How To Define "Evolution"?

[orogenicman]

I guess she is avoiding responding to my posts. I don't blame her, really I don't. Poor dear.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Aside from your sweaty, feverish, chest-heaving tirade, were you aware that paleontology was becoming more than just a curiosity during the latter half of the 19th century?

How about the fact that an earth older than 6,000 years was already circulating during Darwin's time.

You fall down the stairs frequently, right?

I write "The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject."


And you show up lying, obfuscating and changing the subject.

What a coincidence.

Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that Origin of Species set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.

Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.

The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.


Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.

Why is that?

Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?

Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.

Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.

 

[Hollie]

I write "The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject."


And you show up lying, obfuscating and changing the subject.

What a coincidence.

Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that Origin of Species set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.

Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.

The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.


Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.

Why is that?

Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?

Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.

Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.

I was expecting that you were capable of offering nothing and you met my low expectations.


You're befuddled and so your pointless comment was expected.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that Origin of Species set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.

Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.

The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.


Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.

Why is that?

Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?

Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.

Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.

I was expecting that you were capable of offering nothing and you met my low expectations.


You're befuddled and so your pointless comment was expected.

Did you drop by to admit that Darwin was upset that the fossil evidence he was counting on didn't exist?


Nah....that would require honesty.

You're just very lonely....

 

[Hollie]

Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.

I was expecting that you were capable of offering nothing and you met my low expectations.


You're befuddled and so your pointless comment was expected.

Did you drop by to admit that Darwin was upset that the fossil evidence he was counting on didn't exist?


Nah....that would require honesty.

You're just very lonely....

Did the Harun Yahya madrassah never inform you that the fossil evidence to support Darwinian theory does exist?

Nah..... that would conflict with tales and fables of a 6,000 year old earth.


You're just befuddled.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was expecting that you were capable of offering nothing and you met my low expectations.


You're befuddled and so your pointless comment was expected.

Did you drop by to admit that Darwin was upset that the fossil evidence he was counting on didn't exist?


Nah....that would require honesty.

You're just very lonely....

Did the Harun Yahya madrassah never inform you that the fossil evidence to support Darwinian theory does exist?

Nah..... that would conflict with tales and fables of a 6,000 year old earth.


You're just befuddled.

Ohhhh......you ARE lonely.

You poor ignorant thing.....no body loves you?

Well....you're welcome here any time.


Don't expect to be paid attention to.....but drop by just the same.

 

[Hollie]

I write "The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject."


And you show up lying, obfuscating and changing the subject.

What a coincidence.

Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that Origin of Species set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.

Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.

The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.


Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.

Why is that?

Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?

Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.

Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.

Why did you slither away?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that Origin of Species set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.

Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.

The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.


Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.

Why is that?

Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?

Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.

Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.

Why did you slither away?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lscp1GCjUQ]"Hey There Lonely Girl" Live! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

Stop begging....you'll get another beating soon.

Why did you slither away?

Harun Yahya doesn't have videos?

You poor, dear.

How difficult it must be for you when Harun Yahya doesn't have a handy "quote".

 

[orogenicman]

I guess she is avoiding responding to my posts. I don't blame her, really I don't. Poor dear.

Ahem. (taps foot)

 

[Old Rocks]

Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.

Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?

Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."

This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.


Ready?

Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.

Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.

The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.

Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?

Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."

This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.


Ready?

Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.

Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.

The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.

"He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
Actually, that's not true.

When I have the time I'll explain the situation, and why the theory remains, as you put it, robust.
I like that word in this connection.


BTW....did you know that 'robust' means strong,...but it doesn't mean factual.

 

[orogenicman]

Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?

Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."

This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.


Ready?

Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.

Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.

The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.

"He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
Actually, that's not true.

What would you know of it? You have never even been in the field collecting fossils, much less have the ability to identify and classify them. Have you ever even been outside of Brooklyn? Stick with what you know (which is pretty much nothing at all) Miss Harun Yahya wannabe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.

Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.

The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.

"He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
Actually, that's not true.

What would you know of it? You have never even been in the field collecting fossils, much less have the ability to identify and classify them. Have you ever even been outside of Brooklyn? Stick with what you know (which is pretty much nothing at all) Miss Harun Yahya wannabe.

How many fossils have you found? My dad was a rock hound, we probably found hundreds of fossils. Does that make me better informed about evolution that you?

Of course it doesn't, what makes me better informed is the fact that I actually studied the various explanations of it and determined for myself which makes the most sense.

 

[Hollie]

Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?

Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."

This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.


Ready?

Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.

Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.

The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.

"He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
Actually, that's not true.

When I have the time I'll explain the situation, and why the theory remains, as you put it, robust.
I like that word in this connection.


BTW....did you know that 'robust' means strong,...but it doesn't mean factual.

Actually that is true. The fossil record has expanded phenomenally since Darwin’s time.

Religious zealots continue to attack “Darwinism” because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs, we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.

It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.

The TalkOrigins website has a good article here:

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

The article reiterates one of the stereotypical creationist challenges to the fossil record. In this case, there’s a comment from Duh’wayne Gish.

One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an “udder failure” (Gish 1985: 78-9).

BTW, It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Once again the extremist is going to be obligated to do a lot of speculative special pleadings to account for the anomalies...

 

[orogenicman]

"He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
Actually, that's not true.

What would you know of it? You have never even been in the field collecting fossils, much less have the ability to identify and classify them. Have you ever even been outside of Brooklyn? Stick with what you know (which is pretty much nothing at all) Miss Harun Yahya wannabe.

How many fossils have you found? My dad was a rock hound, we probably found hundreds of fossils. Does that make me better informed about evolution that you?

Probably not. How many have YOU found? How many new species have you found? How many have you catalogued and described in morphological detail?

Of course it doesn't, what makes me better informed is the fact that I actually studied the various explanations of it and determined for myself which makes the most sense.

What makes you less informed is that you don't have 20 years of field experience, and are not published. I do and am. I'm not a rock hound. I am a professional geologist certified in three states with national certification as well through the AAPG.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What would you know of it? You have never even been in the field collecting fossils, much less have the ability to identify and classify them. Have you ever even been outside of Brooklyn? Stick with what you know (which is pretty much nothing at all) Miss Harun Yahya wannabe.

How many fossils have you found? My dad was a rock hound, we probably found hundreds of fossils. Does that make me better informed about evolution that you?

Probably not. How many have YOU found? How many new species have you found? How many have you catalogued and described in morphological detail?

Of course it doesn't, what makes me better informed is the fact that I actually studied the various explanations of it and determined for myself which makes the most sense.

What makes you less informed is that you don't have 20 years of field experience, and are not published. I do and am. I'm not a rock hound. I am a professional geologist certified in three states with national certification as well through the AAPG.

New species? Hate to point out the obvious, but there are no new species in the fossil record, all of them are old, and quite a number of them are extinct. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to find a new species is by looking places other than in fossils. I would have thought that even a guy that studies dirt would know that.

Digging up dirt does not educate you in evolution, even if you find fossils along the way. If it did you wouldn't have argued the way you did in this thread when I pointed out that you don't understand evolution.

 

[orogenicman]

How many fossils have you found? My dad was a rock hound, we probably found hundreds of fossils. Does that make me better informed about evolution that you?

Probably not. How many have YOU found? How many new species have you found? How many have you catalogued and described in morphological detail?

Of course it doesn't, what makes me better informed is the fact that I actually studied the various explanations of it and determined for myself which makes the most sense.

What makes you less informed is that you don't have 20 years of field experience, and are not published. I do and am. I'm not a rock hound. I am a professional geologist certified in three states with national certification as well through the AAPG.

New species? Hate to point out the obvious, but there are no new species in the fossil record, all of them are old, and quite a number of them are extinct. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to find a new species is by looking places other than in fossils. I would have thought that even a guy that studies dirt would know that.

Digging up dirt does not educate you in evolution, even if you find fossils along the way. If it did you wouldn't have argued the way you did in this thread when I pointed out that you don't understand evolution.

New species = new to science = not previously known. 8 new species to be precise. Damn you are stupid.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Probably not. How many have YOU found? How many new species have you found? How many have you catalogued and described in morphological detail?

What makes you less informed is that you don't have 20 years of field experience, and are not published. I do and am. I'm not a rock hound. I am a professional geologist certified in three states with national certification as well through the AAPG.

New species? Hate to point out the obvious, but there are no new species in the fossil record, all of them are old, and quite a number of them are extinct. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to find a new species is by looking places other than in fossils. I would have thought that even a guy that studies dirt would know that.

Digging up dirt does not educate you in evolution, even if you find fossils along the way. If it did you wouldn't have argued the way you did in this thread when I pointed out that you don't understand evolution.

New species = new to science = not previously known. 8 new species to be precise. Damn you are stupid.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Not previously known ≠new.

 

[Old Rocks]

It does equal new to science, as you damned well know.

But for those defending the indefensible, seizing on any semantic tomfoolery is the standard.

Orogenicman is a professional geologist with much field experiance. Now I am just a millwright with over a 100 credits towards a BS in Geology, and a fulltime 40 to 45 hr a week job as a millwright in a steel mill. And I will be 70 before the year is out. I was raised in a very fundementalist family, and know all the arguements used against science. And really understand how willfull ignorance works. And even I know far more than PC and Quantum put together on the subject of evolution. These poster children for ignorance should read Earnst Myer. Or Stephen Jay Gould. There is much wonderful and enlightening information on evolutionary biology out there. But instead, you will convince yourselves that you know so much more than people like Orogenicman.