EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Fatihah]

Fatinah is a bold faced liar, he has shown this to be true time and time again. any time spent trying to have a conversation with him, any time at all, even just 1 second, is a complete waste of time. you'd literally, have a more valuable conversation with a cat, dog, hell, even GOD!

Response: Likewise.

 

[Autodidact]

[QUOTE Autodidact]
/Quote Fatihah/
Response: And exactly what do they have evidence of? Is it evidence that ToE is true?

Fatihah: I'm usually willing to go a long ways to explain things to creationists. But I can't explain the same thing to you five times, only to have you call it a lie. We're on page of this thread and you haven't even figured out yet that science is about evidence, despite having been patiently told at least ten times.(End quote)

Response: I never said it wasn't.

(/Quote Autodidact)
I haven't even finished explaining the theory itself. When I began, you accepted each and every statement I made, and still managed to reject the only possible conclusion, which is that new species can evolve from older ones. That's like saying that you accept 2, and you accept 3, but you don't accept they make 5.(End quote)

Response: No, it's not. A 2 and a 3 adds to 5, not evolve.

(/Quote Autodidact)
When told they do, you call the people saying so liars. I can't do it any more. If anyone else can bear to talk to someone who is working as hard as they can not to either hear or understand you, more power to you. I give up.

Maybe I'll get a second wind and come back for more, and maybe I won't. It may depend on whether Fatihah demonstrates an iota of intellectual integrity. So far he has chosen not to.(End quote)

Response: When you can't provide proof to back up your claims, it's clear as to who has chosen not to demonstrate an iota of intellectual integrity.

[/QUOTE]
I'll let our readers draw their own conclusions. Mine is that you made a patently false claim, it was shown to be false, and you have not shown the honesty or courage to admit it. My conclusion is the same as JMorris.

I give up, Fatihah. You win. You get to remain frozen in the scientific equivalent of the 17th century, if that. Congratulations; you resisted all attempts to relieve you of your ignorance.

AND LEARN TO USE THE &*^%$%$! QUOTE FUNCTION!!!!

 

[Autodidact]

Response: Likewise.

Find a single example of JMorris lying. Or withdraw your scurrilous slander. You've sacrificed any possibility of credibility you could possibly have had here. In the process, you have irrevocably damaged the reputation of Islam here. Good work.

 

[painted wolf]

Response: You have provided links. No one's denying that. Yet when asked if those links and the evidence is true, you've provided no proof as shown in post 1491 of page 150, thus confirming your denial.

the "proof" is in the links and the scientific papers that back them up... if you don't bother to read them to discuss them, then there really isn't any reason to go on with this is there?

. I don't know why you can't let it go, especially being a theist. It doesn't jeapordize your knowledge of biology or anything yet you cling on to a belief that you know is not true. There is a reason why it's called a "theory". It's because it has not been proven to be true.

Again... you use definitions that appeal to you rather than the definition that is used by scientists. The scientific definition of a theory is that it is indeed true and supported by a vast body of evidence and fact. There is no higher authority in biology than 'theory' and it takes a lot for a hypothesis to be elevated to that standing.

You will naturally disregard this in favor of the definition that you prefer because it will help insulate you from what you think is a threat.

You can keep seeking your ever changing definition of "proof" but I will not mollycoddle you in your search.

If you have honest questions and a genuine desire to learn then I will help where I can... otherwise I see no point in this endless tail chasing.

wa:do

 

[Fatihah]

I'll let our readers draw their own conclusions. Mine is that you made a patently false claim, it was shown to be false, and you have not shown the honesty or courage to admit it. My conclusion is the same as JMorris.

I give up, Fatihah. You win. You get to remain frozen in the scientific equivalent of the 17th century, if that. Congratulations; you resisted all attempts to relieve you of your ignorance.

AND LEARN TO USE THE &*^%$%$! QUOTE FUNCTION!!!![/QUOTE]

Response: And mine is that you insist on holding on to a belief that you know that you can't prove and there's no proof for it. Unfortunately, your pride won't get you to say so because your intent is to prove yourself right and not as to whether or not you actually are right. There is nothing wrong with being wrong.

 

[JMorris]

Find a single example of JMorris lying. Or withdraw your scurrilous slander. You've sacrificed any possibility of credibility you could possibly have had here. In the process, you have irrevocably damaged the reputation of Islam here. Good work.

he has no need to present any evidence or "proofs" to back up his own claims. everything he says is correct by the merit of his own certitude, ignorant as it may be

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE Autodidact]Find a single example of JMorris lying. Or withdraw your scurrilous slander.(End quote)

Response: Post 1519

(/Quote Autodidact)
You've sacrificed any possibility of credibility you could possibly have had here. In the process, you have irrevocably damaged the reputation of Islam here. Good work.(End quote)

Response: Post 1306 of page 131 proves to the contrary.

 

[JMorris]

and he is obviously made of iron, given the amount of irony emanating off of him and his bullet proof certitude of his own ignorance. my advice: avoid magnets.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE painted wolf]the "proof" is in the links and the scientific papers that back them up... if you don't bother to read them to discuss them, then there really isn't any reason to go on with this is there?(End Quote)

Response: Post 1491 of page 150 proves to the contrary.

(/Quote Painted Wolf)
Again... you use definitions that appeal to you rather than the definition that is used by scientists. The scientific definition of a theory is that it is indeed true and supported by a vast body of evidence and fact. There is no higher authority in biology than 'theory' and it takes a lot for a hypothesis to be elevated to that standing.
You will naturally disregard this in favor of the definition that you prefer because it will help insulate you from what you think is a threat.(End quote)

Response: On the contrary, it is you who is making up definitions. If one were to look up the term "theory", it says nothing of what you've just stated.

(/Quote Painted Wolf)
You can keep seeking your ever changing definition of "proof" but I will not mollycoddle you in your search.

If you have honest questions and a genuine desire to learn then I will help where I can... otherwise I see no point in this endless tail chasing.

wa:do(End quote)

Response: Very well.

 

[Willamena]

Response: On the contrary, it is you who is making up definitions. If one were to look up the term "theory", it says nothing of what you've just stated.

But if one was learned in science, it might...

 

[JMorris]

there should a law, that if you cling to 8th century beliefs, you should only get to use 8th century technology. refuting science every chance you get, and yet still get to benefit from the science you so proudly disparage. that isnt right.

 

[DarkSun]

[QUOTE painted wolf]Response: On the contrary, it is you who is making up definitions. If one were to look up the term "theory", it says nothing of what you've just stated.

That is because you are not looking up the scientific definition of the word, theory.

Here, read these:

Scientific theory - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

define: Scientific Theory - Google Search

Definition of Scientific Theory

If you read only the first section of each of those links, you should understand what is meant when scientists describe a 'theory'. It should only take you five minutes.

But if you can't be bothered, I'll explain here:

In science, a theory is a description which best describes the observable phenomenon of the world. It has been tested countless times and found to hold true for each test. In essence, a theory is the single best explanation for the natural phenomenon it describes.

Scientific theories cannot be based on religious scriptures because you cannot empirically and objectively measure the role that the supernatural plays in the world. However, if you ask me, even though scientific theories objectively explain reality without bias, they cannot account for the religious experiences and innate knowledge of individuals who experience religion.


If you wish to understand evolution, then read this. Please realise that you do not have to agree with the theory to understand what it is saying. It does make logical sense, and if you disagree, that does not mean that you are being illogical. Just that you know there is a better explanation which you cannot affirm through the scientific method.

My main point here, though, is that before you voice your disagreement, it would be wise to KNOW what you are disagreeing with. Otherwise, it makes you look slightly foolish.

Here is my explanation from a few pages back:

First off, Abiogenesis Theory, the First Cause argument, the Singularity, the Big Bang theory and anything that does not relate to the Theory of Evolution have no relevance in this thread.

Secondly, if you, like me, find it hard to believe that the universe itself was spawned from "nothing" (it would seem), and if it is so incomprehensible that the Earth and life thereon was just an infinitely impossible cosmic accident, then doesn't this affirm your belief in a Creator? No aspect of science denies the existence of God. Rather, it would seem to suggest it to a lot of people.

Thirdly, evolution is observable. It wasn't so long ago that there were only a handful of dog breeds in the world. Now there are thousands. That is just one observation which is easily explained by evolution. However, you're right in a sense - the progress of evolution is a slow one. But even long-term evolution is observable when you take a look at our DNA and contrast it with the DNA of our ascendants.

Not after one generation, no. But after several hundred million generations, given the right circumstances, then yes, it is slightly possible. If you understood Darwin's Theory at all, then you would see how this is so.

Here, I'll try and summarise the theory here as best I can:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution: A SUMMARY

1 - Every time an organism passes on its genes through reproduction, the female reproductive cell's DNA (The DNA in the ovum / egg) combines with the DNA of the male reproductive cell (the DNA in the sperm) to give a completely different genome - meaning, each generation will have new DNA, and each individual will have different DNA. (With me so far?)

2 - In a rudimentary sense, clustres of DNA called genes code for specific traits in an organism. Because each organism within a species (ie, humans) have slightly different DNA, each human will have slightly different traits.

3 - Throughout human history we have had to compete for limited resources in various harsh environments to keep our race alive, just as we have had to reproduce efficiently in order to keep going. This is the same for all organisms, really.

4 - At the end of the day, the organism with the DNA best suited for survival and reproduction will be the organism most likely to survive and pass on their superior genes. This is termed natural selection. In a simple sense, half of the DNA from the father and half from the mother go into creating an offspring, correct? Well what monitors what genes are passed on where? Nothing. That much is utterly random. What isn't random is natural selection, otherwise known as survival of the fittest. The individual with the inferior genes will die out, just as the individual with the best genes for the environment will live on and cause the continuation of that species.

5 - As generations progress, the genes passed on begin to change because of slightly different genomes (all the DNA in the somatic cell of a species) and karyotypes (the type of DNA in the somatic cell of a species) which arise through repetetive reproduction. This change in the karyotype of a species and generations progress, and as natural selection plays its role -- this is termed evolution.




Now. Here are some lines of evidence for evolution:

1 - Humans have grown about a foot or so in the past century or two. There are thousands of different races on Earth which arose as humans were introduced to differing environments. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different dog breeds - and these all stemmed from just a handful of original breeds and careful breeding. All of this can be explained by evolution.

2 - The sedimentation layers of places like the Grand Canyon have been thoroughly looked at. Older species were found on the bottom of the canyon, while the younger ones were found up near the surface (think about why this may be the case). In the long term, fossil records found in places like the Grand Canyon affirm that a plethora of species slowly changed as time progressed.

3 - By analysing all of the different compartments of our DNA and RNA (RNA is sort of the medium through which DNA does its work), we're able to see just how much our DNA has changed over time. Correct me if I'm wrong, Painted Wolf, but RNA is analysed to discern long-term evolutionary changes because it remains largely conserved over time, while DNA is analysed to discern short-term changes.

4 - In Arica... Or was it Ethiopia...? Anyway, a group of people in that region have developed a trait known as sickle-celled anemia. This occurs when the gene which codes for the protein known as haemoglobin undergoes a substitution mutation, meaning that one of the nucleotide / DNA monomer base in the gene is changed. The result is a haemoglobin protein with a slightly different structure. Now, this new haemoglobin cannot carry oxygen around the body as efficiently -- so why have it? Well, guess what? It helps to protect against malaria. The protein somehow depresses the virulence of the malaria parasite! And considering that catastrophic numbers of people in Africa are dying of malaria, this is a pretty neat change.

Now ask yourself, why would forty percent of all people in the region I'm talking about have Sickle-Celled Anemia? The answer is Natural Selection. The people without the Sickle-Cell trait die off at a faster rate than those with the trait, leaving more Sickle-Celled individuals to pass on their genes.


EVOLUTION IS HAPPENING. It's happening everywhere, every second, of every day. It's just really slow, so if you want to see some significant changes, you will have to stay alive for another few thousand years.

 

[JMorris]

DarkSun, hate to break it to you, but your completely wasting your time. he will not even look at your links, or give anything you say ANY consideration. he will simply deny it out of hand. he is correct by the merit of his own certitude. he requires no evidence that he is right, and any evidence you provide that shows him to be wrong, he will not consider.

 

[Autodidact]

[QUOTE Autodidact]Find a single example of JMorris lying. Or withdraw your scurrilous slander.(End quote)

Response: Post 1519

(/Quote Autodidact)
You've sacrificed any possibility of credibility you could possibly have had here. In the process, you have irrevocably damaged the reputation of Islam here. Good work.(End quote)

Response: Post 1306 of page 131 proves to the contrary.

This one:

Response: You can't see something that can't and never happened. And yes, the information is false. Not once in the whole article did someone say that they "saw" it evolve. You can't know that it evolved into another species and not actually see it happen. To day otherwise is completely absurd. You believe it evolved. So just the same way atheist say that theists only believe their religion to be true and don't have proof, you have justed demonstrated that atheist have a belief as well. A belief, not proof.

has nothing to do with JMorris. It's neither by him nor about him. You have made not one but two allegations against others in this thread, neither of which you can show to be true. Yet you refuse to withdraw them. JMorris is right. You're a liar.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Fatinah: Define Proof? Based on the posts I have seen from you so far you are saying that nothing which can be posted, cited, or linked to can possibly constitute proof. Am I wrong? Or is your standard of proof so high that nothing can possibly be considered "proof?" There is nothing in life that is absolutely certain beyond tautologies. But it takes a funny sort of person to doubt gravity the same way that they doubt alien abduction.

What someone else saw isn't proof, if they can't show it to you? So the Qu'ran is not proof of Allah because you can't show me the miracles that are described within? I mean can you show me a cleft moon?


What exactly about ToE is it that you find "unprovable?" Really? Is it evolution? You can show evolution to yourself if you are willing to risk imprisonment for violating international law. All you have to do is find a nearly extinct species with a recessive trait and kill off all members of the species which do not have the recessive trait. *Suddenly* all members of a species now have a trait that they formerly did not. *Poof* Evolution in action.

Is it natural selection? Proving this one to yourself takes a little more time (something I doubt you would actually do since you are already convinced it wouldn't work), but is still able to be done in a single life time. Take a bunch of long-haired bunny rabbits (with short hair as a recessive trait). Move to the equator. Breed rabbits for 60 years. After a certain point all of the rabbits will become short-haired. The rabbits will have preferentially selected the more optimal short-haired (recessive) trait over the course of time. *Poof* Natural selection in action.


MTF

 

[painted wolf]

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the·o·ry Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\ Function:noun Inflected Form(s):plural the·o·riesEtymology:Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōreinDate:1592 1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

theory - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

wa:do

 

[Tristesse]

Response: No. I believe anything that can be proven and ToE definately is not one of them.

Science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

Science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence.

Ha ha ha. Tristesse, I laugh with tears in my eyes. Review the last 20 pages or so and you will see why.

 

[Tristesse]

I'll let our readers draw their own conclusions. Mine is that you made a patently false claim, it was shown to be false, and you have not shown the honesty or courage to admit it. My conclusion is the same as JMorris.

I give up, Fatihah. You win. You get to remain frozen in the scientific equivalent of the 17th century, if that. Congratulations; you resisted all attempts to relieve you of your ignorance.

AND LEARN TO USE THE &*^%$%$! QUOTE FUNCTION!!!!

Response: And mine is that you insist on holding on to a belief that you know that you can't prove and there's no proof for it. Unfortunately, your pride won't get you to say so because your intent is to prove yourself right and not as to whether or not you actually are right. There is nothing wrong with being wrong.[/QUOTE]

Your absolutely right, there isn't any "proof" for ToE, but there is insurmountable evidence. And once again science does not deal with proofs it deals with evidence. And science draws conclusions from the evidence it gathers. Evolution is a fact, it's really not even up for debate at this point.

 

[slave2six]

there should a law, that if you cling to 8th century beliefs, you should only get to use 8th century technology. refuting science every chance you get, and yet still get to benefit from the science you so proudly disparage. that isn't right.

Too too funny! Wouldn't that be great!!!