Evolution as a "fact"

[Darkprophet232]

Yet I found the term "scientific fact" in your preferred dictionary.

Kindest regards,

James

(Good catch, Dragan Glas)

Gilbo12345, if you take that definition, and recheck the definition of Fact #3, you'll see that it is analogous to definition #5, and follows your own rules for context. I believe we are done here now.

 

[gilbo12345]

Greetings,


1. Science doesn't tend to do that - all theories are open to being over-turned.

Abiogenesis is not a fact of chemical law, there has yet to be any experiments demonstrating that nature itself can create life, (the current experiments require human intervention in some way or another, which itself doesn't demonstrate that nature "did it" since it requires an intelligent agent (human scientists), meaning technically its evidence of ID since if intelligent agents are required to manipulate settings during the experiment then this infers that intelligent agents are required nevertheless. What I'd like to see would be an experiment whereby all the conditions were setup and then it was left to run... all by itself.. no human manipulation allowed after starting the experiment.

Firstly, abiogenesis is a natural consequence of the laws of chemistry given the right conditions. It is a "fact" only under those circumstances, not in all cases. One might think of it in a similar sense to the Jesus' parable of the farmer sowing seed - depending on which ground it lands will determine whether it flourishes or not.

2. Secondly, the Miller-Urey experiment, which reproduced the conditions (at the time) thought to be extant in the early history of the Earth, has already been shown to result in the building blocks of life.

Now considering the nature of chirality of molecules abiogenesis is almost certainly impossible, since DNA / RNA / Proteins require one "form" of molecule, (left handed form or right handed form depending on what is being made).. Yet these are found in a 50/50 mix in nature.. Meaning there needs to be a natural mechanism of selection of only choosing the correct "form" of molecule, since over time the odds of continually getting the right one via chance is slim indeed, ( more so as the conc. of the correct "form" lessens as its used up) . There is no natural mechanism given for such a thing, in fact I'm not sure if many people realise this problem.

You're suffering under the misapprehension of how Nature works.

3. There is nothing to prevent molecules forming based on chirality or the availability of molecules with the correct chirality. I refer you to Carrier's paper - see the "Class VII Error" section - for an explanation.

4. Further, Nature doesn't run out of molecules, as you seem to believe.

It would be interesting to see the evidence given for the claim that life can't help to occur under the right conditions. What are these conditions, how have they been verified? However one thing that people miss is that even if scientists find a way for nature to create life, that doesn't necessarily mean that that was what actually happened. There is no time machine for anyone to go and verify, hence the only thing that can be claimed for sure is that there is the possibility. Anything more than that and someone is using their imagination a little too much

The above paper also addresses these concerns.

5. Although scientists may not be able to say categorically "This is how life arose on Earth", they'll be able to give a possible path to the origin of life on this planet, if not elsewhere.

6. One other point you claim regarding no new species been observed, I refer you to Douglas Theobald's article, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

"Ring species" are just one example of new species occurring.



Kindest regards,

James

1. Except evolution, which is claimed to be a fact...... Also when there is conflicting evidence an ad hoc hypothesis is created, (see Punctuated Equilibrium)

2. Firstly the formation of amino acids is not life, unless you are an extremely zealous pro-life supporter....

Secondly Miller only used a fraction of the voltage of lightning, (if he had used the full voltage it would have oxidised, burnt out or otherwise destroyed the amino acids). Lightning is reported to be 100 million volts, reference below

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/MathieuLo.shtml

Thirdly Miller didn't have oxygen in the atmosphere, the reason is because it would (obviously) oxidise the amino acids, however oxygen is a part of the ozone cycle which is required to protect the Earth, (and the amino acids) from UV light, we use UV light in the lab... guess what... it kills stuff...

Fourthly the amount of amino acids is an extremely small percentage whereas the rest were toxic compounds, mainly carboxylic acids which by being weak acids would degrade the amino acids over time anyway.

3. I'd like you to state the evidence, its your claim not mine so I don't see why I should waste my time sifting through an entire site when you have given no explanation as to what to look for anyway. Post some quotes and a summary up here then we can discuss it.

4. Care to quote me stating that, or was this your interpretation?

5. So when asked for evidence you indirectly admit that there is none... So I'm wondering why make such a statement if you cannot back it up with evidence? Dawkins said you need evidence, yes?

6. Ring "species" are debatable since whilst the entire group cannot breed together some individuals can with others, meaning its not clear cut as you seem to assume. Luckily the definition of species makes allowances for times like these. As per my university studies we were taught 2 definitions of species.

1- It looks similar, (I kid you not! its this simple)
2- Same species can breed together

Number one fails in light of sexual dimporphism (though that is generally related to size so the basic body plan remains the same anyway...)

Number two fails in light of a nifty insect disease called wolbachia which makes infected males female and makes it that only infected individuals can breed together, therefore under the number 2 definition of species infected insects technically become a new species... However luckily there is enough sense for people to admit that this is not the case.

 

[gilbo12345]

Greetings,


Yet I found the term "scientific fact" in your preferred dictionary.

Kindest regards,

James

Care to quote it? This will be interesting

 

[gilbo12345]

All claimed "speciation events" have been mere variants of the same species, ergo no new species, (though I have met some evolutionists who claim that different breeds are different species).

1. For someone that started wanting to argue from definition, it is surprising that you have just thrown out what speciation event means.

2. Furthermore, evolution expects that speciation events would be new variations of the existing species.

3. This gets back to what I asked. What mechanism would stop the small changes from adding up into a large change?

If you feel this is wrong, please give examples of a new organism being formed... In the same light of a fish to an amphibian or a dinosaur to a bird, are these scale changes observed?

4. Thus, you are asking me to present something that takes millions of years. Well, would you accept fossil evidence? The fossil record is spectacularly good for both of the examples you are asking about.

I accept change, I do not accept common descent.

5. Great. Now we can get to the real thrust of your disagreement.

Using wikipedia is not going to help in the creditability department considering that it can be altered at will.

6. I cited wikipedia because it is a quick and easy way for someone to learn about different things. From your comment, it is obvious that you did not know what a mutation was or how they worked. Reading the wikipedia page would have saved us the step of me explaining it to you. However, if you do not like wikipedia, obtain a biology textbook and look up the word mutation.

Where is the evidence that a colour change will result in a major structural change in the basic body plan of the organism, as Dawkins claims we need evidence to believe things...

7. I never said that, work on your reading comprehension (this seems to be a common characteristic creationists seem to have).

8. I said the same factor that creates new color in hair and fins (mutations) can create new structures.

If a colour change doesn't result in new structures then why is such cited as "evidence" of common descent, (as per moths and variants of lizards etc)?

9. You act as if moth and lizard are species level designation. We have seen speciation events in both those groups, they could be found in my citation.

Additionally if it doesn't lead to such changes then shouldn't there be a distinction between the two? Or does confusion on the definition of large scale and small scale change and what is applicable between them equate to scientific integrity?

There is a difference in terms. It is called macroevolution and microevolution. Microevolution happens within a species and macroevolution happens at or above the species level. The fact that you do not know any of the basic makes it apparent that you have never actually studied the subject of evolution.

1. I'd prefer you to use a more reputable source, I don't trust wikipedia as far as I can throw it and considering its an immaterial thing that wouldn't be very far.

2. So does natural variation as defined by creationists..... Thus its a moot point

3. If you had bothered to read my post, (please do so again), you would see that I alread demonstrated how the small changes do not lead to larger ones as benign changes such as hair colour etc have no effect on the basic body plan of the organism.. If fact I was asking you for evidence that small changes can lead to such large changes... Or do you assume its correct without evidence? (Dawkins says this is a no no)

4. Really.. Again I ask for evidence, youre claims or opinions are not evidence, (otherwise any Creationist can use that as evidence of God). However one thing I will ask is by what mode of experimentation has the similarities in fossils been determined to be caused via evolution? Or is evolution assumed as the cause?

5. Disagreement implies two people or parties ergo its not just "my" disagreement.... Just so you know

6. Considering that mutations haven't even been mentioned by me I wonder how you can claim that I lack knowledge of them.... Or is this a test jab or something?

7. I never said you did... Therefore you need to work on your reading comprehension...... Oops. Its a common assertion that small changes lead up to larger ones or don't you agree with "wikipedia" on this?

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution


8. Ah so what are these "factors" and how are they verified? Considering that you admited that such takes "millions of years" where is the actual evidence for the mechanisms of such changes... Or is it believed without evidence? (Dawkins says no).

9. Um no lizards and moths on wikipedia sorry... There was a neat article about fish becoming different breeds of fish... As I said speciation is relegated to different breeds rather than actual species.

 

[gilbo12345]

(Good catch, Dragan Glas)

Gilbo12345, if you take that definition, and recheck the definition of Fact #3, you'll see that it is analogous to definition #5, and follows your own rules for context. I believe we are done here now.

So I'm a redneck now? Thats not an abusive comment....

Definition 3 contains

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.


Now what is a truth... You do realise that truth is an absolute as well... Hence my point.... Meaning you either don't understand my point or you just didn't read the definition properly.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm not seeing anyone calling you a redneck.

Keep it up gents, I'd join it but, y'know...The Hobbit!

 

[Darkprophet232]

So I'm a redneck now? Thats not an abusive comment....

Huh? I do not understand where you get redneck from, and I never meant to call you one. I would also say that being a redneck is hardly a derogatory claim, at least from the many friends I served with who happily used the title for themselves and family.

Definition 3 contains

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.


Now what is a truth... You do realise that truth is an absolute as well... Hence my point.... Meaning you either don't understand my point or you just didn't read the definition properly.

I'm assuming the same use of "truth" that your oft-used reference uses in its "Scientific Fact" definition. You might want to click the link and check for yourself.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

recheck =/= redneck.

Although while taking a cursory glance they appear very similar.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Hm, "rednecking" the definition of a word sounds delightfully dirty.

 

[malicious_bloke]

Hm, "rednecking" the definition of a word sounds delightfully dirty.

Hands off your sister

 

[Darkprophet232]

Hands off your sister

What, is it pa's turn tonight?

 

[detrean]

This discussion is being held up by disagreement on definitions. Gilbo seems committed to not accepting widely accepted biological definitions if they are preferred by this forum. I'm not sure why this is the case but I will see if i can perform the role of a bridge to an actual debate on the topic.

He seems to have affinity toward online dictionaries. I went to google and searched "biology dictionary." These are some possible results:

wiki style:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Main_Page

Community college biology:
http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/bio122/words/scanner.html

Bit random:
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-dictionary/

These dictionaries give the same basic definitions as have already been provided for the most part. He might be hung up on the fact that this forum provided the previous definitions. Hopefully given that these are "online" and also close to what has already been suggested we can move on to a less semantic focused debate.

One possible problem is some of these definitions still give multiple definitions of words and so could cause confusion down the road. I would prefer to use the definitions already provided for the sake of clarity but it seems gilbo will not accept these widely accepted scientific definitions.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

1. I'd prefer you to use a more reputable source, I don't trust wikipedia as far as I can throw it and considering its an immaterial thing that wouldn't be very far.

I guess we will have to use the one found here at reference.com:

Speciation[/url]"]Formation of new and distinct species, whereby a single evolutionary line splits into two or more genetically independent ones. One of the fundamental processes of evolution, speciation may occur in many ways. Investigators formerly found evidence for speciation in the fossil record by tracing sequential changes in the structure and form of organisms. Genetic studies now show that such changes do not always accompany speciation, since many apparently identical groups are in fact reproductively isolated (i.e., they can no longer produce viable offspring through interbreeding). Polyploidy ( see ploidy) is a means by which the beginnings of new species are created in just two or three generations.

Funny, that appears very similar to what we saw on wikipedia.

2. So does natural variation as defined by creationists..... Thus its a moot point

Defined by creationists? Where and when did creationists define this?

3. If you had bothered to read my post, (please do so again), you would see that I alread demonstrated how the small changes do not lead to larger ones as benign changes such as hair colour etc have no effect on the basic body plan of the organism.. If fact I was asking you for evidence that small changes can lead to such large changes... Or do you assume its correct without evidence? (Dawkins says this is a no no)

You did not demonstrate anything; you simply stated something as if it were a fact without providing any evidence for it. As I have already stated, without a mechanism to stop the changes we see, why can they not develop into a new feature? Again, the evidence can be seen in the observed speciation events. I also do not understand why you keep referring to Dawkins.

4. Really.. Again I ask for evidence, youre claims or opinions are not evidence, (otherwise any Creationist can use that as evidence of God). However one thing I will ask is by what mode of experimentation has the similarities in fossils been determined to be caused via evolution? Or is evolution assumed as the cause?

Again, work on your reading comprehension, I asked if you would accept fossils as evidence. I did not wan to waste my time citing evidence in the fossil record just so you could sit there and reject it.

Read up on cladistics.

5. Disagreement implies two people or parties ergo its not just "my" disagreement.... Just so you know

:roll:

6. Considering that mutations haven't even been mentioned by me I wonder how you can claim that I lack knowledge of them.... Or is this a test jab or something?

I gathered this from the fact that you believe new structures could not be formed.

7. I never said you did... Therefore you need to work on your reading comprehension...... Oops. Its a common assertion that small changes lead up to larger ones or don't you agree with "wikipedia" on this?

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Yes, you did, because in my comment I said mutations could lead to new features while pointing out that they also lead to the new colors in fins and hair. You said, "Where is the evidence that a colour change will result in a major structural change in the basic body plan of the organism", thus misunderstanding what I originally said. I do not have to work on my reading comprehension, you do.

Furthermore, that is not an assertion; it is a fact. The build up of small changes is what lead to the observed speciation events you so readily dismissed.

8. Ah so what are these "factors" and how are they verified? Considering that you admited that such takes "millions of years" where is the actual evidence for the mechanisms of such changes... Or is it believed without evidence? (Dawkins says no).

First off, I said factor, not factors. Second, mutations is the factor, it was right in the sentence you put a number eight next too. Again, if you could read for comprehension you would have seen I said that from the beginning. The rest of your statement here is a straw man of my original position.

9. Um no lizards and moths on wikipedia sorry... There was a neat article about fish becoming different breeds of fish... As I said speciation is relegated to different breeds rather than actual species.

This was a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. Nowhere in the sentence you put a number nine next to did I bring up wikipedia. However, I think I see the confusion. When I said my citation, I was referring to the list of observed speciation events you so readily dismissed. This is my fault, I guess I should have hyperlinked them in again.

Furthermore, it appears you are not using a standard definition of species. Again, for someone that started off arguing for the use of definition, you are so ready to dismiss them when they do not fit your preconceive notions.

species[/url]"]species, in biology, a category of classification, the original and still the basic unit in the demarcation of plant and animal types. The species marks the boundary between populations of organisms rather than between individuals. Because related species are not absolutely permanent (see evolution), a precise definition of the term is difficult. On the basis of genetics, scientists now include in a species all individuals that are potentially or actually capable of interbreeding and that share the same gene pool. The latter term refers to that collection of characteristics whose combination is unique in the species, although each individual of the group may not display every single one of the characteristics (see genetics). In the few cases where members of different species can interbreed, the offspring are usually sterile (e.g., the mule). Groups distinguished by lesser differences than those marking a species are called variously subspecies, varieties, races, or tribes.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This discussion is being held up by disagreement on definitions. Gilbo seems committed to not accepting widely accepted biological definitions if they are preferred by this forum. I'm not sure why this is the case but I will see if i can perform the role of a bridge to an actual debate on the topic.

[snipped]

These dictionaries give the same basic definitions as have already been provided for the most part. He might be hung up on the fact that this forum provided the previous definitions. Hopefully given that these are "online" and also close to what has already been suggested we can move on to a less semantic focused debate.

One possible problem is some of these definitions still give multiple definitions of words and so could cause confusion down the road. I would prefer to use the definitions already provided for the sake of clarity but it seems gilbo will not accept these widely accepted scientific definitions.

Semantics are all creationists ever have and gilbo12345 is a perfect example of this. He will not give up this ground no matter what happens, because without it, most (if not all) his arguments would fall apart in front of him.

 

[Dustnite]

This discussion is being held up by disagreement on definitions. Gilbo seems committed to not accepting widely accepted biological definitions if they are preferred by this forum. I'm not sure why this is the case but I will see if i can perform the role of a bridge to an actual debate on the topic.

He seems to have affinity toward online dictionaries. I went to google and searched "biology dictionary." These are some possible results:

wiki style:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Main_Page

Community college biology:
http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/bio122/words/scanner.html

Bit random:
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-dictionary/

These dictionaries give the same basic definitions as have already been provided for the most part. He might be hung up on the fact that this forum provided the previous definitions. Hopefully given that these are "online" and also close to what has already been suggested we can move on to a less semantic focused debate.

One possible problem is some of these definitions still give multiple definitions of words and so could cause confusion down the road. I would prefer to use the definitions already provided for the sake of clarity but it seems gilbo will not accept these widely accepted scientific definitions.

He does it regularly over at Evolution Fairytale forums, so I don't know what everyone is expecting. The fundamental misunderstanding is always going to be how evolution can be a theory AND a fact, it just won't compute with these guys.

I'm sure this is just a quote-mining exercise: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5310

At least he can't ban hammer anyone that disagrees with him here...

 

[gilbo12345]

So I'm a redneck now? Thats not an abusive comment....

Huh? I do not understand where you get redneck from, and I never meant to call you one. I would also say that being a redneck is hardly a derogatory claim, at least from the many friends I served with who happily used the title for themselves and family.

Definition 3 contains

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.


Now what is a truth... You do realise that truth is an absolute as well... Hence my point.... Meaning you either don't understand my point or you just didn't read the definition properly.

I'm assuming the same use of "truth" that your oft-used reference uses in its "Scientific Fact" definition. You might want to click the link and check for yourself.

You do realise that claiming evolution is a fact ergo evolution is true is supporting my claim that doing such makes it absolute which therefore is as I said before, an apriori commitment to that statement being true which will influence how new evidence is observed and will only ever be observed in the light that "evolution is a fact / true". Ergo unscientific bias...

1. This discussion is being held up by disagreement on definitions. Gilbo seems committed to not accepting widely accepted biological definitions if they are preferred by this forum.

2. I'm not sure why this is the case but I will see if i can perform the role of a bridge to an actual debate on the topic.

3. He seems to have affinity toward online dictionaries. I went to google and searched "biology dictionary." These are some possible results:

wiki style:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Main_Page

Community college biology:
http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/bio122/words/scanner.html

Bit random:
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-dictionary/

4. These dictionaries give the same basic definitions as have already been provided for the most part. He might be hung up on the fact that this forum provided the previous definitions. Hopefully given that these are "online" and also close to what has already been suggested we can move on to a less semantic focused debate.

5. One possible problem is some of these definitions still give multiple definitions of words and so could cause confusion down the road. I would prefer to use the definitions already provided for the sake of clarity but it seems gilbo will not accept these widely accepted scientific definitions.

6. He does it regularly over at Evolution Fairytale forums, so I don't know what everyone is expecting. The fundamental misunderstanding is always going to be how evolution can be a theory AND a fact, it just won't compute with these guys.

7. I'm sure this is just a quote-mining exercise: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5310

8. At least he can't ban hammer anyone that disagrees with him here...

1. Actually its held up because you guys are postulating a definition of fact which is not recorded in the dictionary pertaining to the use of fact, scientific or otherwise. I have posted a definition from a reputable dictionary, the only way someone can refute that is to give evidence stating otherwise... Mere opinion and banter simply won't make the problem go away, if may make you feel better, but the problem will still be there.

2. You aren't sure? I consider you actually read the thread.... Its because no-one has given a definition to the contrary... You have to keep in mind that I am the only one who has given evidence for his claims. Until someone pulls out a definition of fact that doesn't make it an absolute my claim about stating "evolution is a fact" makes it impossible for one to reconcile the plasticisity of science, since one has already determined what is true or not regardless of future evidence which may prove otherwise.

3. Great you used google now if you took that a step further you'd find that there is no special definition of "fact" in these either. I am starting to wonder on what basis do evolutionists seek to redefine the word fact? When its going against what it already means in the dictionary? Doesn't that seem a bit underhanded to you?

Though Biology online is an editable dictionary hence I doubt its worth anyway.. Perhaps I'll go on there and make up the word "Zebu" just for you guys?

4. Obviously you didn't actually check otherwise you'd post a quote, I checked these sites and they say nothing about the definition of "scientific fact" meaning you're simply being dishonest, there can be no misinterpretation either you checked or not, and if you had checked you'd see that there was no definition of scientific fact on any of these sites. Is this is what being rational is relegated to?

5. What definitions already provided? I already gave them in the OP and I accept what I wrote.

6. So you think that because you claim something to be so that it must be so? Again I ask you for evidence?

7. How can inquiring on the claim that evolution is true and how that affects the plasticity of scientific inquiry an exercise in "quote mining"... You simply refuse to see my point since its nothing of the sort.

8. I'm not a mod and I actually don't like it when they ban people since it means I have less people to refute , however banning is inevitable when rules are broken.

 

[detrean]

I think his confusion on this topic can be boiled down to what he thinks DNA controls in the body. He accepts mutations happen in DNA. I think he accepts that mutations create new physical characters (colors, shapes, etc.). My question is what does be believe DNA controls? If DNA controls the shape of limbs, formation of organs, and so on then what stops mutations that affect them?

It also stands to reason that if DNA controls all of those things then what happens if a group of that species gets sexually separated from the original group? Would mutations occur in both groups and not be shared? Eventually the separated groups would be far different from each other.

I never have understood the confusion on this topic. Even when I was strongly religious I would avoid the topic altogether because I knew the waters were not friendly for me.

 

[Darkprophet232]

You do realize (sic) that claiming evolution is a fact ergo evolution is true is supporting my claim that doing such makes it absolute which therefore is as I said before, an apriori (sic) commitment to that statement being true which will influence how new evidence is observed and will only ever be observed in the light that "evolution is a fact / true". Ergo unscientific bias...

Gilbo, I'm using the only reference you appear comfortable with. Let that sink in. If the circularity of terms from an online dictionary owned by a media conglomerate contradicts or otherwise disagrees with the point you're trying to make, I kindly ask you to then stop using it as a reference.

To do otherwise is to create needless confusion.

 

[gilbo12345]

1. I'd prefer you to use a more reputable source, I don't trust wikipedia as far as I can throw it and considering its an immaterial thing that wouldn't be very far.

1. I guess we will have to use the one found here at reference.com:

Speciation[/url]"]Formation of new and distinct species, whereby a single evolutionary line splits into two or more genetically independent ones. One of the fundamental processes of evolution, speciation may occur in many ways. Investigators formerly found evidence for speciation in the fossil record by tracing sequential changes in the structure and form of organisms. Genetic studies now show that such changes do not always accompany speciation, since many apparently identical groups are in fact reproductively isolated (i.e., they can no longer produce viable offspring through interbreeding). Polyploidy ( see ploidy) is a means by which the beginnings of new species are created in just two or three generations.

Funny, that appears very similar to what we saw on wikipedia.

2. So does natural variation as defined by creationists..... Thus its a moot point

2. Defined by creationists? Where and when did creationists define this?

3. If you had bothered to read my post, (please do so again), you would see that I alread demonstrated how the small changes do not lead to larger ones as benign changes such as hair colour etc have no effect on the basic body plan of the organism.. If fact I was asking you for evidence that small changes can lead to such large changes... Or do you assume its correct without evidence? (Dawkins says this is a no no)

3. You did not demonstrate anything; you simply stated something as if it were a fact without providing any evidence for it. As I have already stated, without a mechanism to stop the changes we see, why can they not develop into a new feature? Again, the evidence can be seen in the observed speciation events. I also do not understand why you keep referring to Dawkins.

4. Really.. Again I ask for evidence, youre claims or opinions are not evidence, (otherwise any Creationist can use that as evidence of God). However one thing I will ask is by what mode of experimentation has the similarities in fossils been determined to be caused via evolution? Or is evolution assumed as the cause?

4. Again, work on your reading comprehension, I asked if you would accept fossils as evidence. I did not wan to waste my time citing evidence in the fossil record just so you could sit there and reject it.

Read up on cladistics.

5. Disagreement implies two people or parties ergo its not just "my" disagreement.... Just so you know

:roll:

6. Considering that mutations haven't even been mentioned by me I wonder how you can claim that I lack knowledge of them.... Or is this a test jab or something?

5. I gathered this from the fact that you believe new structures could not be formed.

7. I never said you did... Therefore you need to work on your reading comprehension...... Oops. Its a common assertion that small changes lead up to larger ones or don't you agree with "wikipedia" on this?

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

6. Yes, you did, because in my comment I said mutations

7. could lead to new features while pointing out that they also lead to the new colors in fins and hair. You said, "Where is the evidence that a colour change will result in a major structural change in the basic body plan of the organism", thus misunderstanding what I originally said. I do not have to work on my reading comprehension, you do.

Furthermore, that is not an assertion; it is a fact.

8. The build up of small changes is what lead to the observed speciation events you so readily dismissed.

8. Ah so what are these "factors" and how are they verified? Considering that you admited that such takes "millions of years" where is the actual evidence for the mechanisms of such changes... Or is it believed without evidence? (Dawkins says no).

9. First off, I said factor, not factors.

10. Second, mutations is the factor, it was right in the sentence you put a number eight next too. Again, if you could read for comprehension you would have seen I said that from the beginning. The rest of your statement here is a straw man of my original position.

9. Um no lizards and moths on wikipedia sorry... There was a neat article about fish becoming different breeds of fish... As I said speciation is relegated to different breeds rather than actual species.

11. This was a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. Nowhere in the sentence you put a number nine next to did I bring up wikipedia. However, I think I see the confusion. When I said my citation, I was referring to the list of observed speciation events you so readily dismissed. This is my fault, I guess I should have hyperlinked them in again.

12. Furthermore, it appears you are not using a standard definition of species. Again, for someone that started off arguing for the use of definition, you are so ready to dismiss them when they do not fit your preconceive notions.

species[/url]"]species, in biology, a category of classification, the original and still the basic unit in the demarcation of plant and animal types. The species marks the boundary between populations of organisms rather than between individuals. Because related species are not absolutely permanent (see evolution), a precise definition of the term is difficult. On the basis of genetics, scientists now include in a species all individuals that are potentially or actually capable of interbreeding and that share the same gene pool. The latter term refers to that collection of characteristics whose combination is unique in the species, although each individual of the group may not display every single one of the characteristics (see genetics). In the few cases where members of different species can interbreed, the offspring are usually sterile (e.g., the mule). Groups distinguished by lesser differences than those marking a species are called variously subspecies, varieties, races, or tribes.

1. Great now tell me how in the fish example on wikipedia how different breeds of fish are genetically distinct species... If different breeds are not different species (and they aren't by definition) then how is such an example in speciation?

2. Its the term given to "microevolution" since that is all it is, variation in the same traits that make up the organism

3. So you're postulating that because there is no evidence against something then it must be true... I'll let you consider how absurd that is when applied to reality outside of evolution... If you want to claim that small changes will equal large scale ones YOU need the evidence since its the evolutionists making the claim. This is how science works, you don't make claims willy nilly you base claims on evidence, (even Dawkins realised that). Now on what basis do you claim that small benign variations which we see, such as changes in hair colour can lead to new structural formation in organisms.

Now variants in breeds are not speciation. I ask you to post up ONE just ONE example of an entirely new structure or system being observed to come into being from (proclaimed) "evolution". Please keep in mind entirely new, I don't want to see a variant of something since that is not a NEW structure or system its merely a variant of the old.

I'll let you think about it.. Does changing hair colour / fur colour / skin colour / width / height / eye colour / fin colour etc lead to new strutures forming in anything? Has this correlation ever been observed? Then on what basis is it claimed to occur? And how is this deemed scientific when there is a lack of evidence, which you just admitted to?...

4. Shakes head.... You really want to avoid my question, seriously how can one be "rational" if one is to dodge questions? I ask what empirical / scientific evidence links fossils to evolution, if you cannot state such then claiming fossils as evidence of evolution is useless since there is no link for anyone to claim that evolution was the actual cause of the similarities in fossils. There could be some other cause which we do not know about, this is why its important to have evidence. Therefore what evidence do you have that empirically demonstrates that evolution was the cause of similarities?

Cladistics is based on the assumption that evolution occured, for you to use it as evidence of evolution is called circular reasoning. (Don't worry its a common "tactic" I see)

5. Then you ass-u-me-d wrong?

6. You said a link? How about you use your own words rather than hid behind someone else. Step up.

7. I wait for you to post the "evidence" yourself. I'd like you to be accountable to your claims, rather than post a link (not even reference what in the link is what you are talking about) only for me to take the time to debunk the link and then have you bow out saying that it wasn't you who stated such. I've had it happen a few times in my travels.

8. New breeds are not new species...

9. Big whoop, I'm giving you the chance to have multiple explanations....

10. "mutations are the factor" Care to have empirical demonstrations of such? Otherwise all you are saying is just words. Until you have evidence you have nothing, (as Dawkins would claim).

11. "my citation" wikipedia was one of your citations.... Concerning speciation.. ergo looked on wikipedia

12. So what is the "standard definition" and please don't say different breeds...

 

[gilbo12345]

You do realize (sic) that claiming evolution is a fact ergo evolution is true is supporting my claim that doing such makes it absolute which therefore is as I said before, an apriori (sic) commitment to that statement being true which will influence how new evidence is observed and will only ever be observed in the light that "evolution is a fact / true". Ergo unscientific bias...

Gilbo, I'm using the only reference you appear comfortable with. Let that sink in. If the circularity of terms from an online dictionary owned by a media conglomerate contradicts or otherwise disagrees with the point you're trying to make, I kindly ask you to then stop using it as a reference.

To do otherwise is to create needless confusion.

Where in the world did you pull this from?

I am saying that if people claim "evolution is a fact"

which they do

and the definition of a fact is something true / absolute

which it is

then this will affect with the plasticity of science in that there is an apriori commitment to that statement will interfere with the critical evaluation with evidence since its only being viewed in the light of "evolution is a fact" rather than being viewed in light of neutrality which is what science is actually all about.