500 Americans dont believe in evolution

You sound like you're telling me to ignore science and go with "common sense". There are TONS of stuff in science that go directly against common sense. Anti-intellectuals tell people to ignore science and listen to common sense. Creationists say that. Common sense doesn't begin explain quantum physics or almost anything in life beyond simple machines and situations.

Both Sgt. Speedbump and Mike33 will never accept the reality of evolution -- irrespective of the evidence put before them -- because it's not the evidence they have a problem with but the idea of common decent.

They are not interested in looking at the evidence. They have been supplied with relevant links time and time again and NOT ONCE has either of them responded directly to the scientific evidence. Neither of them have even made reference to it.

The way they have both had to led by the nose through basic evolutionary ideas in this thread - and that's clear to anyone who reads it from beginning to end - shows that both their understanding and knowledge of the subject is limited.

You may have studied science for years, but biology was not one of those sciences. You insist on making elementary mistakes such as combining abiogenesis and evolution into the same theory. If you were given a high school level biology exam, I have little doubt you would flunk it.

I like that statement! :thumbsup

Call it whatever you like. Neither have been scientifically established or demonstrated. If you want to call the origin of life abiogenesis and evolution as the process that spawned from it, it's merely the same thing at different points on the spectrum of life.

I read thru the 29+ evidences for macroevolution. Point to anything directly that you'd like me to reference.

You haven't used the socratic method at all. As a matter of fact, the socratic method has been used on you and backed you into a corner that you can't get out of. You've refused to tell me how natural selection in large animals can occur without mutation after I questioned you into admitting that natural selection does in fact occur. You're stuck on that paradox and have ignored several repostings of the question.

I don't have to be a doctor to know that if I have a headache and the doctor begins beating me over the head with a hammer, that he's hurting me and not helping me.

The premise of evolution is very simple. You choose to distinguish the origin of life and the evolution of life. I don't. To me they're interwined, and neither has supporting evidence. Semantics won't work here. Nice try.

Instead of giving links to 500 page essays on an issue, reference any small fraction of it that you'd like me to refute. It'll be easy to do so.

I've questioned you to see how you will support your beliefs. You've shown salient natural selection. I've shown you that depening on how you interpret it, it can be considered natural selection, but that's it's not always the case.

Natural selection occuring without mutations? LOL. Ok, here's an example. Person A has a higher threshold for cold weather than Person B. There is no mutation here. All of a sudden the weather gets really cold. Person B dies while Person A lives. There ya go. An example of natural selection without mutation. Was that so hard?

HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHA!!!! You're kidding, right? Go get a biologist right now, tell him what you've told us and I'll bet you any amount of money that he WILL NOT agree with almost anything you've said. Tell you what, write me a letter, e-mail it to me. I'll take it to every biologist at my wife's university, have them read it, make comments on it and mail it to you with their handwritten comments. I'll even include their contact information if you want to verify that they actually wrote those comments. How much do you want to bet they'll not agree with almost any of your positions? I'm so confident here, that I'll bet you my rent money. Please take me up, I could use a few hundred extra bucks right about now.

Oh god, please write that shit down and bet me my rent money that I can get a whole department of biologists to unanimously tell you you're full of it.

What is it you'd like me to write?

Here's a easier solution. Why not copy and paste all of what I've written and give it to your biology teacher. Send me their comments with FULL contact information for them and I'll verify their comments.

Here's a easier solution. Why not copy and paste all of what I've written and give it to your biology teacher. Send me their comments with FULL contact information for them and I'll verify their comments.

IGF-1 is a highly anabolic hormone, second only to testosterone and growth hormone. If you're saying they release less of it, I'll go with that, because I'll bet my left nut that they don't have more of it.

Anything would be fine.

All the evidence is there. What part of it do you have a problem with?

No, you tell me what you want me to address specifically since you're arguing I haven't been. I believe I have. So I've been missing what you want me to address.

Bullshit, they're NOT the same thing, they're VERY different. That's like saying a car and an orange are the same thing. Abiogensis is a different theory then evolution. One is about how minerals might have been dissolved into a liquid and eventually bonded in such a manner to create RNA. How in the hell is that the same thing as natural selection of random mutations for fitness in a natural environment?

CET, I'll take you up on your bet.

OH PLEASE write that shit down and let me take it to an entire biology department! I would love to bet my rent money on this shit! If you're so confident, then you won't mind taking my $500, right?

LOL, is it or is it not a theory about the origin of life?

And about your second statement, it seems to me you're confusing natural selection and cell mutations with evolution. I've already shown you that neither necessarily leads to evolution. That is us coming from single cells.

Definitely, I'll take you up.

So I win if I am able to get your biology professor (any one of them) to admit that it's a belief. If they don't than I owe you, right?

Forward it to the highest of the high biology profressor. The best of the best at your school. Provide full contact info. I will chat with him/her also.

Write your beliefs on evolution. I'll be happy to take that around to the entire biology department and include FULL contact information of each individual and even the school's contact information, so that you can verify their employment. However, I want a contract saying that if I can get these individuals to write critiques of your comments, you will be held liable for payment if they are in agreement with me and I am liable for payment if they are in agreement with you.

Come on Mike, thats not the way it works.

The biologists, geneticists and paleotologists -- amongst others --have spent the last 150 years collecting all the evidence. Most of it is summarised in that 29 evidences of macroevolution link.

If you have a problem with any of it, start tearing it apart.

Show me how the evidence doesn't support the idea of common descent.

Sure, draft up the contract.

No way, the word "belief" can be stretched in any number of ways.

You said:

"Btw, an evolutionary scientist would agree with me and not any of you.

He/she would agree that it's a belief that is as yet unsubstantiated. Their is a reason why evolutionary scientists makes statements like "We belief that at so and so million years ago so and so occurred." They do NOT say that "We know that on so and so date, so and so occurred".

The reason is that they know just how speculative it is.

I could care less if the world wants to believe evolution. What I know is that not a scientist to date exists on earth that has been able to demonstrate that it is true.

And THAT's a FACT jack."

"I've shown you that mutations of cells, viruses, and bacteria don't naturally lead to the conclusion that multi-levelled, multi-celled organism evolved from them. Mutations may be just that, mutations. To make the leap in logic to say that because a cell mutates that it will one day become an animal that contains trillions of muscle cells, skin cells, heart cells, is a leap in logic. It is not proven, it has yet to be demonstrated even on the most rudimentary level."

You've also said that there is no archeological proof of evolution since there are a lack of transitional fossiles.

Care to add anything else before I type up a rough draft?

BTW, be more specific when you say "a scientist would agree with me and not any of you". What would he agree with you on and what would he disagree with me on?

Nothing more. Go for it.

That Evolutionary Theory is a belief system that has not completley explained the variety of life we observe on earth and that it has not been proven that human beings derived from single cells.

What do you mean by proven?

Good point, because nothing in science is ever proven. It is either falsified or not.

I will twist your biology professor inside out. He can try to throw as much jargon as he likes at me. General knowledge, thorough understand of Evolutionary CLAIMS, understanding of science and scientific principles, and common sense will override anything he/she can dish at me.

It's quite simple. Evolution claims A happens.

I say that you're assuming that that A happened but that you have not demonstrated that it happend. I say that you've used inference (from things like cell mutations and 'natural selection')and plausable scenarios to presume A happend and is possible. But you have not demonstrated that it happened and can happen. That is you have not shown the sequence of events that would be required for A to happen out in the field or in the labratory and actually applied it and observed it work.

Exactly.

......


Pissed off wife stepping in here long enough to KILL that wager. I don't give a damn if he is right or if he is right, you two are NOT going to bet over money that I earned to pay bills and rent. Fuckin forget it.

I have enough issues already. Don't give me any more.

I now return you to your prick waving contest.

You biology teacher is a mortal man like you and me. He is no superman and he is no God. For all intents and purposes, assuming all things equal, what he can understand, I can understand, and you can understand.

Science is not a big bizarre practice that only "elite" have a monopoly on. You and I can pick up a book and if we can read and understand, we can understand just as well as the professor can.

If it cannot be proven...and if it cannot be falsified...which I think that niether can be done...then does it not become a "belief" one way or another?

You said earlier "Btw, an evolutionary scientist would agree with me and not any of you." Now you're saying he won't, but that you understand biology better then someone who has dedicated their life to it. How arrogant can you get?

Again, you're contradicting, "Btw, an evolutionary scientist would agree with me and not any of you." Which is it, will the biologist agree with you or disagree?

:1orglaugh we all needed that Tala. You're a sweetheart.

I have the utmost respect for Joe and CET. These are clearly intelligent men.

"Can the theory of evolution be falsified?

Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence for it. The idea of common descent does not rest on one simple idea or single piece of evidence, so to falsify it would require some very significant findings rather than a single bit of anomalous data.

For instance, while finding one fossil in rocks that are much older than would be expected (say, a primate in Precambrian rock) would be improbable, it would be a stretch to say it would falsify evolution. Realistically, one anomaly against all the evidence would be a hard sell, and to be honest, while it would certainly raise issues (and creationists would have a field day), it would probably be chalked up to unknown error.

On the other hand, if a general pattern of finding fossils in rocks reliably dated to much different ages than expected was seen, that would deal a serious blow to the idea of common descent. One possible example of this might be if primate or mammal fossils started consistently turning up in Precambrian rocks - in such a situation, evolution would be in trouble.

What is important to understand here is that evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from a number of different fields. Because of that, a similarly general pattern of contradictory evidence would be required to falsify evolution. Isolated anomalies might at most force a modification of evolutionary theory, but they wouldn't cause it to be dismissed.

Another possible manner in which evolution might be falsified is if our understanding of physics and chemistry changed such that the laws and tests used for determining the age of the earth were found to be incorrect, and new tests showed that the earth was quite young, perhaps on the order of several thousand years. In such an event, the principle of common descent which is the basis of evolutionary theory would be dealt a fatal blow. There are also other any number of other ways in which evolution could be falsified, so there are ways in which the idea of common descent could be invalidated. "

Idiot.

:glugglug

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying pass what I've written to the professor. Provide contact info. I will speak to him/her and clarify my position. The professor will either 1) agree with my view following the discussion, that it is a belief or 2) he will hold to the view that it is a proven fact.

Thanks hon. But if you could see my face as I wrote that, you'd know full well that I have the temper to match the red hair.

CET is an intelligent man, (after all, he married me), but there are days I want to strangle him....almost as many as he has where he wants to strangle me, so it's a good trade.

*Looks at his prick and decides to put it away before the redhead gets any ideas."

I didn't know you two knew each other much less were married, LOL

Is speculation now considered to be "science"?

Guys, I have to get some work done. Perhaps we can continue in a new thread or let it die. Whatever. I won't be up going at it again tonight, it's too late.

Wait. We have to know each other first?? :helpme

See? Told you he was intelligent. :glugglug

"Can the theory of evolution be tested?

Evolution, when addressing common descent, is largely a historical science. This means that it relates to actions that are supposed to have happened in the distant past, and this makes testing the theory complicated because, unless time travel is invented, we cannot directly test the theory.

However, this does not mean that the theory is not testable at all. As with other historical investigations, you can make predictions and retrodictions (to utilize present information or ideas to infer or explain a past event or state of affairs - e.g., to "retrodict past eclipses" as opposed to predicting future eclipses) based on the theory.

What this means is that we can state that we would expect to find certain things (say, certain types of fossils) when looking at the historical record, and if those things are found, it supports the theory. Thus, while we cannot perform the kind of direct tests like we can in physics and chemistry, the general theory of evolution is testable just as other historical theories are testable. "

Here's an idea: Go to your nearest college or university. Show up when a biology class is letting out. It doesn't matter which one, any biology class. Grab the professor as he's leaving and ask him if he has a few minutes to answer a few questions. Some will be more then happy, others will wonder who the hell you are and tell you to buzz off. Try it on enough of them and you'll find the one that will be happy to entertain you.

I'm going to head out now before I get myself into more trouble. http://www.freakmanor.com/smilies/theyareontome.gif