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

I have stated that the "theory" has evidence to support it (especially in the microevolution area...less in the macroevolution area)...and as "theories" go it has merit. It is still a "book" that has missing chapters. It does not reach the level with me that is required in a criminal trial..."beyond a resonable doubt"...but it does reach the level that is required in a civil trial..."preponderence of the evidence". You are free to be a staunch "believer"...it does not reach the level that I am willing to committ to it being a "belief" of mine. You seem insistent that everyone accept your "belief" of the truth of the "theory" when others of...equal or greater...intelligence are not convinced of your "belief".

#1 No, you are actually wrong. Your example of explaining it has by far more holes and problems than Evolution. Thus that theory stands and remains the scientific fact. Like others have said, the only way to remove evolution from being the scientific fact would be to find problems with it AND find OTHER MEANS to explain THOSE PROBLEMS without breaking the rest.

#2 There is nothing to interpret. Natural Selection is anything which makes a difference in A and B cause A or B to survive natural problems. Humans are extremely bad examples, because we have developed an intelligence which helps us circumvent natural selection, or I guess one would say, win most of the time.

The only viable examples are things like the moth experiment posted earlier. You of course immediately say "but thats a silly experiment, of COURSE the black moth survives".. well, sorry, but that IS natural selection. The black moth is a mutation, and it survives, or the white moth is one and it dies. Either way, natural selection. Evolution has made sure that the black moths are preferred in terms of handing down their genes.

Also, mutation is something that not always is needs to be considered something spontanious. We evolve by mixing our genes. The example of humans being bigger now than hundreds of yours ago, you simply dismissed by saying "Well, but asians in america are taller than asians in asia, thus this has nothing to dow ith evolution, its a diet thing"... You do realize that we are talking local europe for example here and those people that were taller than others had a better chance of surviving thus giving away their genes.

Your main problem is the that you do not understand how for example a Fish evolves to a Lizard or the like. There are still today species in between those to which show the chain at least in parts. There are fish where the fins have evolved to something more similar to feet because they are mostly "walking" on the ground and not swimming.

Evolution takes billions of years simply because it is so many tiny changes that need to be picked up by natural selection. For example, in case of the fish, there were those with big and small fins, the bigger the fin, the better they could hold themself on the ground, did it become too big they had problems again. Natural selection made sure that those with the right sized fin survived more than the others. That does not mean that NONE of the small or huge fin fish survived, it just means that MORE big fin fish survived causing a natural selection over a few hundred years.

And it goes on and on.... Its not really a huge problem to explain all kinds of mutations.

You do understand that there are no 'facts' in science?

Not a one.

There are only theories that have not been falsified.

no honestly its not evolution

some fucker waved a big wand and bam here we are

Actually, I was saying just the opposite: In evolution, common sense and scientific evidence complement and support each other. I was just suggesting that if the evidence alone can't convince someone, they should also consider their common sense.

For me, both provide overwhelming proof of evolution. It is more than a belief for me. It is enough for me to not waste my time questioning it and to move on to other unexplored territories. What I do believe, is that people who still have a problem with evolution and claim there is not enough evidence, may really have other issues or agendas. Maybe not. Either way, I "believe" they are wasting their time.

If a religious person believes that God created man and all the animals as they are in an instant, there are no less holes in the argument than their is for Evolution. In fact their are far fewer holes. The only problem religion has is proving the existance of God. That is the single problem they'd tackle. Evolution tackles millions of unanswered questions. I don't support either position for these reasons.

Are you saying Humans fall outside of the evolutionary process? If so, you're hindering and not furthering your support for evolution. Granted, I already agreed that "natural selection" will occur in situations. Natural selection is not the same as saying man evolved from cells.

Sure, an example of natural selection. Not evolution in the broad sense that we evolved from simpler beings or cells.

Where are you getting your information from? There are many reasons why we're bigger today which includes better nutrition, health care, hormones, and food. And as you said, this may be a simple case of natural selection.

I understand these notions very well. They're basic and simple which is one of the reasons laymen embrace it so readily. Most people have no interest in this stuff. If the prevailing notion is that evolution occurred 99.9 people will agree with it without giving it a second thought, especially if it comes from a trusted scientific community. After all the scientific community does know things. Scientific knowledge is clearly responsible for humankind's progress over the centuries.

Fish turningi nto lizards and vice versa is ludicrous and there is no definitive evidence for this. Species in between? Give me an example of one. You're already biased in your belief of evolution that you think an animal with fins and feet is a species in transition. It may not be. Another plausable explanation is that it's simply a species that has fins and feet (characteristics found in mammals and fish). One cannot conclude they're in transition by that observation.

lol that's pure conjecture. It's good story telling though. But it hardly has any grounds in the real world. There are tons of fish with big and small fins today.

A superficial investigation would lead one to conclude it's not a problem explaining all kinds of mutations. It really depends on the mutation you're referring to. We've observed bacteria mutate into different strains of bacteria. We've haven't observed cells evolving into multi-celled organisms.

I wanted to address this post. I don't want you to have the impression that I'm being arrogant. I'm being quite the opposite. I'm being humble about what we actually know as opposed to what we claim to know.

Evolutionists will say that I'm willfully being ignorant by ignoring the 'obvious' fact of evolution. Creationists will say that I'm a sinner and that I'm ignoring the 'obvious' fact that God created us. Both will say that I'm arrogant and pretending to be 'better' than them by claiming to know more.

Both the evolutionist's and creationist's view about me is wrong. I contend that one or both of them may be right. However, I require more evidence to convince me of one or the other. I don't put much stock in Creationism obviously because it's seemingly impossible to prove the existence of God. So, I'm more inclined to believe in Evolution. But I cannot set aside my common sense faculty and accept it blindly.

You may say their is a proponderance of evidence in favor of evolution. I've proposed anddefined three "proofs" that would convince me. I'm NOT a person who will reject something if it's right in front of my face. What you consider enormous evidence can be shut down. I can give you alternative explanations for the bones you find. I can say that your premise that all living things share genetic similarities means that they were all related at some point in time is faulty. I know that it's easy to twist logic in favor of a view and discard alternative explanations simply because they don't fit the view. So it doesn't surprise for example that scientists in different fields of research have lots of 'evidence' to suppor the theory. If one was to investigate each field, each of the pieces of the evidence could be discounted one by one by providing alternate explanations, that would support a view that things have not evolved in the way they say they do.

For the record, using the fossil record to say that species evolve is one thing. It's also another to say that cells evolved into organims. Unfortunately we're unable to unearth single cells from millions of years ago. Therefore even if you were to show that species evolved (and this has not been done effectively) you would still need to show further evidence. Their are all kinds of assumptions imbedded within each step of evolutionary thinking that have very little basis. Observing the fossil record to find traces of ancestors is one assumption (the fossils found could be the remains of a similar but distinct species) and using this to project the notion that we evolved from cells is yet another leap.

So, of everybody in this thread, I'm the least arrogant. We've seen people jumping into this thread accusing me of being a Creationist without reading that I'm not. They're arrogant in their perception that the world only conists of two views. We've seen people in this thread that accuse me of not understanding evolution when they themselvs show a clear lack of knowledge on the subject and only regurgitate what they've been told with respect to fish leaving their fins and developing feet and so forth. I'm the only one saying, let's take a step back, re-evaluate exactly what the data tells us. And if we do so, it doesn't lead to one conclusion...that evolution exists.

Well technically you could argue that dogs that would not naturally interbreed are different species. A geographical barrier or a structural difference that prevent interbreeding can lead to speciation.

You're caught up in the definition. The accumulation of these differences over time leads to speciation. The huge variation in dogs over 2000 years is undeniable that selective pressures can lead to large morphological changes.

Hmmmm......kinda like the bible.

It's people like this that will find the holes an evolutionist won't and/or offer suggestions for new study because he is able to ask questions the evolutionist would never consider because he is already blindsided by his faith in evolution.

Aside from the Creationist agenda, their is another agenda. That agenda is in the interest of science to discover the truth. It has always taken men who were able to transcend the predominant view of their own time to push progress forward. I'm not at all saying to stop investigating. My three 'proofs' for evolution indicate I would like to push science further in this area so that there is almost no doubt about the authenticity of evolution. The three proofs I outline would be the next step in evolutionary discovery and would fall in line with current evolutionary theory. Not only explaining abiogenesis but applying it and watching it work. Not only explaining evolution but applying it's principles in the lab and observing the reality of it.

When men were ruled by religion they would have argued that their was overwhelming evidence in favor of God(s). They would say look around you, do you think everything you see came from nowhere? They would say everyting around you is an example of God's creation. Therefore they would argue that their are millions of reasons to believe in God. But, they were wrong. Because observing nature in all its glory does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a God exists.