"You mean we’re here, so we evolved? I hope it’s not that simplistic for you."
No; I'm referring to observed speciation, fossil evidence, comparative genomics, etc.
"Evolution, much like a religion is a theory backed up by facts. Evolution is not a fact, because we can’t prove or disprove that we evolved from goo in the sea."
Proof doesn't exist in science; evolution is a theory not a religion. Evolution does not address the origin of life. It addresses the diversity of life.
"I went, I read, What a pant load!
This is an example of the 'Stuff' on this site.
!!!begin cut
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
End Cut!!!
Cross breeding in Laboratory is not Evolution being observed in nature.
I did not read the whole site, I got bored over the repetitive “Experiments” which would produce sterile results, or breed back into the original species being presented as 'Proof it happened in nature' and stuck.
Nice try."
You want specific examples? Heard of ring species? Or, maybe mosquitoes? (Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.) By the way, proof is non-existent in science.
"Yes, I am the one who pointed out that Laws exist, theorys are creted to try to explain them. Your problem is that you have stated there is enough evidence to “Prove” evolution right. Good Luck."
No. You got it wrong. Laws describe the fact. Theories explain facts. Theories can incorporate laws to explain the facts, but they do not attempt to explain the laws. Proof is non-existent in science. There exists plenty of evidence for evolution. Maybe you should read Theobald's article. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
"If I drop a ball off of a building, and I know the exact height of the building, I can predict how long it will take the ball to reach the ground. IF Evolution were predictable we should be able to figure out where and when the next species will appear, and get photos.
Instead, we get 'Well you have this fossil, then a miracle happens and 1.23460983 million years later we get this fossil that looks completely different, because this guy on the other side of the world evolved from the first guy, and… hey, why are you laughing back there, don’t you know this is irrefutable?'"
Sure evolution makes predictions. Haven't you heard of the predicted chromosomal fusion in humans, the prediction that trilobites would be found in the Pre-Siluran layer, or Darwin's prediction of PE?
"Most science have proof, atomic science has proof, math has proof, quantum physics has proof (Those are formulas that allow them to predict what will happen next to the last decimal place the instruments are good for (That is why Einstein was able to correct Newton, better instruments)
I don’t care what searches you did or will do, they are all papers on people trying to prove what you just said was un-provable, and for evolution, for now it is un-provable."
At no time does a scientists accept his research as true. If it were true, it would not be subject to change nor correction. However, that isn't the case. He make be confident that his results are accurate, but not true. Proof is non-existent in science. It does however exist in math.
"Here we go again, gravity is a LAW, and there are many THEORIES about it. Just because you have a theory about a law does not make your theory law nor does the reverse happen.
Things do not go both ways in reality, bicycles rust, rust never turns into bicycles."
Wrong. There is Newton's Law of Gravitation. His theory of Gravitation however was replaced with General Relativity. Motion wasn't absolute, etc. I'm not suggesting that the theory becomes a law or vice versa. What I'm saying is that things can be both laws and theories. If Gravity were just a law, it would be poor science as all we would be doing is describe gravitation but not actually explain it.
"Proof is the goal of science, something you have dismissed as impossible."
No it isn't. Theories are. Science attempt to explain natural phenomena around us. Theories are systems of explanations of the natural world. What are you talking about?
"'Scientists dream great dreams, Engineers accomplish them.' – James Mitchners Space.
You sir are a true scientist."
If the scientists hadn't done research in the first place, engineers would have nothing to apply. What are you talking about?
>> Proof doesn't exist in science;
Then what is science for?
>>evolution is a theory not a religion.
It requires faith in something that cannot be proven, has a dogma (which hit by my karma), has tenets, and is diametrically opposed to many of the religions of the world, claiming to be the only true source for mankind. Sounds like a religion to me. You call it whatever you wish.
>>Evolution does not address the origin of life.
Snort, chuckle, can I quote you on this? “Evolution does not address the origin of life” no, really Dante Alighieri said so!
>>You want specific examples? Heard of ring species?
You mean things that choose not to mate with each other, but could in a lab? Hey, I just saw a site about that recently…
>> mosquitoes?
They can still breed, just have adapted to their environment, not a differing species
S P E C I E S There I said it really slowly and loudly, look it up, you keep quoting controlled micro evolution or evolution within a species (Hey we can breed for Beaks!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution thinking that proves macro evolution (Hey those fish grew legs and can only breed with each other now!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
>>No. You got it wrong. Laws describe the fact. Theories explain facts.
I see why we are having a problem, Facts are, Theories are created by men like us.
>>>> If I drop a ball off of a building, and I know the
>>>>exact height of the building, I can predict how long
>>>>it will take the ball to reach the ground. IF Evolution
>>>>were predictable we should be able to figure out where
>>>>and when the next species will appear, and get photos.
>>>>Instead, we get 'Well you have this fossil, then a
>>>>miracle happens and 1.23460983 million years later we
>>>>get this fossil that looks completely different,
>>>>because this guy on the other side of the world
>>>>evolved from the first guy, and… hey, why are you
>>>>laughing back there, don’t you know this is
>>>>irrefutable?'"
>>At no time does a scientists accept his research as
>>true. If it were true, it would not be subject to change
>>nor correction. However, that isn't the case. He make be
>>confident that his results are accurate, but not true.
>>Proof is non-existent in science. It does however exist
>>in math.
Science , like religion is a search for truth, not Theory, that’s science fiction.
>>his results are accurate, but not true
Sounds like fake but accurate to me…
>> Sure evolution makes predictions.
Wake me will you, I mean when one happens?
That should be in about a billion years or so.
>> If Gravity were just a law, it would be poor science as
>>all we would be doing is describe gravitation but not
>>actually explain it.
OK, I’ll bite; explain something to me without describing it (Grin).
>>>> "Proof is the goal of science, something you have
>>>>dismissed as impossible."
>>No it isn't. Theories are. Science attempt to explain
>>natural phenomena around us. Theories are systems of
>>explanations of the natural world
Theories are the goal of Science fiction writers, not Scientists, Science it the search fro truth, theory is another word for conjecture.
>>What are you talking about?
I am talking about reality; walls exist, if you theorize you can walk through them that won’t stop you from bumping your head.
>>>>"'Scientists dream great dreams, Engineers accomplish them.' – James Mitchners Space.
>>>>You sir are a true scientist."
>>If the scientists hadn't done research in the first
>>place, engineers would have nothing to apply.
>>What are you talking about?
Your tenuous connection with reality, and scientific method.
I spent some time in the east, I learnt a poem there:
It does no good for the Christian health to hustle the Asian brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Asian smiles and weareth the Christian down.
At the end of the fight is a tombstone white on the grave of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: "a fool lies here, who tried to hustle the East".
I have no dog in this fight; I just took umbrage at the statement that “Evolution” was the only truth, and decided to have some fun. You have not proved your case; you have spoken in circles, which sound suspiciously like a liberal explaining “Global Warming” everything proves GW to be true, for you there is no such thing as proof, yet to deny the truth of evolution is to put your fingers in your ears and yell I can’t hear you. You speak in riddles and it’s getting late, I have destroyed your attempt s to prove what you say is un-provable, and I am not even trying to replace it with anything.
IF I were trying to convince you of anything except your need to tone down the rhetoric, I would have to quote my father: “A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.
G’night