So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Raggedyman

Please...

You really just mean you are trolling and no matter what someone shows you it will never be good enough..

I gotta assume there are no logical creationists.. because any there were would be horrified at the way you are representing them..

Flawed logic rules the sciences as well...it is proven in its evolution.

It appears science is a control scheme bound and determined to limit the questions and answers allowable to hinder true investigation.

Disguised as a searcher of truth...it has become the tool of gatekeepers.

It is incredible how limited and controlled "science" has become in so many fields...perhaps it "evolved" that way.

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

The question really should be: Why is the scientific system that claims to be on the right track so obviously no where near the answers and is ultimately praised as being the correct way of looking at things?

Not getting anywhere near full answers with this...and it is boring beyond all belief.

Truly incredible the effort sustained in dreaming up this train of thought that is as truly dreamy as any fantasy or religion will render the truth.

It is a belief system...based on way too many unknowns and assumptions that constantly change.

The system needs to be questioned..not defended...

originally posted by: ParasuvO
It appears science is a control scheme bound and determined to limit the questions and answers allowable to hinder true investigation.

What questions does science hinder or prevents from being asked?

Please name 3 of them.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Yeah, thanks, I know
That's a fair and genuine assessment of the issue
Hope others read your post in depth and comprehend it
My question is why are so many people telling me it's a fact

Oddly I agree, evolution sounds genuinely plausible, I just don't believe it

Cheers

originally posted by: ParasuvO
It is a belief system...based on way too many unknowns and assumptions that constantly change.

No, it isn't. Believing in science and believing or having faith in religion are completely different.

I 'believe' in gravity. I or anyone can prove it exists.

I do not believe in God. Neither I or anyone else can prove it exists.

If I jump out of an airplane, I will fall to the ground and splat to my death. I do not have blind faith in science that will happen -- there is enough proven evidence behind it and its supporting physics to demonstrate that truth.

Belief in science is in no way the equivalent to believing in fairy tales.

The system needs to be questioned..not defended...

Science welcomes questioning and criticisms. The only time people of science get annoyed is when people of religious faith attempt to paint the structure of 'believing' in the scientific method akin to religious faith.

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: ParasuvO
It is a belief system...based on way too many unknowns and assumptions that constantly change.

No, it isn't. Believing in science and believing or having faith in religion are completely different.

I 'believe' in gravity. I or anyone can prove it exists.

I do not believe in God. Neither I or anyone else can prove it exists.

If I jump out of an airplane, I will fall to the ground and splat to my death. I do not have blind faith in science that will happen -- there is enough proven evidence behind it and its supporting physics to demonstrate that truth.

Belief in science is in no way the equivalent to believing in fairy tales.

The system needs to be questioned..not defended...

Science welcomes questioning and criticisms. The only time people of science get annoyed is when people of religious faith attempt to paint the structure of 'believing' in the scientific method akin to religious faith.

Here you are equating gravity with evolution, that's disingenuous in the context

Science and its proponents should welcome questions but just look at the average response here
I didn't paint anything, just asked a question

a reply to: ParasuvO

Talking unambiguously doesn’t make it a good argument..

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: eriktheawful

Yeah, thanks, I know
That's a fair and genuine assessment of the issue
Hope others read your post in depth and comprehend it
My question is why are so many people telling me it's a fact

Oddly I agree, evolution sounds genuinely plausible, I just don't believe it

Cheers

Actually your OP is asking for a published paper.

The only reason that lay people will go around calling something that is a theory a fact instead, is because they either do not understand how it works, or they are making assumptions.

However, again, just because something is a theory doesn't mean that it's wrong (or right for that mater). But what it does do is give scientist a tool to work with.

For example, Isaac Newton figured out how to express gravity with the equation:

F = G * M1*M2 / r^2

Where G is the gravitational constant. M1 and M2 are the masses of the objects interacting with each other, and r is the distance between those objects.

But, when he figured this out, there was a problem: He had no idea what "G" was. No one did at that time. It wasn't until over 70 years later after his death that the value of G was figured out by Henry Cavendish with his famous experiment with a Torsin Wire.

The point is: Newtons expression on the force of gravity was only a theory because no one knew what G was, however it was thought at the time that his expression was most likely correct. Once Cavendish figured out what G was, the formula was "proven" correct. You can use it to explain how the force of gravity works on that apple falling to the ground, to planets orbiting the sun.

Theories are simply tools that scientist use. Sometimes it turns out that the theory is true and scientist continue to use it of course. Sometimes and theory turns out wrong, or a better theory comes along, like that bolt that needs to be turned.....you might use pair of pliers at first......but then you get a wrench that works better.

We use theories in everyday life:

Ask a question - "What do I want for dinner?"
Do research - Think about what you want and what you feel like eating, and what you know how to make.
Make a hypothesis - Hmmmm....I might have the ingredients for lasagna.
Form a experiment to see the data - Go to the kitchen and determine if you have everything to make lasagna.
Analyze the data - If you do have the ingredients, you can make it. If you don't, you can't make it.
Publish your results - Twitter or Facebook - "I almost made lasagna which I think would have been great, but dont' have everything" or "I made lasagna and it tasted great!"

Faith tends to be more like: I want lasagna.....if I pray and wish really hard, I have faith that the lasagna will appear.

Nothing wrong with wishing and praying for it.....but the chances are that most likely the lasagna won't suddenly appear.

However: Quantum physics does actually provide for the chance for it to appear.

Seriously: there is a finite chance that the next time I turn on the light in my bed room, my bed will suddenly change into a stack of 1 million dollars.....its a very, very, very , VERY small chance, the the probability is actually there and can be worked out with math.

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Faith tends to be more like: I want lasagna.....if I pray and wish really hard, I have faith that the lasagna will appear.

Works for my wife. She prays really hard that I make my lasagna for her and the theory becomes law.

originally posted by: eriktheawful

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: eriktheawful

Yeah, thanks, I know
That's a fair and genuine assessment of the issue
Hope others read your post in depth and comprehend it
My question is why are so many people telling me it's a fact

Oddly I agree, evolution sounds genuinely plausible, I just don't believe it

Cheers

Actually your OP is asking for a published paper.

The only reason that lay people will go around calling something that is a theory a fact instead, is because they either do not understand how it works, or they are making assumptions.

However, again, just because something is a theory doesn't mean that it's wrong (or right for that mater). But what it does do is give scientist a tool to work with.

For example, Isaac Newton figured out how to express gravity with the equation:

F = G * M1*M2 / r^2

Where G is the gravitational constant. M1 and M2 are the masses of the objects interacting with each other, and r is the distance between those objects.

But, when he figured this out, there was a problem: He had no idea what "G" was. No one did at that time. It wasn't until over 70 years later after his death that the value of G was figured out by Henry Cavendish with his famous experiment with a Torsin Wire.

The point is: Newtons expression on the force of gravity was only a theory because no one knew what G was, however it was thought at the time that his expression was most likely correct. Once Cavendish figured out what G was, the formula was "proven" correct. You can use it to explain how the force of gravity works on that apple falling to the ground, to planets orbiting the sun.

Theories are simply tools that scientist use. Sometimes it turns out that the theory is true and scientist continue to use it of course. Sometimes and theory turns out wrong, or a better theory comes along, like that bolt that needs to be turned.....you might use pair of pliers at first......but then you get a wrench that works better.

We use theories in everyday life:

Ask a question - "What do I want for dinner?"
Do research - Think about what you want and what you feel like eating, and what you know how to make.
Make a hypothesis - Hmmmm....I might have the ingredients for lasagna.
Form a experiment to see the data - Go to the kitchen and determine if you have everything to make lasagna.
Analyze the data - If you do have the ingredients, you can make it. If you don't, you can't make it.
Publish your results - Twitter or Facebook - "I almost made lasagna which I think would have been great, but dont' have everything" or "I made lasagna and it tasted great!"

Faith tends to be more like: I want lasagna.....if I pray and wish really hard, I have faith that the lasagna will appear.

Nothing wrong with wishing and praying for it.....but the chances are that most likely the lasagna won't suddenly appear.

However: Quantum physics does actually provide for the chance for it to appear.

Seriously: there is a finite chance that the next time I turn on the light in my bed room, my bed will suddenly change into a stack of 1 million dollars.....its a very, very, very , VERY small chance, the the probability is actually there and can be worked out with math.

I have no argument, I agree
Outside of your understanding of faith, yours maybe a general view of faith, it's not a Christian view of faith
In the bible we are constantly taught, urged to have faith because things don't happen and it's all hard to believe
Faith that God will keep His word, We will find peace and rest, that there may be food for the millions starving and we can do something about it with His help

Christian faith is not rubbing Gods belly and getting wishes granted

Anyway, great reply
Cheers

a reply to: Raggedyman

Actually, I have a very good understanding of faith.

Not only from my own upbringing of my parents, but also the fact that I grew up all around the world and was exposed to many different cultures, who have many different faiths.

Part of my education was to learn about each culture and their beliefs.

In my 5 decades of life, there is one thing that each and every culture follows when it comes to faith that can be summed up in this simple definition:

Faith is the belief that something is true without requiring any proof or evidence that it is true.

However there is a variation of it too: Faith is the belief that something is true with either very little or no proof and evidence that it is true.

The reason for the variation is because of things like: You have faith that your friend will do something because in the past they have done it before.

That's not absolute proof, but it is evidence on a small scale, unlike scientific facts or theories which tend to require much more amounts of evidence or proof.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I only believe in micro creation, not macro creation. And micro gravity, not macro gravity. Just because gravity applies now, doesn't mean it always did, you can't prove gravity has been going on for 14 billion years, so it's automatically all wrong. Show me a peer reviewed journal that says gravity is scientific fact.

Peer reviewed journals don't need to make obvious statements like that. The evidence speaks for itself.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Simply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you

Skipping all of the meaningless waffling, here ya go...sources for macrobiology articles:

www.omicsonline.org...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.indiana.edu...

www.oxfordbibliographies.com...

Please understand, these links just give you somewhere to start. You can't expect us to do all the work for you. The task forges the worker, as they say, and some healthy legwork is good for the committed scholar.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Simply stating that evolution is a proven scientific fact
Barcs is right, micro evolution does take place, I agree.
I want a peer reviewed journal article dealing with Macro evolution

I don't want assumption, conjecture or faith statements

As an aside, I accept evolution is a reasonable theory, I don't disagree with Christians who accept evolution, you are welcome to believe evolution
I know creation sounds like a fantasy, is really pretty silly to believe in, in this scientific world
I don't have any scientific peer reviewed articles for it either. Creation is not a secular science so it's not needed

Again, simply show me scientific peer reviewed evidence of evolution as fact

Thank you

Or you could go find them? If you need to see them why don't you go look for them? I personally watched evolution happen in my kitchen. I left some bags of garbage sitting for like 2 years and some brownish red fluid had accumulated underneath. When I finally cleaned up I found flies living in the fluid that no longer had wings. There were hundreds of them I didn't know what the # they were at first. I just assume that by living in the fluid, I dubbed the devil's breakfast tea, they no longer needed to fly and in fact wings were probably a detriment living in the 'devil's breakfast tea' so after so many generations they just stopped producing wings and hundreds of generations of wingless flies just carried on living under the pile of filth in my kitchen...
Until I extirpated their population by destroying and cleaning up their habitat and putting a mini fridge on it...# ya biology.

Could you elaborate on this story. Why did you let sit bags of garbage in your kitchen for two years? What prevented you from cleaning it sooner? Did it smell? If it did, did the smell make your kitchen unusable? Do you even have a sense of smell? What do you put in the mini fridge?

Laziness, sporadic garbage pickup and no vehicle. Yes yes it smelled. I put food in my mini fridge because my real fridge died. Yes I have a sense of smell but by the time i cleaned it a lot of the garbage had decomposed to the point of almost becoming soil. I ended up cleaning it because my friend refused to let me have it there any more and came to my house with his truck.....this was many years ago...I don't live like that any more.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
The question really should be: Why is the scientific system that claims to be on the right track so obviously no where near the answers and is ultimately praised as being the correct way of looking at things?

Not getting anywhere near full answers with this...and it is boring beyond all belief.

No where near the answers? Really? You really think that science is just some sloppy guess, despite all technology derived from it? Science doesn't know everything, therefor it's flawed?? I really don't understand this mentality. Science is a work in progress, it's a slow process of studying and discovery. Why would you expect it to have all the answers of the universe, when we've only been in the modern scientific age for a few hundred years at best.

Truly incredible the effort sustained in dreaming up this train of thought that is as truly dreamy as any fantasy or religion will render the truth.

It is a belief system...based on way too many unknowns and assumptions that constantly change.

Yeah, the idea that you can verify things and learn facts through testing and experiment is pure fantasy, LOL! Yeah it totally takes faith to accept scientific results.

The system needs to be questioned..not defended...

The system does not. The scientific study itself DOES. And scientists are constantly doing this.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

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.

I would not call the blind denial of science "honest". He does this all the time. Asks for evidence, then refuses to even look at it when posted. This is a conspiracy website. People doubt EVERYTHING, even stuff that is slam dunk confirmed. Having a personal doubt about something, doesn't make that position valid. I doubt that the moon is not made of cheese, but that doesn't make it viable standpoint.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

Speciation has been directly observed multiple times. Stop defending a troll. The mechanisms for micro/macro evolution are exactly the same. Evolution is the accumulation of small changes and that's exactly what has been observed. You guys dishonestly pretend that macro is a separate process that shows a big sudden change. That false strawman is the reason why he's wrong and you guys are irrational. You think that in order to prove evolution you need to be able to watch a single cell for 3.5 billion years turn into a human. It's completely asinine.

a reply to: Barcs

Slam dunk confirmed, you just can supply the article
That's funny

a reply to: Barcs

it's probably because people don't care about evolutionary biology as much as they want a compelling reason to feel worthwhile as sentient beings stranded in the middle of a cosmic wasteland, gifted with acute sensitivity to fear of death and obscurity yet unable to avoid either. It's a philosophical thing, I'm guessing.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

Slam dunk confirmed, you just can supply the article
That's funny

Anything I post will be ignored and blindly denied, so why should I waste my time? That's a common theme with you. Demand evidence, deny it without even reading it. You feign understanding when you have none.