Evolution is a joke pt. XV

EXACTLY!!!

NO ANSWERS...

look... You didn't read the text I submitted, nor know what Evolution is.

How about this.



Why don't you tell me what, in your own mind, evolution is? Tell me your definition of evolution and we can go from there.

 

So, explain Adaptation please.

After that, give evidence that these change DNA sequences.

None of them do. Proven by science, they do not, but if you have FAITH they do, I am here to tell you it is not science, but a myth like gremlins who steal your left socks at night..

 

Give an example please...

 

How a "new" species can mate with a previous species to start.

My hypothesis is that evolution has not passed the scientific method. If it has, show me the case study that made it theory.

You will not find it, because it does not exist.

 

Love this...

From the top - (don't know how you did the cropping - kudos). I will go on paragraphs and number them.

First paragraph (P): Disagree - they use FAITH because they want evolution to be a theory and them (with all their intelligent minds) not to be wrong.

Second P:. Agreed - remember you said "beliefs" instead of theories.

Third P:. I would say, in my studies, it is about 50/50 on this subject, but that is taking away from my subject. God has nothing to do with evolution.

Forth:. You are wrong. You have to come up with a hypothesis from recurring events then produce a paper (case study) that others review. After that,the other study and put it through the scientific method. If it does not pass, it stays a fictional unicorn.

Great example is String Theory. They called it a theory before it went through the scientific method. When it did, it was thrown out as bullcrap.

I believe that Evolution is the same, but since the mass population agreed - it has become faith based.

Now... I can get into specifications of you want. I will do one for just you.

What Evolutionary diagram do you think is right? Their are many... Just like religion - so... Which person is right dealing with Evolution?

 

Thank you for giving some Home School website to validate your argument. Nice.

It makes my credibility actually stronger since you couldn't find anything from an Institution of Knowledge like a biochemistry site.

Thank you for proving my point. No true scientist believes in Evolution. Thank you.

 

I have several times. Please read before skipping to the end.

If you have questions, please ask. I have given everything you need to discuss the topic from a website that explains Evolution.

Please do not disrespect those who are engaged in a debate without any use but to disrupt. If you want to involve yourself, please read what I provided for or against and post.

No need to try to get "likes" for being the class clown.

 

I read the text you submitted. It is demonstrably incorrect. I know what evolution is, it's why i'm able to refute your troll of a thread.

how about I just give you 10 peer reviewed papers explaining what evolution is, and why it is a demonstrable fact?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

You are free to submit your own paper for peer review, in an effort to prove evolution is incorrect. You would be the most famous scientist in history were you able to do so.

 

I used to get annoyed at this kind of stupidity, but now I just see it as either a troll (most likely), or wilfull ignorance, as if he's smarter than thousands of scientists, and can prove anything by crude arguments on an internet forum. I guess he has nothing else to do.

 

Mutations are not usually of much help. However, in some cases they do present a benefit that can broadly be described as being beneficial given the environment. A beak becomes stronger or narrower or whatever, thus providing access to more food or being a better weapon. A predator becomes faster due to lighter bone structure. Or, whatever.

Over time, individuals that exhibit these helpful mutations are more successful than those without them.

So, the adaptation of evolution comes from the environment selecting which DNA sequences are superior. You can describe that as "adaptation" if you like, but it is a totally open competition that has allowed for LARGE numbers of strategies for success.

The environment doesn't actually change DNA - it just selects in favor of those of the population that have DNA sequences that exhibit superior solutions.

 

Changes that result in speciation usually involve gradual drift. A population is divided by some factor - a mountain range, altitude, available food, etc. All that is necessary is that the population divides enough that they don't constantly interbreed. Then, the changes in the sub populations drifts in different directions because of those environmental differences and just the fact that there are numerous strategies for success and the two subpopulations will improve their success in different ways as their environments are different and their random mutations are different.

There are also factors involving how sexual procreation works at the cellular level.

Humans are at some disadvantage in seeing speciation, because we don't live very long and speciation requires many generations. Still, we see evolution everywhere we look in biology. Everywhere. We see elephants developing shorter tusks, because poachers kill large tusked elephants. We see fish species get smaller because we take the big fish. We see moths change color to adapt to clean vs. dirty buildings. We see viruses and bacteria change so they learn to live through or otherwise avoid our onslaught of defenses against disease. We see every food crop in the entire world change, because humans select and propagate the better individuals that we want to eat.

Evolution has proven itself so significantly that it is now a foundation for ALL biology. Natural change that happens in life forms conforms to evolution.

There is NO other competing theory or hypothesis. Anyone (or groups) who could find a competing idea would be permanently famous through history. They would be the new Darwin. It would offer the chance to improve ALL biological sciences from the study of cells to medicine, to agriculture, and everything else in biology.

 

1) I did not leave it out .. just because I did not go on and on about it - does not mean I left it out.
2) What part of "Evolution was not part of the conversation" except until the very end - is not clear - as we were discussing abiogenesis - which I stated up front - was not reliant on evolution .. "Until" the point I took it too ..

At which Point I stated Evolution takes over .. and gave the basics of natural selection - those that are better adapted to survival - have a better chance at producing offspring..

What more about natural selection .. would you like me to discuss - in relation to abiogenesis .. or .. do we not want to move towards how evolution took us from the place I left off .. to Apes ?

 

You ask a question "wouldn't others still breed and evolve as lesser species" - but then give examples that make no sense - and then claim you have debunked something on this basis.

1) The "Less fit" - do breed - but, their offspring have a lower chance of survival .. so over time .. NO you do not have "evolution into lower species" ..they die off ..

Then you infer that a sloth and cow are somehow "Lower Species" .. which is fallacy - Cow and Sloth are extremely well adapted to survive in a suitable environment. . which is why they are still around. Those that were less well suited to the environment at the time .. died off - and are no longer with us.

For every species that is with us .. there are thousands that have died off. Your examples of "Lesser Species" were all false examples .. which is part of why your claim fails.

but - even if this was the case .. not sure how this would have debunked anything I said. ... but it was simply false .. so no matter.

 

I'm beginning to think these folks do not actually give a crap about evolution or abiogenesis.

They don't so much as look up what these terms mean.

And, then they hope for some high school or above course spoon fed in a single post.

What the heck has become of America?

 

You were supposed to learn this stuff in HIGH SCHOOL.

If you want to enter higher education in a field of science, learning about evolution is REMEDIAL.

Biochemists are not there to teach you high school.

 

You get this conflation of evolution with abiogenesis far too often .. this is true .. and this is due to not understanding the basic principle of how evolution works - which I gave at the very beginning - "mutations happen - some are beneficial - others are not" - these mutations lead to different characteristics - which - over time - and many offspring and many many mutations later over millions of years .. result in in a creature that is different enough to be called a different species.

and 2) those who luck out and the mutations improve their survival chances - have a higher probability of both surviving and reproducing .. - Alfa male getting more lionesses - those that keep getting the short end of the genetic stick have less probability of survival - and then there are external environmental factors .. the best suited survive once again.

Did I leave anything out ? - 2 paragraphs - should save this and just cut and past next time it comes up.

oh and 3) this is not "Abiogenesis" - as you first need a self replicating molecule - and various other factors for evolution to happen = up to this point there is no "evolution" as there is nothing to evolve .. sans one mutation of a molecule - which has no ability for self replication in an evolutionary sense.

 

Thank you for CONFIRMING that this thread is NOTHING but TROLLING by yet AGAIN failing to ATTEMPT to substantiate your bovine excrement allegations about Evolution.

Sad!

 

Puerile ad hom VIOLATION of PF Rules REMOVED with a WARNING that any more will be REPORTED.

Trolling, trolling, trolling,
Keep those canards flowing,
Strawman!



https://samanthanorth.com/8-common-online-trolling-tactics-and-how-to-handle-them/

BUSTED!

 

Wanting something to be true really bad doesn't necessarily make it faith. Faith is knowingly believing in something with little evidence. Deluding yourself into seeing evidence that isn't there isn't faith, its just rationalization, which is different from faith.

A theory is just a type of belief. Many beliefs are 100% true, like the earth being round(ish).

Lets run the numbers. 90% of Americans believe in a God or higher power. About 55% of people believe in evolution. Therefore Only 10% out of the 55% are evolutionists who don't believe in God or a higher power.

All you did was detail the beaurocratic process where a hypothesis becomes a theory. But you left out the evidence required in this process which was my focus. Also, just because something isn't confirmed by the scientific method yet, doesn't make it fictional.

There are two definitions of "theory". There is the non-scientific definition which is a lot looser and can include conjectures and hypotheses. A scientific theory requires mountains of evidence. "String Theory" is using the non-scientific term, its really a hypothesis. String theory has also not been refuted, it just lacks evidence at this point.

Actually the public is split on evolution, only about 55% accept it. However 98% of scientists accept evolution.

An evolutionary diagram is just a simplification and a visual for a vastly complex tree of species that are evolving. No diagram is completely correct and as we dig up more fossils and learn about DNA, our diagrams are getting more and more accurate. We know that all life shares a common ancestor but our knowledge of exactly what happened during evolution is still improving.

You also failed to respond to my point about retrovirus DNA. This is very strong evidence for evolution.

 

[...][/QUOTE]
This is true in general usage, but it's not so true in science.

In science, scientific method, a theory is a collection of one or more hypotheses that have undergone significant testing and review and have never been shown to be false. Beyond that, a theory needs to prove useful in exploring our universe.

And, our strongest theories continue to be tested - and will continue to be tested. All of biology has the theory of evolution as a foundation - it is used continually, and if it were to fail or if a better theory were found, it would be a HUGELY important advance in biology. That's not what happens with "belief".

The same goes with the theory of relativity. It is constantly tested today, even more so, because there are known issues with the current model of physics. So, it's is tested today FAR more than it has ever been tested in the past. That's not "belief" - that is "assault".

Furthermore, every physicist's dream is to break the theory of relativity - finding holes in logic is how science advances. Obviously, that has NOTHING to do with how "belief" works.

So, the Earth being roundish is not a theory. It's just an observation.

So, theory is NOTHING like belief - unless you're just talking about the casual usage where you can call ANYTHING a theory or the untestable extrapolations of theoretical physics, where mathmatical consistencey and consistency with what is known is required, but testing isn't possible due to limits of modern technology.

 

Thank You for the link. It took a while, but ran through some of the articles you submitted.

I still have not found the experiment that provided how Evolution surpassed The Scientific Method. Maybe I missed it.

Could you provide it since I saw nothing that shows Evolution as a theory.

 

Google "Scientific Method", after that Google "Evolution 101". After that you will understand what Evolution is.

Then you can understand why Evolution is faith based. Because it is...

 

FINALLY!!!

I agree with most of your post. But, to jump from what is witnessed in biology and through experimentation does not equate that all life evolved from a pile of goo.

The easiest of these are, when we crossbreed different species they are unable to reproduce. DNA/RNA does not confirm anything that a fish can turn into a cat, or a plant into an animal. Why ferns have more chromosomes that humans.

Yes, speciation, adaptation and certain parts of natural selection can be observed, but that is not what Evolution is. Evolution's definition is that ALL life shares a common ancestor.

Do you agree on the definition of Evolution?

 

Time is insignificant since Evolution is (yes in basic terms - time), but lifecycles. Some plants can live centuries, while other life just hours. This does equate to "actual" time since time for us is not the same for other life on this planet.

Please explain how your idea of mutation works for plants and single cell organisms?

Lastly, most (like over 95%) of life have no choice in mating. Even in the animal world rape happens far more frequent than what you believe...

 

Exactly, google anything substitutes for real knowledge...the troll of the world...knowing little and understanding less...