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

[Hollie]

Resorting to name calling is declaring you have no case.

So....this serves as an admission that I haven't posted anything even remotely similar to what you've claimed...

...and, you are truly a moron.

I bet you sit on the TV and watch the couch.

Typical PC behavior. You've run out of "quotes" to cut and paste. As that Is the entirety of your attempt at argument, you're left to stomp your feet and and call people names like a petulant child who has been sent to their room for a timeout.

 

[LittleNipper]

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

Has been for quite a while.

Maybe your child is a monkey's uncle, but not mine. My child knows he was Created. and in the image of God.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Has been for quite a while.

Maybe your child is a monkey's uncle, but not mine. My child knows he was Created. and in the image of God.

And your child knows this because? You told him so? Right. Does your child have five fingers including an opposable thumb? Does your child have binocular vision? Does your child have finger nails and finger prints? If your child has all of these traits, and I suspect he/she does, then your child, like mine, is a primate, because only primates have these characteristics. Next.

 

[Old Rocks]

And in the meantime, we now have an absolutely wonderful picture of the beginning of the evolution of a star's planetary system.

BBC News - Planet formation captured in photo

 

[indiajo]

I don't think PC is a YEC.

--i.e the changing of one species to another.

?

There is no species changeover.
Changes in evolution take place pretty slowly. Slowly means, millenias, or hundreds of millenias, or even longer. The result is maybe just another race, or a new species (means it cannot breed with the old species), but temporarily there will be a vast number of individuals inbetween. And, moreover. the old species does not necessarily vanish.
For example, we see quite a number of various sharks. If you see one, you will reckognize it's a shark.
So they all own the specific characteristics of sharks, which indicates very strongly that they all are descendants of a kind of pre-shark. I am not a shark expert, but i bet there surely is a pretty wide literature about the genetic relations between them, and which ones are closer or more distant cousins to others. But there are no inbetween species. Why? Because they could still mix up with their predecessors, and hence regress in genetical development.
There is a certain borderline between species, from where on the new species cannot mate with the old one anymore. Or inbetweens cannot beed with themselves (i.e. horse, mule, donkey).
So they simply disappear, and you can see what a missing link is. Because it's gone.

 

[abu afak]

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."..."

You Kwazy Kweationist!
Showing off your RABID IGNORANCE/DISHONESTY Again.
Now Dishonestly quote mining even the Dictionary for the NON-Scientific meaning of 'theory'.
PoliticalChic, daily LYING-For-Jesus.

If one looks at the Link her definition can be found
theory - definition of theory by The Free Dictionary
One will find ALL the definitions, including the First one, which IS the scientific one.

Dishonestly withholding even the Link in the service of Lying for literal Jesus.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
By John Rennie - Editor in Chief
June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American

1. Evolution is Only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do Not use the terms that way, however.

According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the FACT of evolution.
The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."..."


Yes you DOPE, Gravity is also 'Only a theory'.
`​

 

[JakeStarkey]

PoliticalChic has been playing 'she has her own defintions', screw everybody else. I quote what she does below in her own words.

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one, dear, who is Christian, prays, and critically thinks has any doubt that God was using Darwin to help lesser mortals understand how it works.

Darwin makes a case for the origin of species, the far right social con must remember, not the origin of life.

Atheists don't count in this discussion.

And believers must remember this not an issue of salvation.

 

[Hollie]

No one, dear, who is Christian, prays, and critically thinks has any doubt that God was using Darwin to help lesser mortals understand how it works.

Darwin makes a case for the origin of species, the far right social con must remember, not the origin of life.

Atheists don't count in this discussion.

And believers must remember this not an issue of salvation.

Actually, Bunky, I must admit that I am impressed all to hell that you have been designated as the HCIC (Head Christian In Charge), or rather, that you have identified yourself as such to identify who is, and who is not a christian.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Pretty much evolution is now so accepted that it has become a LAW of Science to many researchers.

A law in science is about as close to fact as you're ever going to get.

Laws of science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Scientific laws:

1. summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,
2. can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,
3. are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty (as mathematical theorems or identities do), and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.

Works well with top 3 and 4 isn't a solid requirement as "often" doing something doesn't mean it is a rule limiting what is a law.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The odds of amino acids, and only left handed ones, randomly forming cells and proteins are beyond astronomical. Astronomical odd are 1-E80, the odds against amino acids, and only left handed ones, forming proteins and a cells are 1-E5,700.

Surely, the indisputable math fails evolution as a theory

 

[ScienceRocks]

The odds of amino acids, and only left handed ones, randomly forming cells and proteins are beyond astronomical. Astronomical odd are 1-E80, the odds against amino acids, and only left handed ones, forming proteins and a cells are 1-E5,700.

Surely, the indisputable math fails evolution as a theory

And for this alone, it can't be a fact as in science the closes thing to a fact is a law.

 

[abu afak]

The odds of amino acids, and only left handed ones, randomly forming cells and proteins are beyond astronomical. Astronomical odd are 1-E80, the odds against amino acids, and only left handed ones, forming proteins and a cells are 1-E5,700.

Surely, the indisputable math fails evolution as a theory

WHAT?
1. And where did you get those odds? LINK?
Answers-in-GenePiss?
It's Unforgiveable posting tactics to cite numbers like that without link.

1a. and how many chances/combos (molecules/conditions/microclimates) did the simplest life have in the 10 Billion Years before it formed 3.5 Billion Years ago?

1abc. To formulate 'odds' you need TIME, Content, and Condition (IOW Chances). The OTHER side of an equation.
IOW, winning the lottery may be long 'odds' but NOT if you play twice a week for 10 Billion Years buying thousands of tickets each week.
DUH

Detection of a branched alkyl molecule in the interstellar medium iso-propyl cyanide
Journal of Science
26 September 2014
Arnaud Belloche, Robin T. Garrod, Holger S. P. Müller, Karl M. Menten

The largest noncyclic molecules detected in the interstellar medium (ISM) are ORGANIC with a straight-chain carbon backbone. We report an interstellar detection of a branched alkyl molecule, iso-propyl cyanide (i-C3H7CN), with an abundance 0.4 times that of its straight-chain structural isomer. This detection suggests that branched carbon-chain molecules may be generally abundant in the ISM. Our astrochemical model indicates that both isomers are produced within or upon dust grain ice mantles through the addition of molecular radicals, albeit via differing reaction pathways. The production of iso-propyl cyanide appears to require the addition of a functional group to a nonterminal carbon in the chain. Its detection therefore bodes Well for the presence in the ISM of Amino Acids, for which such side-chain structure is a key characteristic.""

What were the 'odds' of that?
Knock off MOST of your Zeros
​

3. Guess how many chances life has REGARDLESS of whether it's Left handed or Right handed Amino Acid or amino acid at all?

[Billions of] Far-Off Planets Like the Earth Dot the Galaxy
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/sc...ml?src=me&_r=0
By DENNIS OVERBYE
November 4, 2013

The known ODDS of something — or someone — living far, far away from Earth Improved Beyond Astronomers’ Boldest Dreams on Monday.

Astronomers reported that there could be as many as 40 Billion habitable Earth-Size planets in the galaxy, based on a new analysis of data from NASA’s Kepler spacecraft.

One out of every 5 sunlike stars in the galaxy has a planet the Size of Earth circling it in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot, not too cold — where surface temperatures should be compatible with liquid water, according to a herculean three-year calculation based on data from the Kepler spacecraft by Erik Petigura, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.

Mr. Petigura’s analysis represents a major step toward the main goal of the Kepler mission, which was to measure what fraction of sunlike stars in the galaxy have Earth-size planets. Sometimes called eta-Earth, it is an important factor in the so-called Drake equation used to estimate the number of intelligent civilizations in the universe. Mr. Petigura’s paper, published Monday in the journalProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, puts another smiley face on a cosmos that has gotten increasingly friendly and fecund-looking over the last 20 years.

“It seems that the universe produces Plentiful real estate for life that somehow Resembles life on Earth,” Mr. Petigura said.
[......]

And that's just in Our galaxy.
The numbers get even more dizzying if one Multiplies by the number of galaxies.
[Very roughly] 200 Billion? galaxies x 40 Billion Earth-like Planets = 8 TRILLION earth-like planets.
(not that life necessarily requires an earth-like planet since the elements that makes it up are Pervasive in the Universe.)

 

[Grendelyn]

"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.

There is just a staggering amount of evidence proving evolution. I may possibly be repeating what might have already been brought up since I, as of yet, haven't read all the messages under this subject but one of the easiest and most powerful ways to explain the truth in evolution is to use the example of a lizards evolving into snakes. ~ Susan
Evolution of reptiles - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Politico]

Evolution has always been a fact.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

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."

PoliticalShit, you are so damned ignorant. Ever hear of the Rhynia Cherts? Or how about this article;

http://home.sandiego.edu/~gmorse/2011BIOL348/Biol348_Website/Discussions/Disc_06_Hassenfuss2008.pdf

From the fossils of Karoo to those of the John Day Formation, we have ample evidence concerning the evolution of one species to another. That you refuse to see this merely reflects the degree of willfull ignorance to which you are dedicated.

 

[abu afak]

`

`

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Richard Dawkins on evolution by natural selection

Richard Dawkins on evolution by natural selection

 

[ChesBayJJ]

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

Has been for quite a while.

Maybe your child is a monkey's uncle, but not mine. My child knows he was Created. and in the image of God.

You and your child are descended from the same common ancestor as the chimpanzee, that lived about six million years ago.