who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?

[CrusaderFrank]

you consider genetics self awareness.

I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause

unfortunately for you, all reproducible evidence on the topic shows otherwise, and nothing supports your idea.

You meant nothing besides quantum physics, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Gravity is caused by things falling when dropped, eh Frank?

That's not what I said.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

you consider genetics self awareness.

I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause

wow. for kicks, could you explain how that works?

Remember e=mc^2?

We're energy first and energy that is self aware.

So the changes comes first as energy, then we process it as a "mutation"

 

[JBeukema]

I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause

wow. for kicks, could you explain how that works?

Remember e=mc^2?

We're energy first and energy that is self aware.

So the changes comes first as energy, then we process it as a "mutation"

that's not at all what that formula means.

Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[antagon]

there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years. it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case. this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward. it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution. it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.

its not a matter of making claims which science has to prove. it is a matter of making scientific claims. it is not a scientific claim to declare that the moon is made of cheese, or that there is an unaccounted genetic barrier to creating what we have decided to declare as independent species.

not remotely plausible.

No, dear, it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. It 's yours to prove yourself right. Just saying, "There's no barrier, they're the same thing" doesn't constitute proof. I can't imagine what there is about our understanding of genetics that you think DOES constitute proof that one thing can change into an entirely different thing. At most, all you can say definitively is that it's a possibility.

By the way, this is just another example of those arguments I mentioned that make me that much more skeptical of evolution. I can remember when there was actually a debate on the subject of whether micro-evolution necessarily followed to macro-evolution, with people actually trying to find and present evidence. It's obvious to me that they just gave up and decided to declare the debate decided in their favor.

is the debate you remember a fantasy, perhaps? when was that? who was it who proposed that there was a barrier to the theories of earlier biologists, and how did they argue that it worked? the history with which i am familiar has never included serious inquest into this matter of a barrier. i dont think your history is true at all, but welcome you to substantiate that is.

evolution is of course based on genetics which employs the same mechanism for encoding phenotypes for a lizard as in a human. in this way, perhaps your characterization of 'entirely different' is inaccurate. in fact, DNA and RNA are fundamental to all life. no barrier there. no different system between creatures.

next there's heredity the natural method of gene transfer between generations retains genes from the parent or parents. in this way we know that the genes from offspring will indicate the parentage of the subject. using this fact, it is indicated that while genomes for different creatures are different, that there is evidence for direct heredity between different creatures. they are related. no barrier had functioned to obstruct alleles from ascendant creatures from being transferred to descendant creatures, even though they are of a different species. this is how creatures which are descendant from one another share genes for crucial proteins and enzymes, and why descendants' genes indicate 'elaborations' and truncations on ascendant versions. no barrier.

then there's the phenotype-genotype relationship. in all life, without barrier or exception, genes are the mechanisms which determine the traits or phenotypes of organisms. because of the inability for fossils, sometimes aged millions of years, to provide genetic information, we rely on the way all life uses genes to determine the appearance of creatures. similarly to our ability to associate children with their parents from how they look, even without getting a DNA test, we could and have used phenotypes of creatures to presume heredity of fossilized creatures. combined with observations of time, heredity is further established. that is, offspring cannot precede parents. we know that traits are communicated between generations exclusively via genetic heredity. there appears to be heredity, there appears to be no barrier.

i dont trust that any scientist has proposed any barrier to the extents of evolution because evidence of its existence would have been the reason why they proposed that possibility. since no evidence exists, i think there's good reason to conclude that a time when scientists proposed such an idea broadly is a figment of your own imagination which you have put forward as fact.

 

[antagon]

I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause

wow. for kicks, could you explain how that works?

Remember e=mc^2?

We're energy first and energy that is self aware.

So the changes comes first as energy, then we process it as a "mutation"

intriguing. what do you mean by 'then we process it as a "mutation"'? this makes so little sense to me.

 

[geauxtohell]

Its not just that O'Donnell does not believe in evolution, she has no concept of what it is (or anything else dealing with science)

Evolution never said we evolved from monkeys. It said humans and monkeys evolved from a common ancestor

O'Donnell also has no concept of the notion that mice and humans can't interbreed.

 

[geauxtohell]

there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years. it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case. this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward. it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution. it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.

its not a matter of making claims which science has to prove. it is a matter of making scientific claims. it is not a scientific claim to declare that the moon is made of cheese, or that there is an unaccounted genetic barrier to creating what we have decided to declare as independent species.

not remotely plausible.

In other words, the burden of proof is on those who would challenge the status quo.

Though the flat-earthers try to deny that (and then wonder why no on listens to them).

Want to have some fun? Ask an anti-evolution person where they believe the origin of species came from.

 

[geauxtohell]

have you considered that genetics propagates evolution, frank? heredity?

Self awareness propagates "evolution"

you consider genetics self awareness.

Yes he does. He thinks our genetic code self directs itself while mocking evolution for being outlandish and fanciful.

(see what I mean in the above post?)

 

[geauxtohell]

I can't imagine what there is about our understanding of genetics that you think DOES constitute proof that one thing can change into an entirely different thing.

You didn't watch my macro/micro evolution video, did you?

 

[geauxtohell]

Two words that confirm evolution: Dogs, Mosquitos.

The dummies in the god camp keep screeching for examples of modern evolution. The mosquito would be history if natural selection hadn't overcome DDT. What better example of super evolution than the thousands of varieties of dog that have been created by human breeding.

First of all, mosquitos only prove change within a species, something that no one has ever argued. Unless you're suggesting that mosquitos are no longer mosquitos. Second of all, the fact that it is HUMAN BREEDING that produces changes in dogs looks more like support for intelligent design than it does support for evolution. Could you please explain to me how you get "example of super evolution" from the deliberate, controlled manipulation of a species by an intelligent outside force?

Yep. You definitely ignored my video, which directly referenced mosquitoes as an example of macroevolution.

 

[geauxtohell]

Hey cecilie, where's that missing link again? Oh right you won't say. Am I supposed to "prove" YOUR idea of a missing link wrong? Well no.

No, dear, it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. It 's yours to prove yourself right.

That's not what he said at all. Timeline matters hear, so pay attention for a change. Someone ELSE made the claim that there is a barrier. Why should anyone aside from that person try to prove it? See evolution is defined on the basis of reproducible evidence from research, while this barrier claim is yet another made up piece of garbage. And yet you think it's our responsibility to prove it wrong?

Let me know when you figured out what GENETICS is.

I owe you a beer for correctly predicting that Cecillie would show up in a month or so and claim that we haven't presented her with any evidence to support our assertions.

Good call.

 

[HUGGY]

Self awareness propagates "evolution"

you consider genetics self awareness.

I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause

I found your song Frankie..enjoy!



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFwrLZijNLk]YouTube - King of Wishful Thinking with lyrics[/ame]

 

[JBeukema]

An Evolutionary Biologist Answers Christine O'Donnell's Question About the Missing Monkey-Humans - Newsweek

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I consider "genetics" the effect rather than the cause

unfortunately for you, all reproducible evidence on the topic shows otherwise, and nothing supports your idea.

You meant nothing besides quantum physics, right?

You have no clue what quantum physics is about, as demonstrated by:

wow. for kicks, could you explain how that works?

Remember e=mc^2?

We're energy first and energy that is self aware.

So the changes comes first as energy, then we process it as a "mutation"

Except the equation e=mc^2 has nothing to do with "self aware" energy. What does it have to do with being self aware? There are no peer reviewed scientific articles that support what you say. There aren't even Wikipedia articles you hate so much. This came from.... your head. And is supported by.... wait for it yet again..... NOTHING.

Once again you equate mutation to a force or energy. Perhaps you should revisit my list of things that are not forces. On it, you will note that evolution is not a force. It is similarly not an energy. Mutation is no more relevant to mc^2 than driving a car is. Even if these processes USE energy, they do not use mc^2 amount of energy, and are not themselves a type of energy being used.

So do you concede this point or wish to continue your stance with supporting evidence?

I owe you a beer for correctly predicting that Cecillie would show up in a month or so and claim that we haven't presented her with any evidence to support our assertions.

Good call.

Now we get to watch her repeat the process.

 

[konradv]

I can't speak for Fitz, but for myself, I can say that I never said that there was any barrier preventing microevolution from becoming macroevolution. And I think you have it backward. It's not OUR job to prove that they are separate and differentiated, it's YOUR job to prove that they aren't. And you haven't, which is one reason I don't currently believe in evolution. The idea that you can say, "See, this happens, so that proves that THAT happens" and I'm supposed to either prove you wrong or believe you is nuts. Prove that you're correct and THEN I'll follow.

there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years. it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case. this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward. it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution. it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.

its not a matter of making claims which science has to prove. it is a matter of making scientific claims. it is not a scientific claim to declare that the moon is made of cheese, or that there is an unaccounted genetic barrier to creating what we have decided to declare as independent species.

not remotely plausible.

No, dear, it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. It 's yours to prove yourself right. Just saying, "There's no barrier, they're the same thing" doesn't constitute proof. I can't imagine what there is about our understanding of genetics that you think DOES constitute proof that one thing can change into an entirely different thing. At most, all you can say definitively is that it's a possibility.

By the way, this is just another example of those arguments I mentioned that make me that much more skeptical of evolution. I can remember when there was actually a debate on the subject of whether micro-evolution necessarily followed to macro-evolution, with people actually trying to find and present evidence. It's obvious to me that they just gave up and decided to declare the debate decided in their favor.

Yes, it is YOUR responsibility. Evolution is the explanation for the fossil record. If you have another explanation it's up to YOU to provide it. Given what we know, there are only two logical explanations, IMO: evolution is true or God lies to us. I favor the first.

 

[konradv]

there is no barrier limiting evolution to small changes in the context of millions of years. it is the responsibility for those who propose that there is such a barrier to prove that is the case. this is an implication of the popular micro/macro dichotomy which skeptics put forward. it is an attempt to concede an acceptance of the mechanisms of genetics without accepting the implications of these mechanisms in evolution. it is a fallacy because it thereby refutes our understanding of genetics without proposing a new understanding or proof of an additional mechanism which precludes sufficient change to constitute a new species.

its not a matter of making claims which science has to prove. it is a matter of making scientific claims. it is not a scientific claim to declare that the moon is made of cheese, or that there is an unaccounted genetic barrier to creating what we have decided to declare as independent species.

not remotely plausible.

No, dear, it's not our responsibility to prove you wrong. It 's yours to prove yourself right. Just saying, "There's no barrier, they're the same thing" doesn't constitute proof. I can't imagine what there is about our understanding of genetics that you think DOES constitute proof that one thing can change into an entirely different thing. At most, all you can say definitively is that it's a possibility.

By the way, this is just another example of those arguments I mentioned that make me that much more skeptical of evolution. I can remember when there was actually a debate on the subject of whether micro-evolution necessarily followed to macro-evolution, with people actually trying to find and present evidence. It's obvious to me that they just gave up and decided to declare the debate decided in their favor.

That's perfect!

Because when you question the underlying assumption about evolution you get answers from the ManMade Global Warming play book eg., ridicule, settled science, concensus

If the science isn't settled, Frank, what's your explanation for the fossil record? If you're feeling ridiculed, it's because you ignore the obvious. What other explanations for the fossil record are there besides evolution and "God lies to us"?

 

[vonbolical5]

wow

 

[KissMy]

If the science isn't settled, Frank, what's your explanation for the fossil record? If you're feeling ridiculed, it's because you ignore the obvious. What other explanations for the fossil record are there besides evolution and "God lies to us"?

Is this the fossil record you are referring to.

 

[geauxtohell]

Ah, Cecille won't play with me anymore!

I guess looking like a total ass ad naseum eventually takes its toll.

I have a simple solution:

For those who have decided that they are too intellectually lazy to take the time to actually learn science: simply duck out of scientific issues and stop polluting the environment with your absurd bullshit.

We will get along just fine without you. In fact, we are better off without you and your mythology.