Replies

>>>>"Evolution requires faith in that it requires a belief in that which cannot be seen."

>>What do you mean? We observe evolution directly via speciation and adaptation and indirectly in the fossil record.

OK, lets take your pre-Siluran or more correctly pre-cambrean fossils, the cambrean explosion is so called because you have a five million year period where you go from Microbes, and simple (and small) worms to vertebrates and eyes, sockets and all. There is no way gradual evolution happened there, this is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was invented (where the mutations build up and POW you get a bunch of advances all at once.) Unfortunately, punctuated equilibrium ignores the survival of the fittest part that weeds out the loser DNA so you should have way more spectacular failures than successes, and the fossil layer does not bear that out either.

What's your point?

>>If Abiogenesis did not happen, there is no reason for Darwinism, and it would prove intelligent Design

I understand why you would not want to understand, that if you don’t have life, you have nothing got mutate, so if you don’t have Abiogenesis, you don’t have Darwinism. You separating them is like saying, I was talking about cars, not vehicles. (Darwin must have Abiogenesis or it breaks down.

>> Except you managed to miss the section in the article entitled "Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy."

It was a hybrid.

>> Also, you made this ridiculous claim: "If Abiogenesis did not happen, there is no reason for Darwinism, and it would prove intelligent Design." Dichotomies don't exist in science, specially in different fields. Abiogenesis is separate from evolution; pink unicorns on the moon could have made life for all we know but evolution would still be supported.

So, the god of Darwinism is a pink unicorn?

Let me make this simple for you, Abiogenesis life occurring naturally from chemicals, anything else (ergo not forming naturally) is ID. If you are saying ID is not true, you must support Abiogenesis.

Dichotomies happen all the time in Science, It’s one way of proving something, oh yeah, you don’t believe in “proof” unless it proves Darwin was right.

>>>> "Godless – Page 200 William Provine, an evolutionary Biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism 'The greatest engine of atheism devised by man.' His fellow Darwin disciple Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins , famously said 'Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.'"

>>Argumentum ad vercundiam.

No, the Thread started for me with a slam on Ann Coulter, I am now only quoting Fellow Scientists as to why they support Darwin. (if I had said “Everyone knows…” or “As you know…” Then I would be speaking from authority, now I am only quoting self proclaimed authorities which is entirely different.

>>>> Darwinism requires faith, (believe, and eventually we’ll fill in these nagging details) Has dogma (Evolution is not to be questioned, especially in school!) Has Tenets (Man evolved from Monkeys, or some other lower life form), opposes most other religions (Is the greatest engine of Atheism devised by man)."

>>No, it requires evidence.

Then present some, and not the Tripe you already tried to pass, real hard evidence.

>>No, it isn't dogma.

Yes it is (Grin, no is not a very good persuader)

>>Evolution is constantly refined and questioned every day in biological circles.

And knitting circles too; neither one proves Evolution is a Law, or even remotely correct.

>>What are you talking about?

I am talking about proof, truth, and reality

Try this on for size: we (homo sapiens) are here. We got here some how. (These are true statements) how we got here that is the mystery. You keep saying you know how, well, prove it is more real than the Pink unicorn you were just talking about.

>>While common descent is universally accepted by biologists, it is how evolution occurred where the rub is.

Argumentum ad vercundiam. Anyone? (So if I can find one Biologist who dis agrees, will you admit you are wrong? I Didn’t think so…)

>>How is the evolution of Man a tenet. And it opposes most religions?

It is the First step to Atheism, see my quote from Godless, Atheists think it is great, and Atheism has been rules a religion by a federal court.

You just offended millions of theists who accept evolution and about 40% of the U.S. scientific community.

ROTFLOL If they will accept this stuff then they can just switch to the pink unicorn theory.

>>You realize that species have multiple definitions correct?

Yes but this is #1 in the five dictionaries refenced by Dictionary.com (To borrow your methodology of Argumentum ad vercundiam) is accepted by all intelligent people as the only definition of consequence. (That how it’s done, now if you disagree you are unintelligent)

>> Of course, theories are the goals of science.

From Grade 8 Chicago public schools
CAS B.
8. Distinguish fact from opinion and science from pseudoscience (e.g., astronomy vs. astrology). (http://intranet.cps.k12.il.us/Standards/CAS/CAS_Science/Science_8th_Grade/8-SG11-Science/8-sg11-science.html)

I know, I’ll give you an answer even a eighth grader could understand. I’m making brownies (even if you don’t normally like brownies you do for this example) While I’m making brownies, I add some Dog Poop (now there’s lots of brownie mix, and only a teaspoon of poop) I bake them in the oven, and so all bacteria would have been killed anyway, want one?

I knew you wouldn’t.

Darwinism is like brownie mix, there are lots of good important things there mixed in with the dog poop. The problem is you expect me to swallow the whole thing.

You keep sending me to this True Origins site, I assume you wanted me to look at:

Section 5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

I went back and looked; I still did not see anything that was speciation I did see hybridization (even though they said the didn’t in the title) This is the same way hybrids are grown now in the Midwest, control the neighbors, control the pollination (Trust me on this one, I worked for a seed company (Corn or Maize if you prefer), they cheated on this “Proof” too.) My declaration that this site is a pant load stands.

>> Evolution is a theory to be sure. But, it is also a fact.

Pick one, you can’t have it both ways (Fake but accurate…)

Let’s just go back to the Pre- and Cambrean, shall we?
Pre- cambrean = No invertebrates, no eyes.
Cambrean = invertebrates and eyes.

The Cambrean was 5 billion years, so using accepted Genetic numbers for mutations, how long will it take to mutate an Eye from no eye? (Hint, you have a time issue)

Until Darwinists can explain all the questions like these, you will have a theory that MUST accept criticism, and until you can repeat it in an independent way and tell others how to duplicate your experiment Darwinism will always be a theory.

"OK, lets take your pre-Siluran or more correctly pre-cambrean fossils, the cambrean explosion is so called because you have a five million year period where you go from Microbes, and simple (and small) worms to vertebrates and eyes, sockets and all. There is no way gradual evolution happened there, this is why the theory of punctuated equilibrium was invented (where the mutations build up and POW you get a bunch of advances all at once.) Unfortunately, punctuated equilibrium ignores the survival of the fittest part that weeds out the loser DNA so you should have way more spectacular failures than successes, and the fossil layer does not bear that out either."

The Cambrian Explosion lasted from 12 million to 20 million years. Your underestimates aren't impressive. Fossilization is rare; since the successes accumulate and the failures are weeded out by natural selection, statistically, paleontologists are far more likely to find "successful" fossils. And what do you mean by successful anyway? Many fossils are a) lead to a dead-end b) were an intermediate that eventually lead to a dead-end c) are ancestors of today's organisms.

Also, only simple worms, microbes and such? You mind explaining complex Ediacaran metazoa such as Cyclomedusa, Arkarua, Spriggina, or Eoporpita? Hardly.

"I understand why you would not want to understand, that if you don’t have life, you have nothing got mutate, so if you don’t have Abiogenesis, you don’t have Darwinism. You separating them is like saying, I was talking about cars, not vehicles. (Darwin must have Abiogenesis or it breaks down."

Wrong; that's akin to saying that meteorologists have to account for the universal origin of water and air. It's a fallacious argument.

"It was a hybrid."

There's an entire section of plant speciation *not* involving hybridization.

"So, the god of Darwinism is a pink unicorn?

Let me make this simple for you, Abiogenesis life occurring naturally from chemicals, anything else (ergo not forming naturally) is ID. If you are saying ID is not true, you must support Abiogenesis.

Dichotomies happen all the time in Science, It’s one way of proving something, oh yeah, you don’t believe in “proof” unless it proves Darwin was right."

No, you're wrong. If ID is wrong, that does not make science correct. That you know nothing about the philosophy of science does not suddenly make your points correct. If evolution were shown to be inaccurate, ID would not be correct. ID *must* have several lines of strong *positive* evidence.

"No, the Thread started for me with a slam on Ann Coulter, I am now only quoting Fellow Scientists as to why they support Darwin. (if I had said “Everyone knows…” or “As you know…” Then I would be speaking from authority, now I am only quoting self proclaimed authorities which is entirely different."

You're giving what some people say, not the evidence. Sorry, but that isn't going to fly.

"Then present some, and not the Tripe you already tried to pass, real hard evidence."

Explain:

A) Multiple identical ERV insertion at identical sites in human and chimp genomes
B) Confirmed prediction of chromosomal fusion in humans with sub-telomeric duplications
C) Confirmed prediction of oxygen isotope ratios of early cetaceans matching those of modern dolphins
D) 98.5% of our genome consists of noncoding DNA, ERVs, and pseudogenes
E) The existence of protein functional redundancy and redundant pseudogenes
F) Humans and chimps genomes are 98% identical
G) Et cetra...

"Yes it is (Grin, no is not a very good persuader)"

It's a scientific theory. A course in the philosophy of science might be in order.

"And knitting circles too; neither one proves Evolution is a Law, or even remotely correct."

The theory of evolution isn't a law and was never intended to be. Law's are the not the end-all-be-all of science; theories are. If all we had are laws, we'd be describing natural phenomena around us, but we'd never be able to explain why they happen.

"I am talking about proof, truth, and reality

Try this on for size: we (homo sapiens) are here. We got here some how. (These are true statements) how we got here that is the mystery. You keep saying you know how, well, prove it is more real than the Pink unicorn you were just talking about."

There is no proof in science nor any measures of absolute truth. This allows science to change because scientists understand that the results of their research may not see the whole picture and may be inaccurate. We've got: A) fossil evidence B) comparative genomics C) morphological/embryological/molecular phylogenies D) identical ERV insertions with chimps E) chromosomal fusion in #2 chromosome F) Et cetra.

I see plenty of evidence for evolution. You have any for ID?

"It is the First step to Atheism, see my quote from Godless, Atheists think it is great, and Atheism has been rules a religion by a federal court."

Atheism is a philosophical viewpoint; evolution is a scientific theory. That's a non-sequitur.

"If they will accept this stuff then they can just switch to the pink unicorn theory."

Nice red herring. But you never actually responded to that.

"Yes but this is #1 in the five dictionaries refenced by Dictionary.com (To borrow your methodology of Argumentum ad vercundiam) is accepted by all intelligent people as the only definition of consequence. (That how it’s done, now if you disagree you are unintelligent)"

That doesn't matter. Dictionaries seldom have accurate scientific definitions that would be pertinent to a scientific context.

"From Grade 8 Chicago public schools
CAS B.
8. Distinguish fact from opinion and science from pseudoscience (e.g., astronomy vs. astrology). (http://intranet.cps.k12.il.us/Standards/CAS/CAS_Science/Science_8th_Grade/8-SG11-Science/8-sg11-science.html) "

Correct. That's relevant how?

"I know, I’ll give you an answer even a eighth grader could understand. I’m making brownies (even if you don’t normally like brownies you do for this example) While I’m making brownies, I add some Dog Poop (now there’s lots of brownie mix, and only a teaspoon of poop) I bake them in the oven, and so all bacteria would have been killed anyway, want one?

I knew you wouldn’t.

Darwinism is like brownie mix, there are lots of good important things there mixed in with the dog poop. The problem is you expect me to swallow the whole thing."

Non-sequitur. You haven't elaborated much on the problems at all; and much of the problems you present are distortions.

"
Section 5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

I went back and looked; I still did not see anything that was speciation I did see hybridization (even though they said the didn’t in the title) This is the same way hybrids are grown now in the Midwest, control the neighbors, control the pollination (Trust me on this one, I worked for a seed company (Corn or Maize if you prefer), they cheated on this “Proof” too.) My declaration that this site is a pant load stands."

What you saw was hybridization *after* reproductive isolation was establish to check for the compatibility between the species.

"Pick one, you can’t have it both ways (Fake but accurate…) "

Wrong. It's a theory in that it is a well-supported explanation of a broad series of related facts on the diversity of life, and it is a fact in that there is the well-supported direct and indirect observation of it and the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be "perverse to withold provisional consent." (Gould)

"Let’s just go back to the Pre- and Cambrean, shall we?
Pre- cambrean = No invertebrates, no eyes.
Cambrean = invertebrates and eyes.

The Cambrean was 5 billion years, so using accepted Genetic numbers for mutations, how long will it take to mutate an Eye from no eye? (Hint, you have a time issue)"

12-20 million years, not 5. Also, you seem to suggest that evolution works similarly to a brute-force search. No, variation is introduced and selection selects the variation and allows species to converge. Mutations are backed by not only selection, but gene flow, recombination, genetic drift, and duplication. All of these factors speed up evolution anyway and 12-20 million years is plenty of time.

"Until Darwinists can explain all the questions like these, you will have a theory that MUST accept criticism, and until you can repeat it in an independent way and tell others how to duplicate your experiment Darwinism will always be a theory."

I think I just answered them.