Is Evolution science?
ZpiralZone
field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
principles (rules)." Understandably, there are various kinds of
science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
scientific method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of
the scientific method. It is not science.
mel turner
message news:f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com...
Jabs, right?
>According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
>field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
>principles (rules)."
Okay, so then evolutionary biology is very good science indeed.
QED.
>Understandably, there are various kinds of
>science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
>knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
>knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
>scientific method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of
>the scientific method. It is not science.
Sure it is.
You're perhaps being stupid, or disingenuous. At the least you've
evidently completely forgotten to make any argument at all for why
we should think that "evolution can not follow the principles of
the scientific method".
So, why exactly do you think evolutionary biology is any different
in this regard from any other science? AFAICT, it's plainly not.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
cheers
Jason
Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
You should not confuse people with facts. Evolutionists don't like to
be confused with facts. They believe the big lie which is
Evolution is science
If they keep saying over and over and over "Evolution is Science"
eventually they will believe it. They don't want any competing theories
(eg ID) taught in the public school system--otherwise--the students might
not believe the big lie.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
David Horn
> In article <f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
> You should not confuse people with facts. Evolutionists
> don't like to be confused with facts.
Present your facts. I love being confused.
> They believe the big lie which is
>
> Evolution is science
"Evolutionary science" is science. "Evolution" tends to be too broad and
allows those ignorant of the concept *and* the science to define it any old
way they like.
> If they keep saying over and over and over "Evolution is
> Science" eventually they will believe it. They don't want
> any competing theories (eg ID)...
Intelligent design is a "competing theory." Please provide the details of
the intelligent design "theory," in scientific terms, so that we can see if
it is a theory (as commonly understood in science) or not.
> taught in the public school system...
So far, all of these "competing 'theories,'" all of which have, also, so far
been exposed as religion pretending to be science, don't belong in public
school science classrooms.
Teach it all you want in comparative religion, sociology, and hell, you can
even mention it a time or two in American history. But keep it out of the
science classroom. It ain't science.
> ...otherwise--the students might not believe the big lie.
So far, we're getting a lot of rhetoric; but *no* evidence that there's a
lie--other than the typical subterfuge practiced by creationists.
mel turner
news:jason-26120...@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
> In article <f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
> > According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
> > field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
> > principles (rules)." Understandably, there are various kinds of
> > science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
> > knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
> > knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
> > scientific method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of
> > the scientific method. It is not science.
>
> You should not confuse people with facts. Evolutionists don't like to
> be confused with facts.
What "facts" do you think you know which are being ignored by
'evolutionists'? Go ahead, confuse us. Present them.
>They believe the big lie which is
>
> Evolution is science
Except that it's not a lie. What "big lies" have you swallowed,
to make you make such a claim?
> If they keep saying over and over and over "Evolution is Science"
> eventually they will believe it. They don't want any competing theories
> (eg ID)
ID isn't even a theory. It's just plain old unscientific creationism
with an added cheap Groucho nose and mustache disguise.
>taught in the public school system--otherwise--the students might
> not believe the big lie.
Oh, boo hoo. It sounds like one of your favorite creationist "big
lies" is the standard "poor us, we're so persecuted by the mean old
scientists" bit. ID very simply isn't science, and so doesn't belong
in public school [or any school] science classes.
satyr
So you are a proponent of the "If A then B therefore crackers" school
of logic?
The World Book definition is not ideal but it is sufficient.
The claim about "almost any kind of knowledge might be made
scientific" depends on what is meant by "knowledge." If knowledge
means verified facts (like evolution) then this is a reasonable
statement. If it means divinely revealed knowledge then it is not
suitable for scientific inquiry.
Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
beyond any reasonable doubt. The study of this phenomenon does, of
course, carefully follow scientific principles. The fundamental
theories are solidly supported and well developed. It is a mature
field of science and is fully integrated into fields ranging from
computer science to geology.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
Dale
news:f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com...
Since evolution can not follow the principles of
the scientific method. It is not science.
You left something out between "evolution" and "can". This is why your
teachers always ask you to show your work.
Mark K. Bilbo
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> Since
> evolution can not follow the principles of the scientific method.
The theory of evolution was built with the methods of science. You can lie
about this all day long but reality will not change.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
So much for that "storm of the century" excuse
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A3992495C
NO held hostage by oil corporations,
ANWR demanded as ransom
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5C92195C
White House balks at spending on US citizens,
needs more billions for Iraq!
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D93595C
(Tell me again how much we spent bailing out the S&Ls?)
ZpiralZone
> not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
> false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
> beyond any reasonable doubt.
Really?
THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
1. Observe what happens.
2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.
Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
above is not the scientific way or method.
LP
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
So here we have SpiralZone, who knows nothing about science trying
to tell scientists what is and isn't science. This is nearly as bad as
someone who knows nothing about atheism telling atheists what is and
isn't atheism.
Dale
application.
ZpiralZone
> to tell scientists what is and isn't science. This is nearly as bad as
> someone who knows nothing about atheism telling atheists what is and
> isn't atheism.
error feel free to create your own.
As for atheism, How many atheists celebrated christmas with their families?
cactus
What utter nonsense.
Your alleged "Book of the Scientist" is a fabrication. There is no such
animal, evolved or otherwise - it's a slander arising out of your sick
need to project your pathology onto a discipline completely unrelated to
your delusional system.
Why don't you learn something about the real scientific method before
you defecate these fake "arguments" to bolster your nonsense positions.
cactus
> In article <f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
>
>>According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
>>field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
>>principles (rules)." Understandably, there are various kinds of
>>science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
>>knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
>>knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
>>scientific method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of
>>the scientific method. It is not science.
>
>
> You should not confuse people with facts. Evolutionists don't like to
> be confused with facts. They believe the big lie which is
>
> Evolution is science
>
> If they keep saying over and over and over "Evolution is Science"
> eventually they will believe it. They don't want any competing theories
> (eg ID) taught in the public school system--otherwise--the students might
> not believe the big lie.
>
confused with believers of something they do not believe in. They do
not believe the big lie, which is
"Creationism is science"
If you keep saying over and over, "the world was created in six literal
days," you will come to believe it, as you obviously have. You don't
want any competing information taught in schools because students might
not believe the big lie, which is what you and your kind depend on.
You are a creature of darkness, spreading fanaticism and ignorance
wherever you can. It is only people of good will, of all religious
faiths, who can give the lie to your misbegotten preachings.
May you and your kind have a terrible year in attempting to force your
teachings on an innocent public. It's off to a good start with the Dover
Pa ruling.
Rev. Jones Says "Drink More Koolaid"
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
>Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
>evolved into another?
What a moron.
Rev. Jones Says "Drink More Koolaid"
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
Oh, look, that herring is red!
mel turner
> Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
> not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
> false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
> beyond any reasonable doubt.
>Really?
Really. Of course there is still lots of _unreasonable_ doubt, but
none of it is in science.
>THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
>1. Observe what happens.
Or "observe stuff". Observations needn't be of processes.
>2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
By "theory" we mean it in the scientific sense, a body of scientific
explanations for observations.
>3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
"Further observations" is sufficient [in a sense, further observations
are "experiments" of a sort]
>4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.
Or basically, see if further observations also fit the theory well.
If not, theories get changed and improved to better fit the best,
latest evidence.
>Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
>evolved into another?
Every one of us. Every observed evolutionary change in the lab or in
nature counts, since every even slightly changed organism is "another",
different organism to exactly the same extent that it has changed.
And yes, even macroevolutionary, species-level changes are often
observed to occur both in nature and in the lab, and can be
studied while they happen.
>according to step one, unless you believe the
>above is not the scientific way or method.
Nonsense. Even if it were actually true that all evolutionary change
was much too slow to ever observe directly [it's obviously not true,
but nevermind], the fact remains that we can and do observe and study
all of the overwhelming amount of evidence that evolution has occurred,
and we can test specific detailed ideas about it with newly-collected
or newly-studied observations.
cheers
Sanity's little helper
jabbertroll, can you spell 'paleontology'?
--
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow, we eat, drink and be merry.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
Matt Silberstein
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
<f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
Please explain three ways that evolutionary biology does not follow
the principles of the scientific method. If you have trouble, explain
this in terms of the Grant's work with Finches on the Galapagos
Islands.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
ZpiralZone
> >3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
>
> "Further observations" is sufficient [in a sense, further observations
> are "experiments" of a sort]
>
Caught ya, You guys modify the the scientific method in the same
manner you accuse Christians of modifying the bible to suit their
purposes. A little dishonesty doesn't hurt anyone eh?
Matt Silberstein
(Jason) in <jason-26120...@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
>In article <f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com>,
>Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
>> According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
>> field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
>> principles (rules)." Understandably, there are various kinds of
>> science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
>> knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
>> knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
>> scientific method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of
>> the scientific method. It is not science.
>
>You should not confuse people with facts. Evolutionists don't like to
>be confused with facts.
You must have take a big box of projection pills. You pride yourself
on not learning and not knowing. Facts and Jason are quite far apart.
>They believe the big lie which is
>
>Evolution is science
>
>If they keep saying over and over and over "Evolution is Science"
>eventually they will believe it.
Please tell me what about the Grant's work with finches in the
Galapagos Islands is not science.
>They don't want any competing theories
>(eg ID) taught in the public school system--otherwise--the students might
>not believe the big lie.
Sorry, but ID is not a theory. You admit at times it is a lie because
you can't get the schools to teach your religion. The creationists in
Dover try perjury and still could not get it in.
Matt Silberstein
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
<f61e0e1e0512261107p46e...@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common
Descent
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
HTH. HAND.
John Baker
<mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
>message news:f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com...
>
>Jabs, right?
Right.
Tim K.
idiot
John Baker
>In article <f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com>,
>Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
>> According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
>> field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
>> principles (rules)." Understandably, there are various kinds of
>> science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
>> knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
>> knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
>> scientific method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of
>> the scientific method. It is not science.
>
>You should not confuse people with facts. Evolutionists don't like to
>be confused with facts. They believe the big lie which is
>
>Evolution is science
>
>If they keep saying over and over and over "Evolution is Science"
>eventually they will believe it. They don't want any competing theories
>(eg ID) taught in the public school system--otherwise--the students might
>not believe the big lie.
God will send you to Hell for lying, Jason.
Tim K.
"Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote in message
news:w7Xrf.46913$tV6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Nice quote!
mel turner
>mel turner wrote
>> >3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
>>
>> "Further observations" is sufficient [in a sense, further observations
>> are "experiments" of a sort]
>Caught ya,
Caught nothing. I stand by what I wrote above. Got a problem with it?
What is it?
>You guys modify the the scientific method in the same
>manner you accuse Christians of modifying the bible to suit their
>purposes.
Jabs, how is the above discussion fragment "modifying the scientific
method" in the slightest?
>A little dishonesty doesn't hurt anyone eh?
Gee, I guess you should know. [But if you were to content yourself
with just a _little_ dishonesty, Jabriol, that might be an
improvement.]
Speaking of dishonesty, what about all the rest of my post
that you snipped without marking? Should we take this as a tacit
concession that you have no response to make to any of it?
cheers
Mark K. Bilbo
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:32:20 -0500, in alt.atheism , ZpiralZone
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
> <f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad field
>>of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by principles
>>(rules)." Understandably, there are various kinds of science. The book
>>The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of knowledge might be
>>made scientific, since by definition a branch of knowledge becomes a
>>science when it is pursued in the spirit of the scientific method."
>>Since evolution can not follow the principles of the scientific method.
>>It is not science.
>
> Please explain...
Sorry, ZpidiotZone's head just exploded at the very thought...
Mark K. Bilbo
ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
>> According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
>> field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
>> principles (rules)." Understandably, there are various kinds of science.
>> The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of knowledge
>> might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of knowledge
>> becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the scientific
>> method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of the
>> scientific method. It is not science.
>
> You should not confuse people with facts. Evolutionists don't like to be
> confused with facts. They believe the big lie which is
>
> Evolution is science
>
> If they keep saying over and over and over "Evolution is Science"
> eventually they will believe it. They don't want any competing theories
> (eg ID) taught in the public school system--otherwise--the students might
> not believe the big lie.
There are no competing theories. ID is religion. And, yep, evolution
really is science.
Deal.
Elf M. Sternberg
> > "Further observations" is sufficient [in a sense, further observations
> > are "experiments" of a sort]
> Caught ya, You guys modify the the scientific method in the same
> manner you accuse Christians of modifying the bible to suit their
> purposes. A little dishonesty doesn't hurt anyone eh?
Caught who? I mean, what kind of "experiments" do you think
astronomers and geologists can do in the lab? Or do you believe that
the oil is your car is mostly found with diving rods?
The "scientific method" that permits geology and astronomy to be
valid sciences also make evolutionary biology a valid science.
Elf
Mark K. Bilbo
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> mel turner wrote
>
>> >3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
>>
>> "Further observations" is sufficient [in a sense, further observations
>> are "experiments" of a sort]
>>
>>
>
> Caught ya, You guys modify the the scientific method
Liar.
Mark K. Bilbo
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
It's been done in the lab.
Jason
Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
great post. Evolutionists hate it when I remind them that there has never
been an experiment that proves that a living cell can evolve from non-life.
Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
David Horn
> great post. Evolutionists hate it when I remind them
> that there has never been an experiment that proves
> that a living cell can evolve from non-life.
Evolution doesn't deal with the creation of life. Without life, there is no
evolution, so evolution *assumes* life and theories of evolution continue
from there. Evolutionists, whomever they might be, aren't going to be
bothered at all by *you* (a bit self-important, aren't we?) presuming to
"remind them" of such things, because they know it, already. And that's
forgetting, for the moment, that science doesn't deal in "proof," and
anyone who knows anything, at all, about science knows *that*.
> Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
I'm still waiting for all of those "facts" that you referred to, earlier.
mel turner
> Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
> > mel turner wrote
> >
> > > >3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
> > >
> > > "Further observations" is sufficient [in a sense, further observations
> > > are "experiments" of a sort]
> > >
> >
> >
> > Caught ya, You guys modify the the scientific method in the same
> > manner you accuse Christians of modifying the bible to suit their
> > purposes. A little dishonesty doesn't hurt anyone eh?
>
> great post.
With "great posts" like that, creationism sometimes hardly seems
worth rebutting...
> Evolutionists hate it when I remind them that there has never
> been an experiment that proves that a living cell can evolve from
non-life.
No doubt they hate it because they then have to explain yet another
time that evolution isn't at all about the origin of life from
non-life, but is instead just about how life changes after it
already exists?
Should your harping on this trivial point be taken as admitting
that there's no big problem with the rest of it [the common descent
of all known life, after their first living ancestors arose somehow?]
> Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
Nope, but repeatedly asserting that seems to be a large part of
your belief system.
cheers
Tim K.
> Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
>> mel turner wrote
>>
>> > >3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
>> >
>> > "Further observations" is sufficient [in a sense, further observations
>> > are "experiments" of a sort]
>> >
>>
>>
>> Caught ya, You guys modify the the scientific method in the same
>> manner you accuse Christians of modifying the bible to suit their
>> purposes. A little dishonesty doesn't hurt anyone eh?
>
> great post. Evolutionists hate it when I remind them that there has never
> been an experiment that proves that a living cell can evolve from
> non-life.
> Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
I did experiments with evolution in undergrad biology. You don't know what
your talking about, fuckstick.
cactus
ZpiralZone
> > into another? according to step one, unless you believe the above is not
> > the scientific way or method.
>
> It's been done in the lab.
>
> --
> Mark K. Bilbo
Sure and the name of this lab is?
the new evolved creature name is?
Mark K. Bilbo
> In article <f61e0e1e0512261231t6d...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
>> mel turner wrote
>>
>> > >3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
>> >
>> > "Further observations" is sufficient [in a sense, further observations
>> > are "experiments" of a sort]
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Caught ya, You guys modify the the scientific method in the same manner
>> you accuse Christians of modifying the bible to suit their purposes. A
>> little dishonesty doesn't hurt anyone eh?
>
> great post. Evolutionists hate it when I remind them that there has never
> been an experiment that proves that a living cell can evolve from
> non-life. Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
Except you just proved yourself an ignorant fool by confusing two very
separate issues...
cat daddy
"ZpiralZone" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
New life-forms created with artificial DNA
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13426995.htm
Virgil
ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> Evolutionists hate it when I remind them that there has never
> been an experiment that proves that a living cell can evolve from non-life.
> Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
"Evolutionists" have nothing to say on the issue of how life originated,
only about how species come into existence.
"Abiogenesis" is an entirely different matter.
JASON's misunderstanding of what evolution is about is NOT KNOWLEDGE--
just a misbelief system.
ZpiralZone
> the new evolved creature name is?
>
> New life-forms created with artificial DNA
> http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13426995.htm
I read the article. First it is not as a new life form evolved from
an older life form.
second they are recreating a known life form. A virus.
Therefore my questions still stand.
mel turner
news:f61e0e1e0512261430m1ca...@mail.gmail.com...
evolved
>> > into another? according to step one, unless you believe the above is
not
>> > the scientific way or method.
> >It's been done in the lab.
And is also observed occurring in nature.
>> Mark K. Bilbo
>Sure and the name of this lab is?
>the new evolved creature name is?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul00.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
cheers
ZpiralZone
>
> >> Mark K. Bilbo
>
> >Sure and the name of this lab is?
> >the new evolved creature name is?
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul00.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
A few thing;
The TO faqs are not peered reviewed, nor are they used by any serious
science institution, because they are not peered reviewed.
Second, the Faqs themselves have five different contradictory
definitions of the term species and speciation. Facts are not based on
contradictions which points to uncertainty.
Third, speciation is not evidence in itself that new life forms have
emerged in a laboratory, a virus is still a virus. bacteria still
bacteria. Even creatures that reproduce via parthogenesis don't change
much. Hence my question still stand. If you had shred of honesty you
would admit that no new creature has emerged as the direct result of
evolution in a lab, or in nature.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
> evolved into another?
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera
lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his
plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant
had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed
this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
aphanobrassica
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.
There's also the case of Culex Pipiens, the "Tube Mosquito," which has
evolved to live in subway systems, cannot cross-breed with its
above-ground relatives, and lives year-round on the blood of commuters.
Elf
ZpiralZone
> ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>
> > Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
> > evolved into another?
>
> Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
>
Snipped for brevity....................................
So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling! Do you have a problem
with comprehension?
Jason
wrote:
David,
Thanks for your post. I made a not of this portion of your post:
"Without life, there is no evolution".
Think about your own words. The entire theory of evolution is based on the
assumption that life evolved from non-life. Consider this very important
question:
WHAT IF THE ASSUMPTION IS WRONG?
Jason
Liz
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in news message
<f61e0e1e0512261605o64...@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
So mammals evolved into mammals and apes evolved into apes with humans
being the latest ape in our particular linage. This is just as
thrilling as plants evolving into plants and viruses evolving into
viruses.
Liz #658 BAAWA
One of the principal differences between science and religion
is that science acknowledges that it is the creation of humankind
and, thus, welcomes correction. Religion does not and cannot. --
George Ricker
cactus
> In article <f61e0e1e0512261231t6d...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>
>
>>mel turner wrote
>>
>>
>>>>3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
>>>
>>>"Further observations" is sufficient [in a sense, further observations
>>>are "experiments" of a sort]
>>>
>>
>>
>>Caught ya, You guys modify the the scientific method in the same
>>manner you accuse Christians of modifying the bible to suit their
>>purposes. A little dishonesty doesn't hurt anyone eh?
>
>
> great post. Evolutionists hate it when I remind them that there has never
> been an experiment that proves that a living cell can evolve from non-life.
> Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
>
comes from whatever pagan religion you subscribe to. Ignorance does not
equate to godidit. And the scientific method was not modified.
If the only response you have is to lie and distort, maybe you should
question your own position.
David Horn
> In article <koZrf.5993$mK.111@dukeread03>, David Horn <nos...@devnull.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Jason wrote:
>>
>> > great post. Evolutionists hate it when I remind them
>> > that there has never been an experiment that proves
>> > that a living cell can evolve from non-life.
>>
>> Evolution doesn't deal with the creation of life.
>> Without life, there is no evolution, so evolution
>> *assumes* life and theories of evolution continue
>> from there. Evolutionists, whomever they might be,
>> aren't going to be bothered at all by *you* (a bit
>> self-important, aren't we?) presuming to "remind
>> them" of such things, because they know it, already.
>> And that's forgetting, for the moment, that science
>> doesn't deal in "proof," and anyone who knows
>> anything, at all, about science knows *that*.
>>
>> > Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for all of those "facts" that you
>> referred to, earlier.
>
> David,
> Thanks for your post. I made a not[e] of this portion of
> your post:
>
> "Without life, there is no evolution".
>
> Think about your own words. The entire theory of evolution
> is based on the assumption that life evolved from non-life.
Is that so? Well, then, tell me what part of "the entire theory" makes that
"assumption." You *are* aware, aren't you, that there are, in fact, quite
a few theorIES that explain how evolution takes place? So pick one of
them, and tell me which one, and which part of that one, makes that
assumption.
Tell you what: I'll save you the trouble. In over thirty years of studying
science and biology either formally or informally, I have never, *ever*
seen any part of any evolutionary theory that requires or explicitely
assumes that "life evolved from non-life." While a number of scientists,
i.e., *people*, do make that assumption (with no small amount of
justification, mind you, and forgetting the misused of the word,
"evolution," in your comment), evolution, itself, does not require that
life arose from inanimate matter entirely by naturalistic means (which is
really what you're complaining about, isn't it?).
In order for life to evolve, there must first *be* life. There must be
living things on which evolutionary mechanisms may work. The actual,
first, living thing may or may not have arised from natural processes (or
divine or intelligently directed processes), but to evolution, that doesn't
matter. Evolution has to have life to work on, and evolution of living
things has unquestionably occurred. Only the ignorant or the fearful would
believe otherwise, given the tremendous evidence that is so readily
available to us.
I've given my words over three decades of thought. Try not to be so
patronizing.
> Consider this very important
> question:
> WHAT IF THE ASSUMPTION IS WRONG?
If the assumption (well-founded as it is) turns out to be wrong, evolution
still occurred. I'm still waiting for the facts that you mentioned.
mel turner
message news:jason-26120...@pm4-broad-8.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
> In article <koZrf.5993$mK.111@dukeread03>, David Horn <nos...@devnull.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Jason wrote:
> >
> > > great post. Evolutionists hate it when I remind them
> > > that there has never been an experiment that proves
> > > that a living cell can evolve from non-life.
> >
> > Evolution doesn't deal with the creation of life. Without life, there
is no
> > evolution, so evolution *assumes* life and theories of evolution
continue
> > from there. Evolutionists, whomever they might be, aren't going to be
> > bothered at all by *you* (a bit self-important, aren't we?) presuming
to
> > "remind them" of such things, because they know it, already. And that's
> > forgetting, for the moment, that science doesn't deal in "proof," and
> > anyone who knows anything, at all, about science knows *that*.
> >
> > > Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
> >
> > I'm still waiting for all of those "facts" that you referred to,
earlier.
>
> David,
> Thanks for your post. I made a not of this portion of your post:
> "Without life, there is no evolution".
> Think about your own words. The entire theory of evolution is based on the
> assumption that life evolved from non-life.
No, it's not, and he already explained why. Biological evolution is
something that happens only after living, reproducing things have
gotten here somehow. It doesn't matter how that first life arose,
whether it formed gradually by natural processes or was cooked up in
some mystical Lab by some sort of Intelligent Designer and his
loyal lab assistant Igor. However life may have got here, it will
have evolved naturally ever since. The science of evolutionary
biology is all about how populations of living things change over
generations, and about things like the origins of new biological
species from common ancestors. The origin of the first life from
non-life is indeed an interesting, related scientific question, but
the theory of evolution is nevertheless a separate matter from it.
Life clearly does evolve, and it obviously did get here somehow.
>Consider this very important
> question:
> WHAT IF THE ASSUMPTION IS WRONG?
Exactly how is that question important to evolutionary theory?
Evolution would still work much as we understand it, even if the
first life on earth was created by a divine super-magician or by
superintelligent space aliens.
cheers
ZpiralZone
> >Snipped for brevity....................................
> >
> >So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling! Do you have a problem
> >with comprehension?
>
> So mammals evolved into mammals and apes evolved into apes with humans
> being the latest ape in our particular linage.
Not to be rude... but you should read the thread from the start. It
will save you from being embarrassed the next time you try to be
witty.
cactus
another. You keep raising the bar when the items you request are
provided. You now have examples of speciation. Deal with it if you can.
cactus
> In article <koZrf.5993$mK.111@dukeread03>, David Horn <nos...@devnull.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>>great post. Evolutionists hate it when I remind them
>>>that there has never been an experiment that proves
>>>that a living cell can evolve from non-life.
>>
>>Evolution doesn't deal with the creation of life. Without life, there is no
>>evolution, so evolution *assumes* life and theories of evolution continue
>>from there. Evolutionists, whomever they might be, aren't going to be
>>bothered at all by *you* (a bit self-important, aren't we?) presuming to
>>"remind them" of such things, because they know it, already. And that's
>>forgetting, for the moment, that science doesn't deal in "proof," and
>>anyone who knows anything, at all, about science knows *that*.
>>
>>
>>>Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
>>
>>I'm still waiting for all of those "facts" that you referred to, earlier.
>
>
> David,
> Thanks for your post. I made a not of this portion of your post:
> "Without life, there is no evolution".
> Think about your own words. The entire theory of evolution is based on the
> assumption that life evolved from non-life. Consider this very important
> question:
> WHAT IF THE ASSUMPTION IS WRONG?
> Jason
>
advanted to doing so - it happens, and evolution proceeds from that
point as organisms compete to survive.
So it's your assumption that's wrong. You are attempting to conflate two
things that don't belong together, typical of creationist arguments.
Mark K. Bilbo
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> Third, speciation is not evidence in itself that new life forms have
> emerged in a laboratory,
Okay, now *that's funny...
Mark K. Bilbo
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
There are several. Go do your homework.
By the way, the companies that are bringing products to market using the
ToE are ignoring you...
turk
And is also observed occurring in nature.
>
> >> Mark K. Bilbo
>
> >Sure and the name of this lab is?
> >the new evolved creature name is?
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul00.html
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
A few thing;
The TO faqs are not peered reviewed, nor are they used by any serious
science institution, because they are not peered reviewed.
===
If you can't even use the term "peer reviewed" properly, I doubt you're
worth paying any attention too at all. You obviously have never read any
books on science nor graduated a 6th grade English class. Regurgitationg
creationist nonsense, particularly when using juvenile grammatical skills,
won't get you far here.
turk
--
"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to
believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,
but I'd rather not consider that)."
-- Richard Dawkins
Mark K. Bilbo
ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
No, dense one. The ToE *begins* with life already existing. That's where
the theory has *always* begun. Period.
It is not *relevant* to the ToE how the first life on earth began. It has
nothing, whatsoever, to do with the theory and never has in the entire
century and a half the ToE has been around.
turk
> wrote:
>
>> Jason wrote:
>>
>> > great post. Evolutionists hate it when I remind them
>> > that there has never been an experiment that proves
>> > that a living cell can evolve from non-life.
>>
>> Evolution doesn't deal with the creation of life. Without life, there is
>> no
>> evolution, so evolution *assumes* life and theories of evolution continue
>> from there. Evolutionists, whomever they might be, aren't going to be
>> bothered at all by *you* (a bit self-important, aren't we?) presuming to
>> "remind them" of such things, because they know it, already. And that's
>> forgetting, for the moment, that science doesn't deal in "proof," and
>> anyone who knows anything, at all, about science knows *that*.
>>
>> > Evolution is NOT SCIENCE--just a belief system.
>>
>> I'm still waiting for all of those "facts" that you referred to, earlier.
>
> David,
> Thanks for your post. I made a not of this portion of your post:
> "Without life, there is no evolution".
> Think about your own words. The entire theory of evolution is based on the
> assumption that life evolved from non-life.
Actually, that's what the whole "God myth" is baased on. In fact, your
theory is even more ridiculous in assuming that dust particles are the
building blocks of life according to Genesis.
Consider this very important
> question:
> WHAT IF THE ASSUMPTION IS WRONG?
Then God would have had to have had a creator, right? And of course, that
creator would have needed a super-creator, and ad nauseum...
mel turner
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>
> > Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
> > evolved into another?
>
> Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
>Snipped for brevity....................................
Not snipped to obscure a good answer?
>So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling! Do you have a problem
>with comprehension?
That's more your trick. The examples given are of new species arising
from ancestral species. Of course the creationist will always then
have to object "but it's still a (whatever)". Yes, the plant evolved
into a [new species of] plant. What did you expect, a rhinoceros?
Ancestral plant species evolve into descendant plant species.
Ancestral mammal species evolve into descendant mammal species.
Nothing more is required for evolution on the grandest scale.
So, this kind of thing ["plants into plants"] is apparently
permissible and unremarkable to you?
Then you must have no objections to the idea of humans evolving from
earlier apes, since it's just a primate evolving into a primate. And
of course the origin of the first primates from common ancestors with
rodents, rabbits, bats, whales, elephants, armadillos, etc. must
also be a great big yawner, since it's an equally trivial "mammals
evolving into mammals".
And of course the origin of animals, fungi and plants from early
common ancestors is equally okay, since it's just a case of
"eukaryotes evolving into eukaryotes". No new life forms there...
cheers
Liz
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in news message
>>
>> >Snipped for brevity....................................
>> >
>> >So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling! Do you have a problem
>> >with comprehension?
>>
>> So mammals evolved into mammals and apes evolved into apes with humans
>> being the latest ape in our particular linage. This is just as
>> thrilling as plants evolving into plants and viruses evolving into
>> viruses.
>
>Not to be rude...
You? Oh heavens no. You wouldn't think of being rude. Being rude
would be to reply to a post with the sole purpose of dismissing it
without any thought of commenting on anything actually contained in
said post.
>but you should read the thread from the start. It
>will save you from being embarrassed the next time you try to be
>witty.
What a silly little man you are! If I want to write something
germane, I shall whether I have your permission or not. I find it
very telling though that you chose to take the time to write a reply
and yet totally fail to address what I wrote. If you thought my post
didn't pertain to the thread, you could have ignored it, but no. So
in the absence of disagreement, I must take it that you agree that
mammalian and ape evolution are as mundane as plant and virus
evolution. If that is so, then I shall retire from the thread to let
you argue whatever it is you think you are arguing.
Liz #658 BAAWA
The unsophisticated frequently miss the joke.
-- Therion T. Ware
The unsophisticated frequently ARE the joke.
-- Fritz
mel turner
>>And is also observed occurring in nature.
>> >> Mark K. Bilbo
>> >Sure and the name of this lab is?
> >>the new evolved creature name is?
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul00.html
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
>A few thing;
>The TO faqs are not peered reviewed, nor are they used by any serious
>science institution, because they are not peered reviewed.
That's "peer reviewed", you dingleberry. And so what? They do give
lots and lots of peer-reviewed references.
[And did you ask for peer-reviewed citations? No.]
>Second, the Faqs themselves have five different contradictory
>definitions of the term species and speciation.
So what? They discuss the range of different definitions being used
in real science. And how does it matter? Whatever definition one may
prefer, we undoubtedly have examples of speciations that amply fit
the definition.
>Facts are not based on
>contradictions which points to uncertainty.
Sorry, but that sentence makes little no sense. Are you perhaps
saying you didn't understand the scientific discussions? That's
understandable.
>Third, speciation is not evidence in itself that new life forms have
>emerged in a laboratory,
Are you nuts? Speciation would seem to be the very definition of
"new life forms have emerged".
>a virus is still a virus. bacteria still
>bacteria.
So the evolution of humans from earlier primates is okay, since we're
still primates? And for that matter, it's okay if we came from fishy
ancestors a bit earlier than that, since we're all still vertebrates
after all. No new life forms involved, right?
>Even creatures that reproduce via parthogenesis don't change
>much.
"Even"?
>Hence my question still stand.
Well, maybe you could prop it up down there in the waste basket.
>If you had shred of honesty
Projecting, Jabriol?
>you
>would admit that no new creature has emerged as the direct result of
>evolution in a lab, or in nature.
I could "admit" such a very silly thing, but then I'd have to be lying.
The examples of observed speciations are indeed examples of "new
creatures emerging", both in the lab and in nature. Nothing more
extravagant is needed. Only creationists pretend to expect more, on
the order of cats giving birth to dogs, or plants evolving into
non-plants.
Just for fun, however, look up HeLa or "Helacyton gartleri" as a case
that possibly fits your unreasonable demands. It's the strange case
of a mammal apparently evolving into a new kind of single-celled
microrganism.
cheers
Tim K.
> The entire theory of evolution is based on the
> assumption that life evolved from non-life.
No it is not. It is based on the assumption that DNA-->RNA-->Protein and
that gene frequencecies change. Do not tell me what evolution is, moron.
Steve Knight
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
>field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
>principles (rules)." Understandably, there are various kinds of
>science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
>knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
>knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
>scientific method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of
>the scientific method. It is not science.
You should change your name to:
SpiralingIntoSuperstitiousShitWithARockTiedToMyAss.
Read a fucking book, Moron.
There must be books written in Crayon just for you christians.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
Grinder
ZpiralZone/Jabbers:
Please note that Steve *is not* recommending that you
read the _Book of Mormon_.
Douglas Berry
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> posting the following on Mon, 26
Dec 2005 14:07:55 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>> Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
>> not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
>> false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
>> beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
>
>Really?
>
> THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
>
>1. Observe what happens.
Wrong. Observe the evidence. A great deal of science involves things
that are too small, too fast, or too distant (in space and time) to be
directly observed. We observe the evidence left behind and work from
that.
The fossil record, research into DNA and how gene sequences change,
and yes, some direct observational evidence all support evolution.
>Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
>evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
>above is not the scientific way or method.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Oh, and the actual Scientific Method:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
Notice the first *real* step is "Observation and description of a
phenomenon or group of phenomena." In evolution, that observation is
"there a millions of species of animal and plant on Earth."
The second step is forming a theory.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> posting the following on Mon, 26
>As for atheism, How many atheists celebrated christmas with their families?
I did. Then celebrated Hanukhah with my wife's family. Spent the
Solstice with pagan friends.
Douglas Berry
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> posting the following on Mon, 26
You have a big problem with honesty. You asked for examples, and we
posted them. Now you moive the goalposts.
Nice.
Terrell
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>What's so funny about peace, love and ZpiralZone
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> posting the following on Mon, 26
>Dec 2005 14:15:07 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
>
>>As for atheism, How many atheists celebrated christmas with their families?
>
>I did. Then celebrated Hanukhah with my wife's family. Spent the
>Solstice with pagan friends.
Hannakuh lasts for 8 days - my wife and I celebrate both holidays as
well - the more holidays the merrier - although, this Christmas, a
long time resident of the children's home where my wife works died
yesterday which definitely put a damper on things - but then, many of
these children were initially given 6 months or less to live, this
"kid" lived to be 31 and had a spirit that touched many hearts over
the years.
My wife has plenty of scubs with holiday designs she makes to wear,
for next year we need to start looking for Hannakuh material to make
scubs for that (as 2nd shift supervisor and the home's Activities
Director, she endeavors to keep things exciting). Our daughter did
manage to find and drop off a pair of Hannakuh socks to her today.
Terrell
http://www.songbookz.com
Mark K. Bilbo
ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can not
>> follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly false.
>> The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven beyond any
>> reasonable doubt.
>
>
> Really?
>
> THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
>
> 1. Observe what happens.
Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
Jason
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
> In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46e...@mail.gmail.com>,
> ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> >> Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can not
> >> follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly false.
> >> The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven beyond any
> >> reasonable doubt.
> >
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
> >
> > 1. Observe what happens.
>
> Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from non-life right?
Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life form-right?
Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from
a common ancestor--right?
All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists. Have you ever
considered this very important question:
What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing down like a house
of cards.
Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
Carl Kaufmann
> In article <3rydnaCTGKv...@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>
>
>>In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46e...@mail.gmail.com>,
>>ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can not
>>>>follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly false.
>>>>The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven beyond any
>>>>reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>>Really?
>>>
>>> THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
>>>
>>>1. Observe what happens.
>>
>>Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
>
>
> Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from non-life right?
That's abiogenesis, and a group at Harvard is working on it.
> Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life form-right?
This is wrong as admitted in your next question.
> Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from
> a common ancestor--right?
>
> All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists. Have you ever
> considered this very important question:
They are not assumptions, they are logical conclusions drawn from the
theory of evolution.
> What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
> If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing down like a house
> of cards.
Nope. It will get revised to fit new observations and understanding.
Just like Newtonian mechanics got revised into Einsteinian mechanics.
David Horn
>> Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe
>> right?
This question didn't get answered. I wanted that noted.
> Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from
> non-life right?
Nobody claims that a living cell evolved from non-life. However, we do
observe living cells, and we do observe precursors, and we also observe
certain chemical reactions in those precursors that are very intriguing, to
say the least.
We don't see God. We don't see him create, well, *anything*.
> Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one
> celled life form-right?
One more time: Science doesn't deal in "proof." What we have is evidence
of common ancestry and descent with modification, with respect to living
forms that, yes, include *Homo sapiens*.
> Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes
> evolved from a common ancestor--right?
We have evidence of that, yes.
> All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists.
No, "evolutionists," assuming we are referring to those at least
knowledgable in the applicable areas of science, have *evidence* for
evolution, including human evolution.
> Have you ever considered this very important question:
> What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
If your premises are wrong, your follow-up is not going to apply. It's
rhetoric. Nothing more.
> If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing
> down like a house of cards.
On the other hand, if there is evidence, as we have been saying, then there
is no problem with it...right?
> Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
No, the theorIES are based on facts and evidence.
You, on the other hand, cannot produce God, nor can you show a creative act.
Nor can you show evidence for any creative act.
Mark K. Bilbo
ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <3rydnaCTGKv...@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>
>> In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46e...@mail.gmail.com>,
>> ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
>> >> not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
>> >> false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
>> >> beyond any reasonable doubt.
>> >
>> >
>> > Really?
>> >
>> > THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
>> >
>> > 1. Observe what happens.
>>
>> Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
>
> Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from non-life right?
Not relevant to the ToE.
> Okay, so
> you have proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life form-right?
> Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from a common
> ancestor--right?
There's a century and a half worth of observations and research backing
the theory.
> All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists. Have you ever
> considered this very important question: What if all of the above
> assumptions are incorrect? If so, the entire theory of evolution will come
> crashing down like a house of cards.
> Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
You can only claim these are "assumptions" because you remain willfully
and determinedly ignorant of the subject.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> > ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
> >
> > > Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
> > > evolved into another?
> > Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
> So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling! Do you have a problem
> with comprehension?
Apparently, you missed the part where mosquitoes speciated.
If you accept that that can happen, there is no biological or
physical fact that can prevent further speciation, including complete
isolation and the emergence of unique biological forms.
You have a problem with that?
Elf
satyr
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can
>> not follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly
>> false. The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven
>> beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
>
>Really?
>
> THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
>
>1. Observe what happens.
>
>2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true.
>
>3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments.
>
>4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true.
>
>
>Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
>evolved into another? according to step one, unless you believe the
>above is not the scientific way or method.
1. Observation: Animals are classifiable into groups with similar
traits. And, within those groups they can be further classified into
subgroups, etc.
2. Theory: Animals evolved from common ancestors creating an orderly
tree of life (i.e. a family tree) with logical relationships.
3. and 4 (it isn't clear to me how these are different) Testing:
Theory predicts a chronologically arranged fossil record: verified.
Theory predicts that mitochondrial DNA of various organisms will vary
in proportion to their distance from one another on the tree of life:
verified.
Theory predicts that hemoglobin protein in various animals will vary
in proportion to their distance from one another on the tree of life:
verified.
These predictions of evolution are now implicit in biological science
and are routinely verified every day without a second thought. If a
new warm blooded, furry, live birthing, milk spewing animal is
identified and its DNA analyzed, it is not at all noteworthy that it
slots in nicely in class mammalia more or less where biologists
expect. If its DNA were closer to parakeets than humans, it would be
a revolutionary result which would shake up evolution far more
vigorously than anything Behe could dreams up. Unfortunately for the
creationists, the furry mammal is closer to man than bird every single
time.
When predictions are fulfilled this routinely, the theory is basically
regarded as an observed fact and science moves on to the next level.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
satyr
>Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from
>a common ancestor--right?
OK, here is a history of the science in this specific field -
evolution of the great apes.
Go to this web site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
Go down to: History of hominoid taxonomy
Read and view how the exact familial relationships between man and the
other great apes have been updated over the last 40 years to account
for increasing information provided by molecular biology. The tree
was altered half a dozen times with the result that it is now more
detailed as well as more accurate. In the big scheme of things,
nothing changed. After forty years of revolution in molecular biology
and its application to evolutionary science, man is still a close
relative of chimp, just like Linnaeus "predicted" in 1758.
And to answer your question; yes, DNA analysis confirms that mankind
and the (other) great apes have a common ancestor.
cactus
> In article <3rydnaCTGKv...@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>
>
>>In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46e...@mail.gmail.com>,
>>ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can not
>>>>follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly false.
>>>>The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven beyond any
>>>>reasonable doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>>Really?
>>>
>>> THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
>>>
>>>1. Observe what happens.
>>
>>Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
>
>
> Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from non-life right?
Have you noticed how many posters have pointed out that evolution
requires LIFE to evolve? That abiogenesis is NOT a part of evolutionary
theory? Are you really that dense, or just ignoring the facts?
> Okay, so you have proof that mankind evolved from a one celled life form-right?
We have the evolutionary history as far as we can take it.
> Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from
> a common ancestor--right?
The fossil record indicates that.
>
> All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists. Have you ever
> considered this very important question:
> What if all of the above assumptions are incorrect?
First of all, they are not assumptions. Look it up.
Second, if the theory driven by the observations is not correct, a
better one will replace it. It won't be "intelligent design" or any of
its decrepit clones because they have no scientific validity.
> If so, the entire theory of evolution will come crashing down like a house
> of cards.
Hasn't yet, despite all the slime, lies, polemics, distortions and
ignorance you intellectual Taliban can throw it.
> Your theory is based on assumptions--not facts and evidence.
>
I wouldn't talk that way if I were you. Your "theory" isn't theory at
all, but dogma, utterly without facts, evidence, or accurate translation
of the scriptures you distort.
John Baker
<alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
You'll have to forgive Jason. He's only just arrived from the
Creationist Planet and hasn't caught on yet that here on Earth reality
isn't determined by what he believes.
JPG
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>
>> >Snipped for brevity....................................
>> >
>> >So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling! Do you have a problem
>> >with comprehension?
>>
>> So mammals evolved into mammals and apes evolved into apes with humans
>> being the latest ape in our particular linage.
>
>Not to be rude... but you should read the thread from the start. It
>will save you from being embarrassed the next time you try to be
>witty.
>
>
>
To be very rude... I am feeling embarrassed for the human race that
idiots such as you exist. You can't even use usenet properly. Come
back when you've grown up, until then, just go away and let your daddy
use the computer.
kathryn
"mel turner" <mtu...@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:dopcs4$eet$1...@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...> news:jason-26120...@pm4-broad-43.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
>
>> In article <f61e0e1e0512260932h6f0...@mail.gmail.com>,
>> Inv...@invalid.invalid wrote:
>>
>> > According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
>> > field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
>> > principles (rules)." Understandably, there are various kinds of
>> > science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
>> > knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
>> > knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
>> > scientific method." Since evolution can not follow the principles of
>> > the scientific method. It is not science.
>>
>> be confused with facts.
>
> What "facts" do you think you know which are being ignored by
> 'evolutionists'? Go ahead, confuse us. Present them.
>
the fact is
GODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDITGODDIDIT
Tim K.
> All of the above are assumptions of evolutionists.
They ARE NOT.
explainer
There's a significant difference.
All the best, Gordon Hill
explainer
ZpiralZone wrote:
Definition:
> According to The World Book Encyclopedia, "science covers the broad
> field of human knowledge concerned with facts held together by
> principles (rules)."
Expansion:
> Understandably, there are various kinds of
> science. The book The Scientist claims: "In theory, almost any kind of
> knowledge might be made scientific, since by definition a branch of
> knowledge becomes a science when it is pursued in the spirit of the
> scientific method."
Argument: (missing)
Conclusion:
> Since evolution can not follow the principles of
> the scientific method. It is not science.
Jumping to conclusions without an argument is faulty logic; therefore,
the conclusion in this post is invalid.
Jason
<RsEaM...@infidels.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:23:06 -0800, ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> >Okay, so you have proof that mankind and great apes evolved from
> >a common ancestor--right?
>
> OK, here is a history of the science in this specific field -
> evolution of the great apes.
>
> Go to this web site:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
>
> Go down to: History of hominoid taxonomy
>
> Read and view how the exact familial relationships between man and the
> other great apes have been updated over the last 40 years to account
> for increasing information provided by molecular biology. The tree
> was altered half a dozen times with the result that it is now more
> detailed as well as more accurate. In the big scheme of things,
> nothing changed. After forty years of revolution in molecular biology
> and its application to evolutionary science, man is still a close
> relative of chimp, just like Linnaeus "predicted" in 1758.
>
> And to answer your question; yes, DNA analysis confirms that mankind
> and the (other) great apes have a common ancestor.
The DNA evidence indicates that there is very little difference between
the DNA of humans and great apes. That does not PROVE that they evolved
from a common ancestor. The same God that created humans also created the
ancestor of great apes. He used similar organs (and other body parts) in
humans and apes--that's the reason the DNA is similar. Perhaps God should
not have created great apes so as not to confuse evolutionists.
Jason
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>So far, all of these "competing 'theories,'" all of which have, also, so far
>been exposed as religion pretending to be science, don't belong in public
>school science classrooms.
The same people come up with a new one every few years and demand it
be taught. The more they do this the more people will see through
them.
>Teach it all you want in comparative religion, sociology, and hell, you can
>even mention it a time or two in American history. But keep it out of the
>science classroom. It ain't science.
>
>> ...otherwise--the students might not believe the big lie.
>
>So far, we're getting a lot of rhetoric; but *no* evidence that there's a
>lie--other than the typical subterfuge practiced by creationists.
Jason
<nos...@devnull.com> wrote:
Hello,
You don't understand the difference between assumptions and evidence. An
example is the common ancestor that humans and great apes evolved from.
If the skeleton of the common ancestor was on display in a museum--that
would be proof and evidence.
If you don't have the skeleton or fossil of the common ancestor--that
means that it's only an ASSUMPTION that the common ancestor once existed.
I'm shocked that some of the advocates of evolution don't understand the
difference between facts and assumptions.
Jason
jfa...@earthlink.net
Jason wrote:
> In article <3rydnaCTGKv...@megapath.net>, "Mark K. Bilbo"
> <alt-a...@org.webmaster> wrote:
>
> > In <f61e0e1e0512261107p46e...@mail.gmail.com>,
> > ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Regarding your non sequitur claim that [the study of] evolution can not
> > >> follow the principles of the scientific method: this is clearly false.
> > >> The evolution of life from common ancestors has been proven beyond any
> > >> reasonable doubt.
> > >
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > THE SCIENTIFIC WAY:
> > >
> > > 1. Observe what happens.
> >
> > Okay, so you watched "god" create the universe right?
>
> Okay, so you watched a living cell evolve from non-life right?
Can't answer the question, huh? LOL!
Mark K. Bilbo
ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
You mean your "god" made it *look like all life had common descent
just to confuse people? Is he normally so deceptive?
Mark K. Bilbo
That's funny coming from somebody who believes in an invisible pixie...
Jason
<e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
> ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>
> > Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> > > ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
> > > > evolved into another?
>
> > > Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
>
> > So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling! Do you have a problem
> > with comprehension?
>
> Apparently, you missed the part where mosquitoes speciated.
>
> If you accept that that can happen, there is no biological or
> physical fact that can prevent further speciation, including complete
> isolation and the emergence of unique biological forms.
>
> You have a problem with that?
>
> Elf
Elf,
You must not know much about creation science or ID. I am an advocate of
creation science and receive a newsletter from ICR each month. We believe
that micro-evolution is a fact. That's the reason that we have 45 deer
species.
If a new species of mosquitoes evolves from other mosquitoes--that's
micro-evolution. I know that it's possible for tree experts to graft a
branch one fruit tree (apple tree) onto the branch of another fruit tree
(peach). I seem to recall that one tree expert had a tree that produced
several different types of fruit. That's not evolution since it did not
occur naturally. It's a form of intelligent design.
satyr
I assume that you concede that the existence of Jesus is only an
assumption since we don't have his skeleton?
Matt Silberstein
(Jason) in <jason-27120...@pm4-broad-20.snlo.dialup.fix.net>
wrote:
>In article <87y827u...@drizzle.com>, "Elf M. Sternberg"
><e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
>
>> ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>
>> > Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>> > > ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>> > >
>> > > > Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
>> > > > evolved into another?
>>
>> > > Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
>>
>> > So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling! Do you have a problem
>> > with comprehension?
>>
>> Apparently, you missed the part where mosquitoes speciated.
>>
>> If you accept that that can happen, there is no biological or
>> physical fact that can prevent further speciation, including complete
>> isolation and the emergence of unique biological forms.
>>
>> You have a problem with that?
>>
>> Elf
>
>Elf,
>You must not know much about creation science or ID. I am an advocate of
>creation science and receive a newsletter from ICR each month. We believe
>that micro-evolution is a fact. That's the reason that we have 45 deer
>species.
For Jason it is micro for Caribou and Muntjac to evolve from a common
ancestor, but not for humans and chimps. For Jason "macro" is humans
and anything else, micro is anything not including humans.
>If a new species of mosquitoes evolves from other mosquitoes--that's
>micro-evolution. I know that it's possible for tree experts to graft a
>branch one fruit tree (apple tree) onto the branch of another fruit tree
>(peach). I seem to recall that one tree expert had a tree that produced
>several different types of fruit. That's not evolution since it did not
>occur naturally. It's a form of intelligent design.
It is not evolution because it is not inherited or inheritable. It was
natural rather than supernatural.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> in
<f61e0e1e0512261605o64...@mail.gmail.com> wrote:
>Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
>> ZpiralZone <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>
>> > Please tell us who has lived long enough to observe one life form
>> > evolved into another?
>>
>> Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
>>
>
>Snipped for brevity....................................
>
>So plants evolved into plants, how thrilling! Do you have a problem
>with comprehension?
Are you saying that you accept the common descent of all plants from a
common ancestor? Apply trees and roses from a common ancestor? Corn
and bamboo? Redwoods and dandelions?
satyr
We share the same organs as a dog but our DNA is not 99+% identical.
It isn't just percent DNA similarity that informs our knowledge of
familial relationships between plants and animals. The appearance of
new sequences and the disappearance of others are changes which help
us track evolution. And it isn't only functional DNA which shows
these relationships. In fact, the most revealing knowledge is often
gained from "selfish" DNA that doesn't code for anything. Both useful
and useless DNA sequences are not distributed haphazardly throughout
the tree of life as one might expect if a designer were just pulling
parts out of a bin. They are arranged in exactly the type of pattern
one expects if these organisms were evolving from common ancestors.
Why didn't God fix the eye defect (optic nerve attaching to the front
of the retina) in humans, his crowning achievement? He knew how to do
this - he did it for the squid. Instead, he gave us an inferior
design just because he wanted us to be like monkeys.
Sorry, examining the DNA evidence leaves only two possible
explanations: 1. All life evolved from common ancestors. 2. God
went to a lot of trouble to make it look like all life evolved from
common ancestors. Only one of these is a scientific interpretation.
If you want to believe #2, go ahead, but it is purely a presumption
based on blind faith.
Elf M. Sternberg
> You must not know much about creation science or ID. I am an advocate of
> creation science and receive a newsletter from ICR each month. We believe
> that micro-evolution is a fact. That's the reason that we have 45 deer
> species.
Actually, I know quite a bit about it. Intelligent Design (or
Creation Science, for that matter) offer not a single shred of evidence
why, if "micro evolution" is acceptable, "macro evolution" cannot
happen. The important point of the mosquito evolutionary story is that
the species were biologically distinct: they could not interbreed. If
you accept that you now have two distinct and isolated gene pools where
once you had but a single, then you have accepted macro-evolution.
As you said, there are 45 deer species: and those species have
morphological distinctions. Is there any scientific mechanism proposed
in the journals of the ICR to show why those morphological distinctions
cannot become more drastic over time?
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
Jason
<e...@drizzle.com> wrote:
Elf,
I don't believe that deer (Cervidae family) will evolve into animals that
are not members of the Cervidae family.
Uncle Davey
Uzytkownik "David Horn" <nos...@devnull.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:2m4sf.7415$mK.2327@dukeread03...
That's right!
To systems, evolutionism and creationism.
Neither being able to be proven by empirical evidence.
Yet one claiming to be a faith-based system, the other a "scientific"
system.
Where's the mismatch?
Uncle Davey
www.usenetposts.com
Mark K. Bilbo
In your head.
Elf M. Sternberg
> I don't believe that deer (Cervidae family) will evolve into animals that
> are not members of the Cervidae family.
Then you don't understand biology or zoology.
Elf