Evolution.Mr. Perfect wrote:Biology.
Evolution
Re: Evolution
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Re: Evolution
Premature celebration.Mr. Perfect wrote:At this point we have no choice but to conclude that evolution is not science.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/africa/hu ... index.html
Quick interjection, evolutionists will always scream at me that evolution is settled science, but every time I turn around they are also proclaiming mysteries. Schizo.South Africa's Cradle of Humankind, an expanse of farmland and rolling hills outside Johannesburg, has already unlocked some of the great mysteries of evolution.
Are you ready for the kicker?The unveiling of a near-complete fossil hominid skeleton dating back 3.67 million years will only solidify the importance of the region.
"Little Foot" is the oldest fossil hominid skeleton ever found in Southern Africa, the lead scientist examining the discovery said on Wednesday.
This is game set match for the death of evolution.Some scientists have given it a far more recent place on the human evolutionary tree.
The "evolutionary trees" that we see are determined by debate and speculation of human beings, not by an independent testing process. For example we have litmus tests for pH balance, we have DNA tests to determine paternity and we use all kinds of metering to determine voltage, wattage and current. We are awash in independent tests of all kinds of physical phenomena.
Except evolution. No such tests exist.
Therefore it is not science.
Now this is not the only article that illustrates my point, it simply words it directly and simply in my favor. When you read evolution articles you will see the same thing over and over, descent is determined by speculation and arguing by a club of authorities, not independent testing.
Science is anything that conforms to the scientific method. ANything short of that is not science. Evolution fails the test in totality.
Scientific Method:
1. Observation
2. hypothesis
3. testing
Evolution:
1. There are all these species
2. They must have descended from each other
3. ---------
There is no independent testable methodology for determining descent. As such, descent itself has not been determined. Therefore, evolution is not science.
It's just tribal chieftains sitting around arguing and speculating.
Science is not a set of fixed collection of assertions claimed to be immutable. That is dogma.
Science is an ongoing process.
Paleoanthropology is an observational science, one uses the best information one has at a given time.
As new information is uncovered, our understanding is reviewed, debated, and updated.
The age of Little Foot is a matter of ongoing analysis and debate.
Science | 'Little Foot' Fossil Could Be Human Ancestor
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Evolution is one species turning into another species. This has never been observed or determined to happen.Typhoon wrote:Evolution.Mr. Perfect wrote:Biology.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Some people make that claim. I can spend the next year posting articles on "settled science"Typhoon wrote: Premature celebration.
Science is not a set of fixed collection of assertions claimed to be immutable.
True. So far evolution has not met the criteria and should not be considered science.That is dogma.
Science is an ongoing process.
Emphasis added. More cool stories.Paleoanthropology is an observational science, one uses the best information one has at a given time.
As new information is uncovered, our understanding is reviewed, debated, and updated.
The age of Little Foot is a matter of ongoing analysis and debate.
could-be[/size]-human-ancestor]Science | 'Little Foot' Fossil Could Be Human Ancestor
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
Lame attempt at gotchas.
Dogma claims absolutes.
Science does not. Every measurement or observation is associated with a statement of uncertainty.
whether it be the mass of an electron 0.5109989461(31) MeV/c [the numbers in () are the statistical and systematic error/uncertainty]
or the status and age of Little Foot.
Dogma claims absolutes.
Science does not. Every measurement or observation is associated with a statement of uncertainty.
whether it be the mass of an electron 0.5109989461(31) MeV/c [the numbers in () are the statistical and systematic error/uncertainty]
or the status and age of Little Foot.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Just so naps doesn't miss this classic.Mr. Perfect wrote:Wow. Please read the article next time. This might be the worst evolution article in history.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Galapogos Finches Caught in the Act of Becoming New Species
still waiting on you to pull that precambrian rabbit from your hat.
Oops, not evolution, but breeding.In 1981, the researchers noticed the arrival of a male of a non-native species, the large cactus finch.
Lol and quotes added. In case you need this spelled out this is a subjective human opinion.This new finch population is "sufficiently"different in form and "habits"
And for the hat trick.
So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying."We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere," said Prof Butlin.
Just for fun:
When people don't know the basics of their particular field it disqualifies them even further from making outrageous claims.In the past, it was thought that two different species must be unable to produce fertile offspring in order to be defined as such. But in more recent years, it has been established that many birds and other animals that we consider to be unique species are in fact able to interbreed with others to produce fertile young.
I think you posted the worst article in history on evolution. Please don't ever, ever, ever do that again.
Here in reality a bird turned into a bird, Bible style.
Maybe this is the worst line:
Evolution has never been observed and they admit it. Evolution is not science. Thank you Naps for providing an article on how evolution isn't science.This is the first example of speciation that scientists have been able to observe directly in the field.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
dont see what the fuss is.
if a bird changing into a slightly different type of bird isnt evolution then ape turning into a human isnt either, same type of biological variation.
the observed scientific differences between chimps and humans are very small indeed.
if a bird changing into a slightly different type of bird isnt evolution then ape turning into a human isnt either, same type of biological variation.
the observed scientific differences between chimps and humans are very small indeed.
you have shown a great resistance to caring about the details, maybe you are not interested in them.So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying.
ultracrepidarian
- Nonc Hilaire
- Posts: 6207
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am
Re: Evolution
I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.
Has this changed because of all the LGBTQ stuff?
Has this changed because of all the LGBTQ stuff?
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”
Teresa of Ávila
Teresa of Ávila
Re: Evolution
the problem is not scientific, the problem is human politics and the need to put things in neat boxes.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.
science isnt one person, or one faculty, their are many fields of biology and different areas of study plus their is a whole array of amateurs and existing pre genetic material all having opinions.
crudely, their are 2 camps, each of which is then furthur split into 2 camps, which has created a 5th camp of folks who dont give a crap about the squabbles of the other 4 camps.
camp a : phentoytpe people (ability to breed, shared visible physical traits)
group 1 lumpers: can they breed succesffuly
group 2 splitters: can they breed successfully and do they share enough other traits - perhaps chihuahuas and mastiffs cant breed even tho they can breed.
camp b: genotype people (how much genetic material do they share as a percentage)
also split between lumpers and splitters but this time its even messier due to the fact that some animals in the first group that can breed are actually relatively genetically different and other animals which cant breed are relatively genetically simmilar - the messy details of genetics and which genes make which changes.
this is why the 5th group has stopped caring about the word species beyond its general public usage because the only real scientific fact is how many genes they share and what traits they express and this may or may not be related to how they look/behave/breed.
in this viewpoint things are a spectrum of analog grey more than neat digital boxes of different shades and being able to breed is but one of the traits.
most non biology folks are in the first camp and arent interested in the subject matter enough to care about camp b's arguments - they will then lump or split depending on if they care about the animal in question or not - birders are notorious for splitting on appearances/behaviours/lifestyles when successful breeding is still possible.
other folks like mr p are prepared to lump all birds together as "bird".
think of the shitfight over the word planet and if pluto is a planetoid or not - all those arguments, all the passion and yet pluto is still the same lump of rock circling the sun - the significant part is the traits like being gravitationally important enough to clear your orbital, this is the actual science, the rest is squabbling.
the scientifically observable fact with the technology we have right now is the genetics is not black and white neat boxes, even if that upsets some people on moral or practical levels.
Last edited by noddy on Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
ultracrepidarian
Re: Evolution
This is the rule of thumb for differentiating between species.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.
However, there are situations wherein it breaks down as a guide.
Little influence . . . so far.Nonc Hilaire wrote:Has this changed because of all the LGBTQ stuff?
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Except birds may be the same species and I don't know anyone who thinks any ape is the same species as a human.noddy wrote:dont see what the fuss is.
if a bird changing into a slightly different type of bird isnt evolution then ape turning into a human isnt either, same type of biological variation.
Completely subjective statement.the observed scientific differences between chimps and humans are very small indeed.
Actually my arguments rest entirely on attention to detail, and how evolutionists never get the details right.you have shown a great resistance to caring about the details, maybe you are not interested in them.So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying.
The honest answer is evolutionists have to identify very clearly their little boxes. As highlighted in the article above evolutionists don't even bother to define species, and if you can't define species, you cannot define speciation.
For example, some biologists will tell you that an elephant and donkey are 2 different species you because they look different and can't reproduce. Other biologists will tell you that a grizzly bear and a polar bear are different species even though they can interbreed. These are 2 incongruent definitions. They cannot be reconciled. And I can pull up endless accounts of biologists using both definitions.
These are details your side has failed at, in totality. It's not my fault in the slightest.
Censorship isn't necessary
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
I tend to lump "dog" together more than "bird". The dog thing is far more demonstrable (they can all interbreed despite tremendous morphological differences). I can't get a straight answer on birds.noddy wrote: other folks like mr p are prepared to lump all birds together as "bird".
Censorship isn't necessary
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8436
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Evolution
It's a matter of intelligibility. Species is a philosophical term and remains a philosophical problem. I guess what I'm sayin' is: what's the matter with organization?noddy wrote:the problem is not scientific, the problem is human politics and the need to put things in neat boxes.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.
Everyone always talks against it but, generally live by it (unless anyone reading this is of the extremely disorganized types-- ie beyond a messy desk.)
think of the shitfight over the word planet and if pluto is a planetoid or not - all those arguments, all the passion and yet pluto is still the same lump of rock circling the sun
Pluto used to be cool when it was a real planet.
...there is something to be said too for a popular reaction against the idea that a group of self-appointing experts can get together and determine what is and isn't a planet [the average person's sense of the cosmos] and then expects everyone to conform to their opinions and believe everything about the cosmos exactly as they believe it. Even when it makes fine, practical sense to reorganize it as such.
Thinking about that: Neil Tyson, who I believe was involved with promoting on the un-planetarian-ness of Pluto, used it as a launch pad for his official "Scientist Man" celebrity-career.
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8436
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Evolution
hah, I didn't miss it. I read that article the other day, and you bumped this thread- so it was the perfect time to post it.Mr. Perfect wrote:Just so naps doesn't miss this classic.Mr. Perfect wrote:Wow. Please read the article next time. This might be the worst evolution article in history.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:Galapogos Finches Caught in the Act of Becoming New Species
still waiting on you to pull that precambrian rabbit from your hat.
Oops, not evolution, but breeding.In 1981, the researchers noticed the arrival of a male of a non-native species, the large cactus finch.
Lol and quotes added. In case you need this spelled out this is a subjective human opinion.This new finch population is "sufficiently"different in form and "habits"
And for the hat trick.
So don't ever post an article where someone is claiming a speciation where in the article itself they refuse to even identify what a species is, let alone discourage you from trying."We tend not to argue about what defines a species anymore, because that doesn't get you anywhere," said Prof Butlin.
Just for fun:
When people don't know the basics of their particular field it disqualifies them even further from making outrageous claims.In the past, it was thought that two different species must be unable to produce fertile offspring in order to be defined as such. But in more recent years, it has been established that many birds and other animals that we consider to be unique species are in fact able to interbreed with others to produce fertile young.
I think you posted the worst article in history on evolution. Please don't ever, ever, ever do that again.
Here in reality a bird turned into a bird, Bible style.
Maybe this is the worst line:
Evolution has never been observed and they admit it. Evolution is not science. Thank you Naps for providing an article on how evolution isn't science.This is the first example of speciation that scientists have been able to observe directly in the field.
That you proceeded to fisk it out of defensiveness is your own thing, dude.
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Ooh, sorry I didn't realize that you were posting it as anti evolution , my bad.
Censorship isn't necessary
Re: Evolution
organisational catagories are great, according to the wikipedia their are 28 of them for species depending on your own priorities.NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:It's a matter of intelligibility. Species is a philosophical term and remains a philosophical problem. I guess what I'm sayin' is: what's the matter with organization?noddy wrote:the problem is not scientific, the problem is human politics and the need to put things in neat boxes.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I thought a species was defined as the capability of having virile offspring. Burros and horses are seperate species because their offspring, the mule, is sterile and cannot continue the bloodline.
Everyone always talks against it but, generally live by it (unless anyone reading this is of the extremely disorganized types-- ie beyond a messy desk.)
ultracrepidarian
-
- Posts: 16973
- Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am
Re: Evolution
Me thinks evolution exists everywhere except in this thread.
Which of course proves the existence of "virtual black holes." Bodies without mass, yet which exert gravitational fields so powerful that nothing escapes their influence.
"Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." My doctoral thesis....
Holy Crap! I just started my research by Googleing "Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." and it took me to bing.com! Another valid datapoint!
Every time I do the same, I get the same result. Unlimited self-validation!
Now, since, as I understand it, anyone with a doctorate degree can give anyone else a doctorate degree anytime they feel like it, so hopefully typhoon is emailing my Ph.D. or maybe even a P.H.D. to me as we speak....
Which of course proves the existence of "virtual black holes." Bodies without mass, yet which exert gravitational fields so powerful that nothing escapes their influence.
"Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." My doctoral thesis....
Holy Crap! I just started my research by Googleing "Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." and it took me to bing.com! Another valid datapoint!
Every time I do the same, I get the same result. Unlimited self-validation!
Now, since, as I understand it, anyone with a doctorate degree can give anyone else a doctorate degree anytime they feel like it, so hopefully typhoon is emailing my Ph.D. or maybe even a P.H.D. to me as we speak....
Re: Evolution
the argument appears to be summarised at http://evolutiondismantled.com/affirmin ... consequent
the premise being that they have a gotcha, based on wordplay based on an incorrect assertation, based on pure malevolent ignorance.
it is asserted that the evolutionists believe that dna simmilarities are the primary evidence and thusly use backwards logic,
the premise being that they have a gotcha, based on wordplay based on an incorrect assertation, based on pure malevolent ignorance.
it is asserted that the evolutionists believe that dna simmilarities are the primary evidence and thusly use backwards logic,
"If evolution were true, there would be DNA similarities. There are DNA similarities. Therefore, evolution is true.”
Last edited by noddy on Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ultracrepidarian
Re: Evolution
the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.
aint that nifty.
the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
aint that nifty.
the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
ultracrepidarian
Re: Evolution
"will work" for whom? maybe not. consider the subjects you are observing.noddy wrote:the cool bit about evolution is if anyone actually does find evidence that disproves the current theory, it will become the new theory.
aint that nifty.
the fact some folks dont find it convincing or emotionally satisfying isnt relevant, only better theories with more evidence will work.
- NapLajoieonSteroids
- Posts: 8436
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm
Re: Evolution
You could say I was naturally selected to produce hot air at unlimited volumes.Simple Minded wrote:Holy Crap! I just started my research by Googleing "Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." and it took me to bing.com! Another valid datapoint!
Re: Evolution
as a producer of both CO2 and methane, I am guilty as charged!NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:You could say I was naturally selected to produce hot air at unlimited volumes.Simple Minded wrote:Holy Crap! I just started my research by Googleing "Virtual reality contains unlimited volume in which both anti-matter and anti-thought can harmoniously co-exist." and it took me to bing.com! Another valid datapoint!
Re: Evolution
Ok but.. does God evolve, have an opinion? Or is he so virtual that anything goes.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Re: Evolution
"Even the seemingly immortal gods survive as long as they are needed by mortal man!"Parodite wrote:Ok but.. does God evolve, have an opinion? Or is he so virtual that anything goes.
Obviously (maybe?), god, or one's concept of him/her must evolve as the believer evolves, or else the believer might outgrow the need for their god. I doubt that most longtime believers have an unchanging belief their entire lives.
Not intended in any way to prove or disprove the existence of god.
Some humans I have known have become better people after finding god, some have gotten worse. Give god the credit for the better behavior in the successful cases, but give humans the blame for the worse behavior in the unsuccessful cases?