Proof of evolution -at last-

[cladking]

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

Do you believe I said anything untrue?

that's what we're supposed to be discussing. I keep telling you when you make false statements but nobody wants to converse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, one can challenge as much as one wants. There is no limitation. That evolution is going to be almost impossible to refute is a practical observation.

If you punch 2 + 2 into a calculator and continually get 4 do you think that it is reasonable to think that you will some day get something else?

 

[Subduction Zone]

. I keep telling you when you make false statements but nobody wants to converse.

To busy laughing.

 

[cladking]

I can only assume that is hyperbole uttered excitedly.

I love science.

I've been experimenting virtually my entire lifetime.

I try to instill this love of science in children but I'm not the kind of teacher I was 50 years ago. When they get a few years old they've outgrown most of my help.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you believe I said anything untrue?

that's what we're supposed to be discussing. I keep telling you when you make false statements but nobody wants to converse.

I often note that you post things that are not correct or make claims that have no basis in evidence. Not that you offer evidence, but I am aware of much beyond these threads.

You have not established that I have said anything false.

Incorrect statements that you have made included "survival of the fittest causes speciation", "bottleneck events increase genetic variation", Homo omniescience or whatever, "all living things are equally fit", you are the father of a new species of fly", taxonomy is arbitrary", anything about ancient science or ancient language" and something erroneous about Broca's region.

That is why I can no longer discuss things with you. My conclusion is that you are not serious about discussion and debate but merely here to preach your belief system. There is no indication that you have listened to anything that I have posted. I have corrected your erroneous use of terminology, asked numerous questions, asked for definitions and all of it has been ignored.

What do you think would motivate me to continue a dialogue with you that has all the functional appearance of a closed monologue.

I would really like to help you out and I do not doubt that you find science interesting. It is just that I see no evidence of understanding what science is or does and no interest in learning anything about either of those.

 

[cladking]

If you punch 2 + 2 into a calculator and continually get 4 do you think that it is reasonable to think that you will some day get something else?

I never did get "4".

You won't understand this but there is never a perfect match between reality and theory. Mathematics can never be applied with a perfect fit to reality. 2 + 2 can only get within a margin of error of four and can be almost anything at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love science.

I've been experimenting virtually my entire lifetime.

I try to instill this love of science in children but I'm not the kind of teacher I was 50 years ago. When they get a few years old they've outgrown most of my help.

No. A person that loves science first learns the scientific method. Here is a simplified flowchart of the scientific method:

Do you see the last step? That refers to peer review. Scientists publish using the process of peer review.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never did get "4".

You won't understand this but there is never a perfect match between reality and theory. Mathematics can never be applied with a perfect fit to reality. 2 + 2 can only get within a margin of error of four and can be almost anything at all.

If you did not get 4 then you need a new calculator.

 

[cladking]

"survival of the fittest causes speciation",

I have never said this in my life.

"bottleneck events increase genetic variation"

This is taken out of context. Localized bottlenecks increase genetic diversity within the overall population when they are rebred into the species.

"all living things are equally fit",

All individuals (within a species) are equally fit. Obviously I am not referring to the sick, the lame, or the stupid.

", taxonomy is arbitrary"

Actually I would have said "taxonomies are arbitrary". You can not define the Mississippi consistently as either leading to MN or Pa. Even if you could you still can't step into the same river twice.

I have corrected your erroneous use of terminology,

I have no interest in semantics.

You don't listen to anyone that I have ever seen.

No! I steal ideas from everyone who has ever posted an insight or a solid argument.

asked for definitions and all of it has been ignored.

I have always defined every term and answered every sincere question including most insincere questions.

What do you think would motivate me to continue a dialogue with you that is really just your monologue?

I sure don't know why I keep trying.

I would really like to help you out and I do not doubt that you find science interesting.

I like experiment. I like inventing experiment and showing them to kids. But most of all I like hypothesis based on logic, evidence and experiment.

This post of yours is about the first time anyone has ever actually responded on point to me. If you'll note I tried to address every point even though most of your points had "problems".

 

[cladking]

If you did not get 4 then you need a new calculator.

There were no calculators when I was young but I was pretty good at math and did it in my head (but I still never really got "4"). When the equations got too complex I had a pencil.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have never said this in my life.



This is taken out of context. Localized bottlenecks increase genetic diversity within the overall population when they are rebred into the species.



All individuals (within a species) are equally fit. Obviously I am not referring to the sick, the lame, or the stupid.



Actually I would have said "taxonomies are arbitrary". You can not define the Mississippi consistently as either leading to MN or Pa. Even if you could you still can't step into the same river twice.



I have no interest in semantics.



No! I steal ideas from everyone who has ever posted an insight or a solid argument.



I have always defined every term and answered every sincere question including most insincere questions.



I sure don't know why I keep trying.



I like experiment. I like inventing experiment and showing them to kids. But most of all I like hypothesis based on logic, evidence and experiment.

This post of yours is about the first time anyone has ever actually responded on point to me. If you'll note I tried to address every point even though most of your points had "problems".

You make posts all the time claiming survival of the fittest causes speciation. Guy, I am done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There were no calculators when I was young but I was pretty good at math and did it in my head (but I still never really got "4"). When the equations got too complex I had a pencil.

I can believe that you never got 4. That would explain quite a bit.

 

[Valjean]

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.

A thing can be a fact without being proved.
Is this what You base your claim that science claims proof on?

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".

What are you talking about? Everyone knows about the termites, beavers and ants. Noöne is using them to advance any argument. I don't see your point, here.

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.

I see both gradual and quick change. Everyone does. As for anti-evolution evidence, I don't see it because none has been presented, just attempted refutations of facts, evidence, and some faulty reasoning.

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?

How is it 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]

[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.

What creates theories and facts, then?
What evidence have you adduced? Link, please.

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.

We don't see it because it isn't there. What we see is you ignoring evidence, misconstruing our positions and claims, and taking offense.

 

[cladking]

What creates theories and facts, then?

Facts are observable evidence and theory is the prevailing interpretation of experiment.

Facts are typically the results of cause and effect that occur in that order. "Experiments" are manifestations of hypothesis designed to differentiate opinion from reality.

What evidence have you adduced? Link, please.

When you address the evidence at hand I will go on.

What we see is you ... taking offense.

I have taken no offense except to the semantical arguments and misrepresentations.

Everyone knows about the termites, beavers and ants

OK, this might be progress. What do you know about them? How did they invent agriculture?

As for anti-evolution evidence...,

There is no "anti-Evolution evidence because there is no "Evolution". There is a misinterpretation of experiment in terms of a highly flawed paradigm based on the erroneous assumption of 19th century science that believed populations were stable over the long term.

Evolution does not exist. Gradual change does not exist. Survival of the fittest does not exist. These are all products of misinterpretation of the "fossil record" and observation. They are not supported by experiment because this is not the way change in species occurs.

Now everyone will ignore every point here, call it word salad, and say it isn't evidence. Statements will be gainsaid and the logic will be twisted. Change in species is sudden just like all change in all life which is all individual.

Someone should remind me that science doesn't prove anything (until Peers say so).

 

[Subduction Zone]

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Guess what? That applies to evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

Definitions of Fact, Theory, and Law in Scientific Work | National Center for Science Education

 

[shunyadragon]

No. This is a semantical argument concerning the meaning of "semantical". You had been engaging in a semantical argument concerning the meaning of "tentative" but you have degraded your argument even further and it no longer bears any relationship to anything I had said.


{resent

Right...

I'm used to being gainsaid, ignored, and told I only speak in word salad. Meanwhile my accusers continue to ignore every argument from every poster except to gainsay them or claim they make no sense.

Truly remarkable!

Present a coherent argument in terminilogy that translates to science and I will gladly consider what yyiu have ti offerl

 

[Valjean]

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?

What are you talking about? How are we wrong, and who's claiming proof of evolution? Are you even reading our posts? You're not making any sense.

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

Huh?

 

[Valjean]

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.

You must be projecting again. Science relies on logic and evidence. Religion does not. Religion relies on faith, tradition and ad populum appeal.

The evidence religion cites is not real evidence, and certainly doesn't come up to the standards of science. If religion had any supporting evidence it would be universally accepted.

Every experiment supports your theory? You don't have a theory. You have unevidenced claims. Please cite some of these experiments.

Evidence and logic are irrelevant?! How do you experiment without evidence?
Do you understand what an experiment is?
What hypotheses are these "experiments" attempting to disprove?

 

[metis]

In what way do you claim the theory of evolution does not negate God as creator? Please explain, if you will, that position.

Because it doesn't state nor imply God (or gods) can't or don't exist, thus is neutral on this.

I know you think Jesus is a person that is not accurately portrayed in the Bible.

That's stated too strongly, so let me clarify. What I've said is that since I do not believe in scriptural inerrancy that some of the items mentioned about Jesus may not be accurate but that it's impossible for us today to know which is accurate and which isn't.

In my case it's more what he teaches with his Two Commandments especially that I can fully accept and fully respect. And since he says all of the [Jewish] Law relates to those Two, this I fully accept as well.

So, essentially, it's ALL about love of God & "neighbor".