The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[bhsmte]

lol, the scientific method is my view.....the popular view of science is not my view.

LOL, is right. Your words are rarely supported with any type of objective support.

 

[createdtoworship]

LOL, is right. Your words are rarely supported with any type of objective support.

listen, you originally stated (or someone did) that some people did not view evolution technically as a fact but as a theory, correct?

well here is what I am saying, many if not all scientists regard it without evidence AS A FACT, (talk about irony)...

when they have no basis or factual evidence of macro evolution:

here is a quote in one book published on evolution:

The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.
There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact.[20]


Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bhsmte]

listen, you originally stated (or someone did) that some people did not view evolution technically as a fact but as a theory, correct?

well here is what I am saying, many if not all scientists regard it without evidence AS A FACT, (talk about irony)...

when they have no basis or factual evidence of macro evolution
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are claiming the following:

"many if not all scientists regard it WITHOUT EVIDENCE as a fact"

How could you possibly know how "many if not all scientists" have used to form an opinion as to whether evolution is correct or not? PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM.

 

[PsychoSarah]

listen, you originally stated (or someone did) that some people did not view evolution technically as a fact but as a theory, correct?

well here is what I am saying, many if not all scientists regard it without evidence AS A FACT, (talk about irony)...

when they have no basis or factual evidence of macro evolution
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gravity is a theory; theories explain phenomenon. I think a lot of people confuse theory with hypothesis. A hypothesis has not been proven and is designed so to test an educated guess. A theory explains either an observed fact or a believed to be true occurrence in nature. It is used to explain observations. Gravity is explained by a theory as well, and you can plainly see it happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

listen, you originally stated (or someone did) that some people did not view evolution technically as a fact but as a theory, correct?

well here is what I am saying, many if not all scientists regard it without evidence AS A FACT, (talk about irony)...

when they have no basis or factual evidence of macro evolution
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are mountains of evidence supporting "macroevolution" properly called "evolution". Just as there is evidence supporting "microevolution" properly known as "evolution".

It is not the fault of others if you do not know what qualifies as evidence.

The evidence is so strong that supports the theory of evolution that the process of evolution is treated as a fact. Just as the evidence that supports the theory of gravity is so strong that gravity is treated as a fact.

 

[createdtoworship]

There are mountains of evidence supporting "macroevolution" properly called "evolution". Just as there is evidence supporting "microevolution" properly known as "evolution".

It is not the fault of others if you do not know what qualifies as evidence.

The evidence is so strong that supports the theory of evolution that the process of evolution is treated as a fact. Just as the evidence that supports the theory of gravity is so strong that gravity is treated as a fact.

give me one fact, just one about macro evolution, or evolution between genra (genus level evolution)...(which is also required if a monkey to man evolution would occur)

 

[createdtoworship]

Gravity is a theory; theories explain phenomenon. I think a lot of people confuse theory with hypothesis. A hypothesis has not been proven and is designed so to test an educated guess. A theory explains either an observed fact or a believed to be true occurrence in nature. It is used to explain observations. Gravity is explained by a theory as well, and you can plainly see it happen.

like I said, give me just one fact about evolution between genus (or macro evolution) this will suffice to change my opinion.

 

[createdtoworship]

You are claiming the following:

"many if not all scientists regard it WITHOUT EVIDENCE as a fact"

How could you possibly know how "many if not all scientists" have used to form an opinion as to whether evolution is correct or not? PLEASE PRESENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM.

because I have never seen nor heard of one fact that holds water, while debating this issue 5 years. Other things are more debatable like escatology etc, but not this. There is not one fact that you can owe up to. With billions of dollars of federal money and expeditions galore, it is not a shock to me to find out that there is none to be had.

 

[bhsmte]

because I have never seen nor heard of one fact that holds water, while debating this issue 5 years. Other things are more debatable like escatology etc, but not this. There is not one fact that you can owe up to. With billions of dollars of federal money and expeditions galore, it is not a shock to me to find out that there is none to be had.

Well, that is your opinion, which is not in play, when you claim no scientists utilize the evidence when they agree with evolution. Scientists obviously feel and have stated, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and that is their opinion. Your opinion is yours, theirs is different. I understand you don't like this fact, but that is the way it is.

Still waiting for you to support this claim, by the way.

 

[biggles53]

like I said, give me just one fact about evolution between genus (or macro evolution) this will suffice to change my opinion.

The presence of ERV's.......

The fusing of chromosome 2 in humans...

There you go....you got two.....and I am just so certain that either or both will "change [your] opinion".....

[/sarcasm]

 

[Dizredux]

give me one fact, just one about macro evolution, or evolution between genra (genus level evolution)...(which is also required if a monkey to man evolution would occur)

OK, the genetic issue with vitamin C:

The gene that codes for gulonolactone oxidase is actually present in humans, but is not active due to the accumulation of several mutations that turned it into a non-functional pseudogene (Nishikimi & Yagi 1991). Notably, not only all humans, but also gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and some monkeys have this inborn genetic flaw, meaning that the loss of vitamin C biosynthesis must have occurred first in one of our primate ancestors

You ask and you got and you will probably ignore.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

lol, the scientific method is my view.....the popular view of science is not my view.

Again, why on earth did you post it if it was wrong?

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

however Evolution is not even a theory because the first step in the scientific method is observation and there is no direct observation of macro evolution (evolution between genra)

Oh my, you really don't understand the scientific method very well do you?

An observation of an event is not required. What is required is either the observation of the event or the observation of what the event does. Otherwise you would have to throw out geology, all of the astronomy based sciences, paleontology and several other scientific disciplines.

In none of these do you have to observe the event being studied.

I will repeat, Science has no requirement for the observation of the event itself.

Science does quite well studying the results of an event, the evidence the event leaves behind.

Click your heels and say it 20 times and it might begin to sink in.

Science has no requirement for the observation of the event itself.


Sigh

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

like I said, give me just one fact about evolution between genus (or macro evolution) this will suffice to change my opinion.

Evolution of that scale would normally take longer than multiple human lifespans. I could try an experiment... would plants be sufficient for you? They are easier to maintain than animals and produce far more offspring.

 

[createdtoworship]

Evolution of that scale would normally take longer than multiple human lifespans. I could try an experiment... would plants be sufficient for you? They are easier to maintain than animals and produce far more offspring.

a transitional form in the fossil record would suffice. But I would like to keep it as a breathing specimen. Certainly with all the species alive you could at least provide one? Yes?

 

[Kylie]

a transitional form in the fossil record would suffice. But I would like to keep it as a breathing specimen. Certainly with all the species alive you could at least provide one? Yes?

Two questions.

Firstly, what would such an organism need to have in order for you to be satisfied that it was a transitional fossil?

Secondly, why do you expect such an organism to be still alive?

 

[createdtoworship]

Oh my, you really don't understand the scientific method very well do you?

An observation of an event is not required. What is required is either the observation of the event or the observation of what the event does. Otherwise you would have to throw out geology, all of the astronomy based sciences, paleontology and several other scientific disciplines.

In none of these do you have to observe the event being studied.

I will repeat, Science has no requirement for the observation of the event itself.

Science does quite well studying the results of an event, the evidence the event leaves behind.

Click your heels and say it 20 times and it might begin to sink in.

Science has no requirement for the observation of the event itself.


Sigh

Dizredux

well you are speaking of sciences yes, perhaps. But only observational science. Forenic science does not observe the hypothesis either. But experimental sciences by definition must have observation. For example this link is entirely innacuration because evolution has never technically been observed and therefore cannot test any sort of hypothesis nor even be considered science. (experimental sciece as per a macro/genus level evolution)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Two questions.

Firstly, what would such an organism need to have in order for you to be satisfied that it was a transitional fossil?

Easy. I either have young or a closely related species that has young.

Secondly, why do you expect such an organism to be still alive?

She doesn't. You are conflating organisms and species.

 

[createdtoworship]

Two questions.

Firstly, what would such an organism need to have in order for you to be satisfied that it was a transitional fossil?

Secondly, why do you expect such an organism to be still alive?

alive, well yes. In fact evolution according to yourself and others is ongoing on the macro level. so you must also provide at least a few living transitions as well as numerous dead ones seeing the history of evolution being well along its way, time wise. But lets just start with one ( Living or dead- However you like it.) But I would like to keep it non plant life as I am not as familiar with that. My guess is that if you do come up with a transition between the arbitrary taxonomical levels of genus (which is a macro evolution required for monkey to man evolution..), they will be sterile which for our uses is well, useless. What good is a specimen that cannot pass down it's evolutionary traits. We might as well not even have the evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

Again, why on earth did you post it if it was wrong?

Dizredux

oh I see what you are saying, well I didn't mean to say the scientific method was not my view. What I meant to say was that evolution as so claimed is not infact a hypothesis at all or a theory technically speaking, it has no observational evidences. (non repeatable on a macro level) and therefore not susceptible to even testing or the scientific method. it's definately not a proven fact, It's just a scientific model. Not truly hardcore science. And resultingly, should not be federally funded (with my tax dollars for sure-IMHO).