Proof of evolution -at last-

[cladking]

Would you like to learn what is and what is not evidence so that you do not keep making he same mistakes?

[Sigh]

Evidence is irrelevant because everyone sees what he expects. I cite evidence to support and argument and am told it is not evidence because you will choose not to see it. You can tell by looking and seeing that it's not relevant. Just like logic isn't relevant, consciousness isn't relevant, a your beliefs aren't relevant. But you still believe that evidence creates theory no matter how many times I have to straighten you out.

Evidence creates hypothesis.

[/sigh]

You won't comment because you can't see it. You can only see word salad, ignorance, and the need to tell me what you believe.

 

[cladking]

When you cannot present any evidence for your beliefs gainsaying alone refutes you

Logic and evidence mean nothing to science. They are the backbone of communication and argument.

You ignore the evidence and logic but far far far far but far far far far far far far far but far far far far worse you ignore the fact that I have stated dozens of times that every experiment supports my theory because you don't understand all theory is based solely on experiment while evidence and logic are irrelevant.

Now you'll ignore this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logic and evidence mean nothing to science. They are the backbone of communication and argument.

You ignore the evidence and logic but far far far far but far far far far far far far far but far far far far worse you ignore the fact that I have stated dozens of times that every experiment supports my theory because you don't understand all theory is based solely on experiment while evidence and logic are irrelevant.

Now you'll ignore this.

Oh my! Another fractally wrong post. Logic and evidence are key tools in science. Now that you have demonstrated once again that you do not understand logic, science, or evidence would you like to learn? Or is that too much work for you?

And yes, you can make as many false claims as you like. You need to back them up. That is something that we know that you cannot do.

 

[Valjean]

So, gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest is proven.

Cladking, you apparently know nothing of scientific method, the relevant facts or how to evaluate facts.
How many thousands of times in threads like these have we tried to explain how science works, what a fact is, what a theory is, and that science doesn't prove anything? The round earth theory is a fact -- but it's not proven. The germ theory is a fact -- but not proven. The evolution theory is a fact -- but not proven. Science can disprove, but it doesn't prove.
If you're so ignorant of what science is and how it works, what a fact is, and what evidence, you're not even qualified to hold an opinion on this subject.

It always seems like Evolution is established fact until anyone dares to question what an established fact is.

Please explain what you mean. What is an "established fact?" How do evolution and the theory of evolution not qualify.

I'll give you a clue; established fact is not really "tentative".

And all scientists agree. They also agree that the ToE is not tentative. It's a fact.
Are you imagining that a fact cannot be clarified and modified as new information is discovered?

I'll give you another clue, even observation can be performed incorrectly.

Exactly! Which is why scientific hypotheses are so rigorously criticized, tested, and submitted for peer review before being accepted.

Despite the title of this thread no experiment has ever shown a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. All observed change is sudden.

You've made this claim before, and it's just factually wrong. You're either totally ignorant of the facts, or obtuse in the extreme.

Anything imagined from the fossil record is hypothesis or not science at all.

 

[cladking]

How many thousands of times in threads like these have we tried to explain how science works,

That's exactly what I keep asking. why do you keep telling me how science works when you are so very wrong? Now that you have "Proof of evolution -at last-" why do you need to try to convince anyone?


Science can only prove theory and only when every Peer agrees.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's exactly what I keep asking. why do you keep telling me how science works when you are so very wrong? Now that you have "Proof of evolution -at last-" why do you need to try to convince anyone?


Science can only prove theory and only when every Peer agrees.

No, come on, this is high school level stuff. Science does not prove anything and there never is any need for all peers to agree.. Once again you only confirm that you do not understand the concept of science. You seem to think that there is some sort of magic behind their decisions.

 

[Valjean]

So... which scientist bit the bullet and lived a million years just so he could watch whales slowly change? I think Vonnegut mightta written about him in "Galapagos". But it's fiction too.

You have a serious problem understanding and evaluating evidence.
A thing can be known even if you're not personally an eyewitness -- astonishing as this may seem to you. Pretty much everything we've achieved since emerging from caves attests to this.

Yes, perhaps our cleverness is problematic. It would probably do the world good if we did evolve into sea-lions. But this is not the issue. Mis-usage of knowledge doesn't negate its fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have a serious problem understanding and evaluating evidence.
A thing can be known even if you're not personally an eyewitness -- astonishing as this may seem to you. Pretty much everything we've achieved since emerging from caves attests to this.

Yes, perhaps our cleverness is problematic. It would probably do the world good if we did evolve into sea-lions. But this is not the issue. Mis-usage of knowledge doesn't negate its fact.

They never did solve who broke into Ken's house:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

[Sigh]

Evidence is irrelevant because everyone sees what he expects. I cite evidence to support and argument and am told it is not evidence because you will choose not to see it. You can tell by looking and seeing that it's not relevant. Just like logic isn't relevant, consciousness isn't relevant, a your beliefs aren't relevant. But you still believe that evidence creates theory no matter how many times I have to straighten you out.

Evidence creates hypothesis.

[/sigh]

You won't comment because you can't see it. You can only see word salad, ignorance, and the need to tell me what you believe.

I don't recall you ever citing evidence. Citing posts where you have claimed to include evidence you did not does not count as a citation.

All I have ever seen from you is claims.

I expect to see evidence used in logical arguments to support the claims.

You are correct. I have never seen that from you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's exactly what I keep asking. why do you keep telling me how science works when you are so very wrong? Now that you have "Proof of evolution -at last-" why do you need to try to convince anyone?


Science can only prove theory and only when every Peer agrees.

Proof is not the standard of science.

 

[Valjean]

....the theory presumes changes came about by socalled natural selection, mutations that lasted as far as inheritance goes leading to consequently different forms that over time cannot interbreed. I can see why people accept that. But there is again,no proof.

Of course there's no proof, but there's overwhelming evidence from multiple sources, certainly more evidence than there is of magic poofing.

And because I have come to believe that God created the basic lifeforms as outlined in Genesis, I now no longer accept as true the basic tenets of the theory of evolution. Naturally this leads to other questions.

True, like: By what mechanisms did God do this? What evidence is there for this process? Why propose a magical alternative when known mechanisms account for the phenomenon?
When has any magic ever been observed?

 

[Valjean]

Aren't biochemical reactions involved with the evolution of an organism as you know it?

Certainly, just as they're involved in painting, making lasagna or building a garden shed -- but their involvement is less direct than the actual processes like reproductive variation, sexual selection, natural selection, genetic drift, &c.
You're grasping at straws and ignoring the lumber.

 

[cladking]

Proof is not the standard of science.

You don't see the hypocrisy in this do you.

Just for review I have known there's no such thing as proof since I was three years old. It is believers in science who just keep saying there's no such thing as proof and then in the next sentence tell me that Evolution is fact. Take a glance at the title of this thread.

Pretty much everything we've achieved since emerging from caves attests to this.

You really should leave ancient people out of this. They solved how species changed without doing a single experiment and invented agriculture thereby.

What you really mean is that there is no proof of God but plenty of proof in human genius, omniscience, and Evolution. Termites, beavers, ants, and probably many other species invented agriculture but you can't see that either because I'm stupid, ignorant, and talk word salad. Beavers don't fit your model of genius so you must ascribe "instinct" since even God knows they can't be conscious or "intelligent".

And you can not possibly see evidence in this post either because you can only see gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. You can't see hypocrisy because you're right and everyone else is wrong and you know because you're a skeptic.

How is it possible that you can't even see an argument, any evidence, or even a logical meaning to a sentence that doesn't agree with your beliefs?

 

[Valjean]

Science believers are continually implying Evolution is proven and is simple fact.

Apparently you're continually misreading and misunderstanding science and scientists. It's one of the basic tenets of science that it doesn't prove things, and scientists are constantly reminding confused people like yourself of this fact.

Then they chide non-believers for asking for proof (or evidence).

Proof and evidence are completely different things.

Page after page after page of arguments against Evolution and belief in Evolution is met with semantics and dogma.

Page after page are revealed to be non-evidence, factually incorrect or religious dogma. You've either ignored science's response or misconstrued it.

Believers think all they need to do is gainsay any argument because they have Science on their side. They attack and belittle the arguer instead of addressing the argument.

You're projecting. This what creationists do, not scientists.
Science has facts, evidence, observation and application supporting its conclusions. It's creationism that thinks its position is supported by undermining scientific facts or reasoning.
If we belittle the arguer it's because the argument is unfounded or irrational, and the arguer fails to perceive or admit this.

Why do you think he implied Evolution is proven?

Someone implied this -- or you assumed this implication? Do you think stating something is a fact implies that it's proven?

Saying something is "proven" is not an argument in science because... ...well... ...NOTHING CAN BE PROVEN BY SCIENCE.

Reference, please. Who said science has proven something?

 

[cladking]

No, come on, this is high school level stuff. Science does not prove anything and there never is any need for all peers to agree.. Once again you only confirm that you do not understand the concept of science. You seem to think that there is some sort of magic behind their decisions.

In a sense there truly is magic to the decisions of Peers. They each have to balance their beliefs and their desire to stay in the pecking order. Their loves and even the mortgage factor into the equation. The kind of day they are having and whether the authors cited them as an et al and the opinions of their cohorts all play a role. Of course if the subject is a specific experiment then these things take a backseat. They can only review ANYTHING in terms of the paradigm so EVERYTHING that doesn't agree with prevailing interpretations has already been excluded from consideration.

This is why "Peer review" is not and never has been a part of the scientific method. Now was it part of the ancient science that invented agriculture. Anybody could make an observation or logical connection and it was still science just as today anyone can perform an experiment or reinterpret existing experiment and come to brand new scientific conclusions that wholly independent of any individual including the Peers who'll have to have one funeral at a time before the actual change in science is recognized.

This is just more word salad, right?

Let me simplify for you; reality is now, always has been, and always will be independent of anyone's opinion whatsoever. Beavers won't consult a theoretical soil engineer to raise fish. Reality doesn't give a rodent's *** about opinion. It just keeps going. It doesn't change or bend to the will of the majority.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't see the hypocrisy in this do you.

Just for review I have known there's no such thing as proof since I was three years old. It is believers in science who just keep saying there's no such thing as proof and then in the next sentence tell me that Evolution is fact. Take a glance at the title of this thread.



You really should leave ancient people out of this. They solved how species changed without doing a single experiment and invented agriculture thereby.

What you really mean is that there is no proof of God but plenty of proof in human genius, omniscience, and Evolution. Termites, beavers, ants, and probably many other species invented agriculture but you can't see that either because I'm stupid, ignorant, and talk word salad. Beavers don't fit your model of genius so you must ascribe "instinct" since even God knows they can't be conscious or "intelligent".

And you can not possibly see evidence in this post either because you can only see gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. You can't see hypocrisy because you're right and everyone else is wrong and you know because you're a skeptic.

How is it possible that you can't even see an argument, any evidence, or even a logical meaning to a sentence that doesn't agree with your beliefs?

Yes, we know, the concept of a "fact" is something that you do not appear to understand either. "Proof" is almost never involved with facts. You are clearly demanding a mathematical level of proof since you used no qualifiers. By that standard only mathematical facts are facts.


Do you want to go by the legal "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"? If that is the case then we have "proof'.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't see the hypocrisy in this do you.

Just for review I have known there's no such thing as proof since I was three years old. It is believers in science who just keep saying there's no such thing as proof and then in the next sentence tell me that Evolution is fact. Take a glance at the title of this thread.



You really should leave ancient people out of this. They solved how species changed without doing a single experiment and invented agriculture thereby.

What you really mean is that there is no proof of God but plenty of proof in human genius, omniscience, and Evolution. Termites, beavers, ants, and probably many other species invented agriculture but you can't see that either because I'm stupid, ignorant, and talk word salad. Beavers don't fit your model of genius so you must ascribe "instinct" since even God knows they can't be conscious or "intelligent".

And you can not possibly see evidence in this post either because you can only see gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. You can't see hypocrisy because you're right and everyone else is wrong and you know because you're a skeptic.

How is it possible that you can't even see an argument, any evidence, or even a logical meaning to a sentence that doesn't agree with your beliefs?

I don't often see much that you claim that matches with the evidence of reality.

It is a fact that proof is not a standard of science. All I mean to do is report this fact to you. You can deny it if you wish and post some grievance narrative all you like.

To my knowledge, you have never posted evidence in support of your claims or at the request of others. If it has happened, it was the exception and not the rule.

That your post might be evidence is not the question. That it is not evidence supporting your claims is the observation.

 

[cladking]

They can only review ANYTHING in terms of the paradigm so EVERYTHING that doesn't agree with prevailing interpretations has already been excluded from consideration.

Indeed, everything that doesn't bend to the will of Peers never even gets funding. God help the researcher who doesn't think like they do since they might not even get an education. There is no challenge to centuries of beliefs. No matter how absurd the beliefs become there can be no challenge. The deck is stacked. Evolution never even existed, long live Evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In a sense there truly is magic to the decisions of Peers. They each have to balance their beliefs and their desire to stay in the pecking order. Their loves and even the mortgage factor into the equation. The kind of day they are having and whether the authors cited them as an et al and the opinions of their cohorts all play a role. Of course if the subject is a specific experiment then these things take a backseat. They can only review ANYTHING in terms of the paradigm so EVERYTHING that doesn't agree with prevailing interpretations has already been excluded from consideration.

This is why "Peer review" is not and never has been a part of the scientific method. Now was it part of the ancient science that invented agriculture. Anybody could make an observation or logical connection and it was still science just as today anyone can perform an experiment or reinterpret existing experiment and come to brand new scientific conclusions that wholly independent of any individual including the Peers who'll have to have one funeral at a time before the actual change in science is recognized.

This is just more word salad, right?

Let me simplify for you; reality is now, always has been, and always will be independent of anyone's opinion whatsoever. Beavers won't consult a theoretical soil engineer to raise fish. Reality doesn't give a rodent's *** about opinion. It just keeps going. It doesn't change or bend to the will of the majority.

No. Word salad is what you post. And yes, peer review is part of the scientific method. I can prove it (legal standard of proof).

But you do not get to make demands You forgot that. Until you agree to learn the basics you only get corrections.

And where do you get these fantasies from?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't see the hypocrisy in this do you.

Just for review I have known there's no such thing as proof since I was three years old. It is believers in science who just keep saying there's no such thing as proof and then in the next sentence tell me that Evolution is fact. Take a glance at the title of this thread.



You really should leave ancient people out of this. They solved how species changed without doing a single experiment and invented agriculture thereby.

What you really mean is that there is no proof of God but plenty of proof in human genius, omniscience, and Evolution. Termites, beavers, ants, and probably many other species invented agriculture but you can't see that either because I'm stupid, ignorant, and talk word salad. Beavers don't fit your model of genius so you must ascribe "instinct" since even God knows they can't be conscious or "intelligent".

And you can not possibly see evidence in this post either because you can only see gradual change caused by survival of the fittest. You can't see hypocrisy because you're right and everyone else is wrong and you know because you're a skeptic.

How is it possible that you can't even see an argument, any evidence, or even a logical meaning to a sentence that doesn't agree with your beliefs?

Evolution is a fact. That fact is not the same as the theory explaining it. Populations have been observed to change allele frequency over time.

Considering the level of scientific literacy that you espouse on this forum, I have to admit that I have a great doubt that you knew much about science at the age of three. I can only assume that is hyperbole uttered excitedly.