The Relevancy of Mechanisms of Natural Selection

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I wasn't sure if it were possible, but you could quite well be less intelligent than newguy. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, you have a smaller capacity for reading comprehension.

We mock what we don't understand.

I was not trying to prove evolution. What I have done is presented information of how others have provided proof of the concept of natural selection of beneficial genetic changes in a species.

Now who can't read? That is not what this thread was about. It was about RELEVANCY of such data.

A theory becomes a theory only after repeated experimentation agrees with the original hypothesis, not before. Therefore, by the admission of everyone in this thread who has referred to evolution as a theory, they have affirmed that it is supported by repeatable experimentation.

Fine. A theory which PROVES nothing.

On further thought, I take one thing back; I should say you and newguy are equally inept at reading comprehension. There's really no reason for me to believe there exists a statistically significant difference.

If you could prove anything, or were even right, there would be no need to hurl insults when spoken to in a rational manner.

This proves the following:

1. You are wrong
2. You cannot prove your point
3. You are a sphincter
4. You know it.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy
For one who claims he is right, that should be an easy task. -Expecially when you say it is circular logic and discard it so easilly in place of the religion you call science.

I have never made any statement that even remotely suggested that I believe christian faith and evolution are mutually exclusive. This is one of many inventions of yours. That said, you're not even adept at debating the points you fabricate for others.

The proof is in this thread which is here for all to see.

Yes, in my posts, and I'm quite confident that anyone with an open mind would find them quite informative. Hence you do not.

No. What you describe is proof of a particular part of a theory, not complete proof of the overall theory.

What I 'describe is proof'. Thank you.

In the case you present, proving one single part would require evidence to make it repeatable. -You admit it cannot be repeated.

I did? I think I provided you with a repeatable example. Go get a petri dish. You can do it at home. Over and over again.

You also do not have that large amount of evidence since you cannot refute my pointing out of problems with the theory.

I haven't seen you point out any problems with the theory yet. All I've seen out of you, in response to others are biblical quotes.

You're quite good at cutting and pasting, I'll give you that.

In addition, proving one small part does NOT make the entire theory correct.

My only goal was to show you the proof of the part about the mechanisms of natural selection. Which I have done. At what point have I tried to do anything else?

You are constantly inventing stuff to complain about when you can't respond to the information presented in a mature way. You don't want to hear about the steps because you don't even want to understand, you just want to jump to the end and say "nyah nyah" like an impudent child.

If I have 2 wheels and handle bars, am I a motorcycle?

You might be a bicycle.

And what proof do you accept so I can meet THAT criteria as well?

Provide data and a method of repeatable experimentation to show that natural selection of genetic mutations doesn't occur.

Nonsense? Come on. I would think it takes less faith to believe in a creator than this stuff. Again, you have not disputed my flaws with your religion.

You have provided no flaws, and repeating that you have over and over again will not will it into existence. It is not my religion, belief in a creator and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

I would also think you would believe in God, as He has the hard part. -He has to believe in YOU.

If your god has trouble believing in me, he isn't much of a god now is he?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by NewGuy

If you could prove anything, or were even right, there would be no need to hurl insults when spoken to in a rational manner.

This from the guy who's called me a sissy, and stupid, and now a sphincter. That's rich.

 

[Zhukov]

This post is for everyone else because, as I have stated it is impossible to explain to someone why they are incapable of understanding something. If one could, then that someone would not be incapable of understanding it.

Originally posted by NewGuy
Notice, you are talking about mutations, not natural selection. The difference is that natural selection is supposed to be the proven method by which the mutations produce things like us, right? Think carefully, you cannot have it both ways.

See here how our subject writes "the mutations produce"? This is in error. One could say that mutations produce change, but that would not be entirely accurate either, as the mutations themselves are change. That is to say, something else produces the mutations, not the other way around. Mutations produce nothing. Mutations are.

Second, the phrase 'natural selection is supposed to be the proven method by which the mutations produce things like us', is hopelessly garbled, wether through ignorance or perhaps atrocious grammar. Because, as stated earlier, mutations do not produce anything, it is at this point that I would clarify that nature selects which mutations are beneficial by way of survival of the possesor of that mutation to functional maturity. The result is retention of beneficial mutations.

Finally this entire comment was directed towards my answer to the question of how genetic information could become more complex. In addition to providing examples of how the complexity of genetic information was not neccesarily informative of anything, I stated that certain mutations will cause a complete replication of all genetic material, thereby leaving more genetic material for mutations to occur in and natural selection to work on.

This quoted material was the incomprehensible response.

 

[dilloduck]

and the winner is--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Zhukov

HeMan------give up and save what face you have left----you have faith -------go with it--------or if you really had it why would you need to test yourself like this?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
We don't work this way as a society. If someone comes up with an outlandish claim say agaisnt another person as a legal matter, that said person is innocent until "PROVEN" guilty. The same applies to Darwin's "theory". Before anyone needs to set out on the tast of "disproving" it, it needs to be "PROVEN" FIRST!

It only stands to reason. How can one PROVE something to be false when false may be what it is? You'd just be digging on hole to fill another. Like trying to figure out if something is working properly when you don't know how it works when it's working properly in the first place. A worthless endeavor.

Newguy claimed he could do it, go ask him.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I have never made any statement that even remotely suggested that I believe christian faith and evolution are mutually exclusive. This is one of many inventions of yours. That said, you're not even adept at debating the points you fabricate for others.

Aren't you tired of being wrong? Calling Christianity circular logic IS claiming they are mutually exclusive unless you think evolution is too.

What I 'describe is proof'. Thank you.

:clap1:

This is getting better all the time!
IS it proof now? You said it was theory. I proved it theory. I proved it FLAWED theory.

Wrong again.

me: "In the case you present, proving one single part would require evidence to make it repeatable. -You admit it cannot be repeated."

I did? I think I provided you with a repeatable example. Go get a petri dish. You can do it at home. Over and over again.

Theory does not mean 'no proof'. Quite the contrary, a hypothesis does not become a theory until a large amount of evidence is accumulated in conjunction with repeatable experimentation. In other words, proof.

Given enough time, the percent difference between the two groups (A and B) would be sufficient to prevent interbreeding, and thus two new species would have evolved into existence. This is the logical extrapolation Charles Darwin arrived during his studies.

Due to the lengths times associated with humans reaching functional maturity, that is the ability to reproduce, and gestation, the period of time it would take for two isolated groups of human beings to evolve into species separate from one another is long indeed. Magnitudes longer than our recorded history.

The exact evolutionary paths many extinct and extant organisms have taken over the generations is currently a matter of speculation, as there was no one there to directly observe and collect data.

Ummm....yeah. Repeatable? I think not. Are you wrong again? YES.

I haven't seen you point out any problems with the theory yet. All I've seen out of you, in response to others are biblical quotes.

-Then answer my questions about your theory. -Oh wait. YOU CANT.

You're quite good at cutting and pasting, I'll give you that.

Thanks! So are you!

My only goal was to show you the proof of the part about the mechanisms of natural selection. Which I have done. At what point have I tried to do anything else?

Hence the point that your whole case is irrelevant because this was about its RELEVANCY. For all the talking you do about reading comprehension, you sure have trouble.

All the proof=theory in your book. Why don't you look up the definition of "proof".

Your goal did not PROVE anything. Your goal was not reached by conclusive means as illustrated. Your goal was not fact, and your goal was not relevant.

You are constantly inventing stuff to complain about when you can't respond to the information presented in a mature way. You don't want to hear about the steps because you don't even want to understand, you just want to jump to the end and say "nyah nyah" like an impudent child.

Really? I can answer your questions. Try answering mine which DISPROVE your points.

You might be a bicycle.

Hence my point about your swiss cheese type theory proving to be fact in your eyes.

Me: "And what proof do you accept so I can meet THAT criteria as well?"

Provide data and a method of repeatable experimentation to show that natural selection of genetic mutations doesn't occur.

If you were half of the brain you claim to be, you would know you cannot prove a negative. YOu CAN however disprove one set of beliefs as fact when another contradiciting set of facts show they are meeting all of the logical issues and can linearly fill in the gaps where the previous "theory" did not.

As such, I have done that but you cannot accept Biblical knowledge as knowledge. -Therefore your "scientific" process is nothing more than a tunnel-visioned religion based on hope. -YEt you would claim this of the Bible. If you put half as much research into proving the BIBLE wrong, as you do evolution RIGHT, you would be quite surprised.

You have provided no flaws, and repeating that you have over and over again will not will it into existence.

All of the questions I have asked regarding your theory which you cannot answer are flaws. Or did you not read those as you previously claimed to not have read one of my threads because you didn't WANT to and then continued arguing after I already answered your questions in said thread?

It is not my religion, belief in a creator and belief in evolution are not mutually exclusive.

www.m-w.com

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

If your god has trouble believing in me, he isn't much of a god now is he?

With all of the stuff you shield your eyes with, it would work anyone over to keep a relationship open to you. -Yet He does keep it open to you, and will continue to offer it.

Nothing you can ever do will change that. You have only to accept.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Zhukov
See here how our subject writes "the mutations produce"? This is in error. One could say that mutations produce change, but that would not be entirely accurate either, as the mutations themselves are change. That is to say, something else produces the mutations, not the other way around. Mutations produce nothing. Mutations are.

Hmmm....so mutations have no effect upon anything?
That would then mean they are not mutations.

Anything mutations affect. they then PRODUCE changes upon as a whole.

This is the entire woven point you try to produce. -Which you now undermine with this statement of yours.

as stated earlier, mutations do not produce anything, it is at this point that I would clarify that nature selects which mutations are beneficial by way of survival of the possesor of that mutation to functional maturity. The result is retention of beneficial mutations.

So which is it?

Are mutations beneficial because they AFFECT the object as a whole?

OR

Are mutations not producing any effect on the object therefore being useless?

Finally this entire comment was directed towards my answer to the question of how genetic information could become more complex. In addition to providing examples of how the complexity of genetic information was not neccesarily informative of anything, I stated that certain mutations will cause a complete replication of all genetic material, thereby leaving more genetic material for mutations to occur in and natural selection to work on.

This quoted material was the incomprehensible response.

Notice that which you do not understand or cannot defend is labelled "incomprehensible".

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dilloduck
and the winner is--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Zhukov

HeMan------give up and save what face you have left----you have faith -------go with it--------or if you really had it why would you need to test yourself like this?

Just read the thread in its entirety before making unfounded statements.

Shall I get you a skirt for your cheerleading practice?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Newguy claimed he could do it, go ask him.

Yup. Answered in response to Zhukov a couple posts up.

 

[Zhukov]

At this point, you're pretty much just saying the same thing over and over again, and it's become tiresome. I'm going to post a poll based on this thread just for the hell of it.

Two additional points, then I'm done.

Originally posted by NewGuy
Hence the point that your whole case is irrelevant because this was about its RELEVANCY.

The relevancy is that human's possess DNA, like any other living thing. I felt that was obvious enough, but there you go.

Or did you not read those as you previously claimed to not have read one of my threads because you didn't WANT to and then continued arguing after I already answered your questions in said thread?

So you're arguing me in a thread I'm not posting too? That's intelligent.



Ok, I'm done.

 

[Isaac Brock]

New Guy,

Originally posted by NewGuy
Then we all agree and I am correct and anyone who believes the theory is going off of faith as it is only theory as you have stated.

If someone believes in a theory based on scientific reasoning, it is not acquiring knowledge by faith, it is acquiring knowledge by science. As a side note, just because say you're right and the debate is over it doesn't mean you are right. I listen to what you have to say and I have not dismissed you, I would expect the same.

Ok. Fine. It cannot be proven.

Didn't I say that?

Logically incorrect. Evolution HAS NOT BEEN proven to be fact now, but it CAN BE over observation and time. Too say it cannot is a logical fallicy. You are miscontruing my words.

Ie. I have a theory what's going to happen tomorrow, I cannot prove it today, but tomorrow we can see if i'm right or not.

Actually, having no evidence to make it fact makes it disproven. Simple logic. This is what you do to the Bible everytime you discuss this topic.

Quote me one line when I have said this. I have been very clear in my views on science and faith. I believe they are not mutually exclusive and support the pursuit of both.

I have, however, always said that the Bible and theology are beyond the limits of science. Though I may be able to prove or disprove something historical, I cannot disprove something someone has learned by manner of faith. I cannot disprove there is a God (nor would I want to), I cannot disprove Mohammed divinely moved the mountain, I cannot disprove Jesus divinely turned water into wine. Here's the big one: I cannot disprove the biblical interpretation Creation either. However, just because I cannot disprove it, does not, logically, mean it is true.

You seem to forget.

-If Einstien could say that he could prove the Big Bang. -And he was NEVER wrong on ANYTHNG. -AND he could turn water into wine, heal from a touch, tell you an event that would happen in a far off land 100 years from that point in time, know your thoughts, walk on water, and was born miraculously, ------Would you believe him?

Would you need proof?

What if he said he was god?

If he could prove that, would he need proof of the theory specifically?

There are things you miss totally by only accepting what is sitting in front of you on the ground and beleiving only one linear pattern with no conclusive proof.

Ahhh... careful of logic traps. Would I believe him scientifically? No, unless if he backed it up with evidence and I could not prove him wrong (though much like evolution, the Big Bang theory would be difficult to disprove, though same caveat that not disproving does not mean it is true). Would I take him on faith? Most likely, if I witnessed those acts, but faith is a fickle thing, so reason alone cannot be the only factor.

You just said it was by admission you are believing something without proof.

You are again miscontruing my words, I am believing in something with proof, however not all the proof is there. I believe the Flames will win the Stanely Cup because they are playing well? Does that I know that by faith. Not at all. I am reasoning that since the flames are playing well, they will win more games and are very likely to win if they play as they do. That is drawing a theory based on observations. You could disprove me if say Tampa Bay took the Cup, but you would need more time beyond the present to disprove me. Look familiar?

Nope:
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

I suggest you re-read your definition:

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF

Another source:
American Heritage Heritage Dictionanary of the English Language 4th edition:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief. , trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Perhaps I paraphrased, but the meaning is the exact same.

You do not gain knowledge through faith. You gain it IN FAITH through transmittal by Christ. -If you are Christian. If you faith lies somewhere else, the source of information can only come from 2 sources: other "angelic" (demonic) beings, or man.

By your statements, you also prove that evolution is a theory. Your admitted belief and summary statements also proves my point that it is a religion.

I gain knowledge by faith everyday. I learn how I am suppose to act towards my fellow man. I learn why some things are wrong and some things are right. I cannot explain why I know these things by reason alone, but I believe them because I to have faith.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I wasn't sure if it were possible, but you could quite well be less intelligent than newguy. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, you have a smaller capacity for reading comprehension.


I don't recall insulting you. Maybe I was a little glib, but insult you I did not.


I was not trying to prove evolution. What I have done is presented information of how others have provided proof of the concept of natural selection of beneficial genetic changes in a species.


I don't believe any of this either. Post a link to an article that's PROOF. Not just your oration.

A theory becomes a theory only after repeated experimentation agrees with the original hypothesis, not before. Therefore, by the admission of everyone in this thread who has referred to evolution as a theory, they have affirmed that it is supported by repeatable experimentation.

Even so, it's still a "theory", and not "FACT". It is still "UNPROVEN".


On further thought, I take one thing back; I should say you and newguy are equally inept at reading comprehension. There's really no reason for me to believe there exists a statistically significant difference.


Save your insults for someone who may appreciate them. They're rather tepid at best anyway.


Even if molecular structures did display some selection, that selection being random would still produce nothing more than a "blob". There wouldn't be any structure to it. There is no relevance to humans here.