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

[JoeB131]

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."

When you're living in your own reality, you know, the one where they've locked you in the house all day and make you listen to the Hate Radio, it's kind of hard to talk "facts" with you.

Obviously arguing that Evolution is only a "Theory" is about as idiotic as arguing gravity is only a theory.

In the words of the great Issac Asimov - “Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”

 

[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."

When you're living in your own reality, you know, the one where they've locked you in the house all day and make you listen to the Hate Radio, it's kind of hard to talk "facts" with you.

Obviously arguing that Evolution is only a "Theory" is about as idiotic as arguing gravity is only a theory.

In the words of the great Issac Asimov - “Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”

Hey, liar...you professed that there is fossil proof of Darwin's ideas....

I asked you to bring it....

You can't.....

So....back to the original query....are you a liar or just stupid????

'Fess up!

 

[JoeB131]

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


Bring it.

You're too lazy to use google?

The Fossil Fallacy - Scientific American

This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.

 

[JoeB131]

 

[PoliticalChic]

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


Bring it.

You're too lazy to use google?

The Fossil Fallacy - Scientific American

This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.

You believe that that constitutes an example of fossil evidence for evolution????

Well....you answered the question: you're stupid.


And, clearly you have no clue as to what A. natans is.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
G.R. Taylor,The Great Evolution Mystery,( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your version of a white flag?

Looks like you'd like to change the subject, since I revealed that you were talking through your hat when you claimed that there is fossil evidence for Darwin's theory.

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

Evolution is observable changes in species over time.

Natural Selection is the most widely accepted theory to explain evolution.

Theories by nature are not unconditionally accepted as fact from a scientific perspective. If they were, there would be no need for theories, or the scientific method.

 

[toxicmedia]

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


Bring it.

You're too lazy to use google?

The Fossil Fallacy - Scientific American

This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.

You believe that that constitutes an example of fossil evidence for evolution????

Well....you answered the question: you're stupid.


And, clearly you have no clue as to what A. natans is.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
G.R. Taylor,The Great Evolution Mystery,( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

You should probably take a deep breath, and try to gather up some patience.

Reflecting on what got you to reject what 99% of Archeologists and Anthropologists accept, might be beneficial to you.

 

[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.

Evolution is observable changes in species over time.

Natural Selection is the most widely accepted theory to explain evolution.

Theories by nature are not unconditionally accepted as fact from a scientific perspective. If they were, there would be no need for theories, or the scientific method.

Under discussion is proof, such as would be required to move an idea from 'theory' to 'fact,' not your personal wish list.

It might help to focus you thoughts if you referred to the dispositive information that I've posted.

Later, around the campfire, you can offer your tales.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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


Bring it.

You're too lazy to use google?

The Fossil Fallacy - Scientific American

This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.

You believe that that constitutes an example of fossil evidence for evolution????

Well....you answered the question: you're stupid.


And, clearly you have no clue as to what A. natans is.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
G.R. Taylor,The Great Evolution Mystery,( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

You should probably take a deep breath, and try to gather up some patience.

Reflecting on what got you to reject what 99% of Archeologists and Anthropologists accept, might be beneficial to you.

Now read the following and laminate it for your wallet: science is based on data, not consensus.

Don't be afraid to think for yourself, and to demand proof from those trying to influence you.

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

Evolution is observable changes in species over time.

Natural Selection is the most widely accepted theory to explain evolution.

Theories by nature are not unconditionally accepted as fact from a scientific perspective. If they were, there would be no need for theories, or the scientific method.

Under discussion is proof, such as would be required to move an idea from 'theory' to 'fact,' not your personal wish list.

It might help to focus you thoughts if you referred to the dispositive information that I've posted.

Later, around the campfire, you can offer your tales.

I've looked at the information you've posted, and it's been out there for a while. Of course cut-n-pasted in different ways, but still very weak tea.

I know this site is really just supposed to be fun, but if we are implacably opposed, I don't see the point in continuing.

So have a nice Sunday, no hard feelings here. See ya around.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC: "You know nothing about the subject...".

Know quite a bit about it, yes, and I know that it is not a litmus test one way or another in accepting the Lord.

I am glad to see you working with the subject; keep it up.

 

[JoeB131]

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."

Horseshit creationist books don't get you much, sister.

 

[JoeB131]

Your version of a white flag?

Looks like you'd like to change the subject, since I revealed that you were talking through your hat when you claimed that there is fossil evidence for Darwin's theory.

No, there's a shitload of evidence, but frankly, you guys need your magic God-Man too badly to comprehend it, so like Toxic Media said, there's really not a lot of point in continuing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."

Horseshit creationist books don't get you much, sister.

Proving that you are a stream of sewage has become so simple that it almost isn't fun anymore.

Almost.

But by leaving out the attribution, the source of the quote, you are outright admitting that you are lying.

It was
"The Great Evolution Mystery"
by Gordon Rattray Taylor


Everything I post in science, is based on science.

You bring up religion, or creationism....to hide the fact that you know even less in this area than you do in history.


These are quotes from reviews of Taylor's book, found at Amazon:

"... written from the perspective of a firm believer in naturalistic evolution, is about that question we all ask at times: "Now come on, could natural selection really have done this or that particular thing?" Mr. Rattray Taylor thinks not, in most cases. He believes that the natural selection of Darwinism and "neo-Darwinism" accounts for variations within species but probably little else.

Rattray Taylor considers it beyond belief that the kind of coordinated mutations which would seem to be necessary for most major evolutionary developments could have arisen randomly in such "short" time periods as they seem to have required.

....this is about as fine a critique of Darwinism as one is likely to ever find: It is scientific, un-polemic, well-argued, offers counter-hypotheses....

He explores several facets of evolution that make a mockery of natural selection and of the neo-Darwinist insistence on steady, gradual change.
Taylor, a Briton, is not bound by the political considerations that strangle evolutionary thought in America.

Mr. Taylor has developed a good argument for the need for a broader view of evolution."


Exactly my perspective.

And,you have been exposed as a fool, again.

A lying fool.



And tomorrow, I'm gonna beat you up in History forum, too.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, just looking at the titles of this guys books on Amazon, you can tell he's a nut.

Any asshole who can write a review on Amazon. And some of them might have even read the book.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, just looking at the titles of this guys books on Amazon, you can tell he's a nut.

Any asshole who can write a review on Amazon. And some of them might have even read the book.

You said he was a 'creationist.'

You lied, huh?

 

[orogenicman]

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.

I am still waiting for the OP to address her own question (the one in the thread title). And someone please explain why these creationists morons continue to quote other discredited creationist morons such as Dean H. Kenyon.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

You're an idiot. There most certainly are countless millions of fossils that support the theory of evolution. Not that you will ever acknowledge this long accepted fact. But you should REALLY take heed of this advice -

"As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "

- Dr. Donald Prothero

 

[Ravi]

You nutters only believe in evolution when you are getting hysterical over Ebola potentially evolving.