Proof that evolution is the only answer

originally posted by: AshFan
Proof that evolution is the only answer

Has to be false, because it, obviously, is not.

Furthermore, 'proof' = whatever you are willing to accept as 'proof'.
A religious believer will accept a rock as 'proof' of ID and/or 'God'.
One more mathematically inclined (his beliefs lay in that area) will find all sorts of 'proof' that 2+2=4. It does, but only in very tightly constrained neighborhood.
2+2 also = 1. And other answers.
It's ALL Truth!

Evolution is only a working theory from one Perspective, lineo-temporal.
It fails for the same reasons ID fails, as only single, nearsighted, limited Perspectives support either theory.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

What is it then neighbour. Do you know what the word vestigial means?

Evidently not
Not if people like you consider the wisdom teeth vestigial.

Yes I guess they are vestigial if you eat Macdonalds everyday of your lives, thats not evolution, thats deevolution, we lose the capacity to eat roughage, simple?

See, the more food you chew, the more roughage you eat, the bigger your bones and muscles grow, the more room you have in your jaw and teeth have room to grow. Our jaws were not designed to live on burgers and fries with that

Go do science neighbour

Damn those lazy fry and burger eating youth, maybe soon all food will come from a tube and we wont need teeth. Evolution, teeth, just a vestigial, unless you want to eat something. The evolution of the North American, born in macdonalds, IV drip fed a big mac and fully evolved for take away service. Wont need feet, vestigial because they have self drive cars.
Wont need hands as they become vestigial, big open troughs like cows,

Everything becomes vestigial, think it through

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: ColeYounger

That's why peer review exists. If a scientist lies (for whatever reason), it will be found out eventually.

Naw, peer review exists, to make SURE the THEORIES are thought of as fact for as long as possible.

And to shout down and blast anyone with a real THEORY from taking hold.

Keeping the truth as far away as possible, is what PEER REVIEW is all about.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: thinline

The issue is, people make evolution into a religion and that's not good science.

No.

The issue is, religion trying to pretend it's science.

Science is the exact opposite of religion.

I think the problem is people thinking it really matters. Our beliefs aren't a zero sum game where if "you" are right "I" must be wrong. Very few if any people I suppose have ever or will ever change their fundamental beliefs based on pissed off people arguing on internet forums.

Both sides and everything in between take all of life and reality way too seriously. It's not some race where the first side to finally "prove" the other side wrong wins, and everyone adapts and switches beliefs.

I personally don't understand why more people can't be open to the idea that both can be true. I guess that leaves one with no home team to root for or against though and we certainly don't want that do we? At least "they" don't want that.

a reply to: namelesss

Could you present another perspective which you think would offer a more well rounded understanding?

a reply to: Raggedyman

And Raggedyman goes to the personal attacks, for lack of evidence. I will take that as you admitting defeat.

Humans diets have changed more recently than "McDonalds" (ps I seldom eat fast food, I can cook), and as such the third molar is considered vestigial

a reply to: Noinden

I am sorry you thought you, your was personal, it was mostly third person.
I eat burgers, its not a crime, just lucky I have a big jaw and wisdom teeth, guess I am less evolved than you I suppose.
Is that a personal attack, I have wisdom teeth so am more neanderthal in your opinon ?

Now Noindy, I havnt made any statements, I dont need evidence

Prove vestigial organs, anything vestigial, prove that body parts arnt needed any more.
Then you win

Off you go
Now remember, just because we are losing teeth, that doesnt prove evolution, it proves that some people have small jaws and cant fit teeth in their small jaws.
In fact, should we end up eating a less processed diet, those with small jaws will be evolutionaryly weaker and susceptible to dying out
Thats not evolution, thats simply change, it proves nothing at all but small jaws cant fit in all our teeth and dentists have to remove them
In fact, many people would get infections if it wernt for dentists and die out

Your argument is flawed


The issue is, evolution is a religion trying to pretend it's a science.
Empirical evidence please

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Oh dear. Why did you go for that old chestnut? We share a common ancestor with apes.

Let's get this settled out. If you trace your lineage back, where will it go through? You will eventually reach an ape-like creature, an amphibian, a fish, etc, etc, until you reach the theoretical single-celled grandparent of life.

I don't get how you all think that the theory of evolution does not involve your ancestors being apes?

a reply to: cooperton

Those are weasel words. Because neighbour we are "ape like". SO don't try the semantic route.

We areapes. So to say we descended from apes, is not particularly descriptive. Rather when creationists say we are "descended from apes" or more commonly"Monkeys" they are about to do the "and why are there still apes/monkeys gambit.
You are also implying I don't believe that we share a common ancestor with extant great apes. I've said no such thing. We apparently diverged from the ancestors of Chimpanzees about 5 to 7 million years ago.

Like I said. You are using weasel words. You are arguing semantics, not substantive matters.

I'd also it is not my lineage, it is all Homo sapiens. OR are you claiming to be a reptilian?

a reply to: Raggedyman

And again, many of us have posted empirical evidences. You refuse to acknowledge them. You are thus the one at fault. Not the rest of us. I might get yourself get checked out for macular degeneration, because it seems many things, do not get seen by you.

a reply to: ParasuvO

You have never been through a peer review process to publish have you? I thought not.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

And again, many of us have posted empirical evidences. You refuse to acknowledge them. You are thus the one at fault. Not the rest of us. I might get yourself get checked out for macular degeneration, because it seems many things, do not get seen by you.

Show any empirical evidences.
Fossils dont count, they are just bones, they prove nothing, you need to assume that fossils mean something
Next

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yep macular degeneration it is. Many threads ago I and others posted empirical evidence. You ignored that. Oh and for the record you (yes you Raggedyman) don't get to decide what is empirical and what is not. You are hostile to evolution and science. If it is published say in a journal, say Nature, and say has the phrase "evolution by natural selection is an empirically validated principle" in it's text, then yes indeed it is empirical evidence.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ParasuvO

You have never been through a peer review process to publish have you? I thought not.

I bet you have, lies in the process or just ignorance

www.timeshighereducation.com...

We must hold up a mirror to scientific peer review if we are to stamp out fraud and uphold the discipline’s reputation, argues Philip Moriarty

www.timeshighereducation.com...

“Peer review”, he wrote, “is supposed to be the quality assurance system for science, weeding out the scientifically unreliable and reassuring readers of journals that they can trust what they are reading. In reality, however, it is ineffective, largely a lottery, anti-innovatory, slow, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud and irrelevant.”

www.theguardian.com...

Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn't work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren't enough competent people to do the job. The overwhelming effect of the huge (and unpaid) effort that is put into reviewing papers is to maintain a status hierarchy of journals. Any paper, however bad, can now get published in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.

www.theatlantic.com...
Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.

www.thunderbolts.info...
'If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market,' says Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association and intellectual father of the international congresses of peer review that have been held every four years since 1989. Peer review would not get onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws.

blogs.berkeley.edu...
In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journal Science, I decided to explore just how slipshod their peer-review process is.

Go find another stooge, your words have no value to me at all noindy, none

Just lies to grub money to justify an ego

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yep macular degeneration it is. Many threads ago I and others posted empirical evidence. You ignored that. Oh and for the record you (yes you Raggedyman) don't get to decide what is empirical and what is not. You are hostile to evolution. If it is published say in a journal, say Nature, and say has the phrase "evolution by natural selection is an empirically validated principle" in it's text, then yes indeed it is empirical evidence.

Macular degeneration
Its to early where I am to be drinking, hope you are not

I asked for empirical evidence, I have seen none

That means that none has been shown to me here

15 pieces, not one was is or can be confused as empirical evidence
Prove they are, they are at best a wild assumption, if you cant see that, sadly you dont understand science at all

Molars in mice prove man evolved from space dirt and space water...HOW

Journals lie, its been established

Next

a reply to: Raggedyman

As I said you are admittedly hostile to science. Thus your opinion is worthless.

I am guessing you would prefer that your medical professionals still used the "Heroic" Medicine approach? Because they were in the USA up untill about a decade before the end of the 19th century. Bleedings, poultices, purgatives. Not a scientific principal in sight. The rest of the world went for the scientific approach.

Science is not all about money old bean. Now yes I work in Industry. But I got my degrees for the love of the science. I work in Industry, because I'm damned good at what I do.

So for someone so hostile to sciecne, I would bet you use the products of it. Oh wait, the internet, and computers? Any synthetic fibers you wear. Lets not forget, any pharmaceutical substance you take, and most medical procedures, most likely are due to science. Unless you apply leeches, and bite a bullet during operations Good luck with those post operative infections.

a reply to: Raggedyman

See again, you yes you Raggedyman (11 still wants his alias back) don't get to decide what is and is not empirical evidence is. You are not qualified, and you are hostile to science.

You also have not established that Journals lie. What has been established is the odd (and its vanishingly small) scientist has lied. They get caught, and their career is done. People lie. You do, we know that. Politicians do, clergy do. Many "good Christians" do you know Televangelists . After all they get caught, and blame the Debil, rather than own it.

No You Raggedyman, can't decide what does and does not constitute evidence of the empirical sort.

And yes Macular Degeneration. Claerly your eyesight has holes.

a reply to: AshFan

Show me your empirical evidence.

The evidence you charge has been bouncing off your cemented skulls
for two thousand and sum odd years. It may SOUND like a riddle,
but there is empirical evidence in the very name. Jesus Christ!
You just aren't smart enough to find what you think someone
else should find for you. So you have to ask the right person to clue
you in.

But you can't expect that to happen when you're popin off at
the mouth disrespecting all of creation all the time. Try'n
to come off all big brained and only make'n big bird.

Try doing some sound experiments or something. Make somekind of use
of yourself.

originally posted by: Padawan Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Padawan Raggedyman

Yep macular degeneration it is. Many threads ago I and others posted empirical evidence. You ignored that. Oh and for the record you (yes you Raggedyman) don't get to decide what is empirical and what is not. You are hostile to evolution. If it is published say in a journal, say Nature, and say has the phrase "evolution by natural selection is an empirically validated principle" in it's text, then yes indeed it is empirical evidence.

Macular degeneration
Its to early where I am to be drinking, hope you are not

I asked for empirical evidence, I have seen none

That means that none has been shown to me here

15 pieces, not one was is or can be confused as empirical evidence
Prove they are, they are at best a wild assumption, if you cant see that, sadly you dont understand science at all

Molars in mice prove man evolved from space dirt and space water...HOW

Journals lie, its been established

Next

Padawan, christians and their god lie, its been established.

So anything you say cannot be trusted.

See how stupid that premise is?

Master Coomba

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

As I said you are admittedly hostile to science. Thus your opinion is worthless.

I am guessing you would prefer that your medical professionals still used the "Heroic" Medicine approach? Because they were in the USA up untill about a decade before the end of the 19th century. Bleedings, poultices, purgatives. Not a scientific principal in sight. The rest of the world went for the scientific approach.

Science is not all about money old bean. Now yes I work in Industry. But I got my degrees for the love of the science. I work in Industry, because I'm damned good at what I do.

So for someone so hostile to sciecne, I would bet you use the products of it. Oh wait, the internet, and computers? Any synthetic fibers you wear. Lets not forget, any pharmaceutical substance you take, and most medical procedures, most likely are due to science. Unless you apply leeches, and bite a bullet during operations

Good luck with those post operative infections.

Strawman argument about poultices and purgatives

Tell me why do you hate science, why do you hate science?
Simple question

If you hate science, why use the internet

I asked for empirical proof, not molars in mice
How do molars in mice prove mankind came from space dirt and space water

You are very boring and your argument simplistic, if not just childish

I am not hostile to science, it seems you are, trying to turn it into something it is not, a religion

I will ask again, empirical evidence for evolution.
I am not interested in
" internet, and computers? Any synthetic fibers you wear. Lets not forget, any pharmaceutical substance you take, and most medical procedures"

I am interested in empirical evidence for evolution.
So step up or squirrel away