Evidence of Common Descent (LOTS, across the sciences)

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again. Where is the Law of Evolution?

Just so embarrassingly stupid.

Correction: PROUDLY stupid.

 

[abu afak]

Your attempt at deceit and deflection. 15 meaningless "IDEAS"? Really? The false premise that a Theory is somehow a fact of science. It cannot be a fact and a non fact at the same instant. As per the the law of logic. The law of the excluded middle. Something is either a factual truth or its negation is a factual truth.

Why is there no LAW OF EVOLUTION found in the laws of physics? Because its not a fact of science......its an idea that does not have enough demonstrable facts in evidence to make it a LAW. Such as the law of biogenesis which has never been falsified by any Scientific Experiment . Life can only be reproduced by pre-existing life within the same species.

There is no evidence for Creation Strange is it not that the Holy Scriptures agree with Louis Pasteur's scientific experiment on the origins of life that has never been falsified. (Genesis 1:24-25). Now that is a fact.

Creation has never been falsified by any Scientific Experiment. Can you say the same for evolution? How many experiments have attempted to reproduce life yet were falsified time and time again? Yet Creation has never been falsified.........ONCE.

What Is Scientific Law?​

A scientific law focuses solely on describing what. A scientific law provides a description of a directly observable phenomenon. It describes what will or is expected to happen in a certain set of circumstances.

​

What Is Scientific Theory?​

What is a scientific theory explores why. A theory is about underlying causes, seeking to explain the reason the phenomenon occurs. The focus of a theory is to provide a logical explanation for things that occur in nature. There can be more than one theory about the same phenomenon.

​

Can a Theory Become a Law?​

The idea that a scientific theory could become a law once Proven to be a Fact is a common Misconception. In science, laws AND theories are two different types of scientific FACTS. ..
[.....]

Scientific Law vs. Theory: How Are They Different?

Though closely related, scientific law vs. theory are two different terms. Learn about their key differences in science with this helpful article.

examples.yourdictionary.com

`

 

[Clyde 154]

What Is Scientific Law?​

A scientific law focuses solely on describing what. A scientific law provides a description of a directly observable phenomenon. It describes what will or is expected to happen in a certain set of circumstances.

​

What Is Scientific Theory?​

What is a scientific theory explores why. A theory is about underlying causes, seeking to explain the reason the phenomenon occurs. The focus of a theory is to provide a logical explanation for things that occur in nature. There can be more than one theory about the same phenomenon.

​

Can a Theory Become a Law?​

The idea that a scientific theory could become a law once proven to be a fact is a common Misconception. In science, Laws AND Theories are two different types of scientific FACTS. A scientific theory cannot become a scientific fact, just as no explanation (theory) could ever become a description (law). Additional data could be discovered that could cause a law or theory to change or be disproven, but one will never become the other.
[.....]

Scientific Law vs. Theory: How Are They Different?

Though closely related, scientific law vs. theory are two different terms. Learn about their key differences in science with this helpful article.

examples.yourdictionary.com

`

Talk about circular logic.......how many times are you going to present the same lame ideas and claim they are equal to facts? What.........this is your 3rd attempt? If a theory cannot become a law........just how was the Atomic Bomb created in becoming a fact of science instead of an idea.? It was first theorized, then the potential of an atomic was actually quantified by science and was accepted as a demonstrable fact. Demonstrable: Something you cannot do. Demonstrate the Law of Evolution.

As stated..........you base nothing you say on Logic or Reason. The very first 3 laws of logic falsifies everything from your first word on. Nothing can be true and false as you claim. Its simple, just present the experiment (scientific method) that demonstrates that life can be produced from non living matter. If the foundation is unstable......the entire structure thereafter is not reliable.

Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[abu afak]

Talk about circular logic.......how many times are you going to present the same lame ideas and claim they are equal to facts? What.........this is your 3rd attempt? If a theory cannot become a law........just how as the Atomic Bomb created in becoming a fact of science instead of an idea.? It was first theorized, then the potential of an atomic was actually quantified by science.

As stated..........you base nothing you say on Logic or Reason. The very first 3 laws of logic falsifies everything from your first word on. Nothing can be true and false as you claim.

Law of excluded middle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And how manty Credible sources do I have to post for you to give an Honest reply?
Laws (what) and theories (why) are words for two Different kinds of FACTS.
FACTS.

You're a non-conversant indoctrinated fool.
Evolution is a Scientific Theory AND a FACT.
They are Not mutually exclusive terms.
`
`

 

[task0778]

Evolution does not explain at all the origin of the universe or the creation of life. Once life is created, evolution explains how we got to where we are today with all the myriad life forms that live today or once lived in the past.

As far as I can see, the evidence for or against God as the creator of all existence is somewhat scant. Either one believes that existence came from nothing or one believe that existence came from some supernatural force, since natural forces did not yet exist. Since there is no proof, is it not up to each individual to decide that question for themselves?

 

[Clyde 154]

Just so embarrassingly stupid.

Correction: PROUDLY stupid.

I agree.......embarrassingly stupid with a lack of Logic being demonstrated. Why is it always the same when one can't defend an argument? The Ad Hominem Personal Attack.........telling everyone how smart you are and how stupid those who disagree with must be. LMAO I deal in APPLIED SCIENCE not philosophy dressed in the clothing of science. It's called theoretical for a reason. Its based upon nothing but the gray matter between your ears. You can't apply science to evolution and demonstrate it to be a law. If you can produce the experiments that prove that life came from non living matter.

 

[Clyde 154]

Game over. When one is reduced to laughing with no context to the laughter.........it often masks anger. Psych 101

 

[abu afak]

Game over. When one is reduced to laughing with no context to the laughter.........it often masks anger. Psych 101

I have not only given "context" but Extensive "Explanation," "Elaboration," and "Citation."
You refuse to engage, insisting on the inappropriate term "Law" in the case of Evolution. (a Scientific Theory and a FACT)
Common use of "theory" is NOT the same as "Scientific Theory."
Two DIFFERENT "Definitions."
Look up the latter in any dictionary.
The old but never-ending idiocy: "only a theory".

`

 

[Grumblenuts]

Evolution does not explain at all the origin of the universe or the creation of life. Once life is created, evolution explains how we got to where we are today with all the myriad life forms that live today or once lived in the past.

As far as I can see, the evidence for or against God as the creator of all existence is somewhat scant. Either one believes that existence came from nothing or one believe that existence came from some supernatural force, since natural forces did not yet exist. Since there is no proof, is it not up to each individual to decide that question for themselves?

I respectfully disagree. Evolution also best "explains" or indicates how life is created, though we have yet to demonstrate its applicability compellingly enough to gain scientific consensus behind its covering of abiogenesis.

Also, "Since there is no proof" that "natural forces did not yet exist" one can't conclude that "Either one believes that existence came from nothing or one believe{s} that existence came from some supernatural force". However, one can logically assert that nothing is supernatural and therefore its corollary: Everything was obviously "natural" in origin before mankind came along, manmade being what actually separates "natural" from "unnatural."

 

[Hollie]

I agree.......embarrassingly stupid with a lack of Logic being demonstrated. Why is it always the same when one can't defend an argument? The Ad Hominem Personal Attack.........telling everyone how smart you are and how stupid those who disagree with must be. LMAO I deal in APPLIED SCIENCE not philosophy dressed in the clothing of science. It's called theoretical for a reason. Its based upon nothing but the gray matter between your ears. You can't apply science to evolution and demonstrate it to be a law. If you can produce the experiments that prove that life came from non living matter.

'If you can produce the experiments that prove that life came from non living matter.''

Ii suppose it needs to be explained repeatedly, in every single thread where the hyper-religious post, that biological evolution does not address the beginning of life.

Why do people who don't understand the very subject they argue against make no effort to understand the subject matter?


BTB, can anyone produce the experiments that prove their gods?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I agree.......embarrassingly stupid with a lack of Logic being demonstrated. Why is it always the same when one can't defend an argument? The Ad Hominem Personal Attack.........telling everyone how smart you are and how stupid those who disagree with must be. LMAO I deal in APPLIED SCIENCE not philosophy dressed in the clothing of science. It's called theoretical for a reason. Its based upon nothing but the gray matter between your ears. You can't apply science to evolution and demonstrate it to be a law. If you can produce the experiments that prove that life came from non living matter.

There is no argument to defend. Nor is there one to attack.

The things you are saying are childish, idiotic, and ass backwards wrong.

You don't know what a law is, nor do you know what a theory is.

Your question is very stupid, and you have been corrected multiple times on your embarrassing, idiotic error.

Yet you proudly keep committing the same errors. What do you expect? This isn't special ed. We aren't going to pat your head and tell you that you are special. You are a scientifically illiterate moron. You should not even be commenting in this topic, or in this section of the board.

 

[Grumblenuts]

prove that life came from non living matter.

What is "non living matter"?
What is "living matter"?..
Dizzy yet?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is "non living matter"?
What is "living matter"?..
Dizzy yet?

Right.
Totally nonsensical

Painfully stupid.

 

[Hollie]

Your attempt at deceit and deflection. 15 meaningless "IDEAS"? Really? The false premise that a Theory is somehow a fact of science. It cannot be a fact and a non fact at the same instant. As per the the law of logic. The law of the excluded middle. Something is either a factual truth or its negation is a factual truth.

Why is there no LAW OF EVOLUTION found in the laws of physics? Because its not a fact of science......its an idea that does not have enough demonstrable facts in evidence to make it a LAW. Such as the law of biogenesis which has never been falsified by any Scientific Experiment . Life can only be reproduced by pre-existing life within the same species.

There is no evidence for Creation Strange is it not that the Holy Scriptures agree with Louis Pasteur's scientific experiment on the origins of life that has never been falsified. (Genesis 1:24-25). Now that is a fact.

Creation has never been falsified by any Scientific Experiment. Can you say the same for evolution? How many experiments have attempted to reproduce life yet were falsified time and time again? Yet Creation has never been falsified.........ONCE.

What would the process be to falsify supernaturalism?

To falsify supernaturslism, one would first have to identify a supernatural event. Can you identify one of those?

 

[abu afak]

Where was james bond?
NOT A SINGLE POST IN A THREAD/OP that refuted him.
"surrendered" I guess.
"Bowing out/down to me."
`

 

[abu afak]

james bond didn't/couldn't even Try this one AGAIN!
The biggy.
No replies in the thread or Now, even when called Out.
`

 

[abu afak]

Name three specific things about Darwinism that are true?

Not "it's all real!" or "only stupid people ask that question!" or some other nonsense.

Can you give me some true facts that we know about Darwinian evolution and how we know them?

Your DISHONEST Semantic attacks on evolution (and failed ones for Intelligent Design) continue laughably.

There's really only One basic fact of evolution: Descent with modification from a Simple one cell form, the most fit for current conditions surviving. (of course)

The Evidence is in the OP (and in most of my thread starts on the last two pages), and remains unrefuted and untouched.

You are a low IQ stealth creationist charlatan whose every goofy attempt (for design or anti-evo) has failed.

`

 

[abu afak]

So what is there evidence for, evolution or Darwin?

If there is evidence for Darwinism, please present it.

See the OP.
You have been shown this many times but you are DISHONEST.

`

 

[abu afak]

And now we await Evidence for Creationism, ID, the designER/god. Any evidence at all.​

​

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Contents​

• 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 1.1 Genetics
  • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
• 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
  • 2.1 Atavisms
  • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
  • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
  • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
  • 2.5 Vestigial structures
  • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
• 3 Evidence from paleontology
  • 3.1 Fossil record
  • 3.2 Limitations
  • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
• 4 Evidence from biogeography
  • 4.1 Continental distribution
  • 4.2 Island biogeography
  • 4.3 Ring species
  • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
• 5 Evidence from selection
  • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
  • 5.2 Invertebrates
  • 5.3 Microbes
  • 5.4 Plants and fungi
  • 5.5 Vertebrates
• 6 Evidence from speciation
  • 6.1 Fossils
  • 6.2 Invertebrates
  • 6.3 Plants
  • 6.4 Vertebrates
• 7 Evidence from coloration
  • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
  • 7.2 Camouflage
• 8 Evidence from behavior
• 9 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
• 10 See also
• 11 References
• 12 Sources
• 13 External links

And now we await Evidence for Creationism, ID, the designER/god .. any evidence at all.
`

From the first living organism to modern man via evolution?
You can't get here from there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I agree.......embarrassingly stupid with a lack of Logic being demonstrated. Why is it always the same when one can't defend an argument? The Ad Hominem Personal Attack.........telling everyone how smart you are and how stupid those who disagree with must be. LMAO I deal in APPLIED SCIENCE not philosophy dressed in the clothing of science. It's called theoretical for a reason. Its based upon nothing but the gray matter between your ears. You can't apply science to evolution and demonstrate it to be a law. If you can produce the experiments that prove that life came from non living matter.

Pay attention moron:

Someone already tried to explain t you the difference between a law and theory, and why your question was stupid. Just as you apparently did in all your science classes, you slept right through it.