How To Define "Evolution"?

[orogenicman]

Please don't apologize for being less than average.

The board accepts all levels of posters.

So far, he's kicking your ass.

I must admit, I'd actually consider switching my position if a dope like you said I was winning.

Says the Ann Coulter wannabe. You realize, of course, that the reason only conservatives swoon her is because they apparently have a fetish for boney arsed women.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Two points, Miss PC. I am not your geology instructor (though I can be, for a price - ). Secondly, it is not my place to defend evolution. Evolution is already a well established science. If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals. Instead of searching creationist web sites, where I dare say you won't find anything beyond the nonsense you have already posted, may I suggest you search those resources where the people who have actually conducted the science have deposited their results? Here is one such resource:

Journal of Paleontology Home

Yes, I know, you have to pay for a subscription in order to access their database of papers. Alas, there is no free lunch. Welcome to the real world.

Here is one of my papers. Cheers,

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

1. " I am not your geology instructor...'
But...from the thread, it appears I am yours.

Dear, I doubt that you could pass a "rocks for jocks" class., much less anything at the graduate level.



Okay, let's settle this, honestly. I am offering you an honest challenge. You should meet up with me (bring as many of your friends as you like and I will do so as well, for safety's sake). We pick a place that we can agree on. And then we go on a geologic field trip. You can explain your knowledge of geology IN THE FEILD, and I can do the same. Are you game for this?



How is what I said in any way a lie?



My purpose was to expose your diatribe for the religious nonsense that it is. It was mostly a wasted effort, as you did my job so aptly for me.




Erm, what planet did you say you are from?




I'm still here. Where are you?



Now you are making shit up. We don't need pre-Cambrian fossils to demonstrate the evolution of trilobites. And while it is true that we likely have not found the species from which trilobites originated, trilobite evolution extends from at least the Cambrian to the Permian. In that time interval, there arose and fell many species of trilobites, all indicating the transitions you seek. But if you want to discuss transitional species, you do realize, of course, that the notion of transitional species is a misnomer, right? ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL.




Again, you willfully ignore that science advances as knowledge is attained. There was no Cambrian explosion, as the paper I posted previously pointed out.

In claiming that said documentation do exist, you are either lying or accepting pretend examples that others claim are 'almost' or 'close to' or 'could be.'

In denying the mountains of data on these issues, you are telling the world that you've apparently "fallen and can't get up", that you've been stuck in your house all your life and have never seen the inside of a public library, much less picked up a science journal. Truly, you have my deepest sympathy.

Your need to support what is clearly unproven is based on the following:

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment:
“‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities:
“…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

It, and you, are as simple as that.

So what you are telling me is that your opposition to the theory of evolution is because you perceive this one geneticist to be a Marxist (and of course, you hate all Marxists, right)? Yeah, there's no political agenda going on there, is there? And no quote mining, either. Oh wait...

1. "Dear, I doubt that you could pass a "rocks for jocks" class., much less anything at the graduate level."
Your major must have been obfuscation. That means hiding the subject.


2. " You should meet up with me"
Yeah, that'll happen.
Try cocoa butter for the marks from those 10-foot poles.


3." How is what I said in any way a lie?"
You claimed you didn't come here to defend evolution.
Clearly you did.


4. "My purpose was to expose your diatribe for the religious nonsense that it is."
You exposed nothing.
But you did reveal ignorance and dishonesty.


5. "We don't need pre-Cambrian fossils to demonstrate the evolution of trilobites. And while it is true that we likely have not found the species from which trilobites originated,...
Bogus. Of course you need 'em....or Darwin's theory is dead.


a. " all indicating the transitions you seek."
Nonsense.
They don't exist...as you admit....how stupid must you be to now claim that they 'indicate.'


6. "But if you want to discuss transitional species,"
Discuss???

I beat you like a rented mule.

I stated my premise in an OP....you tried to dismiss it....and failed miserably, as you have everything else you've ever tried.
Advice: skip sky diving.



7. "In denying the mountains of data on these issues,..."
This isn't public school; you don't have to look to regurgitate what the prof told you.
I denied one thing.
You are unable to counter that denial.
QED, my point is in ascendance.


8. " There was no Cambrian explosion,..."
"Around 530 million years ago, a wide variety of animals burst onto the evolutionary scene in an event known as the Cambrian explosion."
Evolution 101: The Big Issues

You're an idiot.


a. "In denying the mountains of data on these issues,..."

"... the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record..."
Evolution: Library: The Cambrian Explosion

See if someone who speaks English can explain how 'mountains of data' is squashed by the word 'sparseness.'





Explaining this complex situation to you is like putting an elevator in an out-house.

But...I’m proud of you!
Not only are you a fool, but you have the energy to let everyone know it!


Drop by anytime you require a smack-down.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So far, he's kicking your ass.

I must admit, I'd actually consider switching my position if a dope like you said I was winning.

Says the Ann Coulter wannabe. You realize, of course, that the reason only conservatives swoon her is because they apparently have a fetish for boney arsed women.

Nothing quite reveals how deeply you feel thrashed than reaching for a "a fetish for boney arsed women" comment.

Most folks who were unpopular in high school have gotten over it by your age....

 

[orogenicman]

OMG, this is like trying to converse with an idiotbot. The more you converse with it, the more idiotic it becomes!

When you decide to have a conversation in the land of the living, let me know.

 

[orogenicman]

I must admit, I'd actually consider switching my position if a dope like you said I was winning.

Says the Ann Coulter wannabe. You realize, of course, that the reason only conservatives swoon her is because they apparently have a fetish for boney arsed women.

Nothing quite reveals how deeply you feel thrashed than reaching for a "a fetish for boney arsed women" comment.

Most folks who were unpopular in high school have gotten over it by your age....

Are you saying that popular people are still into evil crazy bitches? Kinda makes one wonder why they are so popular, doesn't it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Says the Ann Coulter wannabe. You realize, of course, that the reason only conservatives swoon her is because they apparently have a fetish for boney arsed women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_YzbODb9To

Nothing quite reveals how deeply you feel thrashed than reaching for a "a fetish for boney arsed women" comment.

Most folks who were unpopular in high school have gotten over it by your age....

Are you saying that popular people are still into evil crazy bitches? Kinda makes one wonder why they are so popular, doesn't it?

Now I realize why this thread appealed to you!

You were the first in your family born without a tail!

 

[orogenicman]

Nothing quite reveals how deeply you feel thrashed than reaching for a "a fetish for boney arsed women" comment.

Most folks who were unpopular in high school have gotten over it by your age....

Are you saying that popular people are still into evil crazy bitches? Kinda makes one wonder why they are so popular, doesn't it?

Now I realize why this thread appealed to you!

You were the first in your family born without a tail!

What? You still have one? Wow. That's amazing. Do you charge $5.00 per show? Because - oh shucks, I only have $4.50. Anyone have any change I can borrow. You don't have a boney butt, do you? I can abide a boney butt.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Says the Ann Coulter wannabe. You realize, of course, that the reason only conservatives swoon her is because they apparently have a fetish for boney arsed women.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_YzbODb9To

Well if I had to choose between Ann Coulter and say, Joyless Behar...

Plus, Conservatives don't have a Fetish for fat, man hating feminists who smell like old, sweaty, luncheon meat.

You find any of that "enlightening"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you saying that popular people are still into evil crazy bitches? Kinda makes one wonder why they are so popular, doesn't it?

Now I realize why this thread appealed to you!

You were the first in your family born without a tail!

What? You still have one? Wow. That's amazing. Do you charge $5.00 per show? Because - oh shucks, I only have $4.50. Anyone have any change I can borrow. You don't have a boney butt, do you? I can abide a boney butt.

Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit?

 

[orogenicman]

Yeah, well, some think that conservative women are more attractive, that is, until they open their mouths.

 

[orogenicman]

Now I realize why this thread appealed to you!

You were the first in your family born without a tail!

What? You still have one? Wow. That's amazing. Do you charge $5.00 per show? Because - oh shucks, I only have $4.50. Anyone have any change I can borrow. You don't have a boney butt, do you? I can abide a boney butt.

Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit?

My challenge still stands. I have made the same challenge to dozens of cretinists, and none of them have taken me up on the challenge. I guess they are to chicken shit, eh? Put your money where your mouth is. You say you are better at geology than I am. Prove it. Let's go into the field and see who's the better geologist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, well, some think that conservative women are more attractive, that is, until they open their mouths.

Meaning until they destroy you in an argument.

Yup, small men are that way.

 

[orogenicman]

Yeah, well, some think that conservative women are more attractive, that is, until they open their mouths.

Meaning until they destroy you in an argument.

Yup, small men are that way.

You couldn't destroy a liberal with a fart - well, okay. I'll give you that one.

My challenge still stands. I have made the same challenge to dozens of cretinists, and none of them have taken me up on the challenge. I guess they are to chicken shit, eh? Put your money where your mouth is. You say you are better at geology than I am. Prove it. Let's go into the field and see who's the better geologist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What? You still have one? Wow. That's amazing. Do you charge $5.00 per show? Because - oh shucks, I only have $4.50. Anyone have any change I can borrow. You don't have a boney butt, do you? I can abide a boney butt.

Believe me, I don't want to make a monkey out of you. Why should I take all the credit?

My challenge still stands. I have made the same challenge to dozens of cretinists, and none of them have taken me up on the challenge. I guess they are to chicken shit, eh? Put your money where your mouth is. You say you are better at geology than I am. Prove it. Let's go into the field and see who's the better geologist.

Moron, you can run but you can't hide.

The dispute in which you were just mightily thrashed was clearly delineated in the OP.

It speaks to the Darwinian theory of evolution.



Now...you may attempt to change the subject, or, what appears, either to save face or to find some similar misanthrope willing to hang out with you.....
...clearly you've been unsuccessful at that endeavor in the past, for obvious reasons....

...but in any case, your attempt to pretend that the discussion was other than it was is transparent.



David Blaine never made anything disappear as fast as your reputation has.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, none of that is correct. Who taught you how to write, by the way? I only ask because, damn!

First of all, you don't get to re-define terms. Secondly, macroevolution uses the exact same processes that work in microevolution. And those new structures? Are almost always based on previous structures, merely used in a novel way to solve a new problem (i.e., cilia is still cilia whether it is used by a single celled organism for locomotion, or used in the bronchial tubes to eliminate mucous). Moreover, Stephen Meyer? Really? O-M-G. EPIC FAIL.

Finally, and this really is the important point here, the only differences between artificial selection and natural selection is time and the agent influencing traits. In the first case, man is the agent producing change. In the latter, natural selection is the agent producing change. A thoroughbred horse is unmistakably a product of artificial selection. In this case, man bred an English mare with an Arabian stallion. But nature could have done exactly the same thing with exactly the same result. But instead of pointing this out, you seemed to have been bent on disproving evolution and then at the very end making a case FOR evolution, just evolution via some undefined intelligent agent. How weird is that!

Quite often, when I start discussing evolution with its defenders, it comes down to belief, not science. I always hope to find that rare person that actually has a modicum of understanding of evolution so that it would be possible to actually discuss it rationally.

Unfortunately, you are not that person.

 

[orogenicman]

Well, none of that is correct. Who taught you how to write, by the way? I only ask because, damn!

First of all, you don't get to re-define terms. Secondly, macroevolution uses the exact same processes that work in microevolution. And those new structures? Are almost always based on previous structures, merely used in a novel way to solve a new problem (i.e., cilia is still cilia whether it is used by a single celled organism for locomotion, or used in the bronchial tubes to eliminate mucous). Moreover, Stephen Meyer? Really? O-M-G. EPIC FAIL.

Finally, and this really is the important point here, the only differences between artificial selection and natural selection is time and the agent influencing traits. In the first case, man is the agent producing change. In the latter, natural selection is the agent producing change. A thoroughbred horse is unmistakably a product of artificial selection. In this case, man bred an English mare with an Arabian stallion. But nature could have done exactly the same thing with exactly the same result. But instead of pointing this out, you seemed to have been bent on disproving evolution and then at the very end making a case FOR evolution, just evolution via some undefined intelligent agent. How weird is that!

Quite often, when I start discussing evolution with its defenders, it comes down to belief, not science. I always hope to find that rare person that actually has a modicum of understanding of evolution so that it would be possible to actually discuss it rationally.

Unfortunately, you are not that person.

Well, Mr. - Miss. Windbag, whatever, if you want to have a discussion about evolution, starting out as you have here is probably not the best approach., so it comes as no surprise to me that you have not had any successful discussions on the matter.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't take anything on faith. Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence. As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.

Faith is not belief in something that is not in evidence, that is delusion.

Faith

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

the closest you can get to your definition is belief in something without proof. Fore example, there is absolutely no proof that dark matter exists. It has never been detected, and may never be because, if it exists, it does not interact with normal matter. That does not mean that there is no evidence it exist, for one thing, the universe could not exist if something wasn't holding it together, and dark matter seems to make more sense as an explanation that unicorn farts.

Faith is belief in something because the evidence you have allows you to believe in it, even if you do not proof. Intelligence is understanding the difference between faith and delusion.

Come back when you grow a brain.

 

[orogenicman]

I don't take anything on faith. Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence. As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.

Faith is not belief in something that is not in evidence, that is delusion.

Faith

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I suppose you glossed over 2b, eh?

the closest you can get to your definition is belief in something without proof.

Duh.

Fore example, there is absolutely no proof that dark matter exists.

This is true. There is no proof that dark matter exists. That's because science is not about proofs. Proofs fall to the realm of mathematics and philosophy. Science is evidence-based. And if it is evidence you want, there certainly is evidence for dark energy, albeit, indirect evidence. But don't just argue from the god of the gaps. Physics is heavily concentrated on trying to understand exactly what dark matter is, so stay tuned.

It has never been detected, and may never be because, if it exists, it does not interact with normal matter. That does not mean that there is no evidence it exist, for one thing, the universe could not exist if something wasn't holding it together, and dark matter seems to make more sense as an explanation that unicorn farts.

I would tend to agree. Dark matter makes more sense than unicorn farts.

Faith is belief in something because the evidence you have allows you to believe in it, even if you do not proof. Intelligence is understanding the difference between faith and delusion.

2b - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". I hate to break it to you, but I have no idea what you thought you were trying to explain, but it seems to me that you walked yourself into a corner here. I say that because as you explain it, faith certainly does appear to have remarkable similarity to delusion.

Come back when you grow a brain.

And we are back to the issue that prevents you from having a conversation with - well, pretty much anyone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, none of that is correct. Who taught you how to write, by the way? I only ask because, damn!

First of all, you don't get to re-define terms. Secondly, macroevolution uses the exact same processes that work in microevolution. And those new structures? Are almost always based on previous structures, merely used in a novel way to solve a new problem (i.e., cilia is still cilia whether it is used by a single celled organism for locomotion, or used in the bronchial tubes to eliminate mucous). Moreover, Stephen Meyer? Really? O-M-G. EPIC FAIL.

Finally, and this really is the important point here, the only differences between artificial selection and natural selection is time and the agent influencing traits. In the first case, man is the agent producing change. In the latter, natural selection is the agent producing change. A thoroughbred horse is unmistakably a product of artificial selection. In this case, man bred an English mare with an Arabian stallion. But nature could have done exactly the same thing with exactly the same result. But instead of pointing this out, you seemed to have been bent on disproving evolution and then at the very end making a case FOR evolution, just evolution via some undefined intelligent agent. How weird is that!

Quite often, when I start discussing evolution with its defenders, it comes down to belief, not science. I always hope to find that rare person that actually has a modicum of understanding of evolution so that it would be possible to actually discuss it rationally.

Unfortunately, you are not that person.

Well, Mr. - Miss. Windbag, whatever, if you want to have a discussion about evolution, starting out as you have here is probably not the best approach., so it comes as no surprise to me that you have not had any successful discussions on the matter.

Did my honest assessment of your level of education on a very difficult subject offend you?

I suggest you start educating by yourself by learning that natural selection is not an agent of anything, it is the end result of evolution.

Natural selection

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't take anything on faith. Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence. As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.

Faith is not belief in something that is not in evidence, that is delusion.

Faith

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Faith - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I suppose you glossed over 2b, eh?



Duh.



This is true. There is no proof that dark matter exists. That's because science is not about proofs. Proofs fall to the realm of mathematics and philosophy. Science is evidence-based. And if it is evidence you want, there certainly is evidence for dark energy, albeit, indirect evidence. But don't just argue from the god of the gaps. Physics is heavily concentrated on trying to understand exactly what dark matter is, so stay tuned.



I would tend to agree. Dark matter makes more sense than unicorn farts.

Faith is belief in something because the evidence you have allows you to believe in it, even if you do not proof. Intelligence is understanding the difference between faith and delusion.

2b - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". I hate to break it to you, but I have no idea what you thought you were trying to explain, but it seems to me that you walked yourself into a corner here. I say that because as you explain it, faith certainly does appear to have remarkable similarity to delusion.

Come back when you grow a brain.

And we are back to the issue that prevents you from having a conversation with - well, pretty much anyone.

I skipped over 2b? Would it help next time if I point to the specific thing I am discussing in order facilitate your non average intelligence to follow my train of though?

Next lesson, the difference between evidence and proof.