Why evolution isn't scientific

[Bungle_Bear]

you mean millions of times, or maybe billions?

No, I mean hundreds. Are you going to answer the question?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Please show me valid scientific evidence to support the belief that life that reproduces by binary fission has anything to do with life that reproduces by giving live birth to its offspring????

DNA.

Now why don't you answer the question you're trying so hard to avoid?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

DNA.

Now why don't you answer the question you're trying so hard to avoid.

You have shown nothing, just made a spurious claim that randomly comparing segments of one species to a random portion of another means common descent.

yet no scientists does this in any DNA test to prove relatedness.

Now why is it you have to insist that comparing a targets genome to random matches anywhere in another animal means common descent, when no scientist actually does this to compare relatedness?

Because you can't really prove relatedness using known testing that has been documented to prove relatedness?????

I claim your claims are psuedoscientific, which is why you can not use actual experimentally proven tests for relatedness.... but instead have to randomly match a segment randomly to any match found anywhere on the target genome.... because a real proven test would show they were not related at all....

The question was answered, you got nothing to show relatedness except pseudoscience of randomly matching random bits of DNA, because an actual test would falsify your beliefs.....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You have shown nothing, just made a spurious claim that randomly comparing segments of one species to a random portion of another means common descent.

yet no scientists does this in any DNA test to prove relatedness.

Now why is it you have to insist that comparing a targets genome to random matches anywhere in another animal means common descent, when no scientist actually does this to compare relatedness?

Because you can't really prove relatedness using known testing that has been documented to prove relatedness?????

I claim your claims are psuedoscientific, which is why you can not use actual experimentally proven tests for relatedness.... but instead have to randomly match a segment randomly to any match found anywhere on the target genome.... because a real proven test would show they were not related at all....

The question was answered, you got nothing to show relatedness except pseudoscience of randomly matching random bits of DNA, because an actual test would falsify your beliefs.....

Nonsense and blather. The usual fare. Pfft.

 

[Speedwell]

Please show me valid scientific evidence to support the belief that life that reproduces by binary fission has anything to do with life that reproduces by giving live birth to its offspring????

Ova are produced by binary fission.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ova are produced by binary fission.

Incorrect. They reproduce by Meiosis....

Biological Basis of Heredity: Cell Reproduction

Binary fission creates exact duplicates.....

 

[Speedwell]

Incorrect. They reproduce by Meiosis....

Biological Basis of Heredity: Cell Reproduction

Binary fission creates exact duplicates.....

And meiosis produces cells with only half the DNA. What's your point?

 

[Kylie]

i just showed that it can. at least about the fossil record.

No you didn't, because your knowledge about the topic is not enough for you to understand why your arguments are wrong. Both several other members here and I have tried to explain to you why you are wrong, but you seem to have no interest in actually learning about this topic. Rather, you just want to repeat your same flawed arguments again and again.

but if 99.% (or more if you want since its actually happened in reality) of them were wiped out then we got a similar situation of the coelacanth case. and as we seen: evolution has no problem to explain it.

That's right, and that is nothing like your imaginings. Once again, the only reason why you think they are comparable is because you don't know what you are talking about, and you don't seem interested in learning what you are talking about.

 

[Kylie]

lets start with ic systems. do you agree that a motion system need at least several parts for its minimal function?

What in the world is an ic system? Internal combustion system? Irreducibly complex system? If so, which flawed example are you going to claim is irreducibly complex?

 

[Kylie]

Please show me valid scientific evidence to support the belief that life that reproduces by binary fission has anything to do with life that reproduces by giving live birth to its offspring????

Asking me to provide evidence for my position is NOT what I asked for. You must provide evidence supporting YOURS. Now get to it. Provide a valid scientific argument for your position.

 

[xianghua]

What in the world is an ic system? Internal combustion system? Irreducibly complex system? If so, which flawed example are you going to claim is irreducibly complex?

what about motion system? can you as designer make a motion system that made from a signle part or you will need at least several parts?

 

[xianghua]

That's right, and that is nothing like your imaginings

realy? can you show why its not the same?

 

[Speedwell]

what about motion system? can you as designer make a motion system that made from a signle part or you will need at least several parts?

So what if it needs several parts? Not a problem for a designer or for evolution.

 

[xianghua]

So what if it needs several parts? Not a problem for a designer or for evolution.

its a problem for evolution since evolution need small steps.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

its a problem for evolution since evolution need small steps.

And why can't evolution evolve those steps?
Face it: your OP is bunk and you're just digging yourself into a hole here.

 

[xianghua]

And why can't evolution evolve those steps?

because there are no such steps.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

because there are no such steps.

A claim which you keep making without any supporting evidence. So, again, you are just digging yourself into a hole here.

 

[xianghua]

A claim which you keep making without any supporting evidence

actually it can be tets. if you will remove a part of a tipical complex biological system it will not work. so it cant evolve unless all the parts are in place.

 

[pitabread]

nevermind, I don't care...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

actually it can be tets. if you will remove a part of a tipical complex biological system it will not work. so it cant evolve unless all the parts are in place.

But that's not an explanation as to why evolution can't evolve the parts!