proving evolution as just a "theory"

[joshua 1 9]

Keep avoiding the burden of proof, it is amusing.

That is exactly what you are doing. In fact you are presenting zero proof for your claims. It does not surprise me that you try to accuse me of what you are guilt of. I see that constantly on this board. By accusing others you are telling on yourself.

 

[bhsmte]

That is exactly what you are doing. In fact you are presenting zero proof for your claims. It does not surprise me that you try to accuse me of what you are guilt of. I see that constantly on this board. By accusing others you are telling on yourself.

What claim did i make?

 

[Dirk1540]

I would seriously lighten the standards of 'Plagiarism' inside of a forum. Should we seriously be footnoting our posts now? Our posts already get too long too quick. @Uber Genius isn't writing any articles here. I actually at one point started making side comments in my posts if I was getting a point out of this book or that book, but then I kept getting the feeling that nobody else was doing it. If someone has worded an argument perfectly, and you feel like you couldn't say it any better, and your in a forum where replies are coming in fast, I don't see the problem.

A few years ago I almost bought a commentary where the reviews were spectacular, and I couldn't find a book with similar content either, but I snoozed on buying it. I tried to buy the book this year but found out it got pulled because of plagiarism. Now that is a different story, that is fraud by the author yes. However, I strangely wanted the book more personally. I'm more attracted to the coherent splicing together of various viewpoints than I'm attracted to originality IF the splicing together of other people's material results in a better articulated argument!! The great reviews made me feel like that was the case. I paid extra money to get the book from a private seller on Amazon.

Some posters in here are cut & paste maniacs, if what they are cutting & pasting makes sense I don't care who's brainchild it is. Give me the best technical points in this forum please, I don't need originality points.

Note to freshman college students - DON'T PLAGIARIZE WHEN DISCUSSING THINGS THAT YOU CLEARLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

Ok now this would be different, I'm with you here. If you don't even grasp a concept but you start posting it or you start reciting it to someone because it just 'Sounds Smart' and you think it's from some smart guy, then yes that is lame. But if you grasp it, and we're just in a forum, and it builds on your point, I would call it 'Referencing' not plagiarizing...fire away if it helps your argument.

 

[ruthiesea]

That's because the evidence is missing. Tell us HOW and WHEN mindless Nature put the superior intelligence of God into Apes. You cannot. Neither can you show us genetically HOW Humans changed from prehistoric to Human. Your "evidence" depends on your blind Faith in the False ToE. In the end, you will weep and gnash your teeth.

There was no sudden moment when apes became men. It was evolutionary process over hundreds of thousand of years. You obviously have no understanding or knowledge of the Theory of Evolution.

ToE has nothing to do with faith. Apparently, you are confusing it with the religiously based faith in creationism, for which no empirical evidence exists. If you believe that ToE is based on faith and not on science, I recommend that you actually read Darwin's On the Origin of Species (it's not an easy read), and some of the thousands, if not millions, of scientific papers supporting the theory by the testing of its predictions. I would ask you to read the scientific papers that invalidate the theory, but there ain't any.

 

[Belk]

I would seriously lighten the standards of 'Plagiarism' inside of a forum. Should we seriously be footnoting our posts now? Our posts already get too long too quick. @Uber Genius isn't writing any articles here. I actually at one point started making side comments in my posts if I was getting a point out of this book or that book, but then I kept getting the feeling that nobody else was doing it. If someone has worded an argument perfectly, and you feel like you couldn't say it any better, and your in a forum where replies are coming in fast, I don't see the problem.

A few years ago I almost bought a commentary where the reviews were spectacular, and I couldn't find a book with similar content either, but I snoozed on buying it. I tried to buy the book this year but found out it got pulled because of plagiarism. Now that is a different story, that is fraud by the author yes. However, I strangely wanted the book more personally. I'm more attracted to the coherent splicing together of various viewpoints than I'm attracted to originality IF the splicing together of other people's material results in a better articulated argument!! The great reviews made me feel like that was the case. I paid extra money to get the book from a private seller on Amazon.

Some posters in here are cut & paste maniacs, if what they are cutting & pasting makes sense I don't care who's brainchild it is. Give me the best technical points in this forum please, I don't need originality points.

Ok now this would be different, I'm with you here. If you don't even grasp a concept but you start posting it or you start reciting it to someone because it just 'Sounds Smart' and you think it's from some smart guy, then yes that is lame. But if you grasp it, and we're just in a forum, and it builds on your point, I would call it 'Referencing' not plagiarizing...fire away if it helps your argument.

The owners of the forum disagree. There is a rule against plagiarism.

 

[Dirk1540]

The owners of the forum disagree. There is a rule against plagiarism.

So then we should consider footnotes to be a mandatory part of posting? Is there a difference between implied plagiarism and blatant plagiarism? Every reference to any source should be documented in posts?

 

[pitabread]

So then we should consider footnotes to be a mandatory part of posting?

If a person is blatantly copying something someone else wrote, at the very least they can do is either link to the source or reference it.

It's not *that* difficult.

 

[Dirk1540]

It can certainly ruin someone's flow. Imagine bringing together the ideas of 3 sources, when the person you're going back & forth with only cares about the subject matter. I have definitely done it before (point out source), but like I said I think that seems to be the rare exception, it seems more like speed posting wars in here lol, the shorter your reply the better (except for some of my rambling posts lol).

 

[joshua 1 9]

What claim did i make?

You made the claim that the Bible is not true yet you have not been able to prove your claim at all. You need to present your evidence to back up your claim.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You could find all major phyla arriving in a period of only 40-50 million years (known as the Cambrian Explosion) utterly destroying the Neo Darwinian gradualism inference.

Did you mean to call attention to the recalcitrant fact of those data, or their knock down capability? Opps.

Ah, the fish Phylum came about in the Cambrian explosion, as well as the lizard Phylum, the horse Phylum , and the cat Phylum?

Wrong!

These aren't Phylum. They are lower classifications such as class or family. "Phylum" is a very broad classification. There are only about 34 animal Phyla total.

There is one Phylum, Chordates, that includes all fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, sea squirts and lancelets. The first Chordate was a tiny sea creature with little in common with us but a nerve chord down the body known as a notochord.

If you think this tiny creature with a notochord is such a development that it utterly destroys Darwinism, what about all the evolution that needed to occur after the Cambrian? There weren't even fish in the Cambrian. All that evolution through fish and amphibians and reptiles and early mammals and apes up through to humans had to occur after the Cambrian.

And that is the heart of what most people think of when they think of animal evolution.

Your argument about the Cambrian does nothing to refute all the transitional mammal-like reptiles we have found, for instance.

 

[bhsmte]

You made the claim that the Bible is not true yet you have not been able to prove your claim at all. You need to present your evidence to back up your claim.

Nice try.

You keep claiming the bible is 100% true and science backs it up. I have asked you to support this with evidence and you keep pushing the burden of proof back on me.

Listen, everyone that has observed your posts, knows you have never supported your claims, so you may be trying to fool yourself, but you are not fooling anyone else.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You made the claim that the Bible is not true yet you have not been able to prove your claim at all. You need to present your evidence to back up your claim.

Count the legs on a grasshopper. The Bible says it has 4. I count the legs on the grasshopper. And somehow my faith gets weak the moment the count reaches 5.

 

[bhsmte]

Count the legs on a grasshopper. The Bible says it has 4. I count the legs on the grasshopper. And somehow my faith gets weak the moment the count reaches 5.

LOL.

I see that science contradicts the global flood, a baby being born of a virgin, a woman made from a man's rib, people rising from the dead and science supports humans developing from many years of evolution. That is just the start.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Count the legs on a grasshopper. The Bible says it has 4.

I do not claim that the translation is without error. Only the original Bible in the original language. So you would have to talk to some KJV ONLY people to see how they defend this translation of the Bible.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You keep claiming the bible is 100% true and science backs it up.

I have given you overwhelming scientific evidence to verify how true and accurate the Bible is. I can not keep repeating myself over and over again.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Keep avoiding the burden of proof, it is amusing.

I do not find it amusing at all that you keep trying to avoid the truth.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The infinite monkey theory is not infinite. So science does not say what they mean and they do not mean what they say. Of course, how could we expect anything any different. I do not even know where you would get a infinite number of monkeys and even if you had a infinite number of monkeys where would you keep them? Where would you find a infinite amount of food to feed them.

Science never said this theory was infinite, you did. In fact, it wasn't even a scientist that came up with this theory that isn't infinite, a mathematician did. Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia

Noah was a real person and his flood was a real flood. The Bible is absolute literal truth. Even if people do not know what those words mean. The Bible is a paradigm not a metaphor. People do not realize how great God is and what HE is able to accomplish. When we talk about Jesus we talk about a corner stone. He sets the standard. He lived His life as a example for us to follow.

Show me evidence of Noah and of the flood. As for Jesus and his example, do you hate your brother, your father, your mother, your sister and even yourself? Do you have no thought for the 'morrow, no savings and no cache for the future? Do you follow all the old testament laws like selling your raped daughter for half price to her rapist? Do you stone gays and adulterers to death? Do you kill those who work on the sabbath? After all, not a jot or tittle of the old laws are to be discarded until all in heaven and earth have come to pass, right?

God represents the natural laws that we find in the Universe. This universe would not exist if it were not for the laws we are able to identify. However we are not seeking to show that God exists, we are showing that the Bible is accurate and true.

Well, I understand that you know you can't prove any of that, this is a progress of sorts, but we've been at this beach head for some time now, surely you can take another step?

I go by NASA, when they screw up people die. If you need surgery who do you go to?

NASA isn't a Math Professor... If I need surgery, I won't go to a faith healer. In fact, I wouldn't go to a faith healer for any reason.

What YOU do not understand is that Science goes by the best explanation they have. They produce the best answers they can come up with. You have to be able to produce a better solution or a better explanation.

I understand all that just fine thank you very much - what YOU don't seem to understand is any evidence is better than no evidence whatsoever. Science does indeed go with the best explanation for the evidence they have because this is what gives us such accurate and repeatable results.

I do not find it amusing at all that you keep trying to avoid the truth.

-~=#{ - ROFLOL - }#=~-

oh, the irony!

​

 

[omega2xx]

Go read a book. Your Ignorance isn't a valid argument.

What a brilliant reply. It just confirms you can't produce any evidence for what you accept by faith alone. Thanks

 

[omega2xx]

Of course I am - one can judge on your responses and posts. If you know something but choose to respond in such a way that makes it appear you do not, that is not my problem.

You are not qualified for 2 reasons. You have to understand what I say, and it is evident you are stuck in the ignorance of thinking evolution is based on science. You need to provide the evidence for what you believe, and you can't do that, or at least haven't so far.

Non-sequitur. I asked how you know that what you read from creationists is accurate. It seems obvious that you merely take what they write at face value.

You are exactly the sort of reader professional creationists hope for and rely on.

Again you are not qualified to judge that.

"If you test a method on a known, and the method reproduces what is known, then we have verification that the method produces accurate results."

Hmmm.... Or maybe this:


"You don't think testing a method on knowns has implications for the usefulness of the methods?"

Of course not. Your problem with your sinerio is that you accept some things a known which have never been proven. Natural selection for example.

So, this is what started this string -


The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



The only 'assumptions' are those that even creationists admit are true - mutations happen; some mutations are heritable; patterns of shared inherited mutations are indicative of parent-offspring/ancestor-descendant relationships.


rs had blown it all off claiming 'yes mutations happen... blah blah blah', totally missing the implication.

The implication is that since these methods can reproduce known relationships, then using these methods on unknown relationships and accepting the conclusions is warranted.

Get it now?

Yes it is very easy. None of that research resulted in a change of the species.

Get it now.

I misread things sometimes.

Then criticizing me for doing it, is hypocrisy.

But when corrected, I accept it and move on.

You?

Probably not according to your self-made definition.

 

[omega2xx]

That is quite an assertion.

When you present the science for any claim you make, I will explain it to you.

If you understood the science of mutations, I would not have to explain it to you. You can't produce even one example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species.

Let me offer you a quote from a qualified evolutionists:

"Mutations have no final evolutionary effect." Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, as quoted by William Baur, "Review of Evolution of living organisms.