Is there any evidence for evolution?

[mark kennedy]

Isn't it funny how he continually accuses others of going off topic while he's talking about mathematics on a thread about evolution?

I'm not the one who dragged it off topic, I was being corrected about things not in error, so I stopped long enough to clean that mess up. The discussion was focused on the nature of science so I went to the crucible of modern science to clarify the nature of the term in theory and practice. As usual I was dragged down every blind alley and tangent he could think of but anytime you want to give up the fallacious rhetoric I'd be happy to discuss evolution and how it supports creationism.

Its an appeal to authority plus a large helping obfuscation.

It's called relevant source material, you should try it some time. It's a lot more intellectually satisfying then pedantic, fallacious, trolling.

Unlike the Piltdown man remains, it's quite easy for any interested researcher to examine australopithecus fossils themselves. They are not a hoax.

Sure you can even get a caste but it can never be suggested that Taung Child is more chimp like then human. One paleontologist tried and there was a running debate that eventually bogged down to a stalemate.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[lesliedellow]

I don't care about some convoluted equation of motion, it's irrelevant to the doctrine of creation. But don't let me stop you if you want to give that straw man what for, it's none of my business.

Oh, come come. We can't let all those centuries of science prior to Newton go for nothing. After all, you have spent the last, however many pages, telling us so.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not the one who dragged it off topic, I was being corrected about things not in error, so I stopped long enough to clean that mess up. The discussion was focused on the nature of science so I went to the crucible of modern science to clarify the nature of the term in theory and practice. As usual I was dragged down every blind alley and tangent he could think of but anytime you want to give up the fallacious rhetoric I'd be happy to discuss evolution and how it supports creationism.

Yeah, see that bolded line above. That's you practically admitting that you took the OP off topic, since you felt the need to change the topic from modern science to historical science.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's called relevant source material, you should try it some time. It's a lot more intellectually satisfying then pedantic, fallacious, trolling.

Ah yes, I seem to recall thet Euclid had a lot to say about Evolution, didn't he?

 

[Loudmouth]

It wasn't even a cleaver hoax and it was replace by chimpanzee ancestors passed off as ours.

Where did you demonstrate that they are chimpanzee ancestors?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm also still waiting for @mark kennedy to give us the scientific evidence that the theory of evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm also still waiting for @mark kennedy to give us the scientific evidence that the theory of evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis.

However old you are, you will be in your grave before that happens.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

However old you are, you will be in your grave before that happens.

I am 22. So the opposite might happen really.

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, see that bolded line above. That's you practically admitting that you took the OP off topic, since you felt the need to change the topic from modern science to historical science.

No, I have had to do two things to clarify things, defining science and evolution are the first fundamental step. That's pretty much been taken care of which is progress, great progress actually since I'm dealing with mostly trollers bent on repeating themselves endlessly. The philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism has been defined as well and I even managed to disentangle the equivocation fallacy of Darwinism and the theory of evolution.

We're on topic, as a matter of fact I think it's going way better then usual. You guys are only using two maybe three fallacies so it's easy enough to guide around that foolishness. I think I'm ready to start introducing evidence but it would probably be a good idea to give you guys some pointers on genetics. If your as woefully misinformed on Mendelian Genetics as you have been on the other background issues that could take a while.

Let's see, you probably know nothing about mutations, so why don't you check this page out:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Mutations)
​

It's a little soon in the discussion but you really should try to get through this one:

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is the transmittance of information from one generation of an organism to the next (e.g., parent–child transmittance) that affects the traits of offspring without alteration of the primary structure of DNA (i.e., the sequence of nucleotides)
​

When you think your focused enough this is the most comprehensive comparative genomics study I know of:

By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22)
​

Then you need to know something about adaptive evolution in action.

The novel portion of the AFGP gene (encoding the ice-binding function) derives from the recruitment and iteration of a small region spanning the boundary between the first intron and second exon of the trypsinogen gene (Fig. 1). This newborn segment was expanded and then iteratively duplicated (perhaps by replication slippage or unequal crossing-over) to produce 41 tandemly repeated segments.(Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution)
​

Ok so I'm tired of chasing your pitifully pedantic trolling tactics in circles, so the core terminology is defined and now it's time to get acquainted with the relevant source material. Just in case you don't realize by now I am well acquainted with the material. Now if you think you can keep up without actually reading it your going to find out the hard way I know exactly what I'm doing. I'll give you guys a couple of days to ponder some of that and I'll be back to see if you actually have the courage of your convictions. I'd be shocked if you did, I mean it would make you the first in a very long time.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[VirOptimus]

No, I have had to do two things to clarify things, defining science and evolution are the first fundamental step. That's pretty much been taken care of which is progress, great progress actually since I'm dealing with mostly trollers bent on repeating themselves endlessly. The philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism has been defined as well and I even managed to disentangle the equivocation fallacy of Darwinism and the theory of evolution.

We're on topic, as a matter of fact I think it's going way better then usual. You guys are only using two maybe three fallacies so it's easy enough to guide around that foolishness. I think I'm ready to start introducing evidence but it would probably be a good idea to give you guys some pointers on genetics. If your as woefully misinformed on Mendelian Genetics as you have been on the other background issues that could take a while.

Let's see, you probably know nothing about mutations, so why don't you check this page out:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Mutations)
​

It's a little soon in the discussion but you really should try to get through this one:

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is the transmittance of information from one generation of an organism to the next (e.g., parent–child transmittance) that affects the traits of offspring without alteration of the primary structure of DNA (i.e., the sequence of nucleotides)
​

When you think your focused enough this is the most comprehensive comparative genomics study I know of:

By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22)
​

Then you need to know something about adaptive evolution in action.

The novel portion of the AFGP gene (encoding the ice-binding function) derives from the recruitment and iteration of a small region spanning the boundary between the first intron and second exon of the trypsinogen gene (Fig. 1). This newborn segment was expanded and then iteratively duplicated (perhaps by replication slippage or unequal crossing-over) to produce 41 tandemly repeated segments.(Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution)
​

Ok so I'm tired of chasing your pitifully pedantic trolling tactics in circles, so the core terminology is defined and now it's time to get acquainted with the relevant source material. Just in case you don't realize by now I am well acquainted with the material. Now if you think you can keep up without actually reading it your going to find out the hard way I know exactly what I'm doing. I'll give you guys a couple of days to ponder some of that and I'll be back to see if you actually have the courage of your convictions. I'd be shocked if you did, I mean it would make you the first in a very long time.

Have a nice day
Mark

Have you started writing your article for peer review yet?

If not, why?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I have had to do two things to clarify things, defining science and evolution are the first fundamental step. That's pretty much been taken care of which is progress, great progress actually since I'm dealing with mostly trollers bent on repeating themselves endlessly. The philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism has been defined as well and I even managed to disentangle the equivocation fallacy of Darwinism and the theory of evolution.

We're on topic, as a matter of fact I think it's going way better then usual. You guys are only using two maybe three fallacies so it's easy enough to guide around that foolishness. I think I'm ready to start introducing evidence but it would probably be a good idea to give you guys some pointers on genetics. If your as woefully misinformed on Mendelian Genetics as you have been on the other background issues that could take a while.

Let's see, you probably know nothing about mutations, so why don't you check this page out:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Mutations)
​

It's a little soon in the discussion but you really should try to get through this one:

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is the transmittance of information from one generation of an organism to the next (e.g., parent–child transmittance) that affects the traits of offspring without alteration of the primary structure of DNA (i.e., the sequence of nucleotides)
​

When you think your focused enough this is the most comprehensive comparative genomics study I know of:

By comparing the whole sequence with the human counterpart, chromosome 21, we found that 1.44% of the chromosome consists of single-base substitutions in addition to nearly 68,000 insertions or deletions. These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins. Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences at the amino acid sequence level. (DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22)
​

Then you need to know something about adaptive evolution in action.

The novel portion of the AFGP gene (encoding the ice-binding function) derives from the recruitment and iteration of a small region spanning the boundary between the first intron and second exon of the trypsinogen gene (Fig. 1). This newborn segment was expanded and then iteratively duplicated (perhaps by replication slippage or unequal crossing-over) to produce 41 tandemly repeated segments.(Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution)
​

Ok so I'm tired of chasing your pitifully pedantic trolling tactics in circles, so the core terminology is defined and now it's time to get acquainted with the relevant source material. Just in case you don't realize by now I am well acquainted with the material. Now if you think you can keep up without actually reading it your going to find out the hard way I know exactly what I'm doing. I'll give you guys a couple of days to ponder some of that and I'll be back to see if you actually have the courage of your convictions. I'd be shocked if you did, I mean it would make you the first in a very long time.

Have a nice day
Mark

So apart from having your head up your own rear on your own intelligence, which is actually pitiful, you have still not shown a single piece of scientific evidence that the theory of evolution is neither a scientific theory nor a hypothesis.
In fact, I wouldn't actually be surprised that you yourself don't understand any of the stuff that you've copied and pasted yourself.

 

[RickG]

We're on topic, as a matter of fact I think it's going way better then usual.

No, you have a problem answering a direct question. Gish Gallops do not address anything, they deliberately obfuscate.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I have had to do two things to clarify things, defining science and evolution are the first fundamental step.

How many times have you complained about others using semantic arguments?

Please stop with the semantics and get to the meat of the argument.

 

[lesliedellow]

How many times have you complained about others using semantic arguments?

Please stop with the semantics and get to the meat of the argument.

Maybe the Oxford English Dictionary could help him out:

Science
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Evolution
The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the Earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could we please be civil here?

 

[lesliedellow]

Could we please be civil here?

He seemed to be having a little trouble with knowing what words meant, so, like the good samaritan that I am, I thought I would help him out.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Could we please be civil here?

By the standards of the wider internet, it is.

 

[RickG]

He seemed to be having a little trouble with knowing what words meant, so, like the good samaritan that I am, I thought I would help him out.

My guess is using a thesaurus to substitute synonyms not realizing that even though the words may have a similiar definition, their context is different.

 

[mark kennedy]

Maybe the Oxford English Dictionary could help him out:

Science
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Evolution
The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the Earth.

That's not the scientific definition. You just defined Darwinism. Now I have already defined it and differentiated it from Darwinism. For this I need neither your permission nor your approval. I must admit you may well be the first to openly admit the equivocated meaning but you left out population genetics. That's what happens when you don't bother to think seriously about meticously crafted scientific terminology.

 

[mark kennedy]

My guess is using a thesaurus to substitute synonyms not realizing that even though the words may have a similiar definition, their context is different.

Don't guess. Look it up.