in constantly bringing this specific quote up, you've made it incredibly clear that you don't understand the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "is completely hypothetical".

Of course I understand that difference, one is in part, and the other is in whole. Either way, your admitting that there are obviously parts of evolution that are hypothetical.

Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses".

Can you explain to me which part of all of this signifies that its actually a scientific theory, because I don't get that out of any of this, in fact it only confirms what I understand evolution to be, some theories, not necessarly proven, and some hypothesis. Evolution fails the litmus for test of being a scientific theory. First off we have never witnessed a species evolving, second we have never witnessed that changes can occur after microevolution, its only assumed.

Atomic theory certainly does, yet I don't see you arguing against the scientific validity of atoms, which were directly observed much more recently than evolution was.

Thats because I agree that there are changes, I just don't agree that they are evolution.

To what end? You ignored all of the information the first several times it was spoon fed to you. I'm sorry that there's no Dr. Seuss version of modern evolutionary synthesis that would cater to your short attention span. If you can't take the time to read and comprehend scientific information, maybe you shouldn't be engaging in scientific debates.

Your the one posing the claim, you can provide the link just like everyone else does when they make a claim.

Or do you not know where to find the data? What did you do just accept the theory based on it being an overload if information?

Nice to see that your understanding of history is equivalent to your understanding of science.

There werent people in biblical times that believed in evolution.

An adaptation, as defined in a scientific sense, is a trait with a functional role that is evolved by means of natural selection. You can keep trying to apply your homespun definitions to the word to try and confuse the argument, but your personal definition of adaptation is meaningless. You may as well start calling it an itsthetoothation.

My homespun definition, you mean like taking the word adaptation and fitting it with the same meaning but calling it natural selection so that it can fit your fantasy?

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

Neither, your deduction skills are off, as the problem is that while the link takes me to the page, it doesn't show which post your referring to, and I didn't see any that seemed to apply.

When I click the link, I'm taken directly to the post of yours that I quoted. I find it interesting that you can't remember your own words long enough to find the post where you said it.

That would accoding to YOUR understanding anyhow, there could be a difference between what you have explained and what others have explained, non of which is my fault.

So your lack of understanding of science in general and modern evolutionary synthesis in particular is everyone else's fault.

Quite the opposite, as evolution appears to be invented with multiple tasks claiming to be related, with no proof of that. Thats invented.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

But I'm not looking for explanations, I'm looking for proof.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

So then by your own admission, there is no proof that any of the changes are in fact evolution.

Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within a given population over time. This phenomenon has been observed. ergo evolution has been observed. The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

And where is this proof that eludes you to believe that changes are tested and identified?

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

Of course I understand that difference, one is in part, and the other is in whole. Either way, your admitting that there are obviously parts of evolution that are hypothetical.

Yes, as I went on to say, any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". Again, you seem to be either confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical". Either that or you're willing to throw out everything covered by modern evolutionary synthesis because certain parts of it are still being tested and examined. But all scientific theories are constantly being tested and examined and retested and re-examined. You just seem to have a particular problem with modern evolutionary synthesis.

Can you explain to me which part of all of this signifies that its actually a scientific theory, because I don't get that out of any of this, in fact it only confirms what I understand evolution to be, some theories, not necessarly proven, and some hypothesis.

You seem to be unclear on what a scientific theory is. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

Evolution fails the litmus for test of being a scientific theory.

Except it doesn't.

First off we have never witnessed a species evolving, second we have never witnessed that changes can occur after microevolution, its only assumed.

Both of those things have been observed. The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

Thats because I agree that there are changes, I just don't agree that they are evolution.

So there are changes in allele frequency over successive generations within a population, but it's not evolution. Gotcha.

Your the one posing the claim, you can provide the link just like everyone else does when they make a claim. Or do you not know where to find the data? What did you do just accept the theory based on it being an overload if information?

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

There werent people in biblical times that believed in evolution.

There weren't people in Biblical times that believed our sun is a massive sphere of luminous plasma. Yet, it is.

My homespun definition, you mean like taking the word adaptation and fitting it with the same meaning but calling it natural selection so that it can fit your fantasy?

Adaptation has a scientific definition. You're rejecting that definition and trying to redefine it to suit the needs of your argument on a semantic level. Good luck with that. I can do the same with your terms as well... I am officially redefining "target food" to mean food that is purchased at a Target. Which means that no animal on Earth other than humans has a "target food", because no other animal shops at Target. Ergo, humans are the only species native to this planet. All other meaning of "target food" will be ignored.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

When I click the link, I'm taken directly to the post of yours that I quoted. I find it interesting that you can't remember your own words long enough to find the post where you said it.

This topic has carried on over hundreds of pages and three threads.

So your lack of understanding of science in general and modern evolutionary synthesis in particular is everyone else's fault.

I don't think everyone else is saying the same thing you are.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

I have yet to see anything that doesn't label evolution as a hypothesis.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

You mean like the same evidence that says evolution embraces a pluarity of theories and hypothesis? I'm not interested in assumptions and things that are deluted.

Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequency within a given population over time. This phenomenon has been observed. ergo evolution has been observed. The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

That wasn't the question.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

Again the only proof I have seen claims that evolution is not entirely a theory.

Yes, as I went on to say, any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". Again, you seem to be either confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical". Either that or you're willing to throw out everything covered by modern evolutionary synthesis because certain parts of it are still being tested and examined. But all scientific theories are constantly being tested and examined and retested and re-examined. You just seem to have a particular problem with modern evolutionary synthesis.

I only have a problem with it when its presented as a scientific theory and its only a hypothesis.

You seem to be unclear on what a scientific theory is. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.

Ah, but a scientific theory must be falsifiable, and I wasn't aware that evolution is, exactly which part is?

I have always been told that its not repeatable, not recreatable, not predictable, so please explain how it can be falsifiable at the same time?

Except it doesn't.

Of course it does, its not predictable. If it were predictable, we would know what species are going to evolve into, and we don't.

Both of those things have been observed. The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

So it takes millions of years for a species to evolve, so please explain to me how it is that we have managed to observe this in the 150 years that evolution has been studdied.

So there are changes in allele frequency over successive generations within a population, but it's not evolution. Gotcha.

Thats right because those changes are happening because of specific reasons related to exposure, as was determined with ADHD.

But if you smoke while pregnant, and cause ADHD in the infant, which could cause a genetic change, thats not evolution right, only if it's not forced by man. Now if a dog takes a poop on a plant, and that somehow changes the genetic make up of that plant, that is considered evolution right?

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

You made the claiim, be a man and back it up.

There weren't people in Biblical times that believed our sun is a massive sphere of luminous plasma. Yet, it is.

Your point has no basis to the original comment.

Adaptation has a scientific definition. You're rejecting that definition and trying to redefine it to suit the needs of your argument on a semantic level. Good luck with that. I can do the same with your terms as well... I am officially redefining "target food" to mean food that is purchased at a Target. Which means that no animal on Earth other than humans has a "target food", because no other animal shops at Target. Ergo, humans are the only species native to this planet. All other meaning of "target food" will be ignored.

Ah, so in other words Target food goes back to its original meaning which was what exactly?

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

This topic has carried on over hundreds of pages and three threads.

Which is why I provided a link to your post. Feel free to continue denying it. It's there for anyone to see who wants to click the link.

I have yet to see anything that doesn't label evolution as a hypothesis.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

You mean like the same evidence that says evolution embraces a pluarity of theories and hypothesis? I'm not interested in assumptions and things that are deluted.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

Again the only proof I have seen claims that evolution is not entirely a theory.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

I only have a problem with it when its presented as a scientific theory and its only a hypothesis.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

Ah, but a scientific theory must be falsifiable, and I wasn't aware that evolution is, exactly which part is?

Falsifiable, in a scientific context, means it must at least be possible to imagine an experiment whose outcome would disprove the hypothesis, if not actually conduct the experiment. The most famous example of one way that modern evolutionary synthesis could be falsified would be Haldane's "Precambrian Rabbits" -- the discovery of fossilized rabbits, or really any mammal for that matter, in Precambrian rocks would falsify evolution.

I have always been told that its not repeatable, not recreatable, not predictable, so please explain how it can be falsifiable at the same time?

You've been misinformed.

Of course it does, its not predictable. If it were predictable, we would know what species are going to evolve into, and we don't.

You're confusing the concepts of something being predictive and something being predictable. What matters in science, as someone of your academic credentials should already know, is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right.

So it takes millions of years for a species to evolve, so please explain to me how it is that we have managed to observe this in the 150 years that evolution has been studdied.

It doesn't always take millions of years.

You made the claiim, be a man and back it up.

I, and others, have presented the evidence to you. Multiple times. You either didn't read or didn't understand it all of those other times. Go back and re-read the people that have replied to you.

Your point has no basis to the original comment.

I apologize for not spoon-feeding it to you in a way that you would recognize. You made the following claim in this post:

True with the idea however that we have reason to believe the bible is correct to begin with. It wasn't until the hypothesis of evolution came out that it was in question.

The scientific veracity of the Bible was questioned hundreds of years before there was such a thing as the theory of evolution. Galileo... geocentricity vs heliocentricity... ring a bell?

Ah, so in other words Target food goes back to its original meaning which was what exactly?

Using your rules, it goes to my definition. Food that is purchased at a Target store.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

Which is why I provided a link to your post. Feel free to continue denying it. It's there for anyone to see who wants to click the link.

Sure but there are several posts of mine on that page, you didn't indicate which post.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

I never said that, all I'm saying is that it all can't obviously be scientific fact as a result.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical"

The parts that are hypothetical are the parts I'm questioning.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

No there is no confusion, just your assumptions, which I totally expect from the evolutionist.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses" and "wholly hypothetical".

It never said anything was wholly hypothetical, I have no idea why you would assume that, however, being that parts are hypothetical means it can't be a scientific theory.

Falsifiable, in a scientific context, means it must at least be possible to imagine an experiment whose outcome would disprove the hypothesis, if not actually conduct the experiment. The most famous example of one way that modern evolutionary synthesis could be falsified would be Haldane's "Precambrian Rabbits" -- the discovery of fossilized rabbits, or really any mammal for that matter, in Precambrian rocks would falsify evolution

That isn't what I got from it, the definition I read said...

confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation

falsifiable

It looks like your referring to falsifiability.

You've been misinformed.

So then you have an example of evolution being repeatable?

You're confusing the concepts of something being predictive and something being predictable. What matters in science, as someone of your academic credentials should already know, is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right.

If something is predictive, it is repeatable, and falifiable. As an example, the theory of gravity is repeatable. On your last part,, Isn't that what predictable means ??

It doesn't always take millions of years.

The only test I can recall was with fruit flys, and an assumption was made that because they stopped breeding, that they must have changed species, You see what I mean about a load of BS.

I, and others, have presented the evidence to you. Multiple times. You either didn't read or didn't understand it all of those other times. Go back and re-read the people that have replied to you.

If you can't back up your claims, then as far as I'm concearned they are just an opinion.

The scientific veracity of the Bible was questioned hundreds of years before there was such a thing as the theory of evolution. Galileo... geocentricity vs heliocentricity... ring a bell?

I was referring to those that have a replacment theory on our existence.

Using your rules, it goes to my definition. Food that is purchased at a Target store.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, but all that evolutionists did was put a spin on the term adaptation and merge it with evolution, but no matter how you slice it, its still adaptation.

Target food is an observed phenomenon chalked full of facts. None of it is hypothetical, its all observed. It's predictable, falsifiable and repeatable. None of the traits I could find in evolution.

reply to post by itsthetooth

---

Sure but there are several posts of mine on that page, you didn't indicate which post.

No, the link goes directly to the post of yours that I was referencing. You can continue to deny it, but anyone can click the link and see I'm telling the truth.

I never said that, all I'm saying is that it all can't obviously be scientific fact as a result.

You seem to be confused about which parts are hypothetical and which aren't.

The parts that are hypothetical are the parts I'm questioning.

You've made it clear that you're willing to offhandedly discout the entire theory because it "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses".

It never said anything was wholly hypothetical, I have no idea why you would assume that, however, being that parts are hypothetical means it can't be a scientific theory.

Someone of the academic credentials you claim to have would know that the part I emphasized in your quote is, simply, wrong. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". Atomic theory certainly does, yet I don't see you arguing against the scientific validity of atoms, which were directly observed much more recently than evolution was.

That isn't what I got from it, the definition I read said...

confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation

falsifiable

It looks like your referring to falsifiability.

Yes, and so were you in this post:

Ah, but a scientific theory must be falsifiable, and I wasn't aware that evolution is, exactly which part is? I have always been told that its not repeatable, not recreatable, not predictable, so please explain how it can be falsifiable at the same time?

Evolution is testable (i.e. confirmable) and falsifiable. Someone of the academic credentials you claim to have would recognize that.

So then you have an example of evolution being repeatable?

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

If something is predictive, it is repeatable, and falifiable. As an example, the theory of gravity is repeatable. On your last part,, Isn't that what predictable means ??

You're confusing the concepts of something being predictive and something being predictable. What matters in science, as someone of your academic credentials should already know, is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right.

The only test I can recall was with fruit flys, and an assumption was made that because they stopped breeding, that they must have changed species, You see what I mean about a load of BS.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Your poor recall isn't my concern at this point.

If you can't back up your claims, then as far as I'm concearned they are just an opinion.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

I was referring to those that have a replacment theory on our existence.

No, you said, in this post:

True with the idea however that we have reason to believe the bible is correct to begin with. It wasn't until the hypothesis of evolution came out that it was in question.

The scientific veracity of the Bible was under question long before the theory of evolution. Therefore, we have no reason to believe the Bible is correct from a scientific standpoint to begin with.

I know this is difficult for you to understand, but all that evolutionists did was put a spin on the term adaptation and merge it with evolution, but no matter how you slice it, its still adaptation.

Not difficult at all, you're just wrong. By all means, present your evidence to the scientific community that they should change the definition of adaptation based on your observations. If the evidence is as compelling as you seem to think, you should be handed a Nobel prize in short order.

reply to post by iterationzero

---

No, the link goes directly to the post of yours that I was referencing. You can continue to deny it, but anyone can click the link and see I'm telling the truth.

Your going to have to repost this with the original post, when you just put your reply in there its easy to forget what the question was.

You seem to be confused about which parts are hypothetical and which aren't.

At least your admitting its not all fact now. From what I read about them, it would seem that I'm right on track.

You've made it clear that you're willing to offhandedly discout the entire theory because it "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses".

Look, I respect that you trying to polish a turd, but when parts of this are an hypothesis, thats sort of a clue dont you think.

Someone of the academic credentials you claim to have would know that the part I emphasized in your quote is, simply, wrong. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". Atomic theory certainly does, yet I don't see you arguing against the scientific validity of atoms, which were directly observed much more recently than evolution was.

But again, your arguing against something that is not repeatable, as there is no guarantee that evolution will occur, it's not recreatable, as its not repeatable, and its not predictable, your aren't able to predict what changes will happen before they do, and if you could, you would be able to tell us what new species we are evolving into.

You seem to be unclear on what a scientific theory is. Any scientific theory that has the breadth of modern evolutionary synthesis can be said to "embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses". This doesn't make it less of a scientific theory.
Ah, but a scientific theory must be falsifiable, and I wasn't aware that evolution is, exactly which part is?

I have always been told that its not repeatable, not recreatable, not predictable, so please explain how it can be falsifiable at the same time?

Maybe we can clear this up if you first get a better understanding of what a scientific theory is...

scientific theory click here This answer explains what must happen in order for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory. If there are parts of evolution that are an hypothesis, then it obviously can't stand as a scientific theory, unless you have all of a sudden passed that stage.

Yes, and so were you in this

That is to prove a theory wrong, not prove it right.

Evolution is testable (i.e. confirmable) and falsifiable. Someone of the academic credentials you claim to have would recognize that.

Can you please explain to me the test that is used on something that is not predictable? How are they going to test it when it appears to be random.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

I don't recall any, and if there were any, they would have also of been able to identify exactly what was making the changes, and also realize that it's another force and not just random changes.

You're confusing the concepts of something being predictive and something being predictable. What matters in science, as someone of your academic credentials should already know, is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right.

Agreed.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others. Your poor recall isn't my concern at this point

I dismissed any other tests as they were written to be only hypothetical.

The evidence has been provided to you in this thread and others.

I guess where you find evidence and where I find evidence are two different places.

The scientific veracity of the Bible was under question long before the theory of evolution. Therefore, we have no reason to believe the Bible is correct from a scientific standpoint to begin with.

But do any of those others exercise ideas of our existence?

Not difficult at all, you're just wrong. By all means, present your evidence to the scientific community that they should change the definition of adaptation based on your observations. If the evidence is as compelling as you seem to think, you should be handed a Nobel prize in short order.

Actually quite the opposite, it is evolution that has taken the word and placed a double meaning on it, to support the idea of evolution. Not the other way around.

reply to post by Barcs

---

I see Tooth is still trying to back peddle out his arguments after they've been debunked for the 109230192nd time. Tooth, read a basic biology book, you are misinformed about pretty much everything. I don't understand why you are so adamant about going against proven science.

A hypothesis is NOT a proven science.

And just because there are parts of evolution that are theory, and other parts that are a hypothesis, doesn't make it a theory as a whole.

You can't just walk into a science debate with no understanding whatsoever on the subject. You need to disprove the science, and address the individual pieces of evidence, which you fail to do time and time again.

Actually your wrong, Target food proves there is intelligence involved in our programming for food, and it automatically disproves the theory of evolution along with it, which means you don't have to know anything about evolution.

That talk origins link has mountains of evidence for you to look at but instead of addressing the evidence, you quote a small description that mentions the word hypothesis and think you've proved something.

What you mean to say is that you think by skipping over it, you can ignore it.

The sad truth is that I'm wasting my time responding to an obvious troll. Debunk the science or stop talking about evolution. You aren't even making an attempt to read or learn the material posted in here. It's like arguing with a brick wall, except the wall is actually tangible. If you want to promote ancient alien theory that's fine, but at least be honest about it. I don't think that's what you want. You are a biblical creationist. Denial stops here. Start by learning the actual definition of evolution instead of trying to pigeon hole it into whatever crazy magical process you think it is

Evolution has been debunked by both intervention as well as target food, DONE.

Bill Nye: Creationism is not appropriate for children.
  Posted 15 days ago with 20 member flags

Christians help me debunk these non sense atheistic beliefs about Genesis please
  Posted 3 days ago with 14 member flags

Satan hid the fossils to trick everyone!
  Posted 18 days ago with 11 member flags

Just ONE question on evolution
  Posted 15 days ago with 5 member flags

M U T A T I O N - Friend or Foe of Evolution?
  Posted 8 days ago with 5 member flags

When a Child is Born...the Evolution begins
  Posted 5 days ago with 5 member flags

Denisovans
  Posted 15 days ago with 3 member flags

Are Humans the result of Hybridization?
  Posted 14 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: