Wrong. I approve of the scientific method. It is the heart of science. I wish the scientific method would be applied to Evolution. It's what I'm applying to it and showing it to be invalid. If you put it to the scientific method you will only come to the same conclusion. Evolution is a belief, not a fact.

It's NOT the same as saying other sciences are tentative. We're talking about different degrees. Other sciences can be applied, demonstrated, replicated. The same cannot be said of evolution. Mutations of cells and viruses says nothing about us being a sinlge cell and evolving into humans. It merely shows us that cells and viruses mutate. If you want to believe it shows you more than that, that's the belief you can hold to. But any impartial scientific mind will see that it doesn't.

And I've repeatedly told you so what? So what? Don't you get it yet? Great, cancer is the accumulation of mutations. What if cancer has 10 million different strains and mutations. So what? Does that say man evolved from single cells? No, it says that cancer can mutate into many strains. Period.

Nathan, I appreciate your reply. You should read more of the thread.

Regarding #1:
Your statement "Thus, because there is no other feasable explanation of why we are here, or how it all evolved from single-cell organisms, evolution is a PROVEN FACT."

Your statemtn above can be applied to any belief. Religious zealots can say that God IS another feasable explanation for why we are here, so would that make it a PROVEN FACT? I think not.


Regarding #2:
I agree that mutations have been observed and I agree that salient selective natural selection has been observed. I could say that a man getting out of a burning building by figuring out how to unlock the door to survive is natural selection because he survives while everybody else dies. Is it really a case of natural selection? Maybe...maybe not. We can say it is if that's how we wish to interpret it.

Grasping mutations over a long period of time? I can grasp that easily. You can have a trillion mutations of bacteria or virus, and still wind up with just a bacterio or virus. YOU ARE THE ONE ASSUMING a mutation somwhere along the line will form something more than just another strain. YOU ARE THE ONE ASSUMING that it will somehow become a multi-celled organism. Not me. Is it reasonable to assume this? Yes it is, but it's NOT necessarily the case, and it has NOT been demonstrated EVER.

Again, to say "it's a process that takes millions of years" is a cop out. That's not a scientific answer. That's a big wide black fill-in-the-blank.

Evolution says we popped out here as a single cell one day. That is what YOU believe, not me.

What I've done in this thread is similar to the Socratic method in philosophy. Socrates went around to the religious folk in his time and questioned their beliefs. He ended up showing them that they didn't know as much as they thought they knew and that their beliefs had very little basis. This is what I've done here. I've shown you that Evolution cannot stand with our current knowledge. I've shown you that it's a belief, albeit a more reasonable belief than say religion, but that to assume with any certainty that is has any foundation is false.

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.

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.

Don't tell me what an evolutionary scientist would say (unless you are one)..

What you say there is what pretty much any scientist would say about any theory.

First you say flat out evolution is a tentative theory, but you've pretty much conceeded microevolution by accepting natural selection and mutation.

Now you're saying high organisation hasn't been proven, you're talking about macroevolution. That is pretty much impossible to prove in a lab, considering it took 4 billion years to occur.

Extrapolating from microevolution, and circumstantial evidence such as fossil records it's hardly a stretch, and it is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Look at the variety you can get in breeds of dogs, just with selective breeding over a couple thousand years.

I can tell you what they would say. They'll tell you the same thing. Ask one.

I haven't conceded anything. I've said that we've observed mutations. I've also said that we've observed what we think are examples of natural selection in isolation. Unfortunately since life is myriad and fluid, it's difficult to always know if what we've observed is an example of natural selection or not. But undoubtedly, I'm sure it does occur....it must.

Natural selection and mutations of single cells is one thing. Evoution which proposes we derived from this process is another thing. You combine natural selection and bacteria mutations and call it microevolution. That's your preogative and it's like calling a freedom fighter a terrorist. Depending on your persepctive you'll see it one way or the other. You wish to believe this is a form of evolution. I certainly don't. And if it is, you are still forced to make the jump to say that it leads to what you called macro evolution. You've demonstrated "micro evolution," but not macro evolution. Therefore one can choose to believe macro evolution exists or doesn't exist. Either way, it's a belief.

Don't tell me it's not a stretch. You and I both know that it's sometimes difficult to tell how somebody died a day ago, much less a million years ago. To dig up bones and begin assuming you'll be able to determine more about them is absurd. But that's what has happened. Some people have dug up bones and having a preconception of what they already want to prove (evolution) they find clues to support it.

Nothing you've said negates what I mentioned in my previous posts.

Scientific community or not, it's a belief.

It is actually a giant leap from microevolution to macroevolution and based upon little more than an inferred assumption. In other words it requires "belief" based upon little (if any) evidence...much the same as it requires "belief" in the concept of a creator...based upon little (if any) evidence.

I always go back one step further. In order for microevolution to lead to macroevolution there had to be an origin of life and to the best of my knowledge there are only two lines of thinking as to the origin of life and that is either abiogenesis or a creator. Since there is little evidence to support either concept "belief" is the only basis for supporting one concept over the other.

Everything in this world is a belief. You can sit on your fence your entire life or you can choose based on the available evidence.

29+ evidences for macroevolution

I don't know where you get thoses numbers but here in canada (you say 50 % of canadians don't beleive in it) where I am, I don't know a single person that haven't heard about evolution in school in our age .

....To return to the four African sub-races that are members of the Black Negro race, this group contains the tallest and the shortest of all humans. The shortest are the Pygmies of the African Forests. Adult males of some tribes average about 4-3/4 feet in height. There are many biological reasons for small size; one is a poorly-understood substance called Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). In Pygmies the genetic control of IGF-1 is different from that of other groups. Pygmies were kept as pets by some ancient Egyptian Pharaohs ? they were prized for their size and rhythmic dancing ability.

:glugglug

You are wasting your time with Sgt. Speedbump. He has virtually no knowledge of the subject under discussion.

You might as well be arguing brain surgery with the guy who makes the french fries at McDonalds.

hehe yeah it doesn't matter I was/am bored.

It's fun to read up on it again.

So a white person and a black person having a mulato offspring is evolution? No.

Interbreeding animals such as dogs is not evidence for evolution. There are no new features created, instead it's an amalgamation of the features of the two types of dogs being interbred.

Strangely enough, they're still dogs. They're not some new species. You don't find interbreding birds and dogs producing offspring. So you have a group of dogs that wouldn't naturally breed and you force them to interbreed and it produces an offspring. That's not evidence for evolution anymore than a black and white human being interbreeding. They both belong to the same species. They produce a human being. How on earth does this show that a single cell evolved into man?

There are even instances where the type of dog created is unable to reproduce. A process of de-evolution rather than evolution. Evolution is supposed to be a natural process, not one in which man has intervened.

Look, you've already conceded that macroevolution is a belief. It does not have hard evidence to support it. My position is that man was always man, horses were always horses and so forth. Their is more evidence to support my position than there is to support Evolution or Creationism. Although there are clearly three lines of thinking, the vast majority of the world chooses between the latter, Evolution or Creationism. My position is just as valid as those two.

I hope that you at least read about the so called 29+ evidences for macroevolution that you linked to. I read it and there is no new information there. You can sum up everything written there as "we believe things evolved from each other because they show genetic relatedness". In other words their are similarities at the genetic level between living creatures. Big deal. That means nothing. If you take that to mean we evolved from cells go ahead. That's not evidence for it.

It's not suprising to me that you and others hold fast to the belief in evolution. You've been inculcated with it since primary school, not by religious quacks, but by learned people. I was too. However, the theory rests upon a faulty or shaky premise so I can easily attack it. I'm not saying it's incorrect, I'm saying there is no evidence for it at this time. That's the plain truth. I've shown this to you in this very thread time and time again. You have yet to show otherwise. You cannot, because current knowledge simply doesn't lend itself to supporting it. Science is wonderful. We must be sure to make a distinction between actual science and scientific belief. That's all I've done here.

Pig shit. It is apparent to me that I have...at the least...as much knowledge about the subject as you do. I went to University and in addition have done additional study on my own. It is apparent to me that Mike33 is far more knowledgeable about the subject than you are...and accepts the "theory" for what it is...not a hard science but an interesting "theory" which is in flux.

Pig shit yourself you crippled old waste of space.

Anyone who makes statements like: "It is actually a giant leap from microevolution to macroevolution and based upon little more than an inferred assumption."

...clearly knows jack shit about the mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

An inferred assumption? Are you on acid you retarded old geezer?

You say you've done your own study? What books have you read on evolution? What books do you have in the house right now on evolution written by appropriately qualified people?

Sorry, but anyone who spews out non-scientific creationist garbage, or as CNET so eloquently put it "smearing creationist faeces" like you have in this thread obviously does not understand basic concepts and ideas behind evolution and is unfit to carry on an informed discussion about the topic.

It is what it is..."not a hard science but an interesting "theory" which is in flux." It is not any more than that.

I am busy so I will allow Mike33 continue to make mince meat of your "belief".

Evolutions doesn't cover that, that's covered by a different theory called abiogenesis. You've been told that about a half dozen times in this thread, when are you going to stop lumping the 2 theories together?

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?