Do majority of Republicans think Theory of Evolution is a fact ?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you don't believe in Evolution, you have to believe, for example, that the first horse on Earth didn't have parents.
Can you believe that? Seriously?

what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg, of course...literally 100s of millions of years earlier than the chicken....duh

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have been shown up, and shown yourself up, for being a silly goof ball. A fetus is not a child. There is no way your babbling changes that.

And your semantics won't change the fact that it is a living human.


.

I'm an evolutionary biologist and yes the fetus in the womb is human and has been human since fertilization. Biologically a fetus becomes a child around 20-24 weeks which is the point at which most can survive outside the womb with a lot of medical help.

As for when life begins, it never ended. The egg and sperm are both alive and are BOTH human.

You can attach a hundred names to the different stages of development in a pregnancy, if left alone, in the end you will have a child. You may as well call them, child day 1 through child 275 or what ever, it's all semantics, if left undisturbed by man or nature, you will get a living, breathing infant.


.

You mean most of the time if the woman takes care of herself and her baby in the womb, a child will be born. To a lesser extent, the resulting child will have no birth defects.

The stages are important cuz you are trying to stop abortions using false semantics.

actually many birth defects are due to the parents genes, doesn't matter how the woman handles the pregnancy. It's called a pregnancy for a reason. It means there is a child developing. to terminate is to kill the developmental progress of a child.

The so-called child's development starts with the formation of sperm and egg. Is that why some religions want to ban contraception?

 

[jc456]

Guys, guys don't embarrass Fort Fun too much, I want him to hang around.

Nah, you denier goofballs are on the wrong side of science and history. You dont need me...you need each other , in order to not feel so stupid and embarrassed. That's why you fools are here and not speaking at universities or for scientific societies, not publishing science, and not even attempting to subject yourselves to any serious company.

That why you won't address my scientific method post?

You lost that quite nicely.

Steps of the Scientific Method

• Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Yes, thank you for providing support for my points.

However, as it turns out, the world of science woke up this morning unaffected by the internet squawkings of an uneducated slob. Scientific theories and laws are still separate concepts. Swing and a miss for you, I guess.

Your state of denial is amusing. You spent a fair portion of yesterday claiming a hypothesis was not how theories are made. Then you clearly posted that the scientific method was used, which shows step three is a hypothesis.

You are foisting the idea Newton just had this whole formula, complete with a constant whose value was determined 70 years after his death, pop into his head with no hypothesis, theory or debate about it before it was recognized as a law. You sir, are a complete moron.

I never claimed a hypothesis is not how theories are made. You are either a shameless little liar, or you are deluded.

I said scientific theories and laws are separate, different concepts. Scientific theories do not become laws, or vice versa. This is a fact which undermines your silly "it's only a theory, let me know when it becomes a law" bullshit that would get you laughed right out of a science class.

well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis. That means there is proof that supports whatever the hypothesis claimed. Where is the proof that we evolved from apes. I'm still waiting. Darwin was the owner of the theory. so how did it get proved?

 

[jc456]

Where’s that evidence?

In every cell of your body.

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Then I think you get an "F" on the quiz, son.

what quiz do you think I took? I merely stated I don't have ape cells in my body. Are you saying I do? where are they? post the link with that information.

Right, and your statement earns you an "F" on today's 8th grade science quiz.

Yes, you are a hominoid, which means you are an ape. To be specific, you are a great ape, with your closest cousins being the other great apes.

There, maybe you will fare better on tomorrow's quiz.

well just post up the link that validates your comments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

and that common primate was an ape

Again, then why are there still apes if we evolved?

I already answered that one today or yesterday.

Why wouldn't there be apes? Why are there many different species of apes? Once birds evolved, why isn't there just one species of birds? Get the point?

The apes that became us left the other apes in the forest and went walkabout into the savannas. Apes stayed in the forest. Two different environmental niches. No reason for apes to disappear.

Where’s that evidence?

In every cell of your body.

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

 

[saveliberty]

Guys, guys don't embarrass Fort Fun too much, I want him to hang around.

Nah, you denier goofballs are on the wrong side of science and history. You dont need me...you need each other , in order to not feel so stupid and embarrassed. That's why you fools are here and not speaking at universities or for scientific societies, not publishing science, and not even attempting to subject yourselves to any serious company.

That why you won't address my scientific method post?

You lost that quite nicely.

Steps of the Scientific Method

• Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Yes, thank you for providing support for my points.

However, as it turns out, the world of science woke up this morning unaffected by the internet squawkings of an uneducated slob. Scientific theories and laws are still separate concepts. Swing and a miss for you, I guess.

Your state of denial is amusing. You spent a fair portion of yesterday claiming a hypothesis was not how theories are made. Then you clearly posted that the scientific method was used, which shows step three is a hypothesis.

You are foisting the idea Newton just had this whole formula, complete with a constant whose value was determined 70 years after his death, pop into his head with no hypothesis, theory or debate about it before it was recognized as a law. You sir, are a complete moron.

I never claimed a hypothesis is not how theories are made. You are either a shameless little liar, or you are deluded.

I said scientific theories and laws are separate, different concepts. Scientific theories do not become laws, or vice versa. This is a fact which undermines your silly "it's only a theory, let me know when it becomes a law" bullshit that would get you laughed right out of a science class.

No one is arguing theories and laws are different. No one ever claimed a law could later be sent back to a theory. Laws cannot be laws until we test them under the scientific method. Scientific method dictates a hypothesis is the process which can lead to a theory. That theory can be proven to such a level that it becomes a law. An absolute truth. Theories can suggest unobserved phenomena which are later discovered. Subatomic particles comes to mind. Theories also can get modified, hence the comment some will use of let me know when it becomes a law. You are not dealing with an absolute with evolutionary theory, admit it.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Some Republicans may think that evolution is not a fact but all Democrats think that gender is determined by individual will and not genitals. All Democrats also think that prosperity is created by increased taxation. How silly is that?

Determining whether a poster is a contard is easy. If you overdose on lies quickly while reading, yep it is a contard.

 

[jc456]

If you don't believe in Evolution, you have to believe, for example, that the first horse on Earth didn't have parents.
Can you believe that? Seriously?

what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg, of course...literally 100s of millions of years earlier than the chicken....duh

where did it come from?

 

[jc456]

And your semantics won't change the fact that it is a living human.


.

I'm an evolutionary biologist and yes the fetus in the womb is human and has been human since fertilization. Biologically a fetus becomes a child around 20-24 weeks which is the point at which most can survive outside the womb with a lot of medical help.

As for when life begins, it never ended. The egg and sperm are both alive and are BOTH human.

You can attach a hundred names to the different stages of development in a pregnancy, if left alone, in the end you will have a child. You may as well call them, child day 1 through child 275 or what ever, it's all semantics, if left undisturbed by man or nature, you will get a living, breathing infant.


.

You mean most of the time if the woman takes care of herself and her baby in the womb, a child will be born. To a lesser extent, the resulting child will have no birth defects.

The stages are important cuz you are trying to stop abortions using false semantics.

actually many birth defects are due to the parents genes, doesn't matter how the woman handles the pregnancy. It's called a pregnancy for a reason. It means there is a child developing. to terminate is to kill the developmental progress of a child.

The so-called child's development starts with the formation of sperm and egg. Is that why some religions want to ban contraception?

they believe in life. fornication with the use of contraception is just sex. The church writes that having sex is purely for child creation and not fun. although, both can be achieved without contraception.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you don't believe in Evolution, you have to believe, for example, that the first horse on Earth didn't have parents.
Can you believe that? Seriously?

what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg, of course...literally 100s of millions of years earlier than the chicken....duh

where did it come from?

A bird.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm an evolutionary biologist and yes the fetus in the womb is human and has been human since fertilization. Biologically a fetus becomes a child around 20-24 weeks which is the point at which most can survive outside the womb with a lot of medical help.

As for when life begins, it never ended. The egg and sperm are both alive and are BOTH human.

You can attach a hundred names to the different stages of development in a pregnancy, if left alone, in the end you will have a child. You may as well call them, child day 1 through child 275 or what ever, it's all semantics, if left undisturbed by man or nature, you will get a living, breathing infant.


.

You mean most of the time if the woman takes care of herself and her baby in the womb, a child will be born. To a lesser extent, the resulting child will have no birth defects.

The stages are important cuz you are trying to stop abortions using false semantics.

actually many birth defects are due to the parents genes, doesn't matter how the woman handles the pregnancy. It's called a pregnancy for a reason. It means there is a child developing. to terminate is to kill the developmental progress of a child.

The so-called child's development starts with the formation of sperm and egg. Is that why some religions want to ban contraception?

they believe in life. fornication with the use of contraception is just sex. The church writes that having sex is purely for child creation and not fun. although, both can be achieved without contraception.

That is religious idiocy and wholly in conflict with the nature of the human species.

 

[saveliberty]

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

Mice and humans have 85%, your point?

 

[jc456]

Again, then why are there still apes if we evolved?

I already answered that one today or yesterday.

Why wouldn't there be apes? Why are there many different species of apes? Once birds evolved, why isn't there just one species of birds? Get the point?

The apes that became us left the other apes in the forest and went walkabout into the savannas. Apes stayed in the forest. Two different environmental niches. No reason for apes to disappear.

Where’s that evidence?

In every cell of your body.

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

then why don't we use them for kidneys and livers and hearts and things? I mean, we are looking at using pigs organs.

Scientists are Closer To Using Pig Organs For Transplants

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nah, you denier goofballs are on the wrong side of science and history. You dont need me...you need each other , in order to not feel so stupid and embarrassed. That's why you fools are here and not speaking at universities or for scientific societies, not publishing science, and not even attempting to subject yourselves to any serious company.

That why you won't address my scientific method post?

You lost that quite nicely.

Steps of the Scientific Method

• Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Yes, thank you for providing support for my points.

However, as it turns out, the world of science woke up this morning unaffected by the internet squawkings of an uneducated slob. Scientific theories and laws are still separate concepts. Swing and a miss for you, I guess.

Your state of denial is amusing. You spent a fair portion of yesterday claiming a hypothesis was not how theories are made. Then you clearly posted that the scientific method was used, which shows step three is a hypothesis.

You are foisting the idea Newton just had this whole formula, complete with a constant whose value was determined 70 years after his death, pop into his head with no hypothesis, theory or debate about it before it was recognized as a law. You sir, are a complete moron.

I never claimed a hypothesis is not how theories are made. You are either a shameless little liar, or you are deluded.

I said scientific theories and laws are separate, different concepts. Scientific theories do not become laws, or vice versa. This is a fact which undermines your silly "it's only a theory, let me know when it becomes a law" bullshit that would get you laughed right out of a science class.

well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis. That means there is proof that supports whatever the hypothesis claimed. Where is the proof that we evolved from apes. I'm still waiting. Darwin was the owner of the theory. so how did it get proved?

"well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis"

Haha, no it isn't. Empirical evidence is proof of a hypothesis .

And youbare asking for the most basic information regarding evolutionary theory. As in, the kind that is taught in middle school science class. So if you are sitting there waiting for this to be spoonfed to you, I suggest you get your best babyface on and go register for 7th grade. I am not your mommy and will not be spoonfeeding you this information.

 

[MarkDuffy]

If you don't believe in Evolution, you have to believe, for example, that the first horse on Earth didn't have parents.
Can you believe that? Seriously?

I can do that one better.

Jesus was born by science, not poofed into existence by magic. Pretty lame for a creator. Then the Bible doesn't mention Jesus again until he was an adult.

 

[jc456]

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

Mice and humans have 85%, your point?

and there is this.

Scientists are Closer To Using Pig Organs For Transplants

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I already answered that one today or yesterday.

Why wouldn't there be apes? Why are there many different species of apes? Once birds evolved, why isn't there just one species of birds? Get the point?

The apes that became us left the other apes in the forest and went walkabout into the savannas. Apes stayed in the forest. Two different environmental niches. No reason for apes to disappear.

Where’s that evidence?

In every cell of your body.

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

then why don't we use them for kidneys and livers and hearts and things? I mean, we are looking at using pigs organs.

Scientists are Closer To Using Pig Organs For Transplants

Because they are protected species. Duh, man. You ask some pretty stupid questions.

 

[jc456]

That why you won't address my scientific method post?

You lost that quite nicely.

Steps of the Scientific Method

• Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
• Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
• Form a Hypothesis. ...
• Conduct an Experiment. ...
• Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.

Yes, thank you for providing support for my points.

However, as it turns out, the world of science woke up this morning unaffected by the internet squawkings of an uneducated slob. Scientific theories and laws are still separate concepts. Swing and a miss for you, I guess.

Your state of denial is amusing. You spent a fair portion of yesterday claiming a hypothesis was not how theories are made. Then you clearly posted that the scientific method was used, which shows step three is a hypothesis.

You are foisting the idea Newton just had this whole formula, complete with a constant whose value was determined 70 years after his death, pop into his head with no hypothesis, theory or debate about it before it was recognized as a law. You sir, are a complete moron.

I never claimed a hypothesis is not how theories are made. You are either a shameless little liar, or you are deluded.

I said scientific theories and laws are separate, different concepts. Scientific theories do not become laws, or vice versa. This is a fact which undermines your silly "it's only a theory, let me know when it becomes a law" bullshit that would get you laughed right out of a science class.

well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis. That means there is proof that supports whatever the hypothesis claimed. Where is the proof that we evolved from apes. I'm still waiting. Darwin was the owner of the theory. so how did it get proved?

"well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis"

Haha, no it isn't. Empirical evidence is proof of a hypothesis .

And youbare asking for the most basic information regarding evolutionary theory. As in, the kind that is taught in middle school science class. So if you are sitting there waiting for this to be spoonfed to you, I suggest you get your best babyface on and go register for 7th grade. I am not your mommy and will not be spoonfeeding you this information.

I grew up that Darwin's theory was the facts to evolution. I merely stated that the word evolve means move on and away from, but we still have apes so I call bullshit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

Mice and humans have 85%, your point?

The point is that the larger percentage shows we are more closely related to the other great apes than we are to mice. In fact, we are more closely related to them than to any other species on Earth. And the empirical evidence bears this out, every single time.

 

[saveliberty]

Where’s that evidence?

In every cell of your body.

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

then why don't we use them for kidneys and livers and hearts and things? I mean, we are looking at using pigs organs.

Scientists are Closer To Using Pig Organs For Transplants

Because they are protected species. Duh, man. You ask some pretty stupid questions.

That the big reason you are going with?

You suggesting we couldn't raise them on a farm of sorts, if we had a solid reason?