Evolution is a joke pt XI

That link does not support your opinion that the ToE has 'not passed the scientific method' nor does it support your opinion that the ToE is 'retarded'. You have not offered any scientific discourse to corroborate your belief that the ToE does not constitute a scientific theory. All you have offered to support your opinions is rhetoric, hyperbole and logical fallacies. If you are serious about having a substantive debate about the ToE why don't you introduce some scientific discourse or empirical data that actually supports your opinions on the topic.

 

Fair enough, if they started it. I must admit I haven't followed the thread THAT closely.

 

If you are aware that it is meaningless to talk about trying to prove a theory, then that good to hear.

Your abrasive and insulting manner is not, tho., so I guess I wont provide you with more opportunities to display it.

 

Hello cooky.

You are correct the University of Berkeley does not hold my opinion on evolution. But, it does state the same things that I have stated. The only difference is I do not have faith in Darwinism and they do. They are true believers in their Religion. Me looking from the outside in, can see how their faith works, how they use speculation to manipulate others to believe in their religion. Here, I will show you something I have have showed so many!

An example from the site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_50

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists' work. These are all activities that we can, and should, hold up to our checklist and ask the question: are they doing science?

All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world. Evolutionary biology is no exception. Darwin's basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification (illustrated with a page from his notebook at left) explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world.

Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?


Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?


How does evolution produce new and complex features?


Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?

And I will say this, how can you have those questions unanswered? How does evolution change DNA? How long does it take? What processes happen?... From their own site. I already know this, and I know that there is no evidence of evolution! They just stated they don't either. If they have experimented and saw life evolve, they would know how long it took, the processes, how DNA changed... But, they don't know because nobody has seen it happen, nor has any processes to even "get" to evolution been observed.

It’s right there in Black and White! They are not telling lies, they just know that people are sheep and followers. I am neither.

So, why do you believe in evolution when every study, book, paperwork, everything states that it has not been observed nor pass the scientific method? It’s a “guess” on what they think happened and nothing more, and now it’s a religion. Do you have faith that what they say actually happened without evidence of it happening? Because having faith is surely not biological science… It's being religious...

 

Their first two posts I didn't even respond to thinking they would just go away, but the poster didn't...

 

READERS - it's a short reply to all I posted, so... How do you think taikoo is going to bow out? Gracefully, A Grasping moment? Some nonsense? But, we all know what's about to happen right?

Check and Mate!

Also, evolution is not a theory...

 

You sidestepped the topic again, whether you understand that its impossible to prove a theory, and got in a couple more falsehoods.

Evolution is a process, not a theory. The theory of evolution is a theory.

 

If you are going to make the claim that 'every study, book, paperwork and EVERYTHING states that evolution has not been observed nor pass the scientific method' you need to provide a substantial and compelling body of evidence to support it. You have not provided a single scientific paper from a reputable journal that explicitly states that the ToE 'has not passed the scientific method' or that evolution or evidence to support evolution has not been observed. Whats more, you have not provided a single piece of empirical evidence that contradicts the modern synthesis of the ToE. If you are going take a position that is contrary to scientific dogma you need to have compelling direct evidence to support your position. Thus far you have failed to provide any direct scientific evidence to support your position nor have you been able to provide any scientific discourse which corroborates your views. If you want to have a serious discussion about the ToE you need to come correct.

The ToE could be easily disproven if you could provide evidence that would falsify any of these things :

1) Proteins are synthesized by ribosomes in all three domains of life (archaea, bacteria, eukaryotes)

2) DNA/RNA is the universal informational molecule used by all three domains of life

3)The genetic code (codons) common to all three domains of life

4) empirical evidence from the fields of molecular biology, biochemistry, phylogenetics, geology, chemistry and physics all supports the modern ToE. Essentially, there is no empirical evidence that contradicts the ToE

 

Cooky, do you actually think that after so many years these idiots being wrong they are just going to admit it? Really?.. Lose all their grant money the Gov’t is giving them… Just pack up and quit…

And I just did provide evidence from the leading school of Evolution in the United States! Did you just not read it?!?!? Or did you have your blinders on…

These are impossible to falsify due to - we do not have life that is not made up of proteins that we know of in the universe. If we find out life is on Mars and it’s made up of the same stuff, does that mean it ALSO had a common ancestor? Of course not and to use your analysis is just plain ridiculous. This is more religious propaganda. If they find life on the moon of Saturn it will be composed of DNA and Proteins just like us!! (that is why it’s called “Life as we know it”) Life can only exist of the same crap we have in us. This is just more religious garbage cooky – it’s like saying well, we don’t have trees made out of steel and if we don’t see steel trees – evolution is real… That is not how science works – let me show you: If all life as we know it is of proteins (the control) then what is the independent variable that you can bring forth to make your statements falsifiable? Because you can’t say things evolved if life can only happy with DNA and Proteins… Your variables would need to be life outside of proteins and DNA. Do you have this?

But, I’ll give you a shot cooky – for your statement to be true please give me an experimental equation that shows “how” what you stated above can be falsified? hint; you’ll need independent variables

I am pretty sure you looked into what you posted BEFORE posting it here right?

They DO NOT support evolution!!! That is a bunch of straight bullcrap!!!! Wait.. How does physics fit in with biology first off…

Then after that – we have 8,7 million species of life on this planet (that we know of – probably about one third of what is actually here) please provide one lifeform out of all those species who has had an “advantageous” mutation – just give me ONE life form on this planet – there has to be one…. OR – you can provide an experiment that states they have introduced complexity to DNA.

It’s like you didn’t read what UofB stated… None of what you posted is correct – if you think that University of Berkeley is wrong then you are calling the leading college incorrect.

 

With all this talk of proteins and ribosomes and so on, it may be easy to lose sight of some facts.

1. For every species, there is a date in the past beyond which there is no evidence of it existing.
2. There has never been any reliable evidence of anything supernatural happening, anywhere, ever.

Therefore:

3. Species appear to have came into existence at various time through natural processes.
4. Whatever those natural processes happen to be, "evolution" is as good a name as any for that process.

I'll leave the technical details up to those with a deeper understandind of science, but it seems plain as day that unless you believe in supernatural causes, evolution MUST be correct.

 

Please show me where the UofB link contradicts my last post. I would say tt's like you didn't read UofB link as it corroborates my position almost verbatim... as stated in your link....

"All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors."

By explicity rejecting the commonality of DNA/RNA and protein synthesis as proof that all three domains of life share a common ancestor you are implicitly suggesting that DNA/RNA, ribosomes and codons arose numerous times over geologic time. Do you seriously believe that uncommon ancestors evolved the same mechanism for protein translation? Can you explain why codons become universal if they evolved convergently?

That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood. Your presupposition that an equation is required is silly. All that is required is empirical evidence. As such, can you provide any empirical evidence that contradicts common descent? How many times must I request such evidence?

Here is an example of a beneficial mutation. Sure was easy to find.. took all of 5 seconds
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask10

Surely you based your opinion concerning the ToE on empirical data. Please provide the evidence you used to inform you opinion.

 

We have empirical evidence that he uses word tricks to try to pretend that
ToE is not a theory or even science.

That way there is no need to attempt what nobody has ever been able to do. disprove / falsify it with, you know, data.

 

Evolution is are only alternative to magic

 

Has the Milky Way always been as it is now?

 

I doubt if there are enough gerbils to create all of the gravity in the universe. What do gerbils eat on stars? Stars have lots of gravity so there must be a lot of gerbils on them. Thanks for giving us a new theory to consider.

 

Those are interesting theories. They are both very original. I think you are the only person to have ever expressed them. Can you provide more details?

I'm intrigued about your theory that the Earth is God. If that's true what does that mean for all of the other celestial objects in the universe. Is each planet a god? Pluto was considered to be a planet. When the scientists decided that it wasn't a planet what happened to its god? Did Pluto's god move to Neptune or did it leave the solar solar to find a planet whose god has died?

There are lots of other space aliens besides the ones in StarTrek. What about the ones in StarWars and Babylon 5? Maybe one of those brought animals to Earth. That weird looking Jar Jar Binks guy could have left the platypus here. You should investigate that.

 

Do you know which galaxy our solar system came from?

 

Organisms change over time because of the effects that various bacteria and viruses have on them.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=backseat-drivers

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.575.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7172/abs/nature06350.html

http://www.docblog.org/new-analysis...-drive-evolution-in-viruses-and-bacteria.html

 

No. Was the milky way a little baby galaxy that was born when a daddy galaxy and a mummy galaxy who love each other very much cuddle in a special way?

 

The Milky Way is actually composed of several smaller galaxies. In fact, our solar system is from the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy which is currently being assimilated into the larger Milky Way Galaxy.

Scientists Now Know: We're Not From Here!
http://viewzone2.com/milkywayx.html

So if you don't know where you are from maybe you do have to believe in an invisible sky god.

 

So, that's a slightly longer way of avoiding having to admit the answer is 'no', then.

What is that, some variation on the Chewbacca Defence?

 

I’ll just whip through this for you. UofB stated that basically evolution has not been observed nor have they any information (that means none) on how mutations could develop complexity. Therefore, that whole evolution theory is now a pipe dream. If there is no observation or experimentation then it doesn’t pass the scientific method. So, what happens to hypothesis when they don’t pass the method?

Not all life has the same codons. That is an incorrect statement. And the evidence of DNA not liking to be changed and if we do, horrible things happens is the evidence that states it can’t happen in nature. It’s that easy…

I suggest you read your article – it wasn’t a mutation and they state that in the article you provide… swing and a miss…

I used the issues from UofB site! It’s all there… all you have to do is read!

 

One of my favorites!!!

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-evolutionists-wont-tell-evolution-paleontologists-5833518.html?cat=4

 

First, i'll present the central question:
Does evolution provide a scientific & logical explanation for the origins & complexity of life?

I say it does not. Here are my reasons:
1. Micro evolution, or natural selection, explains how species adapt to their environment. The result of this adaptation is a decrease in diversity in the species, as the genetic pool limits itself to certain traits that are favorable to the environment. This is dark moths adapting to dark bark on trees, white rabbits doing better in the snow, & other natural selection processes. This kind of evolution does not increase complexity, but decreases it, as fewer genetic traits become available to the species. There is no known mechanism that causes an increase in genetic complexity. Mutations are aberrations in the genetic code, seldom produce anything positive for the species, & do not increase the complexity of the life form. It does not indicate macro evolution.

2. To say that micro evolution proves 'macro' evolution is a leap of logic. It is like saying that since we know people can travel easily between towns, they can travel easily between planets. There is a major difference between natural selection, which is a scientifically observable phenomenon used in breeding & hybridization, and the increase in complexity in a life form.

3. There is no mechanism that can explain why or how life can become more complex through evolution. It is assumed, & that is a faulty assumption. It is not good science, nor good logic. Neither mutation nor millions of years provide any mechanism or even explanation of HOW, but it is erroneously extrapolated based on natural selection. But just asserting that a species adapted over millions of years does not make it true, nor is it based on any scientific or logical constructs. It is speculation & fantasy.

4. One of the most basic concepts in science is that of entropy, or the tendency of all things to move to less complexity. Unless acted upon by an outside source, all of the universe is moving toward equilibrium & a simple state. There is no known mechanism that explains HOW or WHAT is causing life to increase in complexity. If anything, in recorded history, life is decreasing in complexity & diversity. Unique species are lost, and distinct new ones are not being added. We have variation within a life form's genetic limitations, but no moving into more complexity. This is what you would expect with entropy, & it brings a major difficulty to those claiming an increase in complexity through evolution.

5. As to origins, there is no mechanism or procedure that can create life.. real, reproducing life, not just some amino acids or 'building blocks' of life. There is nothing that can be measured, repeated, falsified, or even theorized. It is a leap of faith to believe life began spontaneously & increased in complexity for millions of years. There is no valid scientific explanation for this, even though it is asserted as fact in many spheres.

I am not making an argument for special creation, or alien seeding, or any other theories or speculations of origins. I am including evolution with the others. Our origins are a mystery, which science & logic have not been able to explain to this point. Macro evolution, or the increase in complexity in life forms, is an unproven speculation & fantasy.

 

Yet again, I feel this is worth repeating: new life forms show all the hallmarks of having come into existence at different times in the past. As it would happen, these new life forms generally tend to be more complex over time. Unless you propose a supernatural explanation, or deny the evidence, then the occurrence of evolution is absolutely indisputable: only the mechanism by which it happens is open to negotiation.