How To Define "Evolution"?

[JakeStarkey]

Several have been provided above.

We won't tolerate your fabrications any longer without metaphorically making you swallow your lies .

I asked you to provide some lies.

1."Several have been provided above."

So....you can't come up with any....shocker.

Got you again, didn't I, Loooooooossser.


2. "We won't tolerate..."

You and your tapeworm?


3. "...making you swallow your lies."

But I just proved that there aren't any!!

Now I'll have to go find a snack elsewhere.



I hate being redundant....but this is soooo you:

I wouldn’t say you’re useless…You’re the kind of a man that you would use as a blueprint to build an idiot.

Yup, you are redundant in the fabrication department. You have not offered any evidence of worth.

Tis what tis.

 

[orogenicman]

I did exactly what Charles Darwin did.


"The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


What you say now, boyyyyeeeeee??



More evidence?

Comin' right up:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html



Whipped you again, didn't I.

Hey, gather round' everyone. In one paragraph, princess has refuted 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, physics and the earth sciences.

It really is remarkable that the science loathing have somehow missed that in the 150+ years since publication of Origin of Species, evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories.

You may wish to review the above in the context of providing an acceptable alternative to the fact of evolution and a very old earth.. In addition, you expose yourself to a contradiction here: the fossil record from 350 million years ago clashes directly with creationist dogma for a very young earth.

For you edification, Origin of Species accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the demonstrated case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Evolution proves the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.


We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.


As far as the idea of willful ignorance in denial of facts and evidence supporting evolution, rabid fundies are free to believe what they like. But to suggest that the varied sciences supporting evolution amount to vast conspiracy theories to prove the process of evolution and to prove an ancient earth is willfull ignorance and denial of what science has proven.

1. "Hey, gather round' everyone."
I love attention! See...you do have a purpose in life!


2. " evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. "
Here's a guy who doesn't agree:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

What???

What??? Is exactly the question that comes to my mind. Also Why? Why are you continuing to lie about what Darwin was talking about above when I already addressed it in full? Are you retarded or what?

3. "For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc."

Sure about that?

Absolutely. All type specimens are held at the National Museum for scientists from all over the world to study. They have millions of specimens. How many do you have? Zero.

a. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

Except that article has nothing to do with transitional species. Moreover, your 'quote' makes it appear that they are saying that because there is "no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure[/B] for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla" that there is no other evidence that does do just that. Clue, Einstein. That evidence was what the friggin paper was presenting.

Here is the full paper:

http://www2.nau.edu/~bio222-c/Reserve Reading/RR1/Field_1988.pdf

b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


Uh, oh.....you got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.....

Certainly YOU have some explaining to do. For instance, why, like your quote on Darwin, above, are you using this quote after I already showed everyone here how utterly out of context it is? Are you truly so stupid that you would continue a lie after everyone has seen that it is a lie? Is it spite? Denial? Or are you mentally deficient? Do you have memory issues? Come on Lucy, splain!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube

Wait....did you just call Bill Nye the Science Guy as a witness.


How the heck did you pass up Dora the Explorer????

 

[Old Rocks]

Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.

 

[orogenicman]

Why would anybody in their right mind quote from Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya)?

He is not a scientist. He isn't even a scholar. He is an Islamist activist who works towards turning all of Islam into a Turkish caliphate. He is also a conspiracy theorist and a holocaust denier. In 1986, he was arrested for promoting a theocratic revolution for which he served 19 months. In 1991, Oktar was arrested for possession of cocaine. A number of faculty members where he attended university who taught evolution were harassed, threatened and slandered in flyers that labeled them "Maoists". In 1999, six of the professors won a civil court case against the BAV for defamation and were each awarded $4,000.

He has also been instrumental in censoring the internet in Turkey, particularly scientific web sites that have discussions or present scientific papers on evolution. He has made a fortune publishing his lies (through his own publishing house, I might add). He has also used his wealth to block dissent in Turkey to his Islamist creationist views.

Great friend you have there, PC.

 

[Hollie]

Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube

Wait....did you just call Bill Nye the Science Guy as a witness.


How the heck did you pass up Dora the Explorer????

Why not Bill Nye? He's a reasonable, respected voice who is urging that our teachers, school boards and politicians take responsibility for educating our children. His challenge is: put aside the myths, fears and superstitions surrounding ID'iot creationism that fundamentalists want to impose upon the public schools.

We know with certainty that ID'iot creationism cannot survive the process of debate/scientific testing/peer review that the relevant scientific community must pass. What we're left with on the ID'iot creationism side is fraudulent Discovery Institute green-screen labs, phony ID'iot "journals" and appeals to supernaturalism.

Let's see the ID'iot creationists do real science. Let's see them present their young earth and "the fosill record is a conspiracy", loons before the relevant community of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics, to defend their claims. But, again, the religious fundamentalists who represent the ID'iots refuse to step up to the plate and perform the scientific experiments or publish in mainstream peer-review scientific journals to support their claims to supernaturalism. Instead, ID/creationism/religious fundie advocates try to manipulate the legal and political process to sidestep the scientific peer review process. And of course they must because scientific ideas have to earn their way to a scientific consensus by way of repeatable results, peer review, etc., which is what ID'iot creationists cannot do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anybody who quotes Yahya automatically disqualifies herself for any respect in evolution and creationism dialogues.

 

[orogenicman]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.

Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?

Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."

This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.


Ready?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Darwin would wring his hands over the idea of creationism as a substitution for empirical data.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin would wring his hands over the idea of creationism as a substitution for empirical data.

You are really a dope...and you go out of your way to prove that.


Why is so very difficult for you to confine your posts to areas in which you have a modicum of knowledge??

Oh....'cause there are no such areas.





For your edification, Darwin and his supporters of the era were the very opposite of empiricists.

Many eminent scientists agreed with Darwin, that just because we haven't found the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't...or didn't exist. This was the position of Joseph Hooker, Thomas Huxley, Ernst Haeckel, Asa Gray and others.
The theory itself seemed just too eloquent to pass up. 'Logic' won the day!
Not evidence.

I'll have to OP this fact.



Just so you don't continue to look like a simpleton trying to be relevant, do a bit of research and see the dispute between Darwin and Louis Agassiz.

 

[Hollie]

Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.

Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?

Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."

This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.


Ready?

Try putting down that paper bag soaked in modeling glue that you have over your nose and mouth.

Are you still in a fog over the fact that we are about 150 years past Darwin's publication?

Have you by chance read in the newspapers that the tools of science have become more exacting in the last 150 years?

Are you still convinced that the sciences of chemistry, biology and paleontology comprise a global conspiracy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Darwin would wring his hands over the idea of creationism as a substitution for empirical data.

You are really a dope...and you go out of your way to prove that.

When you attack personality, you admit you lose the game.

You don't understand evolution, Yahya is lost in creationism, and the rest of us are bewildered by your floundering.

Believe whatever your little heart desires, but when you attempt to explain matters beyond your stations please don't get exasperated that folks get exasperated by you.

Scriptural literalism is proof only of scriptural literalism: the greatest example of circular logic there is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin would wring his hands over the idea of creationism as a substitution for empirical data.

You are really a dope...and you go out of your way to prove that.

When you attack personality, you admit you lose the game.

You don't understand evolution, Yahya is lost in creationism, and the rest of us are bewildered by your floundering.

Believe whatever your little heart desires, but when you attempt to explain matters beyond your stations please don't get exasperated that folks get exasperated by you.

Scriptural literalism is proof only of scriptural literalism: the greatest example of circular logic there is.

Funny.

I beat you like a rented mule. Appropriate analogy, huh?

The proof is that you cut off the rest of my post which highlighted your total ignorance.



Want to comment on Darwin and your claim that his work was based on empirical evidence?

No?

For obvious reasons.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.

Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?

Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."

This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.


Ready?

Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data. He also knew enough about Believers that they would try to use this missing data to disprove his theory. In that prediction he was 100% correct. However there is more than sufficient corroboration across multiple scientific disciplines to establish evolution as factual.

What point are you trying to prove besides Darwin being honest and warning about religious opposition to scientific knowledge?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are really a dope...and you go out of your way to prove that.

When you attack personality, you admit you lose the game.

You don't understand evolution, Yahya is lost in creationism, and the rest of us are bewildered by your floundering.

Believe whatever your little heart desires, but when you attempt to explain matters beyond your stations please don't get exasperated that folks get exasperated by you.

Scriptural literalism is proof only of scriptural literalism: the greatest example of circular logic there is.

The proof is that you cut off the rest of my post which highlighted your total ignorance.
.

Within in the rules, I addressed the major point. Hollie has handed you your ass on evolution, so that is over.

Biblical literalism is circular logic. There is no way it can be used to undermine evolution.

Yahya is a crank, nothing more.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Creationism is perfect for 'Conservatives'. The Poof principle means that they need not think about the complexities of biology at all. Geology? God did it. Never mind what you are seeing in the rocks. Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state. And reality is such a drag. Better to believe in the magical Poof Principle.

Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?

Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."

This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.


Ready?

Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data. He also knew enough about Believers that they would try to use this missing data to disprove his theory. In that prediction he was 100% correct. However there is more than sufficient corroboration across multiple scientific disciplines to establish evolution as factual.

What point are you trying to prove besides Darwin being honest and warning about religious opposition to scientific knowledge?

My point?

Actually, you've short-circuited it by saying "Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data."


That is exactly my point.

Did you notice that you are the only one agreeing to it?

The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.



To the point: I've had just about enough of your honesty!

If you intend to continue in this vein, please do it elsewhere.

My enjoyment is beating these frauds over the head with truth....and, if you don't
mind, I'd like to continue being the only one doing it.


Seriously, I intend to expand the discussion to explain why his theory had wielded so much acceptance sans proof.

It is interesting, and ties in with the political changes society has witnessed since the 19th century.

 

[Hollie]

Rocks...are you ready to admit the truth, i.e., that even Darwin wrung his hands over the lack of evidence for his theory?

Or...would you rather "Just ignore it, after, willfull ignorance is such a blissful state."

This is not a question of creationism, or God.....simply an admission that Darwin was correct when he bemoaned the lack of fossil evidence for his theory.


Ready?

Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data. He also knew enough about Believers that they would try to use this missing data to disprove his theory. In that prediction he was 100% correct. However there is more than sufficient corroboration across multiple scientific disciplines to establish evolution as factual.

What point are you trying to prove besides Darwin being honest and warning about religious opposition to scientific knowledge?

My point?

Actually, you've short-circuited it by saying "Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data."


That is exactly my point.

Did you notice that you are the only one agreeing to it?

The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.



To the point: I've had just about enough of your honesty!

If you intend to continue in this vein, please do it elsewhere.

My enjoyment is beating these frauds over the head with truth....and, if you don't
mind, I'd like to continue being the only one doing it.


Seriously, I intend to expand the discussion to explain why his theory had wielded so much acceptance sans proof.

It is interesting, and ties in with the political changes society has witnessed since the 19th century.

Aside from your sweaty, feverish, chest-heaving tirade, were you aware that paleontology was becoming more than just a curiosity during the latter half of the 19th century?

How about the fact that an earth older than 6,000 years was already circulating during Darwin's time.

You fall down the stairs frequently, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data. He also knew enough about Believers that they would try to use this missing data to disprove his theory. In that prediction he was 100% correct. However there is more than sufficient corroboration across multiple scientific disciplines to establish evolution as factual.

What point are you trying to prove besides Darwin being honest and warning about religious opposition to scientific knowledge?

My point?

Actually, you've short-circuited it by saying "Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data."


That is exactly my point.

Did you notice that you are the only one agreeing to it?

The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.



To the point: I've had just about enough of your honesty!

If you intend to continue in this vein, please do it elsewhere.

My enjoyment is beating these frauds over the head with truth....and, if you don't
mind, I'd like to continue being the only one doing it.


Seriously, I intend to expand the discussion to explain why his theory had wielded so much acceptance sans proof.

It is interesting, and ties in with the political changes society has witnessed since the 19th century.

Aside from your sweaty, feverish, chest-heaving tirade, were you aware that paleontology was becoming more than just a curiosity during the latter half of the 19th century?

How about the fact that an earth older than 6,000 years was already circulating during Darwin's time.

You fall down the stairs frequently, right?

I write "The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject."


And you show up lying, obfuscating and changing the subject.

What a coincidence.

 

[Hollie]

My point?

Actually, you've short-circuited it by saying "Like all good scientists Darwin was honest about missing data."


That is exactly my point.

Did you notice that you are the only one agreeing to it?

The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject.



To the point: I've had just about enough of your honesty!

If you intend to continue in this vein, please do it elsewhere.

My enjoyment is beating these frauds over the head with truth....and, if you don't
mind, I'd like to continue being the only one doing it.


Seriously, I intend to expand the discussion to explain why his theory had wielded so much acceptance sans proof.

It is interesting, and ties in with the political changes society has witnessed since the 19th century.

Aside from your sweaty, feverish, chest-heaving tirade, were you aware that paleontology was becoming more than just a curiosity during the latter half of the 19th century?

How about the fact that an earth older than 6,000 years was already circulating during Darwin's time.

You fall down the stairs frequently, right?

I write "The others either lie, obfuscate, or change the subject."


And you show up lying, obfuscating and changing the subject.

What a coincidence.

Wallowing in self-pity won't shield your bankrupt arguments from being refuted. It's a standard tactic of creationist hacks to try and discredit science. What you can't bring yourself to acknowledge is that Origin of Species set the framework for consolidating the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., into a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Darwin's theory has only been better supported in the last 150 years as the means and methods of science have become more exacting.

Darwinian theory sought to explain observable phenomena and derive a framework of knowledge not contradicted by observations.

The theory has proved applicable to a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that the theory will continue to be applicable as more observations and more fosill artifacts are discovered.


Oh, btw, did you think it hasn't gone unnoticed that nowhere did you provide a coherent description of your "Theory of Creation" as a competing model to evolution.

Why is that?

Are you reluctant to hurl the few chapters of Genesis as such a competing model?

Maybe do us a favor and scrape the bowels of Harun Yahya for some handy "quotes". It will save you the effort of actually having to assemble words into meaningful sentences.