Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[konradv]

Secondly, belieiving in evolution doesn't make one an anti-thiest... and I don't know anyone who's suggested that it does.
------------------------------------

Perhaps you should read the thread before commenting. Thanks for the posting lesson offer, but I do just fine.

 

[Seer Travis]

Evolution represents Truth, but is insanely and categorically rejected because it dis-proves the utterly deranged christian religious nonsense.

Now, christian god addicts cannot bear these Truths, in fact their whole religion was devised for the very purpose of rejecting Truth. Therefore, it is impossible to "win" the argument with any such deeply addicted god addicts.

 

[frazzledgear]

I saw 'macroevolution' and knew FG didn't know what it was talking about

Then it claimed that evolution requires any animal to give birth to another species and I realized there is only one appropriate response to the post:

You only showed a significant reading comprehension problem if you really did read what I wrote and that is what you took from it. You also proved you have a closed mind and are completely unable to first read something in its entirety before leaping to really stupid conclusions about what you assume I said instead of responding to what I really did say.

If you don't know what macroevolution even is, then I'm afraid it is you who does not know what they are talking about. The "evolution" part in either of the words "microevolution" or "macroevolution" is only referring to mutations -those mutations are what Darwin meant by "evolution". Evolution = mutation. Make sure you have grasped this before trying to move on to the next part.

"Micro" only refers to the scale of the mutation. Darwin theorized that it required the accumulation of many individual mutations before one species became a totally different one. Even he never theorized that one species could turn into another one by means of a single mutation, ok? Every individual mutation is an example of microevolution. The word "microevolution" only refers to those individual mutations that occur without altering the species. But just look how many words I save by simply calling it "microevolution".

"Macro" also refers to the scale of the mutation. At the point where enough mutations have been accumulated to turn one species into another it becomes MACROEVOLUTION. It means enough mutations have occurred that the individual now has a genetic code that identifies its species as being a different species from that of his ancestors. That is what Darwin theorized, remember? That in order for one species to end up being a totally different one required the accumulation of many mutations until TA-DA, it was a brand new different species. This may surprise you, but there is actually a word to identify that point at which enough mutations have been accumulated that one species is now a brand new one. But again, see how many words I save by just calling it "macroevolution"? Of course for people like you, if you have no curiosity to learn in the first place to even try to understand what it really means, then I have to go back and walk you through it anyway.

(The comment you focused on was an aside comment and not the real thrust of any of my comments - but that aside comment is still hard reality. This theory cannot just be "generally true". It is either true and it happens or it does not. If it happens that means if you took an individual of one species whose ancestors were of a totally different species and lined up all the ancestors of that individual -it must be possible to point out the very first individual to have a genetic code that identified it as being of a different species than its ancestors. There is no such thing as it "generally" happens. What Darwin never knew because it had not yet been discovered is that genetic code that identifies an individual's species is hard code, changing that code changes its species. If you read anything else I said after that aside comment you might understand why that is. Because I have this paragraph in parentheses, it means this is also an aside comment and focusing on this one to the exclusion of everything else I previously said - still does nothing to counter or in any way disprove anything I said in the real thrust of my comments.)

Now its really too bad you didn't read past that in my previous post -because it discussed WHERE in the genetic code mutations actually take place and YOU might have actually learned something new. But then you probably think that public school education is all you really need to get such a good grasp on the subject that simply scoffing at the word "macroevolution" presents a scathing and stunningly BRILLIANT counter argument to the KNOWN flaws in the theory that I discussed, right? Oh please. ROFLMAO

They don't teach the known flaws in that theory in K-12 -just in case you were silly enough to believe that 12th grade education of yours left you with a top notch grasp of the evolutionary sciences.

 

[antagon]

you are clearly working with a < 12th grade education on biology, frazzled. i think that was the joke.

 

[JBeukema]

Poor Frazzie. What 'til (s)he learn about ring species.

 

[antagon]

Poor Frazzie. What 'til (s)he learn about ring species.

that'll be more proof darwin was wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

I've noticed that the anti-evolution crowd tends to have a very simplistic view of evolution as some linear process with clearly defined specialization events in which the offspring is suddenly a different species than the parent.

They fail to understand the gradient that results from genetic drift and interbreeding between populations.

Perhaps Frazzled should look at a few gradients or rainbows to see how each photon/colour/pixel can be the same colour [for all intents and purposes] as its neighbor yet a very different colour than the other end.

 

[antagon]

I've noticed that the anti-evolution crowd tends to have a very simplistic view of evolution as some linear process with clearly defined specialization events in which the offspring is suddenly a different species than the parent.

They fail to understand the gradient that results from genetic drift and interbreeding between populations.

Perhaps Frazzled should look at a few gradients or rainbows to see how each photon/colour/pixel can be the same colour [for all intents and purposes] as its neighbor yet a very different colour than the other end.

it is caricature, and based on poor education. basically take the parts you dont understand, and blow them out of proportion to ground an argument. they are unaware of the extent that that method betrays their misunderstanding, rather than some real criticism of the theory.

i've not found any sincerity among detractors of evolution theory. sincere criticism is over the mechanisms within it and the implications of the evidence supporting it as it guides our understanding of the general premise. what the detractors run with is a misguided attempt to champion their religious beliefs in a scientific sphere. i dont see why. i could respect an amish guy who says, "are you kidding? i dont look into microscopes, i look at the Word of God", and leaves it at that.

this other shit of hoping to defend the bases of ID and purporting that their faith is superior by virtue has reduced to a joke that cant stand on either leg.

 

[frazzledgear]

Please read Frazzledgear's post. He presents a clear statement of why evolution doesn't exist.
I asked you to show where in the Bible it showed the Lord did not finish His creation, but left it to 'evolve'. Mumbo jumbo over 'social evolution' is a different subject. It seems you have demonstrated where 'your faith' is stronger. Good Luck with that.

FG's post is a joke, bud. based on darwin's suppositions, it's already on passe footing. then the comical 10,000 year cambrian explosion, the eyes theory where you guys say theres only ever been fully formed eyes. that's not true now, nor ever has been. the gene analysis is ignorance without peer: most evolution, or course being affected by gene selection, instead of the mechanisms which he thinks he knows about. that you see any truth in that or it's conclusions betray that you might not have paid any attention in highschool bio.

i've made a case for the bible's account for evolution. you think that if it is not in the bible it is not real. the bible asks us to see what is real about the world for God's message. your pastor has failed you, no doubt with the same ignorance about the bible and biology which you reflect, buddy. here i was thinking that your competence in the Word would be better footed, but i find that lacking as well.

it fits the shoe of ignorance that fundamentalists strap on before they mislead their children.

Would you people stop confusing MY points with religious discussions? My posts have ZERO to do with religious beliefs and is about the known flaws with this theory. I can tell I'm arguing with a bunch of people who have no higher education in the sciences than a 12th grade education using the same stupid lack of reasoning and zero inclusion of KNOWN scientific discoveries made since Darwin's time! Get real people.

Oh sure, scientists now say the fossil record does show that life has become MORE diverse over time after all and today is when we have the most diversity of life after all, right? Well if they are teaching that, its a big, fact lie. FACT: Life keeps becoming LESS diverse over time and not more. So gee, how can Darwin's theory account for that? Are you kidding? A theory that assumes the exact opposite happens cannot possibly account for what is reality here. He theorized that life becomes MORE diverse over time and tried to explain why that would be -that is the entire foundation for his theory right there. He believed that life becomes more diverse over time and proposed a theory to try and account for that -but it turns out his assumption that life becomes more diverse over time is dead wrong. The indisputable scientific FACT is that life becomes less diversified over time -so his theory turns out to be full of CRAP for that one, huh? Again, if something a scientist believes to be true turns out to be false, then the theory he offers to explain that false thing -is also false! Big DUH on that one. If I assume you wrecked the car, then my theory that you wrecked the car because you ran a red light is just useless crap of no use at all, isn't it? Embellishing my theory about how you wrecked the car by additionally theorizing you were texting your friends, playing your music too loudly, talking to friends, dropped something on the floor and leaned over to pick it up and just weren't paying attention is still of no use at all and it still can't prove how you wrecked the car -because it is still a fact that you never wrecked the car at all! All I have done is added even more to my first useless theory about how you wrecked the car and by doing so it in no way changed anything about reality here. The car was never wrecked in the first place! What you Darwinists are actually saying is the equivalent of "But gee, it sure sounds like a lot of good reasons for why the car is wrecked -so let's all just pretend the car really is wrecked anyway, ok?"

I guess that means in the study of the advanced sciences they must have been ordered to STOP teaching the fact that the part of the genetic code that identifies the species is actually hard code, hardier and far more resistant to mutation and SEPARATE from the rest of the code that has to do with how a specific individual will look and function and it is actually along THAT part of the code where 99.99999% of all mutations take place -while leaving the code that identifies its species UNCHANGED. They stop teaching that too now and started teaching that simply changing how a specific individual will LOOK and whether some parts will or will not work properly somehow changes its genetic code for its SPECIES? Are you kidding me? ROFL Must be why in paternal DNA testing they have to first test for the species to make sure the parties involved aren't already in the process of passing on genetic code that would someday identify them as something other than homo sapiens, huh. That should also mean it should also be pretty easy to already identify who among is us is most likely going to have descendants that won't be human! ROFL

They don't test for that because we know something today that Darwin did NOT! We know it is a scientific FACT that two parents of one species can only produce offspring of that exact same species and the only thing that can possibly change is how the individual may look or function. But THOSE changes and no matter how many mutations are made in that regard - do not affect its genetic code that identifies the species and never will. Darwin didn't know that so Darwin couldn't possibly be expected to come up with a theory that took that scientific REALITY into account. Darwin didn't know a lot of things we know today so his theory cannot and does not take into account the greater gain in knowledge and SORRY but a whole lot of what we have learned since Darwin totally contradicts his FLAWED THEORY. That is just scientific fact.

This is about the demand of people like YOU that we continue to use proven FLAWED science as the foundation to build greater scientific knowledge upon and then teach our children that bullshit instead of teaching them the truth -that we still don't know the answers. Telling them the truth about that would do far more to spark their curiosity and set them on the path to try and discover even more than teaching them a lie and telling them this badly and provably flawed theory is "settled science" which can only kill and stifle scientific curiosity. The very foundation of what kids in public school believe about science is nothing but a house of cards and they will never know that unless they go on to study the advanced sciences -which most people do not. But just like HERE, the people who argue the loudest and most passionately insisting that Darwin got it all 100% correct and now his theory is no longer a theory at all and proven settled science are the very people with the least education in science! The truth is that an overly simplistic theory like Darwin's has not, cannot and never will explain EVERYTHING which is what he was trying to do. Get over it -so he got it wrong. Can we get on with REAL SCIENCE instead of science fiction here?

Darwin's theory was an attempt by a man to try and explain everything. But he did it at a time when he was totally ignorant about some of the critically important scientific knowledge that has been gained SINCE. The reason his theory has ended up failing to prove the very things he first proposed the theory to try and explain is because the knowledge we have gained since his time has ended up CONTRADICTING his underlying ASSUMPTIONS about what was true in the first place and did so in one area after another! Not the least of which is one of his biggest assumptions that he pinned his entire theory to -is FALSE. There is no other scientific theory where the underlying assumption has turned out to be false where we insist we must all pretend it isn't -except this one!!! The only thing that is proved with his theory is that he got it wrong. He did the best he could with what was known in the sciences at that time but the lack of that knowledge we have today that he did not have -led him to make assumptions that turned out not to be true at all! Again, if the underlying assumptions turn out to be false, then any theory trying to explain that false assumption is also FALSE.

In the REAL WORLD -no one uses Darwin's theory as he wrote it to try and build upon. Absolutely no one -because its useless. Scientists go back to sound science and sound scientific principles of trying to find an explanation for a very specific phenomenon once again. No one proposes an overly simplistic theory to try and explain EVERYTHING and absolutely no one says this theory actually explains any specific phenomenon either. Because it doesn't and Darwin did prove THAT to be the only scientific fact of any use in his theory.

Tell me you nutcases don't REALLY think a degree in the evolutionary sciences means people walk into class, are told Darwin got it all correct, done deal, that's all she wrote -here's your degree and buh-bye? If they aren't being taught that -what do you think they are REALLY being taught? ROFLMAO! (by the way, I've seen the crap trying to pretend there was no Cambrian explosion but if you lay out the time line for the appearance of different species, guess when all those different species show up? It is just one of the reasons why we know for a fact that life gets LESS diverse over time and not more. We couldn't do that unless we were able to first identify a time when it was more diverse in the first place. And they did -but it sure as hell isn't today as it absolutely would be if Darwin's underlying assumption had been correct in the first place.)

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Oh sure, scientists now say the fossil record does show that life has become MORE diverse over time after all and today is when we have the most diversity of life after all, right? Well if they are teaching that, its a big, fact lie. FACT: Life keeps becoming LESS diverse over time and not more.

You ramble on for some time on this point, yet you seem to provide no supporting evidence to your "fact". If you look at any phylogenetic tree or speciation, you see branching points. In other words, there is diversity. Now you can claim that certain species die out, resulting in fewer living species in certain circumstances, but that does not refute the diversification that occurred.

I guess that means in the study of the advanced sciences they must have been ordered to STOP teaching the fact that the part of the genetic code that identifies the species is actually hard code, hardier and far more resistant to mutation and SEPARATE from the rest of the code that has to do with how a specific individual will look and function and it is actually along THAT part of the code where 99.99999% of all mutations take place -while leaving the code that identifies its species UNCHANGED.

What is it that you think defines a species? Based on the above excerpt, it appears you believe that there is some "species gene" that is immune to genetic variation, because changing it would result in a different species altogether. Putting aside the fact that you have once again offered absolutely zero support for anything you said, this idea is just wrong. In actuality, genes between species look very similar, despite differences. This is known as genetic homology. It means that the genes for dog spit and human spit and chipmunk spit are all pretty similar, but mildly different, and all still functional. Now amylase in spit does not code for a species, but what gene do you think does that? Species differences are the compilation between all the minor differences among genes.

They don't test for that because we know something today that Darwin did NOT! We know it is a scientific FACT that two parents of one species can only produce offspring of that exact same species

Ligers and mules directly contradict what you just claimed. These are animals where parents of two separate species does not reproduce either of the parents, and it sheds light on evolutionary divergence with common ancestry. But the fact that you believe it takes such drastic changes once again shows you have a poor idea of what evolution actually is: a slow change over time, where differences between two generations are barely seen and speciation doesn't exist.

This is about the demand of people like YOU that we continue to use proven FLAWED science as the foundation to build greater scientific knowledge upon and then teach our children that bullshit instead of teaching them the truth -that we still don't know the answers. Telling them the truth about that would do far more to spark their curiosity and set them on the path to try and discover even more than teaching them a lie and telling them this badly and provably flawed theory is "settled science" which can only kill and stifle scientific curiosity. The very foundation of what kids in public school believe about science is nothing but a house of cards and they will never know that unless they go on to study the advanced sciences -which most people do not. But just like HERE, the people who argue the loudest and most passionately insisting that Darwin got it all 100% correct and now his theory is no longer a theory at all and proven settled science are the very people with the least education in science!

What it sounds like to me is that you were the one who was not quite educated on the topic. If you want to bash others in this thread for lack of education, I suggest you don't appear to be in the same boat. For starters, you just demonstrated that you don't even know what the definition of a scientific theory is, by claiming it can be changed or improved. The theory of evolution is accepted in the scientific community at the same level as the theory of gravity. I recommend you look up and understand what scientific theory is, because it's not the same as layman's theory/hunch.

The remainder of your post is a rant about how Darwin's ideas are wrong. You support this point by claiming they're false. Sorry to point out: that's not support. If you would like to examine specific aspects that were proven incorrect, I would enjoy hearing them. Until then, you may want to scale back on the "it's not true because it's false" angle.

 

[frazzledgear]

The remainder of your post is a rant about how Darwin's ideas are wrong. You support this point by claiming they're false. Sorry to point out: that's not support. If you would like to examine specific aspects that were proven incorrect, I would enjoy hearing them. Until then, you may want to scale back on the "it's not true because it's false" angle.

OMG, this is just silly. At no point in my post did I "rant". I don't have to prove the fossil record does not have "in betweens" showing one species turning into another -because it is a fact and not a contested claim whatsoever. I don't have to show how the fossil record shows less diversification of life with time because it is an uncontested fact. Just because your own shortcomings lead you believe it amounts to a "rant" doesn't make it true and it never makes it incumbent upon me to find a remedy for your shortcomings.

That some species look different through time doesn't turn them into different species. Horses were originally pretty small animals and their head shape was significantly different and there were other noticeable differences in the physical appearance between a horse from 50,000,000 years ago and today. But their species back then was horse and it is still horse today in spite of the fact they LOOK totally different from what a horse looked like then. The mutated changes and different inheritable variables that ended up being passed on to their offspring until they ended up looking like they look today (let's skip the manipulated breeding for argument's sake) didn't change any part of the DNA that identifies the species. That isn't something I made up. It is why in spite of looking so different from what a horse looks like today, it is still called a horse. If you don't understand genetics, its going to take more than a single post. The traits that are inherited from parent to offspring and their offspring etc. cannot change their species and it doesn't matter how wildly different looking those inherited traits and mutations may make the individual look. ONLY a mutation in the specific part of the DNA strand that identifies the species can change the species -and SORRY for reality intruding here, but mutations on that part of the DNA strand are nearly 100% lethal to the individual. Which means it will never be passed on to its offspring. I say "nearly" because it leaves open the extremely remote possibility that maybe a really, really, really rare one isn't but it has never been found. Its like saying I am 99.9999999% positive the sun will rise tomorrow -it still leaves open the extremely remote possibility the sun will explode during the night. What you clearly do NOT understand is the part of the DNA strand that identifies the species is NOT the part of the strand that is readily subject to mutations whatsoever -it is that part of the strand that determines what the individual of that species will look like, but not on the part that determines what species it is! Which is why it is an indisputable biological FACT that two parents of one species can only produce offspring of their own species and will never produce anything BUT another of their own species -that means that part of the DNA that identifies the species gets passed down UNCHANGED because to change that part means changing the species.

It doesn't matter how many mutations occur, how many different variables in what an individual of a species can look like -unless the mutation occurs on that part of the DNA that identifies the species it can NEVER change the species. But when it does happen on that part, it kills the individual. I'm pretty sure Darwin wishes he had known this but it wasn't discovered until long after he was dead. So his theory was offered while ignorant about future scientific and biological discoveries. But Darwin's ignorance doesn't mean I have to remain as ignorant about them now as he was then. That means if your mother was born a legless wonder and your father was a hairless, toothless gummer and you inherited all of that from both parents, you'd be someone whose best shot at making a living would be in a sideshow -but sadly, the part of your DNA that identified your species would still be the same as mine. It wouldn't matter if everyone else on the planet were killed so that only your descendants of bald, legless, toothless gummers existed from then on. No matter how many generations were to pass, the part of their DNA strand that identified their SPECIES would still be the same as mine and everyone else. If only your freak offspring and their descendants existed on the planet it would mean the OUTWARD physical traits of what a typical human being now looked liked and what body parts they came with had changed. But what was never changed is the part of their DNA that identified their SPECIES. (Now if you want to call your freak descendants non-human, that's fine by me and I hope you do -but DNA testing would still prove that to be false.)

What don't you get? I specifically named KNOWN flaws and I didn't ask if you agreed if they were flaws because these are KNOWN flaws with the theory! They aren't flaws I just made up. These are the flaws discovered and verified by scientists, the knowledge these are proven flaws are being taught in our colleges and universities in the advanced sciences! HERESY, right? LOL

Your statement about theories not being modified or changed is pure bullshit, sorry and only shows your ignorance again. Sorry, but scientific theories get modified, changed, refined and thrown out ALL THE TIME. That is actually the very NATURE of science in the first place! Gee, even the theory of global warming has been modified more than 15 times now by a slew of different scientists in less than a decade! Maybe you didn't also know that different scientists are working with different aspects of all these different theories -including those that theorized global warming is not the fault of man, those that theorized it is cyclical in nature, that it is not due to carbon dioxide emissions at all, theories it is not occurring at all -and that global warming is occurring but would be beneficial and on and on. That is what scientists do because that is how man actually gains greater scientific knowledge -by constantly questioning, investigating, challenging and modifying or even abandoning theories entirely based on what they actually FIND. It is that part of science you clearly don't get -the FINDINGS dictate whether a theory needs to be modified, refined -or abandoned. While you and other Darwinists are actually insisting scientists must somehow force their findings to fit a theory instead and those findings that fail to do so -must be rejected. It is THEORIES that get modified, refined, changed or just thrown out when that happens -not the findings that fail to conform with a theory that gets thrown out! When the findings fail to conform with the theory, it is the theory that is modified to try and account for and explain those findings and if no amount of modification can do that, it gets dumped entirely. After all, theories are proposed to try and explain what actually EXISTS -not what we are going to pretend exists.

Seriously, do you REALLY think once a theory gets proposed, that's it? It becomes untouchable, sacred and holy? How many modifications do you think were made to the theory that is possible to turn some other metal into gold before it was finally abandoned? How many times was the theory that sticking a leech on someone would cure some disease or another it put on at the proper time and left on for the proper length of time was tried and changed before it was finally tossed in the trash? Einstein modified and refined his theory of relativity several times before leaving it in the final form we know now. Newton modified and refined his theory of gravity, that theory has since been modified for other variables that can affect gravity that Newton never knew about, Stephen Hawking never stopped modifying and refining his theory of black holes -and they all did when their original theory didn't quite pan out which told them they hadn't quite yet gotten it right. There is absolutely nothing SACRED AND HOLY in science or about any aspect of science - because science is not a religion.

The flaws I pointed out are real, they are known by scientists because they are the ones who found those flaws in the first place. Not some preacher somewhere, ok?

I'm not the one with a vested in interest in what the science shows. Doesn't matter to me one little bit. Zippo. Nada. If Darwin's theory of evolution were absolutely, 100% true and "scientific fact" -so what?. I don't care whatsoever. True, not true -I don't care how it actually turns out. It only matters that we tell ourselves the truth -history has shown when we don't, it only delays gaining greater scientific knowledge that much longer.

People like you always assume that anyone who says the theory of evolution is flawed can only be doing so because of their religious beliefs -which is bullshit. It is people like you who demand we worship at the altar of evolution with unquestioning devotion, INSIST it may not be challenged and INSIST it is written in stone. People like YOU are the ones treating science like it is a RELIGION. Why? Why on earth would you really give a rat's ass whether this particular theory turns out to be accurate or not? Until you can answer that, a rational discussion with people who insist on treating it like a religion -is just not possible.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I don't have to prove the fossil record does not have "in betweens" showing one species turning into another -because it is a fact and not a contested claim whatsoever.

No one contests that claim because one species does not turn into another. It's statements like those that inform the intelligent contributors here that you don't actually understand the concept of evolution. Meanwhile, genetics very clearly shows diversification in evolution. Again, look at any phylogenetic tree.

ONLY a mutation in the specific part of the DNA strand that identifies the species can change the species. What you clearly do NOT understand is the part of the DNA strand that identifies the species is NOT the part of the strand that is readily subject to mutations whatsoever

This is so misguided it's laughable. Do tell where these magical "species genes" are located, say, in humans. or any species for that matter. Claiming certain parts of DNA are immune to mutations is just silly. Claiming mutations in vital parts of the genome are nearly always lethal is also silly. Go google the term "silent mutation" for a clear refutation of your claim.

Which is why it is an indisputable biological FACT that two parents of one species can only produce offspring of their own species and will never produce anything BUT another of their own species -that means that part of the DNA that identifies the species gets passed down UNCHANGED because to change that part means changing the species.

So how do you explain the mule or the liger? Or do you claim donkeys and horses are the same species? Tigers and lions are the same species as well? Pluots?

That means if your mother was born a legless wonder and your father was a hairless, toothless gummer and you inherited all of that from both parents, you'd be someone whose best shot at making a living would be in a sideshow

If you were born to legless and toothless parents, you'd still have legs and teeth. Your misguided perception of genetics is amusing.

These are the flaws discovered and verified by scientists, the knowledge these are proven flaws are being taught in our colleges and universities in the advanced sciences! HERESY, right? LOL

Your insecurity in education, manifested by claiming everyone else is undereducated while you yourself exhibit a complete lack of understanding of the topics on which you speak, is readily recognized. I have given lectures on the genetics of evolution and phylogeny at the college level. You, on the other hand, continue to make claims without citing a single source. hmm....

Your statement about theories not being modified or changed is pure bullshit, sorry and only shows your ignorance again. Sorry, but scientific theories get modified, changed, refined and thrown out ALL THE TIME. That is actually the very NATURE of science in the first place! Gee, even the theory of global warming has been modified

Once again you appear to have difficulty distinguishing between layperson theory and scientific theory. Global warming is not a scientific theory accepted by the scientific community. What you are describing is the foundation of science and seeking truth, which does very readily re-evaluate information, scrapping wrong information and coming closer to truth. But you claimed the theory of evolution was somehow promoted. That's impossible. The best status such a concept can achieve is a scientific theory, just as gravity has. Here's an easy way to prove yourself correct: name the last scientific theory that has been rejected.

How many modifications do you think were made to the theory that is possible to turn some other metal into gold before it was finally abandoned? How many times was the theory that sticking a leech on someone would cure some disease or another it put on at the proper time and left on for the proper length of time was tried and changed before it was finally tossed in the trash?

Neither of those are or ever were scientific theories. Your examples are failures, and continue to lead away from your original failure of insinuating scientific ideas can be promoted above "theory".

People like you always assume that anyone who says the theory of evolution is flawed can only be doing so because of their religious beliefs -which is bullshit. It is people like you who demand we worship at the altar of evolution with unquestioning devotion, INSIST it may not be challenged and INSIST it is written in stone. People like YOU are the ones treating science like it is a RELIGION.

I have not brought up religion once in our discussion. You were the first one to bring that bias to the table, not me. I have neither made demands of blind worship to evolution, nor "unquestioning devotion".

What I have seen is someone insecure in their own knowledge of the topic, and overcompensating with inane accusation and unsupported hand-waiving references to "the scientists" and "it's proven fact". Well, as a published scientist, among other things, I have a rather clear picture of the scientific method, and the beauty of constantly questioning concepts for better refinement. And while you may misdirect the conversation by claiming that's how science ought to be (and it is, no one has said differently), you are still continually wrong in the other inaccurate claims you make.


So things I'd like to see you actually address and support, instead of continuing to rant about things no one has brought up or disagreed with:

1. How do you reconcile cross-bred organisms such as ligers, mules, or hybrid fruit if you claim offspring must always be the same species as the parents?
2. How do you explain every phylogenetic tree exhibiting species diversification?
3. Can you point to a single scientific theory recognized by the scientific community that has been either rejected or promoted beyond the status of theory?

 

[JBeukema]

Oh sure, scientists now say the fossil record does show that life has become MORE diverse over time after all and today is when we have the most diversity of life after all, right? Well if they are teaching that, its a big, fact lie. FACT: Life keeps becoming LESS diverse over time and not more. So gee, how can Darwin's theory account for that?

1) You're an idiot
2) WTF is 'Darwin's Theory'?
3) What respected biologist or other expert on evolution says the theory predicts any increase in biodiversity?

All I have done is added even more to my first useless theory

In the REAL WORLD -no one uses Darwin's theory as he wrote it to try and build upon

sciences means people walk into class, are told Darwin got it all correct, done deal, that's all she wrote

Apparently you do, since you keep taking about 'Darwin's theory'

 

[JBeukema]

I don't have to prove the fossil record does not have "in betweens" showing one species turning into another -because it is a fact and not a contested claim whatsoever.

this popped out while scrolling

I don't have to show how the fossil record shows less diversification of life with time because it is an uncontested fact

That some species look different through time doesn't turn them into different species. Horses were originally pretty small animals and their head shape was significantly different and there were other noticeable differences in the physical appearance between a horse from 50,000,000 years ago and today.

we need a facepalm smiley

But their species back then was horse

'horse' is not a species


Wait, let me guess, you were thinkng of the 'kinds' from Genesis

Why on earth would you really give a rat's ass whether this particular theory turns out to be accurate or not? Until you can answer that, a rational discussion with people who insist on treating it like a religion -is just not possible.

 

[JBeukema]

If you were born to legless and toothless parents, you'd still have legs and teeth.

Not necessarily.

Here's an easy way to prove yourself correct: name the last scientific theory that has been rejected.

The geocentric model of the universe? The plum-pudding model of the atom? Newton's (mathematical) model of gravitational attraction? Newton's concept of relativistic notion? The entire concept of time as something constant? Lamarkian evolution [granted that one could claim, at a stretch that epigenetic workings are similar]? Was 'Rain Follows the Plow' ever considered an actual theory? Just about everything believed by alchemists? The Four Humours? The concept of disease as caused by bad spirits before the discovery of the germ? Maternal Impression? phylogiston?

Oh, and spontaneous generation. Almost forgot the most obvious.


And Dualism.



Now demonstrate how any of that lends any credence to Frazzled's claims.

1. How do you reconcile cross-bred organisms such as ligers, mules, or hybrid fruit if you claim offspring must always be the same species as the parents?[/QUOTE]
   
   If a liger and a tion cannot reproduce, then they do not meet the definition of being the same species.

Can they breed back into either of the parent populations?

If not, then they are members of no species, but mere freak hybrids unto themselves alone.
​

1. Can you point to a single scientific theory recognized by the scientific community that has been either rejected or promoted beyond the status of theory?

See the above.

The heliocentric model is recognized as both a theory and a fact, much like evolution

 

[Father Time]

There was a real interesting scientific theory that you could use the bumps and general shape of someone's head to determine their personality or things about them. It's been debunked a while ago but I forget what it was called.

Oh and there's also 'heavier objects fall faster' that one was disproven a long time ago

 

[JBeukema]

Oh and there's also 'heavier objects fall faster' that one was disproven a long time ago

So inertia increases at the same rate as G as the mass of the object increases?

 

[Father Time]

I don't know.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

If you were born to legless and toothless parents, you'd still have legs and teeth.

Not necessarily.

Can you name an inheritable disease that causes either? Does it MATTER in regards to the point? Looking for an exception to the most likely cause of a difference is just nitpicky and does not alter the point I was making.

The geocentric model of the universe? The plum-pudding model of the atom? Newton's (mathematical) model of gravitational attraction? Newton's concept of relativistic notion? The entire concept of time as something constant? Lamarkian evolution [granted that one could claim, at a stretch that epigenetic workings are similar]? Was 'Rain Follows the Plow' ever considered an actual theory? Just about everything believed by alchemists? The Four Humours? The concept of disease as caused by bad spirits before the discovery of the germ? Maternal Impression? phylogiston?

Oh, and spontaneous generation. Almost forgot the most obvious.

And Dualism.

/facepalm. This was an exercise for Frazzled, not you. You're the kid in class who blurts out answers even when the teacher calls on someone else, huh? The purpose of his assignment was to get him to identify the difference between a layperson theory and scientific theory (which btw, you didn't do so hot a job of near the end of the top paragraph). Secondarily, I wanted Frazzled to do a little homework and realize that things don't get promoted beyond scientific theory.

You have this habit of coming in and focusing on concrete thinking and nitpicky reasoning, losing site of the actual points being made just to appear as if you have the ability to contradict something I've said, even though it doesn't add to the conversation. Not needed.

 

[antagon]

i got to commend JB and Smarter for making categorical responses to frazzled. I havent the fortitude.

@frazzled: did you not get the memo that the theory of evolution at present isnt based solely on darwin? do you have any rebuttals for the modern synthesis?

you get into genetics clearly without having a clue about the role of gene selection in reproduction. human and chimp DNA are 95%+ similar, after all.

on bio diversity, the theory isn't insistent on any indications thereof. certainly with the mechanisms of selection and extinction at play, it wont indicate unidirectional growth. that is a caricature argument based on a failure in your own relational logic, not the theory. what vindicates the theory from the presumption that there was a single creation event responsible for all biodiversity, is that there are historical booms in biodiversity, rather than an extinction-driven decline, alone.

you're a comedian on the fossil record, captain. ..oh, a question... aren't you?

could you be more concise with your shit? i dont want to cramp your style, but you take a few sentences of concepts through paragraphs of froth.