The Big Bang and Evolution

[omega2xx]

Not in the science class. Mythology class, maybe.
Mythology can't explain anything. If science cant explain it, it cant be explained.

There's lots of science behind biological evolution -- over 150 years of scientific research worldwide by real biology and Earth sciences professionals. Just because it is over your head to understand any of it doesn't make it any less valid.

Then cut and past the evidence or goodness sake. You would if you could but YOU CANT.

You have been shown this data repeatedly. Obviously it's too hard for you.

Cut and paste what I have been shown. Evidently your never learned what constitutes swcientific evidence.

The it has no bearing on biological evolution.

And you still just have your unsupported guess for any answer, which is worthless.

And you still can't prove one thing the TOE preaches which makes your answers worthless.

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. ~ Blaise Pascal

I have not used religion in this discussion, so why do you use the quote>

]We view things not only from different sides, but with different eyes; we have no wish to find them alike. ~ Blaise Pascal

Very good. Do you not realize it applies to you as much as it does to me?

 

[omega2xx]

I'm here to testify that that is false. I am godless, seek no god, and am very happy.

Any one can be happy for a time. Wait until the grim reaper knocks on your door.

IMO true happiness is spiritual happiness and I think that is what Pascal was referring to. In any case I ha glad you are happy and content with your life.

 

[Thumper]

...Only teaching one possibility that can't be proved will set our kids up for failure. If they are only offered one thing, they are not required to think

But there is only one scientific possibility.

Again, if you want another alternative taught, you need to show the scientific evidence for it. You need to show what your "alternative" does to improve our understanding of how nature actually works and what usefulness it offers.

You can't do that because there is no viable alternative to biological evolution. It has withstood every test imagined for over 150 years and you've got squat to offer against it.

But if it really bothers you so much, just stop using all the benefits it provides. The Amish aren't even that backward. But if you mix the Amish way of life with Christian Scientist obstinance, you'll be close.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,...

Oh wonderful, that's the best laugh I've had in a few days.

So defend genocide, mas murder, slavery, abduction, rape, child abuse, child murder, subjugation, theft etc.. etc... etc....

This i have to see.

It's fascinating how i will come on with an immediate response to a post, then look above me a little later and see how i'm mirroring other's posts in what i say as if i read all the other posts first. I have no interest in being extreme, but Real and Honest sure looks like it and rather often, so good to know i'm not alone in my sentiments.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Any one can be happy for a time. Wait until the grim reaper knocks on your door.

IMO true happiness is spiritual happiness and I think that is what Pascal was referring to. In any case I ha glad you are happy and content with your life.

YOU have NO IDEA what spiritual happiness is. Thus your threat of a grim reaper.
See there? That's one of the frequencies in your emissions spectrum!
YYYUUUUCK!

 

[omega2xx]

There is no point in discussing with you, your mind is closed but i will offer some facts that you may wish to research but it's very doubtful

Darwin's work was published over 150 years ago, it is recognised to be flawed but is essentially correct and a good starting point for the 150+ years of observation and research that followed. Today's theory of evolution is not Darwin's origin of species so why must you insist on outdated conclusions jt justify moderrn day knowledge?

And then you drop into stupid hyperbole mode as a defence using a quote that is over 360 years old all because your religion teaches you to lie about and hate what is beyond your comprehension.

Ok, put your money where your mouth is and repeat your refuted claims about evolution. Go on... Waiting

My claim, my only claim is that nothing in the TOE has ever been proven. It is not real based on science.


It is curious o me that for years I have challenged the evos to cut and paste the evidence a link has provided, and not once has that challenge been taken. Yet it would take less than a minute to do so. of whining about what I do, why not show everyone I am wrong by cutting and pasting some evidence from a link. If someone ask me to prove something, I would the evidence or admit I couldn't.

 

[omega2xx]

Says the godbot who insults while claiming incredulity.

Hypocrisy becomes you

Post one of my insults.

 

[Thumper]

There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy. Blase Pascal

So I replied:

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. ~ Blaise Pascal

To which, omega responded:

I have not used religion in this discussion, so why do you use the quote?

And that speaks volumes about your ability to comprehend what you read.

 

[omega2xx]

You don't seem to know what evolution is. Orangutans, gorillas, chimps and man all descended from a single ancestral great ape, and they are all still great apes after millions of years of divergent evolution.

Then prove it. Talk is cheap.

When one species of salamander becomes two, we call that evolution.[/QUOTE]

When a salamander remains a salamander it is not evolution. You don't seem to know what evolution is.

That genus of salamander just grew. The evolutionary tree just branched again.

Not if they remained salamanders

You still haven't offered a mechanism for lesser degrees of evolution over shorter periods of time accruing to larger changes over larger times. Without such a mechanism, nothing will stop it from occurring.

Is there a reason you prefer to evade that question? You really can't make much progress in your effort until you explain why we shouldn't expect the tree of life to evolve over deep time. Simply calling it macroevolution and declaring it impossible accomplishes nothing.[/QUOTE]

That is your claim, no mine, and you still haven;t offered evidence it is true. What is the reason you are not willing to cut and paste some evidence from link you think supports evolution? You would if you could, but you can't.

 

[omega2xx]

So I replied:

To which, omega responded:

And that speaks volumes about your ability to comprehend what you read.

To all you evos in this discussion. I will no longer respond to any post that does not cut and past some evidence from a link they think is accurate. Since no one is willing to do that, we just keep going around in circles not getting anywhere.

 

[Thumper]

I said: "There's lots of science behind biological evolution -- over 150 years of scientific research worldwide by real biology and Earth sciences professionals. Just because it is over your head to understand any of it doesn't make it any less valid."

So you replied:

Then cut and past the evidence or goodness sake. You would if you could but YOU CANT.
Cut and paste what I have been shown. Evidently your never learned what constitutes swcientific evidence.

You want me to "cut and paste" 150 years of peer reviewed research papers published across multiple Earth sciences disciplines. Why? Just because you didn't learn any of this when it was presented to you in grade school doesn't make it my problem now to teach you anything. Go get a middle school science book and start reading.

Again, unless you've got a better "alternative" backed by scientific research and capable of improving on our current knowledge with useful advances. You've got nothing. You're just whining about how much you don't understand. It's pathetic.

Results are all that matters. Biological evolution science produces results.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If the environment cant alter the genetic makeup, then it can't alter the species. If what you say is true and the study did not say it was, or at least did not explain how it was, the species might not become extinct, but it would NEVER become a different species, and it would continue to produce after its kind.

... Reading comprehension is key to accurately processing information, man.

The environment does not purposefully interact with and alter genetic make up on its own. It is, however, one of the factors which impacts the survivability of certain characteristics in subsequent generations of offspring. It affects genetic makeup by proxy, creating a situation in which only those individuals of a population suited for a particular environment are going to survive in that environment... This is why you will never find polar bears living in the Sahara, but you will find Capybaras, for example.

Natural selection CAN'T be proved. Survival is not a mechanism for a change of species.

"No one has evef producedd a species b y mechanism of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it.."
Colin Patterson.

Please read what you just wrote again...For all your posturing about the "Laws of Genetics" you're showing a horrible understanding the science behind it. I'd like you to explain to me how will your genes get passed on if you have no surviving offspring?

And you know, I'm really glad you quoted Colin Patterson, even if you did fall for one of the great failures of Creationism by quote mining him... Something he had quite a strong opinion on:

"Because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth ... a world-wide flood ... or separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. ... I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context."
-Colin Patterson

Reference:
Bartelt, Karen (May–June 2000). "Review: Evolution". Reports of the National Center for Science Education (Book review). Berkeley, CA: National Center for Science Education. 20 (3): 38–39. ISSN 2158-818X. Retrieved 2015-05-21. Bartelt quoting from Patterson, Evolution (1999), p. 122

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you want me to respond to the rest of your conversation, you'll have to correct the formatting of your response. It's currently all part of one quote.

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

Then prove it. Talk is cheap.

When one species of salamander becomes two, we call that evolution.

When a salamander remains a salamander it is not evolution. You don't seem to know what evolution is.



Not if they remained salamanders



Is there a reason you prefer to evade that question? You really can't make much progress in your effort until you explain why we shouldn't expect the tree of life to evolve over deep time. Simply calling it macroevolution and declaring it impossible accomplishes nothing.[/QUOTE]

That is your claim, no mine, and you still haven;t offered evidence it is true. What is the reason you are not willing to cut and paste some evidence from link you think supports evolution? You would if you could, but you can't.[/QUOTE]
I've been watching this since before the salamanders and you ARE an abusing troll by all definitions.

 

[Thumper]

To all you evos in this discussion. I will no longer respond to any post that does not cut and past some evidence from a link they think is accurate. Since no one is willing to do that, we just keep going around in circles not getting anywhere.

Nobody but you is going around in circles. Show us any viable alternative that improves our ability in healthcare or any other biological research endeavor if you can. Otherwise, why should anyone care what you so obviously don't understand.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Natural selection is a statement of the obvious.

Hence the term "Observational Science"...

 

[ratiocinator]

My claim, my only claim is that nothing in the TOE has ever been proven.

Which is obviously untrue. For example, natural selection can be directly observed - even ICR acknowledge its existence:-

Do Peppered Moths Prove Evolution?

Natural selection can select the variant best suited for an environment, but natural selection does not create anything new.

Remarkably for ICR, they have managed to put together 19 words that are actually true.

Mutations produce things that are new and natural selection, as ICR correctly points out here, selects the things that are suited to the environment.

 

[Thumper]

To all you evos in this discussion. I will no longer respond to any post that does not cut and past some evidence from a link they think is accurate. Since no one is willing to do that, we just keep going around in circles not getting anywhere.

Start here -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

When you have absorbed and understood a few megabytes of the data available on that site, let me know if you need more.

 

[Thumper]

Mythology can't explain anything. If science cant explain it, it cant be explained.

Great, so explain creationism beyond "goddidit".

 

[jonathan180iq]

Start here -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

When you have absorbed and understood a few megabytes of the data available on that site, let me know if you need more.

Just so we're following his requests, leaving no excuse for not reading other than willful ignorance, here are the first 5 paragraphs...

volution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it. One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology. Mistakes even filter into biology journals and texts. For example, Lodish, et. al., in their cell biology text, proclaim, "It was Charles Darwin's great insight that organisms are all related in a great chain of being..." In fact, the idea of a great chain of being, which traces to Linnaeus, was overturned by Darwin's idea of common descent.​

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.

The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection.

Populations evolve. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In order to understand evolution, it is necessary to view populations as a collection of individuals, each harboring a different set of traits. A single organism is never typical of an entire population unless there is no variation within that population. Individual organisms do not evolve, they retain the same genes throughout their life. When a population is evolving, the ratio of different genetic types is changing -- each individual organism within a population does not change. For example, in the previous example, the frequency of black moths increased; the moths did not turn from light to gray to dark in concert. The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve.

 

[Thumper]

To all you evos in this discussion. I will no longer respond to any post that does not cut and past some evidence from a link they think is accurate. Since no one is willing to do that, we just keep going around in circles not getting anywhere.

When you finished reviewing my last link, here's a few more for you --

published papers on biological evolution - Google Scholar