Debate: Evolution is a scientific theory

[Aught3]

This thread is for the debate 'Evolution is a valid scientific theory'. /b/artleby will be affirming and TruthfulChristian will be negating.

The debate will proceed a post at a time until one side concedes or stops posting for a period of 24hrs. The thread will be locked at this time.

Debate analysis thread to be found here.

 

[TruthfulChristian]

Hello.

I would first like to ask my opponent for his strongest single peice of evidence and/or proof for Evolution and why he thinks that it constitutes as a valid scientific theory and fact as it claims to be.

I also would like to ask several questions on the matter of Evolution.

Can you please define the difference between a theory and a fact?
Can you please demonstrate and provide emperical and/or observable evidence that Evolution can add new genetic material overall and how this new genetic information can arise in natural conditions?
Can you please demonstrate 10 or more examples where there has been an overall addition of DNA within an organism and provide reliable sources that support these examples? Please note that a rearrangement of DNA code will not be accepted -- nor will DNA creation within an artificial environment because Evolution claims to have created benificial mutations and addition of new genetic information in a natural state, not artificial.

NOTE:

I define 'reliable source' as an internet link to a website that has been peer reviewed and accepted within the majority of the scientific community and has relevance.

 

[/b/artleby]

The wild success of genetic algorithms in computer science. I will include more in my opening.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize we had switched over already. I will begin my opening now.

 

[TruthfulChristian]

The wild success of genetic algorithms in computer science. I will include more in my opening.

DEBATE OVER

My opponent has posted a 16-word rebuttal and I can only conclude from thereon that he is a troll.

He has not addressed any of my questions and/or concerns and has no interest in engaging in an intellectually honest debate. Furthermore, he has posted 3 times consecutively with posts with no intellectual or debate-able content in them. Obvious troll is obvious. You lose.

 

[Aught3]

Can we please proceed in an alternate manner, one post at a time.

/b/artleby, from your post I take it you didn't realise this was the debate thread. Might I suggest starting over with your opening post taking TruthfulChristian's opening challenges into account?

 

[/b/artleby]

I did not realize the thread had transferred over, Truthfulchristian, I am in the middle of crafting my opening now. I wrote in that very message that I was in the middle of crafting my rebuttal.

Truthful, I wrote in the very message you quoted that I would address it in my opening. I had not realized we had switched over. and as for my three posts, my computer is extremely glitchy, I am currently on Windows ME. You have no reason to back away, unless you think that all people who cant afford non-glitchy computers are trolls. Stop over reacting, you asked me alot, and it will take a while to answer everything. Why don't you try getting a few hours sleep, and when you wake up in the morning I will have my complete opening. You do want me to take this seriously, don't you?

When you first asked the question, Aught had just asked you to affirm whether or not you agreed. I did not see the switch, so when I saw your question, I thought you were asking me to answer those before the debate. Then I realized my mistake, and changed my previous posts to say that I was in the middle of creating my opening, so that you would be able to see that I was taking this seriously. You have no ground in terminating the debate, it was an honest mistake based on the crappy glitches with my computer. Now If you will excuse me, I have an opening to finish.

 

[/b/artleby]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scientific Methodology
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To answer your question it is first necessary to explain the basic methodology of science. It has long been known to man that our senses can deceive us, and it is for this primary reason that science as a discipline developed.

There are two forms of reasoning which a man may employ, deductive, or inductive. Deductive reasoning consists of reasoning with regard only to the manipulation of symbols, and in a sense, is the only absolute form of reason. But what can be known deductively is very little, and what can be known about the world is less. Since it is often necessary for human beings to make judgements regarding the real world, regardless of absolute certainty, it is therefore necessary to employ another kind of reasoning, inductive reasoning, in order to accomplish this. Inductive reasoning refers to reasoning with regard to probability. For example, should I see a sparrow fly past my window at 9:00 Am every morning for a month, I may conclude with reasonable certainty that it shall do so again the next day. Of course, I could be wrong, but nonetheless, our very existence requires that we make judgements regarding the world around us, and we cannot survive without it.

Contained within the realm of inductive reasoning is a certain heuristic which we call "the scientific method". The primary purpose of the scientific method is to try to avert the many pitfalls of individual human perception through group collaboration. This requires transparency, honesty, and clarity greater than almost any other collective effort. So within the realm of science, any data is collected an organized in a very rigid fashion, against the greatest possible scepticism, with the full intent of obtaining the maximum possible degree of certainty.

Within the construct of the scientific method, a fact is a single piece of datum of a sufficient level of certainty. Facts alone however are not sufficient to understand our universe, we do not only want to know what has been seen, but we also want to know how it works, and what it will do in the future. So, to achieve this end, around a set number of facts, we construct a hypothesis to explain a) why they are the way they are, and b) how it will react in the future. For a set number of facts however, almost an infinite number of contradictory hypotheses can be created, so it is up to the scientific method to sift through them and find which is the correct one. Some hypotheses are discarded easily, all that is required is that one find additional facts and compare them against the predictions that the hypotheses provides. If a hypothesis has withstood sufficient scrutiny, and has held true for the addition of a sufficient number of facts not originally within its domain, it can then be elevated to the level of a theory. So to answer your question, a theory is a hypothesis with regard to a set number of facts which has withstood the test of time, the scrutiny of other scientists, and the addition of new facts not part of its original set.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evolution, as theory, and fact
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is often called the "theory of evolution" is in fact a collective banner for several different theories and observation, and I will do my best to explain the differences among them. Evolution is first of all a mathematical construct, and a statistical fact. Any system which reproduces itself with random variations and that experiences selective pressure undergoes "Evolution". Those features which aid in its survival are "selected" for by the environmental pressures. Note, that I have avoiding mentioning biological organisms, as Evolution is a phenomena who's existence is independent of the biological sciences. Evolution in this sense is not a theory, as a scientific theory is a product of inductive reasoning, while the evolution of systems is a matter of deductive reasoning. Evolution in this sense can be proven mathematically, and is the basis for many technologies we now enjoy, and are successfully employed in computer science with "Genetic algorithms"

What is commonly referred to as "The theory of evolution" as a biological body is broken up further still into several components. The first is that which is officially known as theory of evolution. It is a scientific theory which states that biological organisms are systems which fall into the mathematical category of evolving systems, and predicts their change over time using the logical formalism of evolutionary systems. The second is what is often called the theory of descent with modification, and that refers to the specific theory as to how modern biological organisms have evolved in accordance with the theory of evolution from one ancestral species.

Note that these two biological theories are distinct from one another. For an explanation of why this is the case, let me compare it to astronomy. For the most part, the movement of planets in dependent only on gravity, almost nothing else affects their path. However, the heliocentric model is still distinct from the theory of gravity, despite the fact that both are almost equally accepted as true. Gravity however as a theory makes no statement as to how the actual universe is arranged, it merely says how objects will interact with one another. The heliocentric model is a scientific theory which organizes the available data on the universe based on the theory of gravitation, and constructs a reasonable model of the movement of the bodies in the solar system based on that. The heliocentric model is therefore dependent upon the theory of gravity, but gravity is not dependent upon the heliocentric model. If jupiter's orbit were a couple miles closer to the sun, the universal theory of gravitation would still hold.

Likewise, the theory of descent with modification is dependent upon the theory of evolution, but a disproof of the one is not a disproof of the other. The theory of evolution could still hold if every species on earth suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as it does not make any solid claims as to what organisms have developed. At the same time however, it would still predict how those species would change over time, and would show how those species which were poofed into existence would evolve when set free in an environment where they must compete for limited resources. Also, it is important to note that descent with modification makes no claim as to the origination of the primal ancestor, but only how life on earth has been derived from it. The actual theory as to the origination of the first living organism is called Abiogenesis, and at this point nothing is entirely certain regarding it. At the same time, scientists have recently created the first synthetic cell, so it seems that our knowledge is progressing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The ( scientific ) Theory of Evolution
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my original explanation of the scientific method, I mentioned how one of the key factors in the promotion of a hypothesis to the level of theory is that it withstand the addition of new facts. Let us look briefly at evolution's promotion. Charles Darwin observed that species change over time. He noticed that this change corresponded roughly with the change of Evolutionary systems(a classification he simultaneously created), and hypothesized that biological organisms were in fact evolutionary systems. This hypothesis was later supported by the discovery of DNA and the science of genetics, something which did not exist in Darwin's time. It also explained a very large body of facts in the form of the fossil record. Since that time, we have observed the speciation of a several species, and been able to use evolutionary theory to predict the genetic change in bacterium under controlled conditions, which you have erroneously decried as unnatural. As such, evolution is a successful scientific theory, as it has met all of the requirements outlined above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "addition of information" in a gene
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As stated before, in order for a system to be evolutionary, it must be a)capable of replication b) be prone to random changes in the process and c) it must be subject to selective pressures. In biological organisms, DNA is the driving force of self reproduction, and mutations in DNA are the source of the random changes. Mutations in DNA are all one of an additional types

an insertion occurs when a single nucleotide is inserted accidentally into the gene. Thus, a gene which orginally read
TAGTAGTAGTAGTAG could read
TTAGTAGTAGTAGTAG, Note, the total "information" has now technically increased, even if it has no effect on the organism.
a deletion occurs when a single nucleotide is subtracted from the gene. Thus,
TAGTAGTAGTAGTAG beomes
AGTAGTAGTAGTAG Note, "information" has been lost
Mutations can happen on an entire gene, or they can happen on a single nucleotide. As the total amount of genetic material of an organism increases through random insertions, you effectively get blank regions of DNA which do absolutely nothing. Now, you must realize that although nonsense may not seem to possess as much information as something meaningful, practically, it takes the same amount of information to store the word CHAIR as it does to store ARGHE. And since the organism already possesses junk information, the information can slowly be changed over time to be something meaningful. So in short, Insertions add junk information, selective pressure slowly changes junk information to useful information. One gene's junk is another gene's treasure.

~~~~~~~
Evidence
~~~~~~~

Note, I will accept you conditions about "Natural" vs Unnatural environments, but I will expect you to explain that distinction further in your reply. Considering the above information, all that is necessary to provide you with your information is to provide you with 10 examples of frame shift mutations, as it has been demonstrated that all frame shift mutations add information to genes by definition. I cannot provide actual links, as I am using a medical textbook, but if you would like I can provide you with the title and ISBN if you are interested. It is important to note that what you consider information is not what information in the scientific sense. To you, the bible contains more information than the complete Harry Potter series, but to a computer, this is the other way around. You must remember that there is no distinction in this fashion between useful and un-useful information. Information is information in this sense. There are a number of diseases caused by frameshift mutations in a particular gene, and everyone of them adds information to the overal genetic code of the individual.
Your 10 examples...

Tay-Sachs disease
Chron's disease
Cystic Fibrosis
Huntington's disease
Zellweger syndrome
Haemophilia
Color blindness
Phenylketonuria
Sickle-cell disease
Turner syndrome

All of these result in additional "information" of some sort, but let me provide you with something more concrete that you can actually consider the "increase" in the information of a patient in a far more tangible sense. Consider XYY syndrome. Now, the average person has 46 chromosomes, which I am sure you are aware. There is a genetic disease however, which is the result of the duplication of an entire chromosome (the y chromosome) so that any individual with the disease has 47 chromosomes instead of the usual 46. This means they have an entire chromosome worth of extra material. This constitutes a clear addition to the total amount of genetic information, and is produced in entirely natural conditions.

I do not have links for these diseases, but even a small amount of searching on your behalf could find you all of the information you need on any one of these diseases, and any medical textbook will have the information you need. I am pretty sure medical textbooks count as a reliable source...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Questions for You
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have addressed every issue you requested, now if you would please explain what exactly the distinction is between artificial and natural conditions, and why you will not accept mutations within "artificial" settings. There is no difference between a frameshift mutation in the wild ans a frameshift mutation in a laboratory, the only difference is that one can be observed empirically while the other can't. Once you realize this I can provide you with plentiful examples of beneficial mutations where information is added, but on short notice and with the restrictions provided I can only dip into my knowledge of medicine. Please explain why mutations in a lab are different from mutations in the wild (from a genetic perspective) and why evolution in a test tube is different form evolution in the wild.

Woo, took a lot of work, but I addressed all of your points. Now, can you please not ask for arbitrary numbers of examples in the future? I spent forever hunting down those genetic disorders in my medical textbook, and there was honestly no logical reason why I should have provided 10 instead of three. Still, I humored your request, but in the future, please limit your requests for examples to 3 per issue, and I will grant you the same courtesy. But still, I have a request now...

Can you please provide me with three instances of confirmed cases where the nature of genetic mutations of some organism have been shown to be different strictly due to the fact of their being in a natural/artificial environment?

 

[TruthfulChristian]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scientific Methodology
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To answer your question it is first necessary to explain the basic methodology of science. It has long been known to man that our senses can deceive us, and it is for this primary reason that science as a discipline developed.

There are two forms of reasoning which a man may employ, deductive, or inductive. Deductive reasoning consists of reasoning with regard only to the manipulation of symbols, and in a sense, is the only absolute form of reason. But what can be known deductively is very little, and what can be known about the world is less. Since it is often necessary for human beings to make judgements regarding the real world, regardless of absolute certainty, it is therefore necessary to employ another kind of reasoning, inductive reasoning, in order to accomplish this. Inductive reasoning refers to reasoning with regard to probability. For example, should I see a sparrow fly past my window at 9:00 Am every morning for a month, I may conclude with reasonable certainty that it shall do so again the next day. Of course, I could be wrong, but nonetheless, our very existence requires that we make judgements regarding the world around us, and we cannot survive without it.

Contained within the realm of inductive reasoning is a certain heuristic which we call "the scientific method". The primary purpose of the scientific method is to try to avert the many pitfalls of individual human perception through group collaboration. This requires transparency, honesty, and clarity greater than almost any other collective effort. So within the realm of science, any data is collected an organized in a very rigid fashion, against the greatest possible scepticism, with the full intent of obtaining the maximum possible degree of certainty.

Within the construct of the scientific method, a fact is a single piece of datum of a sufficient level of certainty. Facts alone however are not sufficient to understand our universe, we do not only want to know what has been seen, but we also want to know how it works, and what it will do in the future. So, to achieve this end, around a set number of facts, we construct a hypothesis to explain a) why they are the way they are, and b) how it will react in the future. For a set number of facts however, almost an infinite number of contradictory hypotheses can be created, so it is up to the scientific method to sift through them and find which is the correct one. Some hypotheses are discarded easily, all that is required is that one find additional facts and compare them against the predictions that the hypotheses provides. If a hypothesis has withstood sufficient scrutiny, and has held true for the addition of a sufficient number of facts not originally within its domain, it can then be elevated to the level of a theory. So to answer your question, a theory is a hypothesis with regard to a set number of facts which has withstood the test of time, the scrutiny of other scientists, and the addition of new facts not part of its original set.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evolution, as theory, and fact
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is often called the "theory of evolution" is in fact a collective banner for several different theories and observation, and I will do my best to explain the differences among them. Evolution is first of all a mathematical construct, and a statistical fact. Any system which reproduces itself with random variations and that experiences selective pressure undergoes "Evolution". Those features which aid in its survival are "selected" for by the environmental pressures. Note, that I have avoiding mentioning biological organisms, as Evolution is a phenomena who's existence is independent of the biological sciences. Evolution in this sense is not a theory, as a scientific theory is a product of inductive reasoning, while the evolution of systems is a matter of deductive reasoning. Evolution in this sense can be proven mathematically, and is the basis for many technologies we now enjoy, and are successfully employed in computer science with "Genetic algorithms"

What is commonly referred to as "The theory of evolution" as a biological body is broken up further still into several components. The first is that which is officially known as theory of evolution. It is a scientific theory which states that biological organisms are systems which fall into the mathematical category of evolving systems, and predicts their change over time using the logical formalism of evolutionary systems. The second is what is often called the theory of descent with modification, and that refers to the specific theory as to how modern biological organisms have evolved in accordance with the theory of evolution from one ancestral species.

Note that these two biological theories are distinct from one another. For an explanation of why this is the case, let me compare it to astronomy. For the most part, the movement of planets in dependent only on gravity, almost nothing else affects their path. However, the heliocentric model is still distinct from the theory of gravity, despite the fact that both are almost equally accepted as true. Gravity however as a theory makes no statement as to how the actual universe is arranged, it merely says how objects will interact with one another. The heliocentric model is a scientific theory which organizes the available data on the universe based on the theory of gravitation, and constructs a reasonable model of the movement of the bodies in the solar system based on that. The heliocentric model is therefore dependent upon the theory of gravity, but gravity is not dependent upon the heliocentric model. If jupiter's orbit were a couple miles closer to the sun, the universal theory of gravitation would still hold.

Likewise, the theory of descent with modification is dependent upon the theory of evolution, but a disproof of the one is not a disproof of the other. The theory of evolution could still hold if every species on earth suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as it does not make any solid claims as to what organisms have developed. At the same time however, it would still predict how those species would change over time, and would show how those species which were poofed into existence would evolve when set free in an environment where they must compete for limited resources. Also, it is important to note that descent with modification makes no claim as to the origination of the primal ancestor, but only how life on earth has been derived from it. The actual theory as to the origination of the first living organism is called Abiogenesis, and at this point nothing is entirely certain regarding it. At the same time, scientists have recently created the first synthetic cell, so it seems that our knowledge is progressing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The ( scientific ) Theory of Evolution
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my original explanation of the scientific method, I mentioned how one of the key factors in the promotion of a hypothesis to the level of theory is that it withstand the addition of new facts. Let us look briefly at evolution's promotion. Charles Darwin observed that species change over time. He noticed that this change corresponded roughly with the change of Evolutionary systems(a classification he simultaneously created), and hypothesized that biological organisms were in fact evolutionary systems. This hypothesis was later supported by the discovery of DNA and the science of genetics, something which did not exist in Darwin's time. It also explained a very large body of facts in the form of the fossil record. Since that time, we have observed the speciation of a several species, and been able to use evolutionary theory to predict the genetic change in bacterium under controlled conditions, which you have erroneously decried as unnatural. As such, evolution is a successful scientific theory, as it has met all of the requirements outlined above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "addition of information" in a gene
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As stated before, in order for a system to be evolutionary, it must be a)capable of replication b) be prone to random changes in the process and c) it must be subject to selective pressures. In biological organisms, DNA is the driving force of self reproduction, and mutations in DNA are the source of the random changes. Mutations in DNA are all one of an additional types

an insertion occurs when a single nucleotide is inserted accidentally into the gene. Thus, a gene which orginally read
TAGTAGTAGTAGTAG could read
TTAGTAGTAGTAGTAG, Note, the total "information" has now technically increased, even if it has no effect on the organism.
a deletion occurs when a single nucleotide is subtracted from the gene. Thus,
TAGTAGTAGTAGTAG beomes
AGTAGTAGTAGTAG Note, "information" has been lost
Mutations can happen on an entire gene, or they can happen on a single nucleotide. As the total amount of genetic material of an organism increases through random insertions, you effectively get blank regions of DNA which do absolutely nothing. Now, you must realize that although nonsense may not seem to possess as much information as something meaningful, practically, it takes the same amount of information to store the word CHAIR as it does to store ARGHE. And since the organism already possesses junk information, the information can slowly be changed over time to be something meaningful. So in short, Insertions add junk information, selective pressure slowly changes junk information to useful information. One gene's junk is another gene's treasure.

~~~~~~~
Evidence
~~~~~~~

Note, I will accept you conditions about "Natural" vs Unnatural environments, but I will expect you to explain that distinction further in your reply. Considering the above information, all that is necessary to provide you with your information is to provide you with 10 examples of frame shift mutations, as it has been demonstrated that all frame shift mutations add information to genes by definition. I cannot provide actual links, as I am using a medical textbook, but if you would like I can provide you with the title and ISBN if you are interested. It is important to note that what you consider information is not what information in the scientific sense. To you, the bible contains more information than the complete Harry Potter series, but to a computer, this is the other way around. You must remember that there is no distinction in this fashion between useful and un-useful information. Information is information in this sense. There are a number of diseases caused by frameshift mutations in a particular gene, and everyone of them adds information to the overal genetic code of the individual.
Your 10 examples...

Tay-Sachs disease
Chron's disease
Cystic Fibrosis
Huntington's disease
Zellweger syndrome
Haemophilia
Color blindness
Phenylketonuria
Sickle-cell disease
Turner syndrome

All of these result in additional "information" of some sort, but let me provide you with something more concrete that you can actually consider the "increase" in the information of a patient in a far more tangible sense. Consider XYY syndrome. Now, the average person has 46 chromosomes, which I am sure you are aware. There is a genetic disease however, which is the result of the duplication of an entire chromosome (the y chromosome) so that any individual with the disease has 47 chromosomes instead of the usual 46. This means they have an entire chromosome worth of extra material. This constitutes a clear addition to the total amount of genetic information, and is produced in entirely natural conditions.

I do not have links for these diseases, but even a small amount of searching on your behalf could find you all of the information you need on any one of these diseases, and any medical textbook will have the information you need. I am pretty sure medical textbooks count as a reliable source...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Questions for You
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have addressed every issue you requested, now if you would please explain what exactly the distinction is between artificial and natural conditions, and why you will not accept mutations within "artificial" settings. There is no difference between a frameshift mutation in the wild ans a frameshift mutation in a laboratory, the only difference is that one can be observed empirically while the other can't. Once you realize this I can provide you with plentiful examples of beneficial mutations where information is added, but on short notice and with the restrictions provided I can only dip into my knowledge of medicine. Please explain why mutations in a lab are different from mutations in the wild (from a genetic perspective) and why evolution in a test tube is different form evolution in the wild.

Woo, took a lot of work, but I addressed all of your points. Now, can you please not ask for arbitrary numbers of examples in the future? I spent forever hunting down those genetic disorders in my medical textbook, and there was honestly no logical reason why I should have provided 10 instead of three. Still, I humored your request, but in the future, please limit your requests for examples to 3 per issue, and I will grant you the same courtesy. But still, I have a request now...

Can you please provide me with three instances of confirmed cases where the nature of genetic mutations of some organism have been shown to be different strictly due to the fact of their being in a natural/artificial environment?

And I quote from the user "/b/artleby"...

"There are two forms of reasoning which a man may employ, deductive, or inductive. Deductive reasoning consists of reasoning with regard only to the manipulation of symbols, and in a sense, is the only absolute form of reason. But what can be known deductively is very little, and what can be known about the world is less. Since it is often necessary for human beings to make judgements regarding the real world, regardless of absolute certainty, it is therefore necessary to employ another kind of reasoning, inductive reasoning, in order to accomplish this. Inductive reasoning refers to reasoning with regard to probability. For example, should I see a sparrow fly past my window at 9:00 Am every morning for a month, I may conclude with reasonable certainty that it shall do so again the next day. Of course, I could be wrong, but nonetheless, our very existence requires that we make judgements regarding the world around us, and we cannot survive without it."

Sorry I thought this was a debate regarding Evolution? Stop playing with word-games and riddles and get to the main subject. So far, all you've done up to this point is state the obvious. Let's keep moving.

And I quote from the user "/b/artleby"...

"Contained within the realm of inductive reasoning is a certain heuristic which we call "the scientific method". The primary purpose of the scientific method is to try to avert the many pitfalls of individual human perception through group collaboration. This requires transparency, honesty, and clarity greater than almost any other collective effort. So within the realm of science, any data is collected an organized in a very rigid fashion, against the greatest possible scepticism, with the full intent of obtaining the maximum possible degree of certainty."

Oh really? Galloping around in circles stating the obvious again? The primary purpose of the scientific method? No. You are being extremely vague and you are not going into much detail regarding the scientific method. Any sensationalist extremist liberalist naturalist can do this type of thing that you do. Let's take a look at the Journal of Science edited by James D. and Edward S. Dana.

American Journal of Science

Dr G.K Gilbert - Inculcation of Scientific Method

"It is the province of research to discover the antecendents of phenomena. This is done by the aid of hypothesis. A phenomenom having been observed, or a group of phenomena having been established by empiric classification, the investigator invents an hypothesis in explanation. He then devises and applies a test of the validity of the hypothesis. If it does not stand the test he discards it and invents a new one. If it survives the test, he proceeds at once ato devise a second test. And thus continues until he finds an hypothesis that remains unscathed after all the test his imagination can suggest."

How about you stop misquoting the real scientists out there and putting it in your own words. The only way you can quote them without misquoting them is looking up the definitions of the words and hopefully rearranging them in a careful manner that is elaborate and still makes sense. You might as well quote the entire thing because your ignorance is too great that you fail to even present your OWN SCIENTIFIC METHOD correctly. But let's continue on with this debunkage.

And I quote from the user "/b/artleby"...

"Within the construct of the scientific method, a fact is a single piece of datum of a sufficient level of certainty. Facts alone however are not sufficient to understand our universe, we do not only want to know what has been seen, but we also want to know how it works, and what it will do in the future. So, to achieve this end, around a set number of facts, we construct a hypothesis to explain a) why they are the way they are, and b) how it will react in the future. For a set number of facts however, almost an infinite number of contradictory hypotheses can be created, so it is up to the scientific method to sift through them and find which is the correct one. Some hypotheses are discarded easily, all that is required is that one find additional facts and compare them against the predictions that the hypotheses provides. If a hypothesis has withstood sufficient scrutiny, and has held true for the addition of a sufficient number of facts not originally within its domain, it can then be elevated to the level of a theory. So to answer your question, a theory is a hypothesis with regard to a set number of facts which has withstood the test of time, the scrutiny of other scientists, and the addition of new facts not part of its original set. "

Facts are not sufficient to understand our universe? Let's take a look at several definition websites to first declare what the real definition of the word 'fact' is.

"1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact." - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fact
"1. a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is." - http://www.yourdictionary.com/fact
"1. Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. For example, fact may be argued under authority of a specific pedagogy, such as scientific facts or historical facts . Rhetorical assertion of fact is often forwarded without an implied or express basis of authority.
Etymology and usage
The word fact derives from the Latin Factum , and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.

The common usage of, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century. Fact is also synonymous with truth or reality , as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found for instance in the phrase Matter of fact , and in "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."

Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").

Alternatively, "fact" may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact", (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.

Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation , including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation. This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").

Fact in philosophy
In philosophy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs reported by a true proposition.

Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true. For example, the statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is made true by the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact that Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.

Correspondence and the slingshot argument
Some versions of the correspondence theory of truth hold that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a fact. This theory presupposes the existence of an objective world.

The Slingshot argument claims to show that all true statements stand for the same thing - the truth value true . If this argument holds, and facts are taken to be what true statements stand for, then we reach the counter-intuitive conclusion that there is only one fact - "the truth".

Compound facts
Any non-trivial true statement about reality is necessarily an abstraction composed of a complex of objects and properties or relations. For example, the fact described by the true statement " Paris is the capital city of France" implies that there is such a place as Paris, that there is such a place as France, that there are such things as capital cities, as well as that France has a government, that the government of France has the power to define its capital city, and that the French government has chosen Paris to be the capital, that there is such a thing as a "place" or a "government", etc.. The verifiable accuracy of all of these assertions, if facts themselves, may coincide to create the fact that Paris is the capital of France.

Difficulties arise, however, in attempting to identify the constituent parts of negative, modal, disjunctive, or moral facts.

The fact-value distinction
Moral philosophers since David Hume have debated whether values are objective, and thus factual. In A Treatise of Human Nature Hume pointed out that there is no obvious way for a series of statements about what ought to be the case to be derived from a series of statements of what is the case. Those who insist that there is a logical gulf between facts and values, such that it is fallacious to attempt to derive values from facts, include G. E. Moore, who called attempting to do so the Naturalistic fallacy.

The factual-counterfactual distinction
Factuality , what has occurred , can also be contrasted with counterfactuality , what might have occurred, but did not. A counterfactual conditional or subjunctive conditional is a conditional (or "if-then") statement indicating what would be the case if events had been other than they actually are. For example, "If Alexander had lived, his empire would have been greater than Rome". This is to be contrasted with an indicative conditional, which indicates what is (in fact) the case if its antecedent is (in fact) true , for example, "if you drink this, it will make you well".

Such sentences are important to Modal logic, especially since the development of Possible world semantics.

Fact in science
Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation, some of which are detailed below. Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science.

Scholarly inquiry regarding scientific fact
Scholars and clinical researchers in both the social and natural sciences have forwarded numerous questions and theories in clarifying the fundamental nature of scientific fact. Some pertinent issues raised by this inquiry include:

the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted as such;
whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be considered truly independent and separable from one another;
to what extent are "facts" influenced by the mere act of observation; and
to what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history and consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.
Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory (e.g., age of fossils is based on radiocarbon dating which is justified by reasoning that radioactive decay follows a Poisson process rather than a Bernoulli process). Similarly, Percy Williams Bridgman is credited with the methodological position known as operationalism, which asserts that all observations are not only influenced, but necessarily defined by the means and assumptions used to measure them.

Fact and the scientific method
Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated, established, and substantiated through the proper application of the scientific method. Scientific facts are generally believed to be independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion. In addition to these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.
Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.

Misunderstanding of this difference sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which persons will say that they have fact, while others have only theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting they believe that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."

Fact in History
A common rhetorical cliche states, "History is written by the winners." This phrase suggests but does not examine the use of facts in the writing of history.

E. H. Carr in his 1961 volume, What is History? , argues that the inherent biases from the gathering of facts makes the objective truth of any historical perspective idealistic and impossible. Facts are, "like fish in the Ocean," that we may only happen to catch a few, only an indication of what is below the surface. Even a dragnet cannot tell us for certain what it would be like to live below the Ocean's surface. Even if we do not discard any facts (or fish) presented, we will always miss the majority; the site of our fishing, the methods undertaken, the weather and even luck play a vital role in what we will catch. Additionally, the composition of history is inevitably made up by the compilation of many different bias of fact finding - all compounded over time. He concludes that for a historian to attempt a more objective method, one must accept that history can only aspire to a conversation of the present with the past - and, that one's methods of fact gathering should be openly examined. As with science, historical truth and facts will therefore change over time and reflect only the present consensus (if that).

Others have argued that an approach to facts such as Carr's is relativism and they lament the loss of a transcendent or fixed moral framework. However, his views together with the popular rise of historiographical narratives and meta-narratives may comprise a consensual view.

Fact in law
In most common law jurisdictions, the general concept and analysis of fact reflects fundamental principles of Jurisprudence, and is supported by several well-established standards. Matters of fact have various formal definitions under common law jurisdictions.
These include:


an element required in legal pleadings to demonstrate a cause of action;

the determinations of the finder of fact after evaluating admissible evidence produced in a trial or hearing;

a potential ground of reversible error forwarded on appeal in an appellate court; and

any of various matters subject to investigation by official authority to establish whether a crime has been perpetrated, and to establish culpability.

Legal pleadings
A party to a civil suit generally must clearly state all relevant allegations of fact upon which a claim is based. The requisite level of precision and particularity of these allegations varies depending on the rules of civil procedure as well as the jurisdiction. Parties who face uncertainties regarding the facts and circumstances attendant to their side in a dispute may sometimes invoke alternative pleading. In this situation, a party may plead separate facts that (when considered together) may be contradictory or mutually exclusive. This (seemingly) logically-inconsistent presentation of facts may be necessary as a safeguard against contingencies (such as res judicata) that would otherwise preclude presenting a claim or defense that depends on a particular interpretation of the underlying facts." - http://www.reference.com/browse/fact

A fact is something that is true no matter how complex it is

And I quote from the user "/b/artleby"...

"What is often called the "theory of evolution" is in fact a collective banner for several different theories and observation, and I will do my best to explain the differences among them. Evolution is first of all a mathematical construct, and a statistical fact. Any system which reproduces itself with random variations and that experiences selective pressure undergoes "Evolution". Those features which aid in its survival are "selected" for by the environmental pressures. Note, that I have avoiding mentioning biological organisms, as Evolution is a phenomena who's existence is independent of the biological sciences. Evolution in this sense is not a theory, as a scientific theory is a product of inductive reasoning, while the evolution of systems is a matter of deductive reasoning. Evolution in this sense can be proven mathematically, and is the basis for many technologies we now enjoy, and are successfully employed in computer science with "Genetic algorithms"

What is commonly referred to as "The theory of evolution" as a biological body is broken up further still into several components. The first is that which is officially known as theory of evolution. It is a scientific theory which states that biological organisms are systems which fall into the mathematical category of evolving systems, and predicts their change over time using the logical formalism of evolutionary systems. The second is what is often called the theory of descent with modification, and that refers to the specific theory as to how modern biological organisms have evolved in accordance with the theory of evolution from one ancestral species.

Note that these two biological theories are distinct from one another. For an explanation of why this is the case, let me compare it to astronomy. For the most part, the movement of planets in dependent only on gravity, almost nothing else affects their path. However, the heliocentric model is still distinct from the theory of gravity, despite the fact that both are almost equally accepted as true. Gravity however as a theory makes no statement as to how the actual universe is arranged, it merely says how objects will interact with one another. The heliocentric model is a scientific theory which organizes the available data on the universe based on the theory of gravitation, and constructs a reasonable model of the movement of the bodies in the solar system based on that. The heliocentric model is therefore dependent upon the theory of gravity, but gravity is not dependent upon the heliocentric model. If jupiter's orbit were a couple miles closer to the sun, the universal theory of gravitation would still hold."

Wrong again. Evolution is a (I quote) 'a collective banner for several different observation...'? No. Your definition of Evolution is a statement, but all the observations in the past have failed to prove Evolution, instead, they show different traits emerging and variation with the species such as different hair colour, skin colour, etc. This genetic information has been proven by famous biologists like Richard Dawkins to not add new genetic information, but rather change it. You can't say that it is just a matter of deductive reasoning, please do in depth a bit more becuase one can come up with several false and/or fallacious arguments to construct a false dichotomy argument. Evolution cannot be proven mathematically and the vast technology that has been emerging since the industrial revolution has nothing to do with Darwin's Biological Theory of Evolution. All the technology was created by human intelligence which connects to many different branchers of science. Genetic algorithms has not helped socieity in one bit - it has not contributed to our technology in any significant way that has improved the lifestyle of people. Descent with modification? You are being very vague - and if this is your style of debating, it is logically flawed in so many areas. You haven't explained what type of modification. Yes -- there are different traits such as hair and skin colour throughout the human race, but once again, you have failed to demonstrate how this is proof of Evolution.

Your last paragraph so far talks about astronomy. Why would you be talking about astronomy? Are you trying to drift the subject? Here's an analogy. Let's say there is a debate about America's Education System. Some person starts talking about how metals conduct. This is what you're doing. You're saying that astronomy is not relevant to the subject and you are writing a paragraph on it. Please explain why you are doing this as I did not come here to talk about astronomy. We agreed to talk about Darwin's Theory of Evolution. My source is the League of Reason Forums where you can find the agreed upon debate conditions in the 'Religion and Irreligion' section. Proclaiming something as a fact is a very unscientific thing to do. You can state that it's an observation that has been confirmed, but you cannot say it is a fact. Science demands things to be falsifyable. Once again, I ask you to not play around with words and get your definitions straight before you but heads with someone who has years of knowledge ahead of you.

And I quote from the user "/b/artleby"...

"Note that these two biological theories are distinct from one another. For an explanation of why this is the case, let me compare it to astronomy. For the most part, the movement of planets in dependent only on gravity, almost nothing else affects their path. However, the heliocentric model is still distinct from the theory of gravity, despite the fact that both are almost equally accepted as true. Gravity however as a theory makes no statement as to how the actual universe is arranged, it merely says how objects will interact with one another. The heliocentric model is a scientific theory which organizes the available data on the universe based on the theory of gravitation, and constructs a reasonable model of the movement of the bodies in the solar system based on that. The heliocentric model is therefore dependent upon the theory of gravity, but gravity is not dependent upon the heliocentric model. If jupiter's orbit were a couple miles closer to the sun, the universal theory of gravitation would still hold.

Likewise, the theory of descent with modification is dependent upon the theory of evolution, but a disproof of the one is not a disproof of the other. The theory of evolution could still hold if every species on earth suddenly appeared out of nowhere, as it does not make any solid claims as to what organisms have developed. At the same time however, it would still predict how those species would change over time, and would show how those species which were poofed into existence would evolve when set free in an environment where they must compete for limited resources. Also, it is important to note that descent with modification makes no claim as to the origination of the primal ancestor, but only how life on earth has been derived from it. The actual theory as to the origination of the first living organism is called Abiogenesis, and at this point nothing is entirely certain regarding it. At the same time, scientists have recently created the first synthetic cell, so it seems that our knowledge is progressing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The ( scientific ) Theory of Evolution
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my original explanation of the scientific method, I mentioned how one of the key factors in the promotion of a hypothesis to the level of theory is that it withstand the addition of new facts. Let us look briefly at evolution's promotion. Charles Darwin observed that species change over time. He noticed that this change corresponded roughly with the change of Evolutionary systems(a classification he simultaneously created), and hypothesized that biological organisms were in fact evolutionary systems. This hypothesis was later supported by the discovery of DNA and the science of genetics, something which did not exist in Darwin's time. It also explained a very large body of facts in the form of the fossil record. Since that time, we have observed the speciation of a several species, and been able to use evolutionary theory to predict the genetic change in bacterium under controlled conditions, which you have erroneously decried as unnatural. As such, evolution is a successful scientific theory, as it has met all of the requirements outlined above."

Classic Richard Dawkins argument there. Science is working on it? We barely have any knowledge at all in abiogenesis and you're talking about something that relies on the connection of abiogenesis. Disregarding it and saying that science is working on it is a horrible argument. Anyway - Evolution does not rely on descent with modification. What MODIFICATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? If two parents, male and female and a child would that be proof of Evolution? Since the child is 'modified'?

"1. the state of being modified; partial alteration." - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/modification%20

Be more specific. You are setting up yet again, another vague false dichotomy argument.

X = Y (Assumption)

Therefore Y -> A
Or/and Y -> B

Your 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs are nothing but ramblings inspired by a sensationalist media outlet. Be more specific - what do you mean by modification? And you have failed to provide evidence/proof/supporting links that have connected with your 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs. I'd like you to do this before you create false analogies and make assertions which your further text is based on.

Here are the assumptions that we know are currently true.

1. The Gene Pool has a finite amount of genetic information.

Yet again, I ask you to provide evidence that new genetic information is arising and not changing and rearranging the DNA code. You haven't done so -- you've posted assumptions and 'examples' with no raw evidence such as video footage. How do you know it's an addition of DNA code?

 

[/b/artleby]

Alas TruthfulChristian, allow me to show you what science is capable of. According to modern neurology, the brain of an adolescent has a less than fully developed neocortex. This results primarily in increased impulsiveness and decreased reasoning ability. From the immaturity of your response, I conclude that you are in fact a child. This, is a scientific hypothesis, so, allow me to test it against the available data.

How about you stop misquoting the real scientists out there and putting it in your own words. The only way you can quote them without misquoting them is looking up the definitions of the words and hopefully rearranging them in a careful manner that is elaborate and still makes sense. You might as well quote the entire thing because your ignorance is too great that you fail to even present your OWN SCIENTIFIC METHOD correctly. But let's continue on with this debunkage.

Allow me to present the first facts to be considered. How does my hypothesis explain these?
1. Well, if you are a child (as I posit) you would have a decreased critical reasoning capacity and a decreased ability to extract essential meaning from a text. You would be unable to consider that something as fundamental as the scientific method is, in fact, something that has been defined by many people with no one standard "written in stone" definition. If you were in fact a child, you would have a decreased ability to abstract and imagine systems fundamentally different than your own. You would be able to see that science is not like the bible, is is not stored in one unquestionable text who's existence is paramount above all. You would be unable to imagine how a system could differ from what is probably the only book you have stared at for more than ten minutes (this is of course a second hypothesis, but I consider it to be obvious enough not to require extensive proof).
2. If you were a child you would be devoid of more rudimentary reasoning skills such as the ability to conclude that two observers describing the same object or process would most likely have similar explanations. Of course, you definitely wouldn't be able to catch that my description of the scientific method is almost word for word that of Bertrand Russell, historian, philosopher, mathematician, philanderer... If you were a child such reasoning would be beyond you.
3. If you were a child, you would be impulsive, and incapable of constructing a well thought out reply without dipping heavily into extensive capitalization, meaningless but emotionally charged accusations, simple ad hominem attacks, and you would certainly be able to proceed without displaying your thinly veiled contempt for the principles of grammar (I present to you, "debunkage").

However, it is not sufficient for a hypothesis to explain its original data set, it must also be capable of incorporating new elements as well. Let us see how well this hypothesis will stand when we add additional quotes...

Facts are not sufficient to understand our universe? Let's take a look at several definition websites to first declare what the real definition of the word 'fact' is.

"1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact." - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fact
"1. a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is." - http://www.yourdictionary.com/fact
"1. Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation. There is a range of other uses, depending on the context. For example, fact may be argued under authority of a specific pedagogy, such as scientific facts or historical facts . Rhetorical assertion of fact is often forwarded without an implied or express basis of authority.
Etymology and usage
The word fact derives from the Latin Factum , and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.

How would my hypothesis explain your inability to understand even the basic principles of language? Well let us consider, the ability to reason with regard to abstract constructs is largely a task for the neocortex. If you were in fact a child you would have decreased ability in that respect, and would be unable to understand something as fundamental as why exactly a single word has so many different definitions following it in the dictionary. My hypothesis clearly addresses your inability to understand the difference between a scientific definition and vernacular.

Lets keep moving

Sorry I thought this was a debate regarding Evolution? Stop playing with word-games and riddles and get to the main subject. So far, all you've done up to this point is state the obvious. Let's keep moving.

Wow, my hypothesis seems to be really working! every time I add new data boom , just as I predicted! This post clearly shows the subject's increased impulsiveness and decreased attention span, as well as his inability to understand complex themes. All marks of childhood!

Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vice versa.

Hm, inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, a common hallmark of childhood, next!

Wrong again. Evolution is a (I quote) 'a collective banner for several different observation...'? No. Your definition of Evolution is a statement, but all the observations in the past have failed to prove Evolution, instead, they show different traits emerging and variation with the species such as different hair colour, skin colour, etc.

The inability to say on topic, inability to understand basic grammar (the definition of a statement), the inability to understand any explanation that takes more than 10 seconds, inability to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources of information.

Your last paragraph so far talks about astronomy. Why would you be talking about astronomy? Are you trying to drift the subject? Here's an analogy. Let's say there is a debate about America's Education System. Some person starts talking about how metals conduct. This is what you're doing. You're saying that astronomy is not relevant to the subject and you are writing a paragraph on it. Please explain why you are doing this as I did not come here to talk about astronomy. We agreed to talk about Darwin's Theory of Evolution. My source is the League of Reason Forums where you can find the agreed upon debate conditions in the 'Religion and Irreligion' section. Proclaiming something as a fact is a very unscientific thing to do. You can state that it's an observation that has been confirmed, but you cannot say it is a fact. Science demands things to be falsifyable. Once again, I ask you to not play around with words and get your definitions straight before you but heads with someone who has years of knowledge ahead of you.

Oh, boy, the motherload. There is so much data here, but I am pretty sure my hypothesis can handle it. All right here we go...
1.Inability to understand the concept of a metaphor. ("Please explain why you are doing this as I did not come here to talk about astronomy.")
2.Inability to understand abstract relations among objects("Some person starts talking about how metals conduct. This is what you're doing.")
3.Inability to maintain coherency. ("Proclaiming something as a fact is a very unscientific thing to do")
4.Defensive and paranoid anger at any concept which is beyond his ability to understand ("Your last paragraph so far talks about astronomy. Why would you be talking about astronomy? Are you trying to drift the subject?", the result of the surges of testosterone consistent with adolescence)
5. Excessive hubris and delusions of grandeur ("Once again, I ask you to not play around with words and get your definitions straight before you but heads with someone who has years of knowledge ahead of you.", again, testosterone)

Classic Richard Dawkins argument there. Science is working on it? We barely have any knowledge at all in abiogenesis and you're talking about something that relies on the connection of abiogenesis. Disregarding it and saying that science is working on it is a horrible argument. Anyway - Evolution does not rely on descent with modification. What MODIFICATION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?? If two parents, male and female and a child would that be proof of Evolution? Since the child is 'modified'?

1. Oh dear. One of the hall marks of childhood, that when presented with something the subject cannot control or understand, they will drift into incoherent ravings known commonly as "a tantrum"

Be more specific. You are setting up yet again, another vague false dichotomy argument.

1. Defensive anger
2. Inability to understand complex constructs like grammar.

X = Y (Assumption)

Therefore Y -> A
Or/and Y -> B

1.Struggles with basic mathematical constructs like logic.

Your 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs are nothing but ramblings inspired by a sensationalist media outlet. Be more specific - what do you mean by modification? And you have failed to provide evidence/proof/supporting links that have connected with your 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs. I'd like you to do this before you create false analogies and make assertions which your further text is based on.

Here are the assumptions that we know are currently true.

1. The Gene Pool has a finite amount of genetic information.

Yet again, I ask you to provide evidence that new genetic information is arising and not changing and rearranging the DNA code. You haven't done so -- you've posted assumptions and 'examples' with no raw evidence such as video footage. How do you know it's an addition of DNA code?

1. Defensive and paranoid anger ("Your 2nd and 3rd last paragraphs are nothing but ramblings inspired by a sensationalist media outlet")
2. Inability to construct coherent sentences ("I'd like you to do this before you create false analogies and make assertions which your further text is based on.")
3. Lack of basic critical reasoning faculties (" the assumptions that we know are currently true")
4. Inability to maintain a reasonable attention span for anything not on a television screen ("you've posted assumptions and 'examples' with no raw evidence such as video footage")



Well, my hypothesis seems to have withstood sufficient scrutiny, and has withstood the addition of a large body of new information. I therefore declare my hypothesis a scientific theory, the Theory of TC's Immaturity, alternatively, The Special Theory of Universal Pinecones. I will submit my discovery to the Royal Institution immediately.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Several notes. First, in my previous post, I made a rather elementary mistake. I said all frame shift mutations add information. What I meant to say was that all frame shift mutations change the total amount of information, as some constitute a deletion rather than an insertion. Second, as my opponent has refused to submit a coherent argument, I consider myself to be the victor of this debate, as it is obvious the TruthfulChristian is nothing more than a troll. If TC would care to respond, I submit to him one challenge

Provide 10 well documented examples of you behaving in a mature and adult manor. I consider well documented to mean documented in the presence of a reliable individual capable of reliable scientific observation. No other examples will be accepted.

And TruthfulChristian, as you seem to consider "raw evidence such as video footage" to be superior to a medical textbook, I submit to you the following raw footage as proof that individuals afflicted with those medical conditions have additional genetic information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgcZNpmOKuk&feature=related

 

[TruthfulChristian]

Scientific hypothesis? Really? You conclude that I am child based on a false strawman argument? Let's take a look at what exactly a strawman argument is and what scientific hypothesis means.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually ..." -en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument
"A hypothesis (from Greek '; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose. ... " -en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_hypothesis

Your previous statement does not match the definitions which are being presented - therefore your false presumption is invalid and can be dismissed.

Once again, you are using fallacies, illogical misconnections, falsehoods, presumptions based on little or no evidence and your whole sentence structure is based on ad-hominems and word-riddles. This kind of argument is flawed and I will conclude that you are a troll that is only interested in throwing out blind personal attacks.

Once again -- let me restate my position and challenge, if he does not reply within the next 24 hours or he responds with another 'trollish' post, I will not debate him and I will consider my self as victor.


Show me any scientific example of Evolution adding new information in the genome and prove it is indeed, the effect of Evolution.. I define scientific as: anything that has been observed and confirmed by multiple reliable sources, anything that has been tested numerous times and has passed sufficient and relevant tests, anything that has been measured objectively and proven to be an accurate measurement.

So show me any proof that new genetic information can be added and simply not rearranged or swapped around. Here's a simple analogy. Say you have the word 'SANTA'. You can mix the letters up and make so many words such as....

SATAN
TAN
SAT
ANT
NATAS
etc...

But you can't make the words...

QUEEN
BEEHIVE
KEEPER
ROBBERY
or even... Lopado,­temacho,­selacho,­galeo,­kranio,­leipsano,­drim,­hypo,­trimmato,­silphio,­parao,­melito,­katakechy,­meno,­kichl,­epi,­kossypho,­phatto,­perister,­alektryon,­opte,­kephallio,­kigklo,­peleio,­lagoio,­siraio,­baphe,­tragano,­pterygon

That's the problem with Evolution. Every single experiment every conducted was in an artificial environment with artificial conditions - evolution claims that this happens in the natural world. So far, we have not observed such addition of DNA being added in the natural word.

I'll give you another challenge.

CHALLENGE #2

- Prove that life originated from a single celled organism
-Prove that the transitional fossils are not accompanied by the 'pareidolia' effect
-Prove that each organism that you claim trasitioned actually transitioned
-Prove that life diversified because of the effects of evolution
-Prove that new genetic information can arise in the gene pool and mutate organisms
-Prove that evolution is happening today and you can observe, test and measure it under natural condition(s) and/or environment(s)
-Prove that life could not have had an intelligent designer
-Prove and discovery ALL of the relevant transitional fossils and prove that they evolved throughout the times
-Prove that time, matter and energy originated from a huge chaotic big explosion of zero energy
-Prove that the living human cell can still successfully reproduce and survive whilst missing its vital components ie. cell membrane, cell nucleus, cell outer layer
-Prove that that the living human cell evolved the cell membrane, cell nucleus and the cell outer layer and it survived throughout the process
-Prove that the human living cell did not require its vital components ie. cell membrane, cell nucleus and the cell outer layer during its survival period



You must prove all of these things before we debate properly. Failure to do so will result in a loss. Because simply asserting things without evidence does not work on me -- sorry. Your word-riddles and games do not fool someone such as me. You cannot just assert things and expect me to believe in them. I could do the same thing and say that there is a breed of super aliens with 5 noses and 1000 eyes on saturn and they are invisible, that would be equal to what you're saying. So provide the proof or stop debating me.

 

[/b/artleby]

TruthfulChristian, you have proved yourself to be nothing more than a child, and a troll. You have failed to meet a single one of my challenges.

1. You have failed to provide 3 examples of "artificial" and "natural" environments differing.
2. You have failed to provide 10 examples of yourself behaving in an adult manner.
3. You have failed to provide a coherent rebuttal to any one of the points I have made

Furthermore you have displayed an open contempt for the structure and principles of debate, and have offered no convincing evidence that you are anything other than a Troll. On these grounds I hereby declare myself the victor of this debate, in accordance with the principles you yourself set out "You must prove all of these things before we debate properly. Failure to do so will result in a loss."
You have not met a single one of my challenges, and this "will result in a loss" for you. As you have expressed concerns in the past regarding my "word riddles" I will put this in clear, unambiguous terms.

I WIN!!!

Since I have won this debate, you must concede to me the prize of victory, namely, an autographed pine cone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, since I have already won the debate, I might as well take the time to expand my new theory. I have already set forth my "Special Theory of Universal Pine Cones", and as such I would like to submit the General Theory as well. The General Theory of Universal Pine Cones States, "TruthfulChristian is a mental invalid, devoid of any observable reasoning capacity."

This of course would mean the Complete Theory of Universal Pine Cones would be...

1. TruthfulChristian is a mental invalid
2. TruthfulChristian is a child


Now, of course, the elegance of a theory cannot be substituted for actual evidence, so let me now provide evidence for the General Theory.

Once again, you are using fallacies, illogical misconnections, falsehoods, presumptions based on little or no evidence and your whole sentence structure is based on ad-hominems and word-riddles.

Note, the subject conveys a pathological fear of "word riddles" and displays fear and contempt for anything he does not understand. This of course supports the general theory greatly.

Scientific hypothesis? Really? You conclude that I am child based on a false strawman argument?

Note, the subject displays an inability to understand basic abstract concepts such as the definition of a strawman argument. Further support for the general theory

Show me any scientific example of Evolution adding new information in the genome and prove it is indeed, the effect of Evolution.. I define scientific as: anything that has been observed and confirmed by multiple reliable sources, anything that has been tested numerous times and has passed sufficient and relevant tests, anything that has been measured objectively and proven to be an accurate measurement.

Note, the subject displays the inability to maintain a consistent position on any issue, a sign of limited mental capacity. In his previous post, he declared "proclaiming something as a fact is a very unscientific thing to do" and even constructed a fantastical and elaborately imaginative definition of scientific around this fact, which of course he now contradicts.

So show me any proof that new genetic information can be added and simply not rearranged or swapped around. Here's a simple analogy. Say you have the word 'SANTA'. You can mix the letters up and make so many words such as....

SATAN
TAN
SAT
ANT
NATAS
etc...

But you can't make the words...

QUEEN
BEEHIVE
KEEPER
ROBBERY
or even... Lopado,­temacho,­selacho,­galeo,­kranio,­leipsano,­drim,­hypo,­trimmato,­silphio,­parao,­melito,­katakechy,­meno,­kichl,­epi,­kossypho,­phatto,­perister,­alektryon,­opte,­kephallio,­kigklo,­peleio,­lagoio,­siraio,­baphe,­tragano,­pterygon

That's the problem with Evolution. Every single experiment every conducted was in an artificial environment with artificial conditions - evolution claims that this happens in the natural world. So far, we have not observed such addition of DNA being added in the natural word.

Note,
1. The subject maintains a diminished and limited ability even with regard to simple symbolic manipulation. If you will note, in my original post I described how a mutation on the small scale was either an insertion or a deletion. I did not even include any descriptions of large scale mutations in order to avoid providing him with what he has deemed "word riddles". Yet he still failed to grasp basic string manipulation, which even little children are capable of.
2. The subject retains a fervent and almost religious distinction between "artificial" and "natural" despite evidence, and when pressed to explain such delusions he merely repeats that this is the case, with much greater zeal and determination. This shows the subject to be in possession of a fear of strenuous mental activity (most likely through humiliating failures in early life) which he combats with an intense desire maintain stasis in his beliefs and knowledge. Note also, that when presented with actual medical examples of medical disorders which increase the total amount of genetic information, he retreats into the comfort of his own delusions and simply reiterates his original conclusion.

- Prove that life originated from a single celled organism
-Prove that the transitional fossils are not accompanied by the 'pareidolia' effect
-Prove that each organism that you claim trasitioned actually transitioned
-Prove that life diversified because of the effects of evolution
-Prove that new genetic information can arise in the gene pool and mutate organisms
-Prove that evolution is happening today and you can observe, test and measure it under natural condition(s) and/or environment(s)
-Prove that life could not have had an intelligent designer
-Prove and discovery ALL of the relevant transitional fossils and prove that they evolved throughout the times
-Prove that time, matter and energy originated from a huge chaotic big explosion of zero energy
-Prove that the living human cell can still successfully reproduce and survive whilst missing its vital components ie. cell membrane, cell nucleus, cell outer layer
-Prove that that the living human cell evolved the cell membrane, cell nucleus and the cell outer layer and it survived throughout the process
-Prove that the human living cell did not require its vital components ie. cell membrane, cell nucleus and the cell outer layer during its survival period

Note, the subject displays an inability to stay on topic, and to distinguish relevant topics from irrelevant ones. He displays a contempt for rational debate, and tries to maintain the delusion of his own intelligence by rearranging concepts he does not understand into a protective shield of incoherency. If you will note, despite the fact that the subject has, quite surprisingly, displayed himself capable of polysyllabic speech, almost every example provided is nonsensical and constitutes nothing more than jargon. I submit,
"Prove that the human living cell did not require its vital components ie. cell membrane, cell nucleus and the cell outer layer during its survival period"
"Prove and discovery ALL of the relevant transitional fossils and prove that they evolved throughout the times"
Note that this challenge displays the subjects unending and passionate contempt for grammar
"Prove that time, matter and energy originated from a huge chaotic big explosion of zero energy"
Note that the subject simultaneously confuses evolutionary biology with cosmology, quantum mechanics, and theoretical physics. The subject does not understand the distinction between scientific fields.

You must prove all of these things before we debate properly. Failure to do so will result in a loss. Because simply asserting things without evidence does not work on me -- sorry. Your word-riddles and games do not fool someone such as me. You cannot just assert things and expect me to believe in them. I could do the same thing and say that there is a breed of super aliens with 5 noses and 1000 eyes on saturn and they are invisible, that would be equal to what you're saying. So provide the proof or stop debating me.

Note, the subject displays fear and contempt for both higher learning and the structure of debate. He masks his own fears of insufficiency with delusions of superiority and grandeur ("Your word-riddles and games do not fool someone such as me"). The subject does exert the rudimentary capacity for self analysis, however he squanders this by projecting his insufficiencies onto those who seem hostile to him. But, perhaps most importantly, he fails to realize one thing, one thing that is absolutely vital for any sane productive member of society to realize. He fails to realize that no creature would evolve a nose on Saturn, as the high speed winds would make them useless, and that no invisible creature would also evolve so many eves, as the fact that light passes right through them would make them entirely useless.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This has certainly been a wonderful night for me, as I have both won a debate against TruthfulChristian, and simultaneously proved my complete theory of Universal Pine Cones. In my previous post I had proved the special theory (that TC is a child) and in this post I have proved the general theory (that TC is an invalid). In light of this, I will submit my findings to the Royal Institution, and sit back with the knowledge that my discovery will be sufficient to guarantee me a place in science text books for the rest of history. And for that I would like to say

Thank you TruthfulChristian. I couldn't have done it without you.

 

[TruthfulChristian]

I am sorry but I can only conclude that my opponent is either a severely mentally retarded child or just a troll. Judging by his constant use of ad-hominems and personal verbal attacks I appluad him because not only has he tricked me, but he has tricked another hoarde of ignorant atheists. ]

HE HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY OF MY CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO THIS DEBATE AND HE CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WHICH I HAVE PRESENTED DIRECTLY
I WIN

 

[/b/artleby]

More proof of both the general and special theories of Universal Pine Cones! The subject fails to demonstrate even a rudimentary grasp of the concept of hypocrisy....

Judging by his constant use of ad-hominems and personal verbal attacks

Contrast with...

my opponent is either a severely mentally retarded child or just a troll

Also,

HE HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS ANY OF MY CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO THIS DEBATE AND HE CANNOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WHICH I HAVE PRESENTED DIRECTLY

And yet although I addressed everyone of the points the subject originally asked me to address, he has failed to address a single point I have made, instead deciding to copy-paste the definition of a fact as many times as he could, and make bizarre and unrelated demands including that I prove the Big Bang theory.

TruthfulChristian, by applying those standards by which you yourself have declared victory you lost after the first post. Did you provide a single example proving that artificial environments differ unduly from natural ones? As you have not provided a single coherent argument against my first post, you lost a long time ago. The fact that all of my posts since then have been sarcastic personal attacks against you is absolutely irrelevant. You gave me nothing, no coherent body of points to address, you just threw a bunch of random quotes and links on a page and decided to try and pass it as a reply. Some of the other people on this board would have accepted that, they would have done their best to try and hold your hand and guide you gently through the logic as you threw your little tantrums and asserted your mental superiority, and called us filthy sinners( I cite your videos as examples of that). I, on the other hand, am sarcastic, and not a very nice person. I was nice enough to spend two hours of my life addressing every one of the points you asked me to address, explaining calmly and in simple language something that even the most thick sculled freshman chem or bio student could explain backwards and forwards. You expressed difficulty with basic concepts, and so I provided you with an explanation. I took time out of my day, when I could have easily been doing something else, to explain the basics of the scientific method and simple genetics. And instead of appreciating my kindness, you spit in my face and ignored everything I wrote, and threw together a post so incoherent that any professor of English would have crucified you for your crimes against the language. TruthfulChristian you should hang your head in the deepest shame, not for what you did to me but for the simple crime of hubris that blinds you to the world around you. Read your bible TC, and see what it says about pride. As sarcastic as I am, as sure of myself as I am, I still have to admit that I am wrong on a daily basis, because there are people smarter than me in this world and there is no way I am going to understand even a small portion of the vast and complicated world that we live in by assuming that whatever I believe is correct simply by virtue of me believing in it. This world is too complicated to be able to assume that your first assumption is correct no matter how smart you are, and if you want to be a part of the real world, you need to realize this. You are a fool TruthfulChristian, because all around you there are worlds that you can't even understand. As you walk past a library, log onto your computer, drive in your car, even turn on a light, you are engaging yourself in a world composed of principles and laws that have been going on for billions and billions of years before you were born and will be going on for billions and billions of years after you are gone. That is what science and learning are about TC, and any scientist worth a dime can tell you that.

TruthfulChristian, I replied with sarcasm and disdain to you, and I apologise for that, but only because I was subtle. TruthfulChristian, you are worthless as a human being, and you are worthless as an intellectual. That I pranced around the issue with jokes about theories and laws is a failing on my behalf, because I assumed you were perceptive enough to notice the glaring sarcasm and loathing I was trying to convey towards you. This is the real world TC, and in the real world, when you reply to a well crafted opening in a debate with incoherent copypasted shit, you get made fun of, and you get mocked. I'm not going to pretend you deserve to be treated with kiddie gloves just because of your religion, it is high time you realize all of this. But Truthfulchristian, as I sincerely doubt you will even understand a word I am saying, let me put this in words even you can understand.


YOU
ARE
AN
ASS
HAT


Read a book you ignorant trash.

 

[TruthfulChristian]

CHALLENGE #2

- Prove that life originated from a single celled organism
-Prove that the transitional fossils are not accompanied by the 'pareidolia' effect
-Prove that each organism that you claim trasitioned actually transitioned
-Prove that life diversified because of the effects of evolution
-Prove that new genetic information can arise in the gene pool and mutate organisms
-Prove that evolution is happening today and you can observe, test and measure it under natural condition(s) and/or environment(s)
-Prove that life could not have had an intelligent designer
-Prove and discovery ALL of the relevant transitional fossils and prove that they evolved throughout the times
-Prove that time, matter and energy originated from a huge chaotic big explosion of zero energy
-Prove that the living human cell can still successfully reproduce and survive whilst missing its vital components ie. cell membrane, cell nucleus, cell outer layer
-Prove that that the living human cell evolved the cell membrane, cell nucleus and the cell outer layer and it survived throughout the process
-Prove that the human living cell did not require its vital components ie. cell membrane, cell nucleus and the cell outer layer during its survival period

ANSWER -ALL - of the QUESTIONS and PROVIDE REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC FACTS THAT THESE ARE CORRECT. OTHERWISE I WIN BY DEFAULT.

 

[Aught3]

This is the sorriest excuse for a debate that I have ever seen. I wish I had shut it down sooner.

Btw, insults directed at other users are not tolerated here. You have been warned.