Ignoring The Evidence : Why Are You Not An Evolutionist?

[Subduction Zone]

You responded with a link when I originally asked about the 'how', didn't you? Were you responding from a position of ignorance?

No, I was offering evidence for the theory of evolution. Supporting my claim. You won't even define what you mean so no one can satisfy your demand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not a single shred of evidence is offered by you, or anyone, for the claims of the 'how' of Darwinist evolution.

I am sorry if the evidence was too hard for you to understand. I don't think that I can "Mister Rogers" it for you.

 

[justlookinla]

No, I was offering evidence for the theory of evolution. Supporting my claim. You won't even define what you mean so no one can satisfy your demand.

I was asking for evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life we observe today, was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.....according to Darwinist evolution claims.

Continue with your failure.

 

[justlookinla]

I am sorry if the evidence was too hard for you to understand. I don't think that I can "Mister Rogers" it for you.

There was no evidence. Post number of this alleged evidence, please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was asking for evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life we observe today, was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.....according to Darwinist evolution claims.

Continue with your failure.

How did I fail? I supported my claim. You can't even define your terms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was no evidence. Post number of this alleged evidence, please.

Nope, I will link the article for you again:

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

You still won't let yourself understand it.

 

[justlookinla]

How did I fail? I supported my claim. You can't even define your terms.

The request remains the same....as well as your total failure.

And still no evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, I will link the article for you again:

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

You still won't let yourself understand it.

Where in the link does it evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago?

Something of content in the link. Some section which offers this alleged evidence.

I suspect you're going to continue with your failure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The request remains the same....as well as your total failure.

And still no evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Wrong. Evidence:

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

I am sorry, but it is not written at a grade school level.

And I see that you still cannot define your terms. That is a failure. I am willing to go over scientific evidence with you where I will have to define terms. I see that you cannot do the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where in the link does it evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago?

Something of content in the link. Some section which offers this alleged evidence.

I suspect you're going to continue with your failure.

Define what you mean by your incorrect use of the word "how". The scientific method that you are so enamored with gives "what" answers not "how" answers.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong. Evidence:

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

I am sorry, but it is not written at a grade school level.

And I see that you still cannot define your terms. That is a failure. I am willing to go over scientific evidence with you where I will have to define terms. I see that you cannot do the same.

Yes, you continue your pattern of total failure.

Can't give a reference within the link for evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago, can you? Of course you can't. Such evidence doesn't exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where in the link does it evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago?

Something of content in the link. Some section which offers this alleged evidence.

I suspect you're going to continue with your failure.

You are merely repeating your errors and your failure now.

 

[justlookinla]

You are merely repeating your errors and your failure now.

You are simply showing everyone that you've completely failed to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Thing is, neither can anyone else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, you continue your pattern of total failure.

Can't give a reference within the link for evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago, can you? Of course you can't. Such evidence doesn't exist.

Good night justlookin.

Maybe by tomorrow you can define your incorrect use of terminology. I have done what was asked of me. You have not.

 

[justlookinla]

Good night justlookin.

Maybe by tomorrow you can define your incorrect use of terminology. I have done what was asked of me. You have not.

Good night. Maybe tomorrow you can find evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life, was produced by only naturalistic mechanisms from an alleged single life form of long ago.

I doubt it though for such evidence doesn't exist.

 

[Davian]

This portion of the forum is about creation and evolution.

Do you post snippets like that just so parts of your post will be right?

Just pointing out that Darwin's guesses and suppositions were discarded in favor of Neo-Darwinism....that's how Neo-Darwinism was birthed.

That was back in the 1890's, was it not? Well, science has made a bit of progress since then. You better get to the wiki page and update with your knowledge.

Stay tuned for Neo-Neo Darwinism, the latest 'scientific truth'.

So you do think that the latest in evolutionary theory is correct. It has taken you a long time to come around. Good to see it though.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hoghead1 said: ↑
I find it very amusing how everybody here is an expert on Darwin and yet probably most of you haven't read a thing he ever wrote. That's what I am doing now, going to reading his "Origins" because I simply do not trust the world of uninformed laity. For example, how many here could right now right off the top of their heads list out five major differences between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism. . Go ahead, I double dog dare any one of you. How many of you could demonstrate you actually have read Darwin? Go ahead, someone. I double dog dare you to stand up and prove you have actually read Darwin.

Neo-Darwinism is not all that different from "Darwinism". The main difference is that we have learned quite a bit since Darwin's time. Darwin did not understand genetics since it did not exist when he wrote his work. The work of Mendel was lost for a time. And Mendel only took baby steps. Darwin thought that there was simply a blending. He did not understand the idea of a limited number of genes coming from each parent. It also includes refinements such as the work of Gould and others that showed that evolution is not a slow steady process, but rather one that goes forward by fits and starts.

Wrong, but then you don't understand evidence. You won't even let yourself learn what evidence is though people have offered time and time again.

The scientific method does not work on guesses and suppositions. It works on evidence, and guess what? Most of it is "what" evidence.

justlookinla said: ↑
Neo-Darwinism means that new guesses and suppositions replaces Darwin's guesses and suppositions.
It is not as if NeoDarwinism refuted Darwinism. No more than Einstein's theory of gravity refuted Newton's gravity. Einstein is merely more precise and more complete of an explanation. The same applies to "Neo-Darwinism".

LLoJ once again goes to Wiki!

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

Search Wikipedia Encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism

Neo-Darwinism is the "modern synthesis" of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics, the latter being a set of primary tenets specifying that evolution involves the transmission of characteristics from parent to offspring through the mechanism of genetic transfer, rather than the "blending process" of pre-Mendelian evolutionary science. Neo-Darwinism can also designate Charles Darwin's ideas of natural selection separated from his hypothesis of pangenesis as a Lamarckian source of variation involving blending inheritance.[1]............

....................................................

.[/QUOTE]

 

[durangodawood]

But it LOOKS like a mammal.
I guess we are going beyond looks then.

A sketch of a mammal looks like a mammal too.
Do we really need to discuss the difference?

 

[dougangel]

I find it very amusing how everybody here is an expert on Darwin and yet probably most of you haven't read a thing he ever wrote. That's what I am doing now, going to reading his "Origins" because I simply do not trust the world of uninformed laity. For example, how many here could right now right off the top of their heads list out five major differences between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism. . Go ahead, I double dog dare any one of you. How many of you could demonstrate you actually have read Darwin? Go ahead, someone. I double dog dare you to stand up and prove you have actually read Darwin.

People who have read the bible. Get the same thing with people who haven't read the bible.
People should at least read the gospels and read what Jesus said about God and the human condition before they make a judgement.
Some points about Evolution.
It's an unobserved science.
It's not a completed science. That is: It's changing. And there are some large gaps in it.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Neo-Darwinism" is a rather silly term. The fact is that science is always changing. It is always getting closer and closer to a full explanation. I don't know why someone would settle for an incomplete explanation when a more complete one was available.

Scientist: Why do you reject the theory of evolution?

Creationist: Scientists are always changing their mind. I can't trust them.

Scientist: So what would make you trust them more?

Creationist: If they changed their mind about creationism.