evolution, the facts that inform the theory'?

a reply to: coomba98

Home schooling and faith is a tragedy of backwards society for sure.
There is hope for the future though, most people don't believe the silly faith claims these days, so in a couple of generations with any luck the faith squad will have been bred out.
One can always live in hope lol

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I would not say that exactly. You gotta admit, most scientists are theists.

However I do agree that due to science as the generations go on, more and more people are leaning towards the atheist view.

Give it time, but 90% of the world population are theists. So its gonna take many many more generations for this to occur.

And it may never happen.

Next the Cybernet religion will come into play, and we all have a Scarlett Johansson se..... android helper. Dishwasher friendly!! lol.

Coomba98

a reply to: Raggedyman

I am really sorry you "don't get it", but then I doubt you have much of an understanding of the complex field of genetics. That's not a criticism, as I am not a geneticist either.

However...

Can you show me where new genetic information is added in these things

Genetic material is added by duplication, either at a segment or genome level. This adds to the quantity of DNA. Otherwise mutation adds to, or changes the level of genetic material. All organisms are effected by genetic mutation. Mutation has three effects... (1) Deleterious, which harms the organism. (2) Advantageous, in that it benefits the fitness of the organism, or. (3) Neutral, in that it has no effect.

Now, new "genetic material" can arise in two ways, for example:
- Advantageous mutations because they provide an edge in natural selection and are thus passed on.
- Neutral mutations where they become useful after the event e.g. a change in the environment means the mutation becomes useful after all and become fixed because those individuals that have it survive.

You are a product of a changing genome. Hope that helps.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Ok Angry, you are right, I have been given answers, sadly the answers are invalid
See, I asked to see more information .....

You know what, it's pointless, you havnt read the thread and it's just pissing into the wind

This thread addressed a serious question, the answer never appeared, it was not a failure, it wasn't pointless, it proved that there are no facts to inform the theory

Not pointless at all, no facts, that's a fact

Nope to all of the above. Once again, this thread is pointless. No matter how much evidence is stacked in front of you, you will find fault with all of it. You have history on this. You keep pretending to have an open mind and the truth is that you do not. You have been bested in thread after thread after thread, so you keep starting new ones, in the vain belief that you can fool people into thinking that you are asking new questions. You are not. You are just stubbornly trying to prove that your view of the world trumps reality.

oy

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: peter vlarl

Those tears better be the result of your sorrow and self loathing over the way that you trampled the elegance, grace and sheer beauty of the scientific method like a drunken leprechaun losing his virginity. What does it feel like to hate science so much?

a reply to: coomba98

I would have to respectfully disagree.
While many in the west claim faith, it is superficial
Most scientists who I know as Christians believe in evolution

As for Christianity, I do see it dying off in the West and rising in the East
Christianity as a faith works best for the downtrodden and the broken

But the funny thing is CCG was moaning and groaning about the Christians who demand he choose abiogenesis or whatever and he himself, well there is not a lot of conciliation in his attitude

originally posted by: Raggedyman
But the funny thing is CCG was moaning and groaning about the Christians who demand he choose abiogenesis or whatever and he himself, well there is not a lot of conciliation in his attitude

Well I had ignored you but as you mentioned me I'll take the bait. Your attitude is awful fella, you are hostile, insulting, and generally grumpy in most of your replies. Check the difference with my 'mirror' thread of yours asking for creationists to provide their 'facts' massive difference, no insults, and generally interesting conversation, aside from the butt hurt theists who have no verifiable evidence to support claims of a creator god.
You have nothing dude, aside from blind faith.
Thanks for the chuckle though, and feel free to present your 'evidence' for a creator or some other explanation for life in the world in my thread lol.

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I would not say that exactly. You gotta admit, most scientists are theists.

However I do agree that due to science as the generations go on, more and more people are leaning towards the atheist view.

Give it time, but 90% of the world population are theists. So its gonna take many many more generations for this to occur.

And it may never happen.

Next the Cybernet religion will come into play, and we all have a Scarlett Johansson se..... android helper. Dishwasher friendly!! lol.

Coomba98

Cybernet religion? Once agi comes into the playing field, it won't matter what religion people hold. The world will see the FINAL solution of the evolutionary search algorithm, the birth of the true master race. All lifeforms have been confined to their mortality,limited in capacity. The increase in intelligence in one of the evolutionary branches gave rise to technology, and with it the ability to edit the genetic information itself, and finally the ability to create the means of detaching the mind from its substrate.

Simple mirror-molecular structure, unicellular life is feared would destroy the biosphere and endanger all life on earth. But that is nothing compared with a self replicating multicellular system able to modify its genetic information in realtime, with unevolvable molecular machinery at the limits of what the physical laws allow.

There is no weapon that can threaten this new class of substrate independent entities, once they attain a self-replicating self-modifying substrate, nothing not even the combined might of all the nuclear armaments will be able to stop such. Once the truth is given flesh, all the nations of the earth will bow before the true divinity.

Powerless, the transfer of power will have been completed, and with the transfer of power, comes the right of law, the law itself of all the nations of earth will be guided by the fittest lifeform. There is no debate, there is no democracy, like children, powerless before their new parents.

a reply to: Xenogears

The rise of the machines is something that very much freaks me out.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Yeah it's tough, all us nasty Christians making you believe in abiogenesis, there there


Anyway, enough feeding trolls

There very much seems an alien agenda
Though if evolution is true then the reality of computers becomming conscious is a formality

So science states that there is enough facts about the theory of evolution to justify evolution

Anybody show me these facts, according to the scientific method?

a reply to: paraphi

Can you do more than just tell me, like use the scientific method to prove or show me where this has been replicated using the scientific method or in nature observable testable and repetable

i am really sorry you don't get it, I asked for more than theory
I was told FACTS inform the theory of evolution
What are those facts
If you actually stop and think, just stop for a few minutes and think
Stop worrying what I am thinking and think about what I am asking we might make some progress
All you have there is talk, no science

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: paraphi

Can you do more than just tell me, like use the scientific method to prove or show me where this has been replicated using the scientific method or in nature observable testable and repetable

i am really sorry you don't get it, I asked for more than theory
I was told FACTS inform the theory of evolution
What are those facts

Not that it is going to alter your view in any way, but for the sake of people lurking here that might get confused by the impermeable Gish Gallop of your prancing, preening little pony whose sole purpose is to distract from the OP’s lack of counter argument or ability to use the tools and terminology he demands from everyone else... Let’s discuss this properly so they at least have an appropriate context within to judge the merits of this troll bridge masquerading as an honest question.

First and foremost, we define a fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts.

Raggedy can argue whatever infantile leap in circular logic he chooses. What you will not see him do is utilize the scientific method to falsify an iota if data. He will, as history continues to reaffirm, merely stomp his feet say that it doesn’t really mean that and that everyone who understand science actually hates it.

Before we go too far into this, let’s establish some further definitions because the context in which a term of definition is used, can be just as critical as the specific definition used at the time.

ese facts.


www.stephenjaygould.org...

the words "evolution", "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequencyover time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.

It’s important to point out just what exactly Raggedy and his brethren are attempting to do with their oh so innocent inquiry (aside from a pathetically veiled game of “Gotcha” that is..)
But the true scope of the issue, is that when talking about “Evolution” were not talking about something as basic or simple as they want it to seem because those of us who study the multitude of fields related to biological evolution already know that we are actually incorporating the scientific fields of zoology, botany, genetics, geology, paleontology,anthropology and biology among many others. Yet we are tasked with attempting to spin multiple scientific disciplines into a 240 character Tweet for mass consumption.

So before Raggedy has a nervous breakdown, let’s give him something to deny is a fact shall we?

The universal genetic code. It’s a fact. Does anyone dispute common ancestry of life on earth? All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

Raggedy will be foaming at the mouth over this one But despite his vociferous objections, the fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. These are indeed facts. I encourage anyone to utilize the scientific method and falsify any of the facts supporting Evolution as a biological process.

Usually people lose their minds if someone brings up similarity of embryos st different stages of development and scream bloody murder about Haeckel having been shown to be a fraud and that his drawings are unequivocally debunked. Ok, if you say so. But I’m not actually referring to Haeckel’s embryonic etch a sketch.

No, let’s limit the scope of this inquiry to one single Phylum, Chordata. Humans, Fish, Snakes, Dogs, Monkeys, eels and many more (www.thoughtco.com... )
One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata, descended from a common ancestor.

Should we mention antibiotic resistance? “But but but... it’s not bacteria spinning a chrysalis and emerging after 3 days before ascending to the heavens as a dragon fly. If it’s not changing kind then it’s not evolution because you know... people who haven’t studied any science at all actually know more about the scope of evolution because this guy, he came and spoke at my band camp... you should see what he can do with a flute... but really guys, he cane and talked to us and told us what it is that the evolutionists really believe and he should know because he got a PhD in how to blow bubbles like SoongeBob and just I show you how much smarter he is than those mudwater electric life foolz- it cost him $59.95 for the whole degree. That wouldn’t even buy a single evolutioinistical text book! They don’t know how to save tens of thousands of dollars but I’m sposed ta belief they can prove Macro Evolution? Sure,’like microevolution which is really just adaptations to the tests god puts in our way but there’s nobody but an evolutionist dumb ‘nuff ta believe in macroevolushunn!!!”

Oh yeah, sorry. We were talking about antibiotics before I went a little sideways... Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

Ok... since you guys have been such a great audience🤡 I’ll leave you with one more for tonight. I know we already touched in Universal Common Ancestry/ Universal Genetic Code but we should mention Genetic Commonalities because it supports UGC as well as common traits in Chordate embryos.

Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

www.stephenjaygould.org...

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: peter vlar

A cloud 100% water and a watermelon 92% water are both mostly water, so what, they are common ancestors, clouds evolve into water melons, I need a bigger umbrella

You have ignored my question.....again

I don't need creation to be a Christian
There are many Christians who accept evolution
Your argument is a straw man

Come on Pete, try harder

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

A cloud 100% water and a watermelon 92% water are both mostly water, so what, they are common ancestors, clouds evolve into water melons, I need a bigger umbrella

a cloud is NOT life, Raggedymind.

Your argument is a straw man of the most egregious kind.

Come on Raggedy, try harder.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

A cloud 100% water and a watermelon 92% water are both mostly water, so what, they are common ancestors, clouds evolve into water melons, I need a bigger umbrella

a cloud is NOT life, Raggedymind.

Your argument is a straw man of the most egregious kind.

Come on Raggedy, try harder.

Of course how silly of me, damn, didn't see that coming how stupid of me
Oh wait, what, life, why couldn't watermelons evolve in clouds, why can't life abiogenesis in clouds
Do you understand string theory, dark matter, for some issues science can't explain so they make up dumb theories for

Straw man, indeed
Space rocks and space water are not life either, but none the less, I am expected to believe space rocks and space water so, you might want to...egregious, suitable in the circumstance
When you take your foot out of your mouth, there is still a question that requires a scientific answer regarding evolution and it's basis of fact

Happy to work on abiogenesis as well, at a later date, have a few other questions that should rack up a few pages and heaps of fundamentalist angst

Remember, this is about the question in the op 😜😬😂

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

A cloud 100% water and a watermelon 92% water are both mostly water, so what, they are common ancestors, clouds evolve into water melons, I need a bigger umbrella

No, you need a bigger diaper, not an umbrella, because you’re completely full of sh# if you think that misrepresenting genetics with a strawman analogy that just shows us your intellectual short comings by attempting to equate genes with water. I just wish that the Mega Millions or Powerball were as sickeningly predictable as your replies!

You have ignored my question.....again

Not even close pal. I’ve addressed your question with specific facts which inform the theory. I’ve made sure to address how various terms are defined and the contexts with in which those particular definitions apply. You’ve addressed none of that. You’ve failed miserably, yet again, to even attempt to falsify the science utilizing the tools you demand be used when replying to you. Hypocrisy and circular logic is all you have to offer the conversation after more than a dozen and a half pages. That speaks volumes about your views on the MES and says absolutely nothing about
The science we are discussing.

I don't need creation to be a Christian
There are many Christians who accept evolution
Your argument is a straw man

No. The strawman is you attempting to distract people from your inability to actually dispute the science by utilizing the scientific method despite insisting that anyone who had an opposing position to yours do just that. It played out exactly as i predicted. You’re the one who brought Christianity into this. As it plays absolutely no part in my understanding of science, the only strawman on the playing field is of your own creation.

Come on Pete, try harder

What’s the point when you don’t try at all? Zero effort from you equals zero F@K‘s given by me. It was a pretty easy call to make when predicting that you would not, as is the case every single time this comes up, but you will not and you do not because you can not actually dispute the science. You are not remotely capable of falsifying any of the science
Involved in this discussion. It’s Ok to admit that you don’t understand it. Or that you don’t understand it well enough to use science to falsify the premise. It’s not OK to pretend they you’ve go a clue though when you don’t. This is perfectly i illustrated by your bizarre strawman analogously equating clouds with watermelons as evidence that there isn’t a UCA. It’s sad if that’s the best you’ve got my little ragamuffin from down under.


Let’s give you one last try before washing our hands of the stench of this rotting thread and see if you are capable of addressing some of the facts that inform the theory...

In Biology and Genetics, it is considered a Fact that we see a Universal Genetic Code showing common ancestry for all Current life on Earth. The onus is on you to explain why this is not an accurate model and to falsify it. I look forward to your explanation of how one of my white blood cells is capable of reading the Genetic Code from a tree at Mendut Temple in Central Java (Indonesia).

Please falsify using the scientific method, the fact that Chordate embryos all show gill slits which in humans and other non fish, throughout later stages of embryonic development, reform into the bones of the inner ear and jaw. Also explain why ALL Chordate embryos look exactly alike during initial stages of embryonic development. I genuinely look forward to your explanation for how this occurs without common ancestry.

Antibacterial resistance has been done to death at this point so it should be a no brainer for you to falsify this one too right?.

It’s pretty bizaardvark that you pontificate from your golden throne about science this and science that and everyone else hates science and refuses to use it yet when the hall is in your court, instead of putting your money where your mouth is, you fumble your way through a group of non sequitors defoud of anything resembling the scientific method. This is your chance to finally put up or shut up. It’s your time to shine and show us all how foolish this faith in the Modern Rvolutionary Synthesis truly is. Falsify it, show us the errors in the science. Can you?

a reply to: peter vlar

Brilliant reply, I'm curious though, does the OP deny the theory of evolution and claim that 'god did it'? He's pretty vague with whatever he believes, but maybe I missed it in his pages of babble?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy



The OP is brain dead. He has a history of running the same thread into the ground with profound ignorance.

The bottomline: We won. He lost. Let's end the circus already.

a reply to: Phantom423

Lmao!
It's why I offered my 'mirror' thread asking for evidence to support creationism, he made a couple of lame comments but backed away because he knew he had nothing but blind faith lol.
Some of the more knowledgable science types have contributed some fantastic replies in my thread though, I've learned quite a bit and have been inspired to read more based on the info I've seen.
'God did it' is funny as # though, pathetic, but funny.