Is there any evidence for evolution?

[RickG]

Don't forget Piltdown and did you ever notice there are no Chimpanzees in the fossil record?

Yes, please don't forget Piltdown, it was a hoax exposed by science. As for Chimpanzee fossils:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04008.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/52/18842.full
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3371693
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/4/587.full.pdf

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes it is, and it goes by the name of "creation science".

Riiiiight.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, please don't forget Piltdown, it was a hoax exposed by science.

Yup.

Science can start fires, then put them out.

 

[AdamSK]

Yep, still nothing but personal remarks that have no relevance to anything substantive.

Someone can remind me what it is called when a statement describes itself? Reflexive?

 

[AdamSK]

Science can start fires, then put them out.

That's correct. The scientific community has been wrong before and will be wrong again.

That's why transparency is so important - peer review, publishing data, making physical evidence available for examination and tests. The holders of the Piltdown skull didn't want it invalidated and so stonewalled attempts to examine it for some decades after its authenticity was called into question. That sort of thing is bad for scientific advancement.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Am I a person?

If you can seriously, spontaneously ask that question, then you are.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can seriously, spontaneously ask that question, then you are.

Yay!!!

I passed the Turing Test!

 

[lesliedellow]

Yay!!!

I passed the Turing Test!

Turing set the bar pretty low, for deciding when a machine could be considered sentient, so I wouldn't get too excited about that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Turing set the bar pretty low, for deciding when a machine could be considered sentient, so I wouldn't get too excited about that.

Nuts!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Nuts!

Actually, its a pretty high bar. And some humans can't pass it. Not every entity that qualifies as a person is able to pass the turing test. And technically, the turing test would require more than a single response such as "am I a person" to be fully applied. But taking your posts as a whole, you pass.

 

[lesliedellow]

Actually, its a pretty high bar. And some humans can't pass it. Not every entity that qualifies as a person is able to pass the turing test. And technically, the turing test would require more than a single response such as "am I a person" to be fully applied. But taking your posts as a whole, you pass.

Maybe you have heard of the Chinese room. Well, that is no longer a thought experiment, because it has actually been done. A human was shut away in a room, where he was fed messages in a language he couldn't speak. By manipulating vocabulary, using the rules of grammar, he was able to send back seemingly intelligent responses. Did he have a clue what the messages he was sending back meant? Of course he didn't.

Marcus du Sautoy was the person's name.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, its a pretty high bar. And some humans can't pass it. Not every entity that qualifies as a person is able to pass the turing test. And technically, the turing test would require more than a single response such as "am I a person" to be fully applied. But taking your posts as a whole, you pass.

Yay! Thank you!

 

[mark kennedy]

And once again, not a single piece of scientific evidence presented to show that evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis. Just more empty rhetoric and a holier-than-thou attitude from you.

That's when I know I have you when the inflammatory remarks is all that's left. All the lower echelon rank and file strollers demand some answer to a fallacious question. In this case it's an equivocation but it really doesn't matter since your going to ask it in circles endlessly anyway.

 

[RickG]

That's when I know I have you when the inflammatory remarks is all that's left. All the lower echelon rank and file strollers demand some answer to a fallacious question. In this case it's an equivocation but it doesn't matter since your going to ask it in circles endlessly anyway.

Simply put, Warden-of-the-storm ask for nothing more than scientific evidence to back your claim. You have yet to even address it, much less present credible supporting scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. I also have asked for scientific evidence that contradicts ToE, which has also gone ignored.

 

[mark kennedy]

If Euclid was a student of Pythagoras or Thales, that was really very clever of him, because he lived about three centuries after they did.

Oh for crying out loud I didn't mean he signed up for classes. The error fabrications you guys come up with are almost as bad as the poor melodrama.

So you profess your own ignorance, and then carry on talking out of your posterior. You self evidently do not know what it is; you have just latched on to a use which was made of it.

Such a shame it looked like you might actually hang in the maybe even say something. Guess not. Those fallacies are just too irresistable

Mathematics has progressed way past where it was in Newton's day. Newton wouldn't even pass a first year undergraduate exam in real variable analysis today.

Perhaps the most important publication of the Scientific Revolution and the first practical demonstration of the inverse square in motion and you dismiss him like a dulard with an aide of superiority. This stuff has really gotten wrapped around your ego. No matter how many times I see it it never ceases to amaze me.

Leibnitz never cooperated ith Newton, and the difference between them was a lot more than just different symbols. As I have already said, Leibnitz's approach was much closer to a present day mathematician's ideas about mathematical rigour. Newton was a typical physicist, and just so long as something seemed to work, that was good enough for him.

Yes they did they corosponded. Now I'm sure your full of it. Before I thought it was a perspective issue but these are error fabrications plain and simple. I almost took you seriously there for a while but guess I should have known.

So Relativity and Quantum Theory aren't scientific. That's interesting.

Relativity seems alright but String theory with its multiverse time travel warp drive is a load of convoluted conjecture.

You have been trying to tell me what calculus is, and what algebra is, so who it is who is qualified as a mathematician, and who it is that isn't, is very much to the point.

What I have been talking about is the rise of inductive science from the time Francis Bacon first proposed it till Newton used exclusively inductive methods to demonstrate the theory of light. Its called the Scientific Revolution because it stood science on its head.

I don't know what you think your talking about but this is about science and my point was it's much more then a methodology. I know what your trying to do your trying to equivocate naturalistic methodology with science but your wasting your time. You guys only have a few lines of argumentation and this one isn't even cleaver.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Simply put, Warden-of-the-storm ask for nothing more than scientific evidence to back your claim. You have yet to even address it, much less present credible supporting scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. I also have asked for scientific evidence that contradicts ToE, which has also gone ignored.

I never did that he is making demands of a straw man. What he is calling evolution is actually two things. Its a phenomenon and an all consuming a priori assumption. Now if he wants me to refute Darwinian evolution no problem but I'm not chasing hid pointless pedantic equivocation fallacy in circles for his amusement or yours. If he wants a real conversation he can get with the program and ask a real question. I say that knowing that he doesn't know anything but fallacious head trip taunts.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[RickG]

I never did that he is making demands of a straw man. What he is calling evolution is actually two things. Its a phenomenon and an all consuming a priori assumption. Now if he wants me to refute Darwinian evolution no problem but I'm not chasing hid pointless pedantic equivocation fallacy in circles for his amusement or yours. If he wants a real conversation he can get with the program and ask a real question. I say that knowing that he doesn't know anything but fallacious head trip taunts.

Have a nice day
Mark

The theory of evolution contains more supporting evidence than any other theory in the physical sciences. In fact, I can't think of a single physical scientific field that does not contribute evidence for ToE. Again, what scientific evidence specifically contradicts ToE?

 

[mark kennedy]

I predict a meltdown and taking his ball and going home soon.

Why this stuff is light weight and comical. I don't know what makes you think you deserve to be taken seriously but your sadly mistaken.

 

[mark kennedy]

The theory of evolution contains more supporting evidence than any other theory in the physical sciences. In fact, I can't think of a single physical scientific field that does not contribute evidence for ToE. Again, what scientific evidence specifically contradicts ToE?

Define evolution.

 

[lesliedellow]

Oh for crying out loud I didn't mean he signed up for classes. The error fabrications you guys come up with are almost as bad as the poor melodrama.

"Euclid was one of their students," is not a form of words which lends itself to that interpretation. You are trying to dig yourself out of one of the many holes you have dug for yourself.

Such a shame it looked like you might actually hang in the maybe even say something. Guess not. Those fallacies are just too irresistable

I wonder whether some kind person, who is fluent in Double Dutch, could translate that into English for me?

Perhaps the most important publication of the Scientific Revolution and the first practical demonstration of the inverse square in motion and you dismiss him like a dulard with an aide of superiority.

Did I call Newton a dulard? Don't think so. I just said that he would fail a first year undergraduate maths exam today. Which he would. That doesn't make him a dulard, any more than his being ignorant of electromagnetism does. You see, both mathematics and physics have moved on since his time.

This stuff has really gotten wrapped around your ego. No matter how many times I see it it never ceases to amaze me.

Coming from you, that is a joke and a half.

Yes they did they corosponded. Now I'm sure your full of it. Before I thought it was a perspective issue but these are error fabrications plain and simple. I almost took you seriously there for a while but guess I should have known.

Newton and Leibnitz could scarcely stand to hear one another's names mentioned. And that is just a fact.

Relativity seems alright but String theory with its multiverse time travel warp drive is a load of convoluted conjecture.

Did I say anything about string theory? Don't think so.

What I have been talking about is the rise of inductive science from the time Francis Bacon first proposed it till Newton used exclusively inductive methods to demonstrate the theory of light. Its called the Scientific Revolution because it stood science on its head.

No, it didn't stand science on its head. It got science under way. Within a century of Newton putting pen to paper, the industrial revolution was under way. Prior to that, people had been locked into a mindset which was forever looking back to ancient Greece as a golden age.