Creationists and research

[toff]

Ditto!

Its been real everyone but I have to leave the close encounter of the one liners. If you want a serious discussion of how natural selection I suggest you propose one on the formal debate thread. If I am convinced you are seriously trying to defend natural selection as science I'll be delighted to debate you there. Untill then, dont get too dizzy running circles around your premise.

Thus runs off the coward, having run out of bullets (ie., being unable to support his assertions).

 

[Bushido216]

He was firing blanks the entire time.

Fortunately, natural selection will take care of him.

(Draw from that whatever conclusion pleases you.)

 

[Brahe]

Its been real everyone but I have to leave the close encounter of the one liners. If you want a serious discussion of how natural selection I suggest you propose one on the formal debate thread. If I am convinced you are seriously trying to defend natural selection as science I'll be delighted to debate you there. Untill then, dont get too dizzy running circles around your premise.

Creationist to English translation: phaedrus started his participation with a lie, and kept lying even when he was demonstrated to be wrong. Mysteriously, this never convinced anyone that phaedrus was at all an authority on biology, let alone better at biology than every other biologist put together. So now it's time for phaedrus to lie once more while running away, thereby ensuring that he never had to admit that he was wrong, even though it's blindingly obvious to everyone who's read this thread.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Ditto!

*sigh*

Did you even read the paper I linked?

Excerpt:

The Evolved Strain Outcompetes the Parental Strain when they are Grown Together in Continuous Culture

Previous observations showed that the evolved strain had reverted to the GAL1 phenotype; 28–15L4 and CP1AB are therefore readily distinguished by colony size on 0.8% galactose minimal agar. A pair of chemostats was initiated with equal densities of the parental and evolved strains, and their relative frequencies were followed for 20 generations (fig. 2). The frequency of the evolved strain increased steadily in both chemostats until the parental strain could no longer be detected.

Now, can you explain how this is not an example of natural selection?

Its been real everyone but I have to leave the close encounter of the one liners. If you want a serious discussion of how natural selection I suggest you propose one on the formal debate thread. If I am convinced you are seriously trying to defend natural selection as science I'll be delighted to debate you there. Untill then, dont get too dizzy running circles around your premise.

What would be the point? You can't even defend your assertions here, so I see little point in getting into a formal debate over it.

 

[Larry]

I guess phaedrus thought it was the philosophical theory of evolution.

 

[phaedrus]

Thus runs off the coward, having run out of bullets (ie., being unable to support his assertions).

No its just that family time outweighs your silly satire

 

[phaedrus]

*sigh*

Did you even read the paper I linked?

*sigh* yea I did.

Excerpt:

The Evolved Strain Outcompetes the Parental Strain when they are Grown Together in Continuous Culture

Previous observations showed that the evolved strain had reverted to the GAL1 phenotype; 28–15L4 and CP1AB are therefore readily distinguished by colony size on 0.8% galactose minimal agar. A pair of chemostats was initiated with equal densities of the parental and evolved strains, and their relative frequencies were followed for 20 generations (fig. 2). The frequency of the evolved strain increased steadily in both chemostats until the parental strain could no longer be detected.

Now, can you explain how this is not an example of natural selection?

Sure, this is is another demonstration of the laws of inheritance that natural selection hides behind. This is not a valid point its a diversion.

What would be the point? You can't even defend your assertions here, so I see little point in getting into a formal debate over it.

Probably would be pointless unless you were actually able to either identify the law of science known as natural selection or define your premise. That makes for poor satire so I imagine you would not be interested.

 

[phaedrus]

I guess phaedrus thought it was the philosophical theory of evolution.

I guess you think that evolution is science but you can only argue around your premise.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Sure, this is is another demonstration of the laws of inheritance that natural selection hides behind.

Care to support this assertion or is making blind assertions with no support the best you can do?

 

[phaedrus]

Creationist to English translation: phaedrus started his participation with a lie, and kept lying even when he was demonstrated to be wrong. Mysteriously, this never convinced anyone that phaedrus was at all an authority on biology, let alone better at biology than every other biologist put together. So now it's time for phaedrus to lie once more while running away, thereby ensuring that he never had to admit that he was wrong, even though it's blindingly obvious to everyone who's read this thread.

Coming from someone making a valid point I would be insulted. Coming from you I am only mildly amused. You have yet to show how your premise is proof because you cannot so you hide behind this satire. If you think this is science you dont know what you are talking about and thank you for making my point for me.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Considering you have not demonstrated any knowledge of what science is, how it works, or why the theory of evolution is not scientific, all I see coming from you are hypocritical comments.

 

[toff]

I guess you think that evolution is science but you can only argue around your premise.

No change...assertions with no support. Yawn.

 

[phaedrus]

Care to support this assertion or is making blind assertions with no support the best you can do?

This kind of an assertion stands until refuted, thats how it works in philosophy. Thats all I have to do and until you realize that you are arguing from a premise, rather then a proof, you are going in circles.

 

[Larry]

When looking up the theory of evolution in the library, what section do you go to? The philosophy section or the science section?

 

[phaedrus]

No change...assertions with no support. Yawn.

ditto

 

[Larry]

Take a look at this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

What does it tell you? Where is philosophy mentioned?

 

[toff]

ditto

The difference is that YOU are making an assertion that runs counter to all evidence. Research into evolutionary theory is performed as if it were a science; it is taught as if it were a science. Yet you claim it's NOT a science. So...support that assertion. You haven't - and can't.

 

[phaedrus]

When looking up the theory of evolution in the library, what section do you go to? The philospohy section or the science section?

I dont need to do either, I allready know what it means.

 

[Bushido216]

Hehe, snicker.

How old are you, phaedrus?

 

[phaedrus]

The difference is that YOU are making an assertion that runs counter to all evidence. Research into evolutionary theory is performed as if it were a science; it is taught as if it were a science. Yet you claim it's NOT a science. So...support that assertion. You haven't - and can't.

No, I am making the assertion that the evidence is irrelevant. Natural selection is metaphysics, I would think you would be proud of how naturalism supplanted God as the transendent principle in living systems.