Evolution....Now a "Fact"???

[JakeStarkey]

Now, why would a proponent alter the commonly accepted meaning of words? Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....it is dishonest, and false.

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment” Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the commonly accepted meanings of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are not synonymous


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to "the theory of evolution," the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.

a.fact: ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

'Your fears have no basis in fact.'

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something demonstrated to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, it's only been a century and a half, with more scientists working today than all previous scientists combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....

Evolution is simply changes in species over time, and that's an observable fact.

Natural Selection is the widely accepted theory to explain evolution of living species.

Neither evolution nor the theory of natural selection have ever involved the concept of "complete transmutation into a different species", they address change within species.

Nonsense.


'Evolution' has a specific meaning in science, one clearly disposed of by Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University) in the OP.

Do you understand the difference between complete transmutation into a different species, and changes over time within a species?

They are two different things, and Dr Kenyon has never disputed the fact that species change over time, which is what evolution is.

Change within a species is not evolution, and is not related to what Darwin posed as the reason for diversity of life.

It seems you don't understand that.

That's not what all my Anthropology professors told me in college.

You misinterpreted what Kenyon said, or believed someone else's misinterpretation, and I'm sure you've done the same with Darwin

Evolution is about the change of species.

It is not about the creation of life.

PC and JoeB want their own definitions. Won't be permitted.

 

[deltex1]

I'm not sure...but I woke up this morning with a hankering for bananna.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, what are you going to believe-

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)

Yeah, what are you going to believe-

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)

Hmmm....I notice you didn't provide said " collection of millions of fossils" proving Darwin's thesis, dolt.

Is that because there isn't any?

In truth, fossil beds such as the Burgess Shale, and Chengjiang, show the exact opposite of what Darwin stated.


Now, that I've just proven that I know more about the subject than you do...

...who has credibility?

Not you, offal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, why would a proponent alter the commonly accepted meaning of words? Well....one does so to sway an argument in the direction the speaker wishes it to go.

Problem is....it is dishonest, and false.

And...those who do so should be judged to have lost the argument.




"Intellectually Honest and Intellectually Dishonest Debate Tactics

1. Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment” Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics




Here, an example of the words in question:

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge ;a conjecture.

Fact: Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed

I believe that these are the commonly accepted meanings of the two terms....
To my mind, these two terms are not synonymous


1. Although every reference I've seen referred to "the theory of evolution," the most popular writer on the subject, Stephen J. Gould, pushed it way over toward "proven."


Gould: " Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"....."
http://courses.washington.edu/anth599/Evolution as Fact and Theory Gould 1981.pdf




2. Wow. Our pal, Dr. Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, as well as atheistic Marxist, seems willing to bend definitions to his desire when it comes to either religion or evolution.

a.fact: ' something that actually exists; reality; truth:

'Your fears have no basis in fact.'

something known to exist or to have happened
Fact Define Fact at Dictionary.com

b. something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information
Fact - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But, shouldn't we wait for proof before we award the idea with the term 'fact'?
Especially in science.




3." Something demonstrated to exist ...."
And on that basis, of course, evolution is not a fact.

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.



But let's cut Gould some slack...after all, it's only been a century and a half, with more scientists working today than all previous scientists combined....


Proof of Darwin's view will be found any day now.....any day....

Evolution is simply changes in species over time, and that's an observable fact.

Natural Selection is the widely accepted theory to explain evolution of living species.

Neither evolution nor the theory of natural selection have ever involved the concept of "complete transmutation into a different species", they address change within species.

Nonsense.


'Evolution' has a specific meaning in science, one clearly disposed of by Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University) in the OP.

Do you understand the difference between complete transmutation into a different species, and changes over time within a species?

They are two different things, and Dr Kenyon has never disputed the fact that species change over time, which is what evolution is.

Change within a species is not evolution, and is not related to what Darwin posed as the reason for diversity of life.

It seems you don't understand that.

That's not what all my Anthropology professors told me in college.

You misinterpreted what Kenyon said, or believed someone else's misinterpretation, and I'm sure you've done the same with Darwin

"That's not what all my Anthropology professors told me in college."

Case closed.

 

[ogibillm]

Yeah, what are you going to believe-

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)

Yeah, what are you going to believe-

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)

Hmmm....I notice you didn't provide said " collection of millions of fossils" proving Darwin's thesis, dolt.

Is that because there isn't any?

In truth, fossil beds such as the Burgess Shale, and Chengjiang, show the exact opposite of what Darwin stated.


Now, that I've just proven that I know more about the subject than you do...

...who has credibility?

Not you, offal.

No, they dont.
Evolution is real. Accept the wonder of it and become a happier person

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, what are you going to believe-

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

There millions, probably billions.

But not all in one collection

Examples?

None?


OK...let's expose your ignorance:

1. Evolution...a la Darwin, requires simple organisms that 'evolved' into more and more complex organisms.....the fossil record shows something very different.

2. The puzzle is made more dense when it seems likely that at least some of the near ancestors of the many arthropod animals that arose in the Cambrian would have left as least some rudimentary remains of exoskeletons in the PreCambrian fossil record if such proof existed, and if arthropods arose in the gradual way Darwinian theory states.

3. So...what conclusion should a scientists draw....if the individual being relied on for said conclusion is....objective?
Clearly, that Darwin's thesis is incorrect.

4. Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this, itself, argues against Darwin's thesis. The arthropod exoskeleton is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system called which is necessary in order to allow molting and exoskeleton growth....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'- A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books - involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.

So....for Darwin to be correct, there should be signs of each, of all, of these distinct structures evolving prior to the fully-formed organism being found in the fossil record.

Should be such evidence....or, an explanation posed as to why there is none.

 

[ogibillm]

Yeah, what are you going to believe-

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

There millions, probably billions.

But not all in one collection

Examples?

None?


OK...let's expose your ignorance:

1. Evolution...a la Darwin, requires simple organisms that 'evolved' into more and more complex organisms.....the fossil record shows something very different.

2. The puzzle is made more dense when it seems likely that at least some of the near ancestors of the many arthropod animals that arose in the Cambrian would have left as least some rudimentary remains of exoskeletons in the PreCambrian fossil record if such proof existed, and if arthropods arose in the gradual way Darwinian theory states.

3. So...what conclusion should a scientists draw....if the individual being relied on for said conclusion is....objective?
Clearly, that Darwin's thesis is incorrect.

4. Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this, itself, argues against Darwin's thesis. The arthropod exoskeleton is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system called which is necessary in order to allow molting and exoskeleton growth....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'- A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books - involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.

So....for Darwin to be correct, there should be signs of each, of all, of these distinct structures evolving prior to the fully-formed organism being found in the fossil record.

Should be such evidence....or, an explanation posed as to why there is none.

you realize that evolutionary science didn't stop with darwin, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is simply changes in species over time, and that's an observable fact.

Natural Selection is the widely accepted theory to explain evolution of living species.

Neither evolution nor the theory of natural selection have ever involved the concept of "complete transmutation into a different species", they address change within species.

Nonsense.


'Evolution' has a specific meaning in science, one clearly disposed of by Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University) in the OP.

Do you understand the difference between complete transmutation into a different species, and changes over time within a species?

They are two different things, and Dr Kenyon has never disputed the fact that species change over time, which is what evolution is.

Change within a species is not evolution, and is not related to what Darwin posed as the reason for diversity of life.

It seems you don't understand that.

That's not what all my Anthropology professors told me in college.

You misinterpreted what Kenyon said, or believed someone else's misinterpretation, and I'm sure you've done the same with Darwin

Evolution is about the change of species.

It is not about the creation of life.

PC and JoeB want their own definitions. Won't be permitted.

No one here is addressing the creation of life.

Your attempt to be relevant is a failure.

Be gone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, what are you going to believe-

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)

Yeah, what are you going to believe-

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)

Hmmm....I notice you didn't provide said " collection of millions of fossils" proving Darwin's thesis, dolt.

Is that because there isn't any?

In truth, fossil beds such as the Burgess Shale, and Chengjiang, show the exact opposite of what Darwin stated.


Now, that I've just proven that I know more about the subject than you do...

...who has credibility?

Not you, offal.

No, they dont.
Evolution is real. Accept the wonder of it and become a happier person

You have no clue re: Burgess or Chengjiang....

Admit it and begin a new life as an honest person, Offal.

 

[Saigon]

It's been quite a week for P Chic -

First she claimed that Hitler was left-wing, and despite my explaining five times why historians insist he is right wing, she eventually had to admit that she couldn't understand the explanations.

A couple of days later she cited a 1918 UK paper expressing support for a Jewish homeland - apparently not knowing that there was a 1922 paper dismissing the idea of a Jewish homeland.

And now she is claiming that evolution is not a fact, despite having no scientific material to support her claim.

Brilliant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense.


'Evolution' has a specific meaning in science, one clearly disposed of by Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University) in the OP.

Do you understand the difference between complete transmutation into a different species, and changes over time within a species?

They are two different things, and Dr Kenyon has never disputed the fact that species change over time, which is what evolution is.

Change within a species is not evolution, and is not related to what Darwin posed as the reason for diversity of life.

It seems you don't understand that.

That's not what all my Anthropology professors told me in college.

You misinterpreted what Kenyon said, or believed someone else's misinterpretation, and I'm sure you've done the same with Darwin

Evolution is about the change of species.

It is not about the creation of life.

PC and JoeB want their own definitions. Won't be permitted.

No one here is addressing the creation of life.

Your attempt to be relevant is a failure.

Be gone.

Yeah, you were, and JoeB was following right behind you in the negative.

Neither of you are relevant on what is and is not evolution.

 

[ogibillm]

Yeah, what are you going to believe-

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)

Yeah, what are you going to believe-

A science based on the collection of millions of fossils...

or a moldy old book written 3000 years ago.

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)

Hmmm....I notice you didn't provide said " collection of millions of fossils" proving Darwin's thesis, dolt.

Is that because there isn't any?

In truth, fossil beds such as the Burgess Shale, and Chengjiang, show the exact opposite of what Darwin stated.


Now, that I've just proven that I know more about the subject than you do...

...who has credibility?

Not you, offal.

No, they dont.
Evolution is real. Accept the wonder of it and become a happier person

You have no clue re: Burgess or Chengjiang....

Admit it and begin a new life as an honest person, Offal.

if you're hanging your hat on the cambrian explosion as proof that evolution doesn't exist... well, you're just wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

"But this isn't about science, it's about faith."
True...there is no proof, but you accept it on faith.

First honest thing you've said

No, I accept it because there are FOSSILS that prove the case. Not to mention a bunch of supporting sciences like anatomy, genetics, etc. that prove animal life all came from a common ancestor.

Don't worry, religious nuts, you still have fear of death to sell your snake oil and get stupid people to vote against their own economic interests.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, it seems that the usual suspects are out in force today, attempting to counter my posts, facts, with the usual "is not, is not."


There seems to be no end to the dolts who will accept the theory without proof...and no matter how often I ask for they to back up their support....nada.



4. Of course, Gould isn't the only 'scientist' sick and tired of waiting for proof....and simply claiming "case closed."

Remember when Gore said 'the debate is over' re: Global Warming?


There's evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma, who wrote "there is the historical question of whether or not evolution has actually occurred. Have living forms actually descended by common ancestry from earlier forms?....I consider the first question to have been resolved into fact..."
Futuyma, " Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution," p. 166-171


Dang! There it is again! "Fact!"


a. I hate to be a stickler here, but Futuyma's statement is not necessarily in support of Darwin, whose plan requires the simpler forms first: both the Burgess Shale, in Engand, and others, such as the Chengjiang sediments in China, show the very opposite 'evolution.'


b. And, while on the subject of Darwin, even neo-Darwinist Gould couldn't push Darwin's hypothesis.
Here is Gould admitting that there is no gradual move toward complexity:

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).



Yikes!!!

He just pulled the rug out from under the idiots in the thread who supported Darwinian evolution!!!



Have a good day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not sure...but I woke up this morning with a hankering for bananna.

Wait.....were you in a tree?

 

[AquaAthena]

I'm not sure...but I woke up this morning with a hankering for bananna.

Wait.....were you in a tree?

 

[PoliticalChic]

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)

For purposes of clarity....are you a liar or simply stupid?

"A science based on the collection of millions of fossils..."

Are you under the misapprehension that there are a " collection of millions of fossils" that support Darwin's theory?

There are not.

there goes your credibility (if anyone still thought you had some)

Hmmm....I notice you didn't provide said " collection of millions of fossils" proving Darwin's thesis, dolt.

Is that because there isn't any?

In truth, fossil beds such as the Burgess Shale, and Chengjiang, show the exact opposite of what Darwin stated.


Now, that I've just proven that I know more about the subject than you do...

...who has credibility?

Not you, offal.

No, they dont.
Evolution is real. Accept the wonder of it and become a happier person

You have no clue re: Burgess or Chengjiang....

Admit it and begin a new life as an honest person, Offal.

if you're hanging your hat on the cambrian explosion as proof that evolution doesn't exist... well, you're just wrong.

What are you, another Jakal???

You know nothing about the subject...just want to hang out with the adults?


1.. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley,The New Evolutionary Timetable(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

2. "There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like, . . . . Until fossils of these ancestors are discovered, however, the early history of the insects can only be inferred." Life Nature Library

3. "Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution,"Quarterly Review of Biology,Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.



"...well, you're just Offal."

 

[deltex1]

I'm not sure...but I woke up this morning with a hankering for bananna.

Wait.....were you in a tree?

Wicker sling hanging from the porch...ya think that was it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"But this isn't about science, it's about faith."
True...there is no proof, but you accept it on faith.

First honest thing you've said

No, I accept it because there are FOSSILS that prove the case. Not to mention a bunch of supporting sciences like anatomy, genetics, etc. that prove animal life all came from a common ancestor.

Don't worry, religious nuts, you still have fear of death to sell your snake oil and get stupid people to vote against their own economic interests.

"...there are FOSSILS that prove the case."


Bring it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not sure...but I woke up this morning with a hankering for bananna.

Wait.....were you in a tree?

Wicker sling hanging from the porch...ya ink that was it?

Well....that and the Jack Daniels....