Here comes another one...

[gilbo12345]

FINALLY YES!! Someone admits they are making this assumption!! Thank you for being the first honest evolutionist to actually answer my original question

I see deriving tone isn't in your repertoire of talents. Science doesn't work in absolute truths, instead we explain the data with the best possible model. These models are continually tested and revised as more data comes in.

Ah but science is based on DATA not assuming the DATA is it not? So why do you allow this assumption as "scientific"? As I ask, where in the scientific method does it say "assume your hypothesis is correct"?

This is what I mean. My saracastic tone was responding your absurd points regard what "evolutionists" believe. Such as the Big Bang, which has nothing to do with biology at all. Something you'd know as a biology major.

AGAIN YES! Thanks for admitting that this is also assumed (I wasn't questioning whether its a fair assumption or not, but may do so later)

Again, tone my dear boy. The evidence for this is so overwhelming and it's absurd, silly, batshit to believe or think otherwise.

Really... Yet whilst we observe small changes, you ASSUME the large changes since you assume "evolution did it", as before ergo how can you claim that this is overwhelming when it is based entirely on an assumption?

So Lawrence Krauss doesn't ring a bell?

It does, and what he suggests is that "nothing" isn't possible. What physicists used to think of as empty space actually contains dark energy and in a vaccuum, due to quantum fluctuations, virtual particles can be created. But I'm sure this all rings a massive bell in your memory.

Yup that isn't nothing, since nothing means negation of a thing, (NO thing).

Thanks for admitting this assumption

Assumptions backed up with tests and evidence. How is the lab project to prove god coming along my little soldier?

There is no lab project to prove God and to ask such is a red herring

SCIENTISTS creating organic compounds doesn't demonstrate that such is capable by nature, unless you assume it does

Try cellular respiration That one is my favourite though I do like to use the digestive system too. Could also use the immune system but I'm not that well versed in it.

I'll look into these a little later babe, I just thought I'd quickly put you right concerning the tone of my reply.

Babe? Sorry I already have a girlfriend. Feel free to check out my posts about them on EFF, I have yet had an evolutionist debunk these two examples.

See people this is what I call progress When someone actually responds to my posts.

And you then misunderstand sarcasm.

Perhaps I was also being sarcastic....

So do you guys agree with Frenger's admission that

"evolution did it" is assumed by evolutionists
"small changes to large changes" is assumed by evolutionists

I'm pretty sure most would agree that these points are (although "evolution did it" really? I can't believe an adult wrote this) backed by an overwhelming amount of evidence and data. THAT, was my point.

"Data" based on an assumption... That is the problem, take away the assumption and it all crumbles away.

Gilbo wrote:

Then if you are not ruling it out then what is your point? That there is no physical evidence of non-physical things... Isn't that the point?

The point is that based on what we observe about reality it is not very likely that God exists.

Ah so you have some evidence for atheism then? So what observations make God unlikely to exist? Consider that non-physical things cannot be proven or debunked by physical "evidence", and considering that observation is only associated with physical evidence I think I should prepare for a major let-down

1- Evolution did it

Yes. It's called inductive reasoning and if you had any scientific training whatsoever you would understand this. When ALL of the evidence points towards a particular conclusion most moderately intelligent people tend to accept this conclusion as the most probable explanation of observed phenomena.

So where in the scientific method does it say, "assume your hypothesis is correct"? Someone was saying something about people not knowing what science is?....

All you are doing is simply using the "if it seems logical to me then its true" rhetoric that underpins the entirety of evolutionary "logic" (or lack thereof ). Since what one deems to be logical is a subjective conclusion based on ones own understanding of the data mixed with their worldview... Ergo its not a solid foundation for the basis one wishes to call science...

2- Small changes lead to larger ones

All of the evidence suggests this to be true.

Such as? Again if you don't have an experiment how can you know it to be true? As I said above if something is deemed logical to you doesn't make it true... The fact that people disagree about what is logical should make this apparent to anyone

3- The universe can come from nothing

You are well aware that this is a straw man.

So Lawrence Krauss isn't an evolutionist?

4- Life can "evolve" despite no mechanism of evolution before a self-replicating cell

Argument from incredulity. We may not know how abiogenesis could have occured but we do have evidence to show that it is possible. On the contrary, we have no evidence that you can create life from dirt, ribs or the breath of an invisible being.

It wasn't an argument... So it cannot be an argument from incredulity... It was merely a statement of one of the assumptions evolutionists make. So I suggest you brush up your ability to point out fallacies since that was a tad embarrassing..

5- Intergrated systems can "evolve" despite all the parts being required at once for a fitness benefit in order to drive selection of the system for fixation within the genome.

It has been demonstrated how complex systems can evolve. If you have an "irreducibly complex" system in mind why don't you propose it here so it can be discussed?




Really... SO what mechanisms have been demonstrated that allow for an irreducibly complex system to come about? And please don't wave the magic wand "Natural Selection", I am asking for the mechanisms not an umbrella claim.

The point is that based on what we observe about reality it is not very likely that God exists.

That's a bit circular Dave since you are implying that "reality" = that which is physical.

I tried to tell him that. But you know evolutionists..

Salsa wrote:

Gilbo's understanding of the scientific method was attacked in conjunction with something that by definition cannot be proven using the scientific method, so who is it that doen't understand the scientific method?

My reply was in response to Gilbo's claim that:

Gilbo wrote:

demonstrating something is logically incoherent is evidence against that thing

He asked for evidence and I provided him with that evidence. I even gave him the opportunity to provide evidence for God but he since he has no evidence.... well you get the point.

That had nothing to do with the scientific method so if you were responding to that claim how can you then claim I don't know about the scientific method?

You gave no evidence, you gave me 3 premises of which the first attributed existence to being physical which is circular, and relied on the assumption that that there are no non-physical things that exist, however I already gave you one which you (begrudgingly) admitted exists, the laws of reality.

I have mentioned evidence of God, cosmological argument (all the forms), teleological argument, ontological argument, moral argument, fine-tuning argument, argument from contingency, etc

 

[Frenger]

Ah but science is based on DATA not assuming the DATA is it not? So why do you allow this assumption as "scientific"? As I ask, where in the scientific method does it say "assume your hypothesis is correct"?

Your ability to miss the point while cute, is somewhat testing. I was responding in a sarcastic tone to your asserted drivel. I think it was fairly self explanatory, but then I forgot, I was talking to you.

Really... Yet whilst we observe small changes, you ASSUME the large changes since you assume "evolution did it", as before ergo how can you claim that this is overwhelming when it is based entirely on an assumption?

We also see large change too;

From the grey wolf, we get many different breeds of domestic dogs. Such as the yorkshire terrier

All the way too Irish wolf hounds

This was in just 10,000 generations. Seems to fly in the face of "things get too big" or "things don't happen in conjunction with eac other", doesn't it?

Yup that isn't nothing, since nothing means negation of a thing, (NO thing).

Exactly, which shows that your original assertion, that "evolutionists" assume the Universe came from nothing, is a straw man, built with ignorance. Thanks for confirming that for me.

There is no lab project to prove God and to ask such is a red herring

Seems weird that the creator left no feesable way of showing his existence. It's almost like he doesn't actually exist?

But no, that's just a silly assumption, of COURSE that which can't be tested is real.

SCIENTISTS creating organic compounds doesn't demonstrate that such is capable by nature, unless you assume it does

It shows is possible, where as we're still looking for god and his experiments.

Babe? Sorry I already have a girlfriend.

Is this not match.com?

Feel free to check out my posts about them on EFF, I have yet had an evolutionist debunk these two examples.

I'm blocked for using correct definitions.

Perhaps I was also being sarcastic....

I doubt it, you're not as funny as I am.

So do you guys agree with Frenger's admission that

Data" based on an assumption... That is the problem, take away the assumption and it all crumbles away.

Data which all points towards a conclusion you don't like. Oh well, get over it, grow up, and move on.

 

[Inferno]

Alright, Gilbo...

Actually I believe you cut out that part of my post and ignored it, I pulled you up on this twice where once you replied by cutting out my answers and not addressing them (post# 26) and another when you later stated that nobody answered your questions, you post#42 when I already had... which means you are simply lying there...

Be careful whom you accuse of lying when it's so easily demonstrable that your claim is untrue.
Note that I said "to no degree of satisfaction", which isn't the same as "not at all". In post #25, which I sent from work so I had to be brief, I did indeed only highlight the sillier of your comments. That there are no laws underlying the theory of evolution is so laughable that literally a 2sec search on google shows you to be wrong.
I later (post #33) commended you on answering the questions, even though they were incomplete and not in an orderly fashion, i.e. a format where I got clear and concise answers. I specifically singled out the so-called "hypothetical events", because they turned out not to be hypothetical after all.

I later on (post #42) retracted my aforementioned praise because after seven intermittent posts you still had not answered my questions. As such, I was fully right to call the post "not answered to any degree of satisfaction".

However you did finally accept my answers and your only problem was that you were caught up on me not wanting to accept a hypothetical (idiotic) claim... Why should I? It had no basis in reality.... (post# 33)

I accepted that you answered the few questions you answered, yet I told you that you had not answered them all. Again, what you call "hypothetical (idiotic) claim"s actually turned out to be real events.

Specifically, questions 4, 6 and 7 were indeed hypothetical and would actually disprove evolution if they ever occurred. (Well, #7 pushes the limits, it may well be a very quickly evolving organism with a short generation span) However, event number 8, which you called hypothetical, has already happened. By any standards really, I proved you wrong right there.

See here:

Inferno[/url]"]As for number eight, that has also been observed. In 1983, nonetheless.
Here's the citation: Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Therefore how can you claim that my answers were not good, if you read my answers and your own (post #24 and #42 you'd see that they are the same meaning you are simply trash talking here... Perhaps to look big in front of your mates... (I mean your entire post is crapping on about how you "triumphed", how old are you? 13?)

A few things: I didn't claim I "triumphed" anywhere, though you will of course read into my posts whatever you please. That being said, your own "mates" sure did, (# 27) did you call them out? I sense a huge double-standard.
Second, I'm not trash-talking at all, you're simply distorting events. Though you state you gave the same answers I did, you incorrectly answered numbers 4, 8, 11. You further made two mistakes when answering questions 9, 10 and 11:
On question 9 you claim that a "loss of information" would not constitute evolution, yet at the same time you claim that the addition of information (#10) would not be evolution, either! You can't have the cake and eat it, too.
On question 11, you inadvertently admit that we can't distinguish between a micro- and macro-evolutionary event. If that isn't the clearest demonstration that they're one and the same...

How by complaing that I do not accept hypothetical imaginary situations?

Given that one wasn't hypothetical at all... yes, among others. However, your mistakes in numbers 9, 10 and 11 were even more telling.

What post is that?

Didn't you read #42? I would argue that your "hypothetical events" count toward "that would be macroevolution" and except for one, they would all violate at least one evolutionary law.
But even if we don't count those, there's still question #11, where you agreed that it might be a "macroevolutionary" event, but I then commented that it would actually violate a few laws of evolution.

What post is that?

Again #42, didn't you read it?

Here are the correct answers:
1. Yes, Yes
2. No, No (Micromutation)
3. No, No (Micromutation)
4. Yes, No (Breaks at least one evolutionary law, in this case the law of Monophyly)
5. No, No (Micromutation)
6. Yes, No (Breaks at least one evolutionary law, in this case the law of Monophyly, but it was incorrectly proposed by creationists)
7. Yes, No (Not evolution, but rather morphing)
8. Yes, Yes
9. No, No (Micromutation and according to creationists a loss of Information)
10. Interesting example I'll explain below.
11. Yes, No (Breaks at least one evolutionary law)
12. No, Yes (Evidence that snakes once had legs and were, according to a few creationist definitions, "not snakes". However, loss of information)
13. No, No (As Gilbo correctly states, this would actually contradict evolution)
14. No, No (However, it very much has to do with both evolution and abiogenesis and shows that creationists were wrong when they said we Humans can't create life.)
15. Yes/No, No (Some creationists would accept this as a macromutation, but it would actually violate a whole lot of laws.)

Additional answer for 10: This proves without a doubt that information can not only be added, but can also be beneficial. I'll repeat that: It's a beneficial mutation due to an increase of information.

So focusing on just the two "Yes, Yes" answers:
Fish with "feet" have already been found. This is a foot: "The foot (plural feet) is an anatomical structure found in many vertebrates. It is the terminal portion of a limb which bears weight and allows locomotion."
Upon accepting that definition, these fish have definite feet. Or hands, depending on what you want to call them. More details are available here.

As for number eight, that has also been observed. In 1983, nonetheless.
Here's the citation: Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

A short explanation is the following:

Starting from single celled animals, each of which has the capability to reproduce there is no s@x in the sense that we think of the term. Selective pressure has been observed to convert single-cellular forms into multicellular forms. A case was observed in which a single celled form changed to multicellularity.
Boxhorn, a student of Boraas,writes:
Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."

You never proved me wrong, you merely assert as such however I see no-where on the thread where you did such in fact if you look at post#24 and #42 you'd see that both of our answers are pretty much the same. (Except for the hypothetical situations which you discount in your answers anyway)

Incorrect, as shown above.

Well in four pages of thread I have yet to see any EXPERIMENTS that validate the assumption "evolution did it" or the assumption that small changes add up to larger ones...

That too is incorrect.
First, I already showed that such an attempt would merely result in your moving the goal posts, that's why I repeated DutchLiam's request.
Second, I already did so nearly a year ago in the above quoted post. (Also known as post #42, the answer to life the universe and everything.)

Really... So in the last post where you lied about my answers to your questions being wrong when in fact you gave the SAME answers you now claim I did something else wrong... What did I side-step? Post up some links, quotes and DEMONSTRATE it.

Done. And it wasn't even that hard. If only your reading comprehension were any better, you too could have done so!

Why ask such a question if such experiments have been conducted? If they have post them, if they haven't just admit they haven't... Liam's question has no relevance to my own he is attempting to shift the goal posts. As I said, if there are experiments present them, if not admit it and then we can continue...

No, YOU are the one moving the posts.
I already explained this at great length: If we were to post them, you would dismiss them as being "not enough" or "not the right kind" or some other nonsense. That's why we're trying to get you to state up front what would constitute a "correct" experiment. They have been conducted, no doubt about that, but I want written confirmation of you saying "if X is found, I'm wrong" or "if Y is found, I'm correct".

Sadly, we'll probably never get creationists to do so because that would mean they'd be put on the line and they're such a dishonest bunch that doing so would jeopardize their stance.

Huh? First off I have yet to hear of any experiments and doubt I ever will considering all the mental gymnastics I am seeing here... Just answer the question, if there are experiments provide them, if not admit it. Simple... No more dodging.

I provided just two, both of which agreed to the definitions of macroevolution you yourself posted:

gilbo12345[/url]"]1. A fish that originally didn't have arms and legs gaining arms and legs with the necessary hip / shoulder structure, backbone structure, muscle formaton and nerve / brain functionality to make use of the new limbs would be what I would deem as a macro-evolutionary event.

which I then showed to exist later on:

Inferno[/url]"]Upon accepting that definition, these fish have definite feet. Or hands, depending on what you want to call them. More details are available here.

In the same post, you claimed that question 8 was hypothetical yet I later showed that it had already been demonstrated under laboratory conditions!

You are assuming what I will or won't do... Again do you have these atheist superpowers to read people's minds? Two other people have made such comments on this thread alone so perhaps its a common atheist belief?

No, I base my claims on past events. In the EFF-thread I quoted, you repeatedly dodge and weave and, when I did post the experiments, finally claim that nothing provided was good enough, even though you had agreed to them just a page or two earlier.

IF I change goal posts THEN point it out, don't think by making comments about the future somehow allows you any entitlement to derail the thread from my question.

I'm not. I'm telling you precisely what would be needed of you (a short explanation) for us to provide what you want. (the experiments) You're the one going on for page after page without giving you what we need to fulfil your request. Is that so hard to grasp?

Additionally how is me attempting to keep you guys on track and answer my question, shifting goalposts... If anything I am shifting them back to normal after you guys attempt to change the topic, (like Liam asking what experiments I would prefer to be conducted... How does my preferences have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of experiments?)

No. No no no no no! Nowhere did Liam say "prefer", he said "do", aka "perform". I would phrase it slightly differently: "Which experiment would you accept to establish the relatedness of two organisms?" but the question is the same.

The answer should be something like "DNA analysis from multiple strands" (smart) or "fossil comparison" (silly) or something to that extent. I would prefer to put two fossils in jelly and see which way they move, but that won't get me any results.

Criteria for what? I have already said that experiments are observable, repeatable, measureable and falsifiable... More that that it seems like you want me to actually hand you an experiment for you to use as an answer. I'm not going to do your work for you. Present the experiments that verify the assumptions being made or admit there are no experiments and evolutionists base their claims on an unverified hypothesis.

I explained what I'm looking for just above. What you, on the other hand, are supplying us with is a rather clumsy definition of what an experiment is. Not very helpful in this context.

So again, what experiment would you perform or accept to establish the relatedness of two (organisms or) fossils? (Let's agree on fossils because that's what Liam suggested.)

Whatever experiment evolutionists have done to verify their assumption that they are related... Unless of course such an experiment doesn't exist and the assumption is unverified.

Think carefully about your answer: You'll accept an experiment done by scientists to establish the relatedness even though you don't know how they performed it? And you'll accept the answers as valid if they indeed showed what they set out to establish?

That's too easy...
One
Two
Three
etc. etc., all on one page.

Of course since once I have answered that the answer itself is the experiment, since that is what you are asking me for you are asking me for the answer to the question I am asking you... As I said, I'm not here to do your work for you.

No, once again: You completely misunderstood what people are asking of you. That's why you don't grasp what's going on.

Provide the EXPERIMENTS or admit there are none and then the conversation can continue rather than being bogged in semantics and mental gymnastics. It isn't that difficult

You're right, it really shouldn't be. Yet it took me three full pages to get even in the vicinity of where I wanted to be over on EFF and it'll take us more than that to do so here. Answer the god-damn question so we know what we should provide you with. Is it that hard?

 

[Frenger]

That thing above that Inferno said.

Yes.

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo wrote:

Ah so you have some evidence for atheism then?

Do I have evidence for my lack of belief in God because of a lack of evidence for God? Is this a serious question? :facepalm:

So where in the scientific method does it say, "assume your hypothesis is correct"?

Accepting the conclusion the evidence leads to is not "assuming your hypothesis is correct".

All you are doing is simply using the "if it seems logical to me then its true" rhetoric that underpins the entirety of evolutionary "logic" (or lack thereof ). Since what one deems to be logical is a subjective conclusion based on ones own understanding of the data mixed with their worldview... Ergo its not a solid foundation for the basis one wishes to call science...

I'm not sure what any of this means. Are you saying people just believe whatever they want regardless of reality? If that's the case then what the hell are you arguing about?

Again if you don't have an experiment how can you know it to be true?

You have not properly defined what type of experiment you would accept so it's a bit dishonest of you to claim there are no experiments.

So Lawrence Krauss isn't an evolutionist?

Red herring. The idea that the Universe came from nothing is an oversimplification that you choose to attack instead of addressing what the theory actually states. It's called a straw man. Do you need me to write that in Latin so you can understand it?

It wasn't an argument... So it cannot be an argument from incredulity

The argument is implicit in your accusation. The argument being that life couldn't evolve with no mechanism of evolution before a self-replicating cell. And you are once again claiming that something is not possible because it is not known how it could have happened.

SO what mechanisms have been demonstrated that allow for an irreducibly complex system to come about?

It depends on the system. That's why I asked you to propose an irreducibly complex system... but you didn't.

You gave no evidence, you gave me 3 premises of which the first attributed existence to being physical which is circular, and relied on the assumption that that there are no non-physical things that exist, however I already gave you one which you (begrudgingly) admitted exists, the laws of reality.

No, I gave you two premises and a conclusion, all of which are logically consistent and based on reality, with no assumptions whatsoever. The "laws of reality" exhibit physical, quantifiable evidence of their existence so they do not falsify premise one.

 

[Inferno]

So this is also polite?

I don't see any harm with it. It's not particularly funny though, it's far too close to reality. That's the creationist on the left (white hair aka. dad) btw, you know that, right?

It was a strawman since I never made that claim, a strawman is what you erect INSTEAD of the person's claim, (and is generally an easy to demolish one).

No it wasn't. Yes it was. No it wasn't. Yes it... pointless.
Dave B. correctly pointed out that you work from a null hypothesis, which you didn't consider. As long as no supernatural claim is proved (defined as and found by seeing a "suspension of the laws of physics".) we work with the null hypothesis that there are no supernatural claims.

Well there you go then, it's an ad-hominem too.

As explained, no.

Inferno: Until you have some evidence supporting an alternate hypothesis you work from the null hypothesis. That is how science works. I would expect a biology major to understand this.

Just a btw: That was Dave B. who said that, not me. Though I of course fully agree with him.

Gilbo's understanding of the scientific method was attacked in conjunction with something that by definition cannot be proven using the scientific method, so who is it that doen't understand the scientific method?

Incorrect. It can be shown by demonstrating a clear breach of the laws of nature.

 

[Salsa]

Incorrect. It can be shown by demonstrating a clear breach of the laws of nature.

If that was the case then it should have been done in conjunction with such a "breach of laws" and not in the context that it was made. Dave made no mention of any such breach so I don't see why you feel qualified to insert it into his post simply to save him from an obvious strawman.

 

[DutchLiam84]

p.s. Seems like I'm on par with Inferno et al. so I'll back off and let them finish/continue the discussion to keep the thread more clear.

 

[Inferno]

p.s. Seems like I'm on par with Inferno et al. so I'll back off and let them finish/continue the discussion to keep the thread more clear.

Nooooo, don't! If there are any add-ons or corrections to be made then by all means, do so!
Plus, this was my one day off until... well, probably sometime in two weeks by the looks of it. So go for it.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I've largely stayed out of this one, but since Gilbo thinks that questions aren't properly answered by 'evolutionists' (I'll tear you a new one on this, should the rest pan out), I'd be more than happy to take him on in a formal debate. I don't normally debate cretinists formally, but I'll make an exception.

Gilbo, this will look better on your CV than mine, and indeed, win or lose (yeah, good luck with that), I won't be advertising it.

I promise to answer all your questions or, where I don't know the answer, to simply state that I don't know.

What say you? It would be a decent scalp for you. I'm reasonably well-known and well-regarded in the 'evolutionist' camp. You could crow about it for years, and some fuckwits will even buy you drinks just for having the stones to take me on.

 

[gilbo12345]

Ah but science is based on DATA not assuming the DATA is it not? So why do you allow this assumption as "scientific"? As I ask, where in the scientific method does it say "assume your hypothesis is correct"?

quote="Frenger"]

Your ability to miss the point while cute, is somewhat testing. I was responding in a sarcastic tone to your asserted drivel. I think it was fairly self explanatory, but then I forgot, I was talking to you.[/quote]

How does that reply to my statement... Do you deny that science is based on data based from reality not based on assumptions?

Really... Yet whilst we observe small changes, you ASSUME the large changes since you assume "evolution did it", as before ergo how can you claim that this is overwhelming when it is based entirely on an assumption?

We also see large change too;

From the grey wolf, we get many different breeds of domestic dogs. Such as the yorkshire terrier

All the way too Irish wolf hounds

This was in just 10,000 generations. Seems to fly in the face of "things get too big" or "things don't happen in conjunction with eac other", doesn't it?

And? Again you are using the "it seems logical to me therefore its true"... You are merely making an assumed extrapolation... Please consider that I have already been asking for the EXPERIMENTS with which you base this all on. In my mind, dogs changing form is merely... dogs changing form... there is nothing here to suggest that they can change to something outside what they are... ie- fish to amphibians etc... Dogs stay dogs and fish stay fish and to state otherwise with this data is to make an unfounded assumed extrapolation.

Yup that isn't nothing, since nothing means negation of a thing, (NO thing).

Exactly, which shows that your original assertion, that "evolutionists" assume the Universe came from nothing, is a straw man, built with ignorance. Thanks for confirming that for me.

How so? Krauss used that as the title of his book did he not? He also claims it in his "debates"... You really should complain to him. Additionally there have been many evolutionists who try and claim that the universe came from nothing. The fact that you are a tad smarter and realise that it makes no sense does nothing to change the fact that many evolutionists do still think that its a viable argument.

There is no lab project to prove God and to ask such is a red herring

Seems weird that the creator left no feesable way of showing his existence. It's almost like he doesn't actually exist?

That is assuming science is the only way to know reality... Surely you know that science cannot account for all knowledge....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE (1.12 onwards)

I have already mentioned the many arguments from logic which demonstrate God, many of these are deductive which if the premises are true cannot be denied or hand-waved away.

But no, that's just a silly assumption, of COURSE that which can't be tested is real.

Did I say that? Strawman much?

SCIENTISTS creating organic compounds doesn't demonstrate that such is capable by nature, unless you assume it does

It shows is possible, where as we're still looking for god and his experiments.

Yes it shows its possible... In a LAB... You are assuming that what they do in a lab can be correlated to reality, how is this assumption justified?


Is this not match.com?



Perhaps it is, considering I haven't seen much reason here, so it cannot be the League of "Reason".

Feel free to check out my posts about them on EFF, I have yet had an evolutionist debunk these two examples.

I'm blocked for using correct definitions.

I believe the actual reasons given are

Clear cases of misrepresentation
Equivocation (in general)
Equivocation (particularly regarding what "evolution" means)
Ad hominem
Trolling
Complaining about board moderation

The fact that you mention it here means you are STILL complaining about board moderation

Perhaps I was also being sarcastic....

I doubt it, you're not as funny as I am.

Modest aren't we

So do you guys agree with Frenger's admission that

Data" based on an assumption... That is the problem, take away the assumption and it all crumbles away.

Data which all points towards a conclusion you don't like. Oh well, get over it, grow up, and move on.

No, I don't particularly care about the conlcusion what I don't like is the fact that it is based entirely on assumption which is not science and is then touted as if its a scientific fact... An example of a grand delusion.

As I said, take away the assumption and it all crumbles away.....

[/quote]

Alright, Gilbo...

Actually I believe you cut out that part of my post and ignored it, I pulled you up on this twice where once you replied by cutting out my answers and not addressing them (post# 26) and another when you later stated that nobody answered your questions, you post#42 when I already had... which means you are simply lying there...

Be careful whom you accuse of lying when it's so easily demonstrable that your claim is untrue.

People can read what I claimed in the thread

Note that I said "to no degree of satisfaction", which isn't the same as "not at all". In post #25, which I sent from work so I had to be brief, I did indeed only highlight the sillier of your comments. That there are no laws underlying the theory of evolution No I said there is no Law of evolution, there is a difference.... is so laughable that literally a 2sec search on google shows you to be wrong.
I later (post #33) commended you on answering the questions, even though they were incomplete and not in an orderly fashion, i.e. a format where I got clear and concise answers. I specifically singled out the so-called "hypothetical events", because they turned out not to be hypothetical after all. Actually all of them are hypothetical, unless you want to claim a colony of single celled organisms is a multi-cellular one

I later on (post #42) retracted my aforementioned praise because after seven intermittent posts you still had not answered my questions. As such, I was fully right to call the post "not answered to any degree of satisfaction".

However you did finally accept my answers and your only problem was that you were caught up on me not wanting to accept a hypothetical (idiotic) claim... Why should I? It had no basis in reality.... (post# 33)

I accepted that you answered the few questions you answered, (actually most of them.. A+ for descriptive / deceptive language) yet I told you that you had not answered them all. Again, what you call "hypothetical (idiotic) claim"s actually turned out to be real events.

Yes they were hypothetical / idiotic and the fact that colonies are not multi-cellular organisms means number 8 was also imaginary

Specifically, questions 4, 6 and 7 were indeed hypothetical and would actually disprove evolution if they ever occurred. (Well, #7 pushes the limits, it may well be a very quickly evolving organism with a short generation span) However, event number 8, which you called hypothetical, has already happened. By any standards really, I proved you wrong right there.

See here:
As for number eight, that has also been observed. In 1983, nonetheless.
Here's the citation: Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

Therefore how can you claim that my answers were not good, if you read my answers and your own (post #24 and #42 you'd see that they are the same meaning you are simply trash talking here... Perhaps to look big in front of your mates... (I mean your entire post is crapping on about how you "triumphed", how old are you? 13?)

A few things: I didn't claim I "triumphed" anywhere, though you will of course read into my posts whatever you please. That being said, your own "mates" sure did, (# 27) did you call them out? I sense a huge double-standard.
Second, I'm not trash-talking at all, you're simply distorting events. Though you state you gave the same answers I did, you incorrectly answered numbers 4, 8, 11. You further made two mistakes when answering questions 9, 10 and 11:
On question 9 you claim that a "loss of information" would not constitute evolution, yet at the same time you claim that the addition of information (#10) would not be evolution, either! You can't have the cake and eat it, too.
On question 11, you inadvertently admit that we can't distinguish between a micro- and macro-evolutionary event. If that isn't the clearest demonstration that they're one and the same...

How by complaing that I do not accept hypothetical imaginary situations?

Given that one wasn't hypothetical at all... yes, among others. However, your mistakes in numbers 9, 10 and 11 were even more telling.

Which one? The one with fire coming from people's hands? Demonstrate, don't assert... However I wonder why in the world did I allow this to deviate the topic? Perhaps its because nobody wanted to answer my original question?

What post is that?

Didn't you read #42? I would argue that your "hypothetical events" count toward "that would be macroevolution" and except for one, they would all violate at least one evolutionary law.

Meaning they are moot, so your complaints about me not answering them, (since they are imaginary) were unjustified

But even if we don't count those, there's still question #11, where you agreed that it might be a "macroevolutionary" event, but I then commented that it would actually violate a few laws of evolution.

And? You admit I said MIGHT be... That is IF it were real... Wow kudos to you, you asked a person a question about something imaginary, complained about not getting answers and then now say that because you got answers that is a bad thing for me to do.... Yeah because that is logical right?

What post is that?

Again #42, didn't you read it?

Here are the correct answers:
1. Yes, Yes
2. No, No (Micromutation)
3. No, No (Micromutation)
4. Yes, No (Breaks at least one evolutionary law, in this case the law of Monophyly)
5. No, No (Micromutation)
6. Yes, No (Breaks at least one evolutionary law, in this case the law of Monophyly, but it was incorrectly proposed by creationists)
7. Yes, No (Not evolution, but rather morphing)
8. Yes, Yes
9. No, No (Micromutation and according to creationists a loss of Information)
10. Interesting example I'll explain below.
11. Yes, No (Breaks at least one evolutionary law)
12. No, Yes (Evidence that snakes once had legs and were, according to a few creationist definitions, "not snakes". However, loss of information)
13. No, No (As Gilbo correctly states, this would actually contradict evolution)
14. No, No (However, it very much has to do with both evolution and abiogenesis and shows that creationists were wrong when they said we Humans can't create life.)
15. Yes/No, No (Some creationists would accept this as a macromutation, but it would actually violate a whole lot of laws.)

Additional answer for 10: This proves without a doubt that information can not only be added, but can also be beneficial. I'll repeat that: It's a beneficial mutation due to an increase of information.

So focusing on just the two "Yes, Yes" answers:
Fish with "feet" have already been found. This is a foot: "The foot (plural feet) is an anatomical structure found in many vertebrates. It is the terminal portion of a limb which bears weight and allows locomotion."
Upon accepting that definition, these fish have definite feet. Or hands, depending on what you want to call them. More details are available here.

Are these load bearing? Additionally you are making use of the assumption "evolution did it", making an ad hoc observation and then assuming some form of evolutionary relationship... Where are your EXPERIMENTS, ad hoc observations are not experiments my friend.

As for number eight, that has also been observed. In 1983, nonetheless.
Here's the citation: Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

A short explanation is the following:
Starting from single celled animals, each of which has the capability to reproduce there is no s@x in the sense that we think of the term. Selective pressure has been observed to convert single-cellular forms into multicellular forms. A case was observed in which a single celled form changed to multicellularity.
Boxhorn, a student of Boraas,writes:
Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."

As Calypsis told you on that forum a colony is not a multicellular organism... It seems you're too emotionally attached to this "argument" in order to realise that its a complete farce

You do realise that one trait unique to a mutlicellular organism is that they have specialised cells, (like nerve cells, skin cells etc), how is a colony containing algae cells specialised cells?

You never proved me wrong, you merely assert as such however I see no-where on the thread where you did such in fact if you look at post#24 and #42 you'd see that both of our answers are pretty much the same. (Except for the hypothetical situations which you discount in your answers anyway)

Incorrect, as shown above.

I implore readers to go look at the thread and see for themselves, I made a new post demonstating how for the most part the answers Inferno and I gave are exactly the same. The only difference is that he thinks colonies of single celled organisms are multi-celled organisms...

Well in four pages of thread I have yet to see any EXPERIMENTS that validate the assumption "evolution did it" or the assumption that small changes add up to larger ones...

That too is incorrect.
First, I already showed that such an attempt would merely result in your moving the goal posts, that's why I repeated DutchLiam's request.

Again do you have these atheist superpowers to predict the future? If not then how can you make such a claim? Seriously rehashing stuff I have already debunked isn't doing you any favours, A+ for persistence F- for logic.

Additionally how is this demonstrating that my call for EXPERIMENTS was met, since you claim that my statement that they were not demonstrated is false. Hence implying that someone did demonstrate EXPERIMENTS...


Second, I already did so nearly a year ago in the above quoted post. (Also known as post #42, the answer to life the universe and everything.)

Colonies are not multicellular organisms... So anytime a person grows bacteria on a plate of agar that means they are creating a multicellular organism? :lol:

Really... So in the last post where you lied about my answers to your questions being wrong when in fact you gave the SAME answers you now claim I did something else wrong... What did I side-step? Post up some links, quotes and DEMONSTRATE it.

Done. And it wasn't even that hard. If only your reading comprehension were any better, you too could have done so!

Where did you do that?

Why ask such a question if such experiments have been conducted? If they have post them, if they haven't just admit they haven't... Liam's question has no relevance to my own he is attempting to shift the goal posts. As I said, if there are experiments present them, if not admit it and then we can continue...

No, YOU are the one moving the posts.
I already explained this at great length: If we were to post them, you would dismiss them as being "not enough" or "not the right kind" or some other nonsense. That's why we're trying to get you to state up front what would constitute a "correct" experiment. They have been conducted, no doubt about that, but I want written confirmation of you saying "if X is found, I'm wrong" or "if Y is found, I'm correct".

Sadly, we'll probably never get creationists to do so because that would mean they'd be put on the line and they're such a dishonest bunch that doing so would jeopardize their stance.

Huh? First off I have yet to hear of any experiments and doubt I ever will considering all the mental gymnastics I am seeing here... Just answer the question, if there are experiments provide them, if not admit it. Simple... No more dodging.

I provided just two, both of which agreed to the definitions of macroevolution you yourself posted:

gilbo12345[/url]"]1. A fish that originally didn't have arms and legs gaining arms and legs with the necessary hip / shoulder structure, backbone structure, muscle formaton and nerve / brain functionality to make use of the new limbs would be what I would deem as a macro-evolutionary event.

which I then showed to exist later on:

Inferno[/url]"]Upon accepting that definition, these fish have definite feet. Or hands, depending on what you want to call them. More details are available here.

In the same post, you claimed that question 8 was hypothetical yet I later showed that it had already been demonstrated under laboratory conditions!

You are assuming what I will or won't do... Again do you have these atheist superpowers to read people's minds? Two other people have made such comments on this thread alone so perhaps its a common atheist belief?

No, I base my claims on past events. In the EFF-thread I quoted, you repeatedly dodge and weave and, when I did post the experiments, finally claim that nothing provided was good enough, even though you had agreed to them just a page or two earlier.

IF I change goal posts THEN point it out, don't think by making comments about the future somehow allows you any entitlement to derail the thread from my question.

I'm not. I'm telling you precisely what would be needed of you (a short explanation) for us to provide what you want. (the experiments) You're the one going on for page after page without giving you what we need to fulfil your request. Is that so hard to grasp?

Additionally how is me attempting to keep you guys on track and answer my question, shifting goalposts... If anything I am shifting them back to normal after you guys attempt to change the topic, (like Liam asking what experiments I would prefer to be conducted... How does my preferences have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of experiments?)

No. No no no no no! Nowhere did Liam say "prefer", he said "do", aka "perform". I would phrase it slightly differently: "Which experiment would you accept to establish the relatedness of two organisms?" but the question is the same.

The answer should be something like "DNA analysis from multiple strands" (smart) or "fossil comparison" (silly) or something to that extent. I would prefer to put two fossils in jelly and see which way they move, but that won't get me any results.

Criteria for what? I have already said that experiments are observable, repeatable, measureable and falsifiable... More that that it seems like you want me to actually hand you an experiment for you to use as an answer. I'm not going to do your work for you. Present the experiments that verify the assumptions being made or admit there are no experiments and evolutionists base their claims on an unverified hypothesis.

I explained what I'm looking for just above. No you just said criteria, I have already given the critera of what an experiment is... You are asking me to actually give you an experiment What you, on the other hand, are supplying us with is a rather clumsy definition of what an experiment is. Not very helpful in this context.

How is me pointing out that an experiment is observable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable, clumsy? Because all these attributes apply to an experiment

So again, what experiment would you perform or accept to establish the relatedness of two (organisms or) fossils? (Let's agree on fossils because that's what Liam suggested.)

What experiments have been performed? Pick one of them...

You are asking this question to dodge my original question... IF experiments have been performed you can simply state one of them, you don't need me to tell you. However IF the experiments haven't been performed which is what I claim then of course you will ask me this in order to dodge admitting that there are no experiments.

I already told you this but I guess I will have to do so again, (please read this time), I do not think there are any experiments pertaining to that hypothesis I am asking you for them, therefore asking me what experiments I would perform has nothing to do with the question because I already do not think there are any...

Whatever experiment evolutionists have done to verify their assumption that they are related... Unless of course such an experiment doesn't exist and the assumption is unverified.

Think carefully about your answer: You'll accept an experiment done by scientists to establish the relatedness even though you don't know how they performed it? And you'll accept the answers as valid if they indeed showed what they set out to establish?

No you can give the experiment and demonstrate how they performed it and demonstrate how it is valid... How can you logically ask me to know how an experiment is performed which I do not know about, for which I do not believe exist.... You on the other hand believe evolution is a fact and therefore would know about this experiment since otherwise you're "fact" is based off an assumption which is not a good basis for a "fact".

That's too easy...
One
Two
Three
etc. etc., all on one page.

Unpack them... DEMONSTRATE.

Of course since once I have answered that the answer itself is the experiment, since that is what you are asking me for you are asking me for the answer to the question I am asking you... As I said, I'm not here to do your work for you.

No, once again: You completely misunderstood what people are asking of you. That's why you don't grasp what's going on.

How, you are asking me to provide you with an example of an experiment, an experiment which answers my question... Therefore you are asking me to answer my question posed to you...

Provide the EXPERIMENTS or admit there are none and then the conversation can continue rather than being bogged in semantics and mental gymnastics. It isn't that difficult

You're right, it really shouldn't be. Yet it took me three full pages to get even in the vicinity of where I wanted to be over on EFF and it'll take us more than that to do so here.

Actually I replied with the answers in post#24 after you posed your questions in post#15

Answer the god-damn question so we know what we should provide you with. Is it that hard?

I already did, but I guess I will humour your inability to read and comprehend my posts...

You should provide me with an experiment which directly demonstrates and supports the hypothesis/es "small changes add up to larger morphological changes" or "evolution is the cause of similarities between observed fossil species"

Such an experiment would need to be observable, repeatable, measurable and falsifiable, thus directly demonstrating that small changes do indeed lead up to larger ones or that common ancestry is indeed the actual cause of similarities in fossils.

Gilbo wrote:

Ah so you have some evidence for atheism then?

Do I have evidence for my lack of belief in God because of a lack of evidence for God? Is this a serious question? :facepalm:

You said you had evidence against God, I was asking you for it.. Do you now admit that your original claim was wrong?

So where in the scientific method does it say, "assume your hypothesis is correct"?

Accepting the conclusion the evidence leads to is not "assuming your hypothesis is correct".

Its not evidence leading to the conclusion when its based on the assumption that the conclusion is correct, (circular reasoning my friend), again I ask, where in the scientific method does it say "assume your conclusion is correct".

All you are doing is simply using the "if it seems logical to me then its true" rhetoric that underpins the entirety of evolutionary "logic" (or lack thereof ). Since what one deems to be logical is a subjective conclusion based on ones own understanding of the data mixed with their worldview... Ergo its not a solid foundation for the basis one wishes to call science...

I'm not sure what any of this means. Are you saying people just believe whatever they want regardless of reality? If that's the case then what the hell are you arguing about?

I am saying that you were using the

Again if you don't have an experiment how can you know it to be true?

You have not properly defined what type of experiment you would accept so it's a bit dishonest of you to claim there are no experiments.

An experiment is an experiment. I already gave a definition, observable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable. Ignorance of my posts is no excuse.

So Lawrence Krauss isn't an evolutionist?

Red herring. The idea that the Universe came from nothing is an oversimplification that you choose to attack instead of addressing what the theory actually states. It's called a straw man. Do you need me to write that in Latin so you can understand it?

How is that a red herring? I was giving a list of things evolutionists assume.... And the hordes of evolutionists who have made this claim is my evidence that evolutionists assume it.

It wasn't an argument... So it cannot be an argument from incredulity

The argument is implicit in your accusation. The argument being that life couldn't evolve with no mechanism of evolution before a self-replicating cell. And you are once again claiming that something is not possible because it is not known how it could have happened.

Again it wasn't an argument... (must I really repeat myself...)... I never said it wasn't possible I was saying that you guys assume some other mechanism for the evolution of the self-replicating cell since the self-replicating cell is the foundation point of evolution as we know it... Try and comprehend my posts please

SO what mechanisms have been demonstrated that allow for an irreducibly complex system to come about?

It depends on the system. That's why I asked you to propose an irreducibly complex system... but you didn't.

Lie- I gave cellular respiration / digestive system... Keep running my friend

You gave no evidence, you gave me 3 premises of which the first attributed existence to being physical which is circular, and relied on the assumption that that there are no non-physical things that exist, however I already gave you one which you (begrudgingly) admitted exists, the laws of reality.

No, I gave you two premises and a conclusion, all of which are logically consistent and based on reality, with no assumptions whatsoever. The "laws of reality" exhibit physical, quantifiable evidence of their existence so they do not falsify premise one.

Sigh.. I already demonstrated how you are false... Your ignorance to not accept it is astounding.

Laws of Reality don't DO anything... The law of gravity isn't what makes gravity do its thing its merely explaining it, (which is what you said first off so you are now contradicting your claims then..lol).

 

[Frenger]

How does that reply to my statement... Do you deny that science is based on data based from reality not based on assumptions?

The data reports reality, and then we create models which best explains that data. Glad that's sorted!

And? Again you are using the "it seems logical to me therefore its true"...

As opposed to it seems illogical, therefore it's true.

You are merely making an assumed extrapolation... Please consider that I have already been asking for the EXPERIMENTS with which you base this all on. In my mind, dogs changing form is merely... dogs changing form... there is nothing here to suggest that they can change to something outside what they are... ie- fish to amphibians etc...

I've already explained the evolution from fish to tetrapod Gilbo, and I already showed you the evidence of a transitional form, Tiktaalik.

I will ask simply, how can Tiktaalik be claimed to be a transitional form between fishes and amphibians, when tetrapod are found to live BEFORE Tiktaalik existed.

Hi Gilbo.

Instead of just briefly going over your disagreements I thought I would just show you why tiktaalik is a transitional fossil according to real definitions, and why those footprints found in Poland only change our ideas of the fish transition to tetrapods, but does nothing to shake Tiktaaliks place.

Firstly, the article you linked is just an article. It's not peer reviewed and as such can claim what they want. They do however link THE peer reviewed study that the article was based on, which I then read.

You seem to be hung up on what EXACTLY a transitional form is.

Wiki (which is pretty good on these things as dictionaries seldom get scientific definitions right) defines it as;

A transitional fossil is any fossilized[/url] remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

Sauce
Emphasis mine,

So a transitional fossil doesn't have to be the direct lineage, but an example of an organism that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendent group.

I can already here you saying "but the tetrapod footprints were from before the tiktaalik".

Do not worry Gilbo, that is answered by the study the article was based on.

The Zachemie trackways show that very large stem-group tetrapods, exceeding 2 m in length, lived in fully marine intertidal to lagoonal environments along the south coast of Laurussia during the early Eifelian, some 18 million years before the earliest-known tetrapod body fossils were deposited. This forces us to infer much longer ghost lineages for tetrapods and elpistostegids than the body fossil record suggests. (Ghost lineages are those that must have existed at a particular time, according to the phylogeny, but which are not represented by fossils at that time.) Until now, the replacement of elpistostegids by tetrapods in the body-fossil record during the mid-late Frasnian has appeared to reflect an evolutionary event, with the elpistostegids as a short-lived 'transitional grade' between fish and tetrapod morphotypes. In fact, tetrapods and elpistostegids coexisted for at least 10 million years. This implies that the elpistostegid morphology was not a brief transitional stage, but a stable adaptive position in its own right. It is reminiscent of the lengthy coexistence of non-volant but feathered and 'winged' theropod dinosaurs with volant stem-group birds during the Mesozoic.

Sauce

So, have these footprints forced us to reconsider tiktaalik as a transitional form? Of course not, it would imply that Tiktaalik and early tetrapods like Acanthostega have long ghost lineages, but Tiktaalik still displays characteristics that help us understand the ways in which fish evolved into tetrapods.

I'm sure you are going to say "oh this is ad hoc evolutionist circular reasoning" but expanding our knowledge based on new information (which is what these uncovered footprints have forced us to do) should be something to be celebrated, it's the best thing about science. As new data comes in, we adapt to it.

We don't know everything about our evolutionary history, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything. Understanding more about the time-scale and conditions that tetrapods evolved in isn't the same as circular reasoning.

I've only shown why tiktaalik is still a transitional fossil in the light of these footprints. If you want to go over its morphology I have a stack of papers that confirm its place between fish and tetrapods which I am happy to go over with you. As you haven't actually ever tried to challenge that analysis however, I'm happy to leave it there.

[/quote]

Dogs stay dogs

Although Dogs all evolved from the Gray Wolf, which isn't a dog.

A phylogenetic analysis of 736 bp of the cytochrome b gene shows that only gray wolves are directly ancestral to domestic dogs

Sauce

So, all that variation from one species, seems like a branching lineage to me, Gilbo.

and fish stay fish

See Tiktaalik and everything Inferno has said.

and to state otherwise with this data is to make an unfounded assumed extrapolation.

Or to ignore all the evidence?

How so?

Because you're attacking a claim no one has made.

Krauss used that as the title of his book did he not?

And Hitchens used the title "God is not Great, does that mean he believes in God and the book is a direct critique? FFS, Gilbo.

He also claims it in his "debates"...

So something else we can add to the list of things Gilbo hasn't seen/understood.

You really should complain to him.

There's no need. Other people's misunderstandings are their own, it's not his fault people discuss his work without actually reading it.

Additionally there have been many evolutionists who try and claim that the universe came from nothing.

"Evolutionists" have nothing to say on matters concerning cosmology, so you're talking bollocks again.

The fact that you are a tad smarter

I don't claim that, I simply read the work before discussing it.

and realise that it makes no sense does nothing to change the fact that many evolutionists do still think that its a viable argument.

Some creationists suggest man used to ride Velociraptors, does that mean you do?

That is assuming science is the only way to know reality... Surely you know that science cannot account for all knowledge....

Sounds mystical.

*Cue spooky music.

I have already mentioned the many arguments from logic which demonstrate God, many of these are deductive which if the premises are true cannot be denied or hand-waved away.

Logic cannot be used to prove reality. Or can it?

Everything that exists has a cause.
God doesn't have a cause.
Therefore God doesn't exist.

Phew, sorted!

Did I say that? Strawman much?

Of course you didn't, because that would have been a sensible thing to say.

Yes it shows its possible... In a LAB... You are assuming that what they do in a lab can be correlated to reality, how is this assumption justified?

Well it depends, do chemical laws act differently outside then they do inside? Strange.

Perhaps it is, considering I haven't seen much reason here, so it cannot be the League of "Reason".

Oh you!

I believe the actual reasons given are

Clear cases of misrepresentation
Equivocation (in general)
Equivocation (particularly regarding what "evolution" means)
Ad hominem
Trolling
Complaining about board moderation

The fact that you mention it here means you are STILL complaining about board moderation

On a website "dedicated to discussing evolution" you'd the moderators would be inclined to allow the correct biological definitions. Kind of like me running a cake website and censoring words like yeast and replacing instead with "god made the cake rise".

Modest aren't we

Modest rhymes with honest, so you're nearly there.

No, I don't particularly care about the conlcusion what I don't like is the fact that it is based entirely on assumption which is not science and is then touted as if its a scientific fact... An example of a grand delusion.

As I said, take away the assumption and it all crumbles away....

When ALL of the evidence we have leads to one conclusion, it's only ignorance or stubbornness, which stops you arriving at the same place as the rest of us.

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo wrote:

You said you had evidence against God, I was asking you for it..

I provided a logical argument against God. You rejected it because you could not refute it.

I know you think you're being clever by shifting the burden of proof but it is starting to make you look foolish. I have explained what a null hypothesis is yet you continue to ask for evidence against your hypothesis as if it is the null hypothesis. I am not required to provide evidence against God because I would have to first assume that he exists. Science doesn't work that way. You work from the null hypothesis that there is no God and until you provide empirical evidence that there is a God the burden of proof remains on you.

Its not evidence leading to the conclusion when its based on the assumption that the conclusion is correct, again I ask, where in the scientific method does it say "assume your conclusion is correct".

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say. The fact that the evidence fits the theory perfectly does not make it circular reasoning. It makes it a valid theory.

An experiment is an experiment. I already gave a definition, observable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable. Ignorance of my posts is no excuse.

I didn't ask for the definition of experiment. I asked what type of experiment you would accept. You need to define your terms. If you want to see an experiment that shows that "large changes" can occur you need to define "large changes". But we all know that you will continue to avoid defining your terms because it doesn't matter what evidence you are shown you can still reject it if you fail to define your terms.

How is that a red herring? I was giving a list of things evolutionists assume.... And the hordes of evolutionists who have made this claim is my evidence that evolutionists assume it.

Do you need me to explain what a red herring is? :roll:

The second half of this drivel is a consensus fallacy. Just because "hordes of evolutionists" make this claim doesn't make it true of all "evolutionists".

I never said it wasn't possible I was saying that you guys assume some other mechanism for the evolution of the self-replicating cell since the self-replicating cell is the foundation point of evolution as we know it...

You implied that it is not possible. You said "no mechanism".

I don't assume abiogenesis occured. I accept that it's possible and I weigh the evidence for and against it. I have no problem admitting that I don't know if abiogenesis occured. Unlke you, I am fine with not knowing. I don't need an imaginary friend to explain away what we don't understand.

Lie- I gave cellular respiration / digestive system

That wasn't a reply to me so I missed it. Can you state you argument explicitly so that I can respond to it?

I already demonstrated how you are false

No, you didn't.

Laws of Reality don't DO anything... The law of gravity isn't what makes gravity do its thing its merely explaining it

You are correct. I should have asked you to clarify what you meant by the "laws of reality" before replying since it's not a term with any real meaning. I incorrectly assumed you meant gravity, thermodynamics, etc and not the actual laws themselves. Yes, the laws themselves do nothing. They are only explanations of physical phenomena. This, however, doesn't demonstrate that I am incorrect.

 

[gilbo12345]

How does that reply to my statement... Do you deny that science is based on data based from reality not based on assumptions?

The data reports reality, and then we create models which best explains that data. Glad that's sorted!

And what do you do when your model is based on an assumption... you have no experiment that verify evolution was the cause of similarities in fossils / DNA you merely ASSUME it is. Therefore how can you know it is real, when you haven't tested it?

How can you claim it is science when the scientific method literally demands you to do these experiments?... Science is not based on what you think is logical or some model you create from your assumptions it is based on data which is VERIFIED by EXPERIMENT...

Anything other than that and you don't understand how to do REAL science

And? Again you are using the "it seems logical to me therefore its true"...

As opposed to it seems illogical, therefore it's true.

Now you are simply posting troll comments... This has no relevance to what I am saying... I guess posting such things means you get to hide behind them and ignore what I am trying to teach you. As I have already said, something seeming logical is a SUBJECTIVE assertion, it is not a basis one can claim reality from.

You are merely making an assumed extrapolation... Please consider that I have already been asking for the EXPERIMENTS with which you base this all on. In my mind, dogs changing form is merely... dogs changing form... there is nothing here to suggest that they can change to something outside what they are... ie- fish to amphibians etc...

I've already explained the evolution from fish to tetrapod Gilbo, and I already showed you the evidence of a transitional form, Tiktaalik.

And I already showed you that the footprints in Poland dated older than Tiktaalik debunk Tiktaalik as a transitional form to amphibians since it demonstrates that animals were walking on land, amphibians or otherwise, were walking on land well BEFORE Tiktaalik. You really need to get more recent data since this has been debunked for many years now.

However this still doesn't address what I said, (again evolutionists never want to address the points), I asked you for the EXPERIMENTS which you base these assumed extrapolations on... Ad hoc observations of fossils is not an EXPERIMENT, (again you do not understand how to do REAL science).




Hi Gilbo.

Instead of just briefly going over your disagreements I thought I would just show you why tiktaalik is a transitional fossil according to real definitions, and why those footprints found in Poland only change our ideas of the fish transition to tetrapods, but does nothing to shake Tiktaaliks place.

Firstly, the article you linked is just an article. It's not peer reviewed and as such can claim what they want. They do however link THE peer reviewed study that the article was based on, which I then read.

And? Perhaps read this.... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Peer review isn't all its cracked up to be, its essentially the least worse system. A subjective system will not give you objective results

You seem to be hung up on what EXACTLY a transitional form is.

No I'm not... You are claiming this in order to justify your red herring and change the discussion, as I have been saying evolutionists do not want to discuss the issues

Wiki (which is pretty good on these things as dictionaries seldom get scientific definitions right) defines it as; (You realise that wikipedia can be altered by anyone, ergo its LESS creditable than dictionaries since dictionaries attempt to remain neutral and objective...)

A transitional fossil is any fossilized[/url] remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

Sauce
Emphasis mine,

So a transitional fossil doesn't have to be the direct lineage, but an example of an organism that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendent group.

So if its not part of a direct lineage then how is it transitional? Since transitional implies it is a transition between organism A and organism B hence implying ancestry...... Sorry, logic says no.

I can already here you saying "but the tetrapod footprints were from before the tiktaalik".

Do not worry Gilbo, that is answered by the study the article was based on.

The Zachemie trackways show that very large stem-group tetrapods, exceeding 2 m in length, lived in fully marine intertidal to lagoonal environments along the south coast of Laurussia during the early Eifelian, some 18 million years before the earliest-known tetrapod body fossils were deposited. This forces us to infer much longer ghost lineages for tetrapods and elpistostegids than the body fossil record suggests. (Ghost lineages are those that must have existed at a particular time, according to the phylogeny, but which are not represented by fossils at that time.) Until now, the replacement of elpistostegids by tetrapods in the body-fossil record during the mid-late Frasnian has appeared to reflect an evolutionary event, with the elpistostegids as a short-lived 'transitional grade' between fish and tetrapod morphotypes. In fact, tetrapods and elpistostegids coexisted for at least 10 million years. This implies that the elpistostegid morphology was not a brief transitional stage, but a stable adaptive position in its own right. It is reminiscent of the lengthy coexistence of non-volant but feathered and 'winged' theropod dinosaurs with volant stem-group birds during the Mesozoic.

Sauce

So, have these footprints forced us to reconsider tiktaalik as a transitional form? Of course not, it would imply that Tiktaalik and early tetrapods like Acanthostega have long ghost lineages, but Tiktaalik still displays characteristics that help us understand the ways in which fish evolved into tetrapods.

So now you are assuming that Tiktaalik existed before the times found via its fossils.... By the DATA you should stick with the ages of the fossils and not assume that they existed before because you are simply assuming that with not one iota of data to back up your claims...

I'm sure you are going to say "oh this is ad hoc evolutionist circular reasoning" but expanding our knowledge based on new information (which is what these uncovered footprints have forced us to do) should be something to be celebrated, it's the best thing about science. As new data comes in, we adapt to it.


Actually its called an ad hoc hypothesis, commonly used in pseudoscience when data conflicts with their claims....

We don't know everything about our evolutionary history, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything. Understanding more about the time-scale and conditions that tetrapods evolved in isn't the same as circular reasoning.

As I said its an ad hoc hypothesis added in order to incorporate the conflicting data

I've only shown why tiktaalik is still a transitional fossil in the light of these footprints.

No you haven't... You've merely asserted it is by adopting an ad hoc hypothesis and then attempt to claim that doing so is ok

[/quote]

Dogs stay dogs

Although Dogs all evolved from the Gray Wolf, which isn't a dog.

Its believed to be a canine... (Sorry shouldn't have used the word dog)

A phylogenetic analysis of 736 bp of the cytochrome b gene shows that only gray wolves are directly ancestral to domestic dogs

Sauce

So, all that variation from one species, seems like a branching lineage to me, Gilbo.

And as I said what you seem to think is logical doesn't determine reality... You need to VERIFY such assumptions, of which you have not done.

and fish stay fish

See Tiktaalik and everything Inferno has said.

Except that Tiktaalik has been debunked for years and I have already debunked Inferno, (who is a troll by the way since he keeps repeating crap that I have already addressed and thinks its smart to do so).

and to state otherwise with this data is to make an unfounded assumed extrapolation.

Or to ignore all the evidence?

No because assumptions are not evidence, this is what you need to understand... When you base something on your assumptions it is no longer a part of reality, UNTIL it can be verified... So unless you verify these assumed "evidences" you have they are not evidence of reality, merely evidence of what you think is logical (since they are your assumptions) and as I said what you deem logical is not indicative of reality.

How so?

Because you're attacking a claim no one has made.

I never attacked it I was merely stating it as one of the assumptions evolutionists make... As per the comments on parsimony.

Krauss used that as the title of his book did he not?

And Hitchens used the title "God is not Great, does that mean he believes in God and the book is a direct critique? FFS, Gilbo.

As I have said the hordes of atheists making the claim that the universe can come from nothing is my evidence... Or will you invoke the no true scotsman fallacy?

He also claims it in his "debates"...

So something else we can add to the list of things Gilbo hasn't seen/understood.

To assert is not to demonstrate...

Additionally there have been many evolutionists who try and claim that the universe came from nothing.

"Evolutionists" have nothing to say on matters concerning cosmology, so you're talking bollocks again.

So all those evolutionists I have discussed it with are imaginary then? :lol: Perhaps I should have said atheist evolutionist.

The fact that you are a tad smarter

I don't claim that, I simply read the work before discussing it.

and realise that it makes no sense does nothing to change the fact that many evolutionists do still think that its a viable argument.

Some creationists suggest man used to ride Velociraptors, does that mean you do?

Are you implying the No true scotsman fallacy? I have yet to hear of any creationist make such a claim (again asserting is not demonstrating), and if I did I would ask them for their evidence.

That is assuming science is the only way to know reality... Surely you know that science cannot account for all knowledge....

Sounds mystical.

*Cue spooky music.

Gee that was a "reason"able response... Again evolutionists do not want to discuss the points.... Do you admit that there are other sources of knowledge outside of science? If so then how can you logically claim that being unable to test God in a lab is a bad thing?

I have already mentioned the many arguments from logic which demonstrate God, many of these are deductive which if the premises are true cannot be denied or hand-waved away.

Logic cannot be used to prove reality. Or can it?

Everything that exists has a cause.
God doesn't have a cause.
Therefore God doesn't exist.

Phew, sorted!

So this is implying the who created God argument.. Surely you know that such an argument falls on deaf ears to the academics who actually study this stuff.... God's "cause" is found within his very nature of being the first cause... Seriously you may want to go research this a bit more. William Lane Craig does a good expose' of this argument in Dawkins' Delusion book.

Did I say that? Strawman much?

Of course you didn't, because that would have been a sensible thing to say.

So if I didn't then you admit that you made a strawman?....

Yes it shows its possible... In a LAB... You are assuming that what they do in a lab can be correlated to reality, how is this assumption justified?

Well it depends, do chemical laws act differently outside then they do inside? Strange.

No, I never said that either, (again another strawman)... The main cause of concern is that the specific conditions are unknown ergo even if scientists can create life (which they haven't), there is no way to VERIFY that the same conditions used were present in reality in the past... (I already mentioned this in part before, which makes your strawman attempt even more concerning since it demonstrates that you do not bother reading and understanding my posts).

I believe the actual reasons given are

Clear cases of misrepresentation
Equivocation (in general)
Equivocation (particularly regarding what "evolution" means)
Ad hominem
Trolling
Complaining about board moderation

The fact that you mention it here means you are STILL complaining about board moderation

On a website "dedicated to discussing evolution" you'd the moderators would be inclined to allow the correct biological definitions. Kind of like me running a cake website and censoring words like yeast and replacing instead with "god made the cake rise".

That is for you to discuss with them... I am not a mod there. I was merely posting the given reasons for your banning as well as pointing out that by your admission of this topic to the conversation you are STILL complaining about board moderation which was one of the reasons why you were banned, meaning at least that one has been demonstrated and proven correct... By your own admission here.

No, I don't particularly care about the conlcusion what I don't like is the fact that it is based entirely on assumption which is not science and is then touted as if its a scientific fact... An example of a grand delusion.

As I said, take away the assumption and it all crumbles away....

When ALL of the evidence we have leads to one conclusion, it's only ignorance or stubbornness, which stops you arriving at the same place as the rest of us.

Firstly I wouldn't say ALL... However I will let that slide.

Of course its going to seem like it leads to one conclusion since that is what you have already assumed IS the conclusion... That is the point. Its circular reasoning to assume evolution is true, which then leads to X Y and Z "evidence" and then use that "evidence" to support the claim that evolution is true. Once you take away the assumption then all the "evidence" crumbles away since it has no legs to stand on.

[/quote]

 

[Dave B.]

Of course its going to seem like it leads to one conclusion since that is what you have already assumed IS the conclusion... That is the point. Its circular reasoning to assume evolution is true, which then leads to X Y and Z "evidence" and then use that "evidence" to support the claim that evolution is true. Once you take away the assumption then all the "evidence" crumbles away since it has no legs to stand on.

I'm sorry, Gilbo, but this is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. And it is one of the most contrived straw men I have ever seen. You've actually managed to incorporate circular reasoning into your straw man. :lol:

We accept the Theory of Evolution because ALL of the evidence supports the theory and because there has been no real evidence that could falsify the theory. It has nothing to do with assuming evolution is true and everything to do with fact. There is not a single piece of evidence in any field of science that contradicts the idea of descent with modification and that is why the only arguments you and the rest of the Creationists can come up with are ridiculous claims about how "evolution is a religion" or "if you didn't observe it how do you know it happened" or "you assume evolution is true because you assume the evidence is true because you believe the theory is true" and my favorite nonsensical claim "do you have any evidence for your lack of belief in a god which there is no evidence for".

Give me one piece of evidence that falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Just one. That's all it would take.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

croiky!
This has become a barrage of text, and I feel that the point has been missed along time ago.

I can nail you down with this.

And? Again you are using the "it seems logical to me therefore its true"... You are merely making an assumed extrapolation... Please consider that I have already been asking for the EXPERIMENTS with which you base this all on. In my mind, dogs changing form is merely... dogs changing form... there is nothing here to suggest that they can change to something outside what they are... ie- fish to amphibians etc... Dogs stay dogs and fish stay fish and to state otherwise with this data is to make an unfounded assumed extrapolation.

And my question is, on what grounds do you assume that prehistoric fish couldn't have evolved into amphibians?
You problem isn't that you find something unjustified, but rather that the previous is a foregone conclusion and therefore anything that contradicts must necessarily be unfounded.
If you have no objection, then I want to hear this word from you: "I admit that it is possible that prehistoric fish could have evolved into amphibians".
Because then my task is easy, because all I have to do then is to point out to the structure of the fossil record to demonstrate that such was exactly what happened.

In my mind, dogs changing form is merely... dogs changing form... there is nothing here to suggest that they can change to something outside what they are

But that is all it takes. Changes comparative to those that you see in dogs, accumulate over generations, is all it takes to explain the biodiversity of earth, what did you thought evolution was?
Your problem is what I have highlighted in red, it is because it doesn't seam right to you, because your common sense protests. But common sense is as useful to find out what is true as an handful of salt water in the middle of the ocean. Your common sense can scream to all its heart content, it is still wrong.

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo writes:

And as I said what you seem to think is logical doesn't determine reality...

So we can disregard the following....

In my mind, dogs changing form is merely... dogs changing form... there is nothing here to suggest that they can change to something outside what they are

What was it that you said just a few minutes ago?

As I have already said, something seeming logical is a SUBJECTIVE assertion, it is not a basis one can claim reality from

So based on the following claim...

A subjective system will not give you objective results

We can safely conclude that you don't know fuck all about reality.

 

[gilbo12345]

Of course its going to seem like it leads to one conclusion since that is what you have already assumed IS the conclusion... That is the point. Its circular reasoning to assume evolution is true, which then leads to X Y and Z "evidence" and then use that "evidence" to support the claim that evolution is true. Once you take away the assumption then all the "evidence" crumbles away since it has no legs to stand on.

I'm sorry, Gilbo, but this is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. And it is one of the most contrived straw men I have ever seen. You've actually managed to incorporate circular reasoning into your straw man. :lol:

No I am demonstrating the circular reasoning of evolutionists... I already pointed this out... I demonstrated it, perhaps you can demonstrate your claim here rather than just asserting it.

We accept the Theory of Evolution because ALL of the evidence supports the theory and because there has been no real evidence that could falsify the theory.

"Convergent Evolution" is the ad hoc hypothesis to explain away similarities which do not fit with common descent. So similarities which reflect common descent are evidence of evolution and similarities which defy common decent is (somehow) evidence of evolution (and common descent... the thing it defies).

It has nothing to do with assuming evolution is true and everything to do with fact.

Actually it does since as I said once you take away the assumption that "evolution did it" you have no basis to claim fossils similarities as evidence of evolution since you cannot demonstrate whether evolution was really the cause or not... If the cause of these similarities is in doubt (which it is since no experiment has verified the cause) then you cannot claim it as evidence of anything since you do not know what it actually is evidence for.

There is not a single piece of evidence in any field of science that contradicts the idea of descent with modification

Keep telling yourself that...

and that is why the only arguments you and the rest of the Creationists can come up with are ridiculous claims about how "evolution is a religion"

Did I make that claim?

or "if you didn't observe it how do you know it happened" or "you assume evolution is true because you assume the evidence is true because you believe the theory is true" and my favorite nonsensical claim "do you have any evidence for your lack of belief in a god which there is no evidence for".

Did I make these claims? I first asked you guys for the EXPERIMENTS supporting the hypothesis that evolution was the cause of these observations, it was (collectively) your failure to provide these experiments as verification for that hypothesis which demonstrates that evolution is merely an assumption, and on that basis cannot be known to be real due to it being assumed rather than demonstrated.

Give me one piece of evidence that falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Just one. That's all it would take.

Will you accept it? I am quite sure you won't but we'll see shall we, (unlike you guys I don't hide behind attempting to claim my opponents won't accept what I say, which has been used as a scape-goat by a few people on this very thread).


Similarities in organisms which do not reflect common ancestry

Genome-wide signatures of convergent evolution in echolocating mammals 2013


Here we analyse genomic sequence data in mammals that have independently evolved echolocation and show that convergence is not a rare process restricted to several loci but is instead widespread, continuously distributed and commonly driven by natural selection acting on a small number of sites per locus. Systematic analyses of convergent sequence evolution in 805,053 amino acids within 2,326 orthologous coding gene sequences compared across 22 mammals (including four newly sequenced bat genomes) revealed signatures consistent with convergence in nearly 200 loci. Strong and significant support for convergence among bats and the bottlenose dolphin was seen in numerous genes linked to hearing or deafness, consistent with an involvement in echolocation. Unexpectedly, we also found convergence in many genes linked to vision: the convergent signal of many sensory genes was robustly correlated with the strength of natural selection. This first attempt to detect genome-wide convergent sequence evolution across divergent taxa reveals the phenomenon to be much more pervasive than previously recognized.

http://www.nature.co...ature12511.html



Already mentioned this....

Interconnected systems which require multiple parts for their function- Cellular respiration: Glycolysis / Citric acid cycle and Electron transport chain all require each other in order to function at all.

No Glycolysis = No starting point / no pyruvate
No Citric acid cycle = Build up of Pyruvate to toxic levels
No Electron Transport chain = No recycling of NADH and FADH2 which stops the process completely.

Without all the 3 systems in place the full system cannot function AT ALL... Additionally this isn't regarding all the myriad enzymes and regulatory proteins for each of the three systems which is another level of complexity. The fact that this system is the only system that we know exists for cellular respiration evolutionists cannot assume a proto-system as a stepping stone. When you look at bacteria, even ancient bacteria from ice cores they all have this system making it THE starting point.

Darwin admitted that if it can be conceived that something cannot come about via small changes over time then his "theory" is debunked. We see this with the example above as well as pretty much any cellular system, you'd need to take huge leaps of FAITH in order to justify evolution here.



"Junk" DNA predictions from evolutionists falsified, (and delayed our knowledge of epigenetics... )




Observation of Statis within fossils, as well as organisms which haven't changed at all since their first incarnation.

croiky!
This has become a barrage of text, and I feel that the point has been missed along time ago.

I can nail you down with this.

And? Again you are using the "it seems logical to me therefore its true"... You are merely making an assumed extrapolation... Please consider that I have already been asking for the EXPERIMENTS with which you base this all on. In my mind, dogs changing form is merely... dogs changing form... there is nothing here to suggest that they can change to something outside what they are... ie- fish to amphibians etc... Dogs stay dogs and fish stay fish and to state otherwise with this data is to make an unfounded assumed extrapolation.

And my question is, on what grounds do you assume that prehistoric fish couldn't have evolved into amphibians?

Why should we assume they can? Being a scientist is about being skeptical and determining what reality is, NOT what we assume about reality and hope to find it.

You problem isn't that you find something unjustified, but rather that the previous is a foregone conclusion and therefore anything that contradicts must necessarily be unfounded.

No, my problem is that evolutionists assume evolution as the cause of their observations and then claim the observations as evidence of evolution... Again I ask how does assuming something make it reality?

If you have no objection, then I want to hear this word from you: "I admit that it is possible that prehistoric fish could have evolved into amphibians".
Because then my task is easy, because all I have to do then is to point out to the structure of the fossil record to demonstrate that such was exactly what happened.

Honestly have you even READ my posts? I have said multiple times that if you do not assume "evolution caused the similarities in fossils" then you cannot use it as evidence of evolution since you cannot demonstrate that evolution was the actual cause. How do you know it is the actual cause? By EXPERIMENT.... Hence why I have been asking for the experiments.

In my mind, dogs changing form is merely... dogs changing form... there is nothing here to suggest that they can change to something outside what they are

But that is all it takes. Changes comparative to those that you see in dogs, accumulate over generations, is all it takes to explain the biodiversity of earth, what did you thought evolution was?

How do you know that those small changes are capable of leading up to the larger ones? Again you are simply assuming it can and then asserting your assumption as fact... If you want to do something useful actually DEMONSTRATE that these small changes can indeed add up to larger ones, (however as I said it cannot be demonstrated due to the time constraints).

Your problem is what I have highlighted in red, it is because it doesn't seam right to you, because your common sense protests.

And yet you have the audacity to claim that because small changes adding to larger ones seems like common sense to you then therefore it is true... Did you have a go at all the others claiming or implying that because evolution seems logical therefore it is true... Can you not see the double standard here?

At any rate, thanks for taking the hook Since my statement would still stand even if you delete the "In my mind" (it was an embellishment, nothing more).


Now the fact remains that you are simply assuming that these small changes lead to the large scale structural changes, nobody has been able to provide an EXPERIMENT that verifies that they can, meaning you have no basis to claim that they can, except for your own assumptions or believing it seems logical to you, (which is what you scolded me for... ).

I am merely being skeptical of the assumptions being presented, demonstrate how these assumptions are indicative of reality or stop claiming they are scientific... Either way I'd be happy.

But common sense is as useful to find out what is true as an handful of salt water in the middle of the ocean. Your common sense can scream to all its heart content, it is still wrong.

Yet we have people here doing the exact same thing.....

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo's link didn't work so I searched out the entire article which can be found here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12511.html

I'm not sure I understand how this falsifies the ToE. If anything it demonstrates that convergent evolution is more prevalent than we originally thought.

Your claim that this represents "similarities in organisms which do not reflect common ancestry" is just plain ignorant. These are similarities in organisms from different lineages - clades. That's not the same thing as saying they do not reflect common ancestry. Convergent evolution explains how organisms from different lineages or clades can develop similar traits and that is exactly what this paper demonstrates.

You know, it's not proper manners to just post a link (that didn't work) and cut and paste from the article without commenting on the paper itself. I would be interested to hear why you think this paper falsifies the ToE.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

And my question is, on what grounds do you assume that prehistoric fish couldn't have evolved into amphibians?

Why should we assume they can? Being a scientist is about being skeptical and determining what reality is, NOT what we assume about reality and hope to find it.

You got your ass on backwards. This is not assuming. It's the very opposite of assuming. It is about not making assumptions, lets not assume that it is impossible or that it has happen until all the chips are in, leave the possibility open that in principle it could.
And please do not evade the point. On what grounds do you assume that it can't?

You problem isn't that you find something unjustified, but rather that the previous is a foregone conclusion and therefore anything that contradicts must necessarily be unfounded.

No, my problem is that evolutionists assume evolution as the cause of their observations and then claim the observations as evidence of evolution... Again I ask how does assuming something make it reality?

But then it would be your assumption that "evolutionists" assume their conclusions, because so far you are not interested in the evidence, you have already made your decision that everybody else that does not share of your opinion is wrong. You are wrong, and I can prove it. But first you have to get rid of your preconceptions and listen.
I am just trying to put you in an unbiased position, and your are being extremely evasive. If you are so sure that you are right, then you shouldn't have a problem of starting from point that things could be either way.

If you have no objection, then I want to hear this word from you: "I admit that it is possible that prehistoric fish could have evolved into amphibians".
Because then my task is easy, because all I have to do then is to point out to the structure of the fossil record to demonstrate that such was exactly what happened.

Honestly have you even READ my posts? I have said multiple times that if you do not assume "evolution caused the similarities in fossils" then you cannot use it as evidence of evolution since you cannot demonstrate that evolution was the actual cause. How do you know it is the actual cause? By EXPERIMENT.... Hence why I have been asking for the experiments.

I am not asking you to assume that evolution is true. Admitting that it is possible that evolution is true is not the same as admitting that evolution is true, it could still be false, but you haven't made the A priori decision that it is impossible.
Once you have done that, then everything else is easy.

But that is all it takes. Changes comparative to those that you see in dogs, accumulate over generations, is all it takes to explain the biodiversity of earth, what did you thought evolution was?

How do you know that those small changes are capable of leading up to the larger ones? Again you are simply assuming it can and then asserting your assumption as fact... If you want to do something useful actually DEMONSTRATE that these small changes can indeed add up to larger ones, (however as I said it cannot be demonstrated due to the time constraints).

Does 1 + 1 equal 2? If you walk a mile 20 times in a row, wouldn't you have walked 20 miles?
I know because it is cumulative, because large things are a collection of small things. The whole is the sum of its parts.
Could small changes lead to large changes? Yes. We have many examples of that.
If that is the case do we need to invoke anything else to explain it? No we don't, it is just the natural behavior of cumulative things.
Could there be such a system, in which cumulative changes does not amount to a large change? Well yes it could. It could be that after a certain radius that certain species couldn't survive and so the only possible changes for individuals on the edge is to change towards a smaller radius around a pivot.
But if you want to postulate that, you would have to demonstrate that a system exists that would prevent certain organisms from changing past a certain point (which not only you can't, I can demonstrate that such a system doesn't exists for any known living organism).
But now demonstrating things would be beyond the point, it would be an exercise in futility, because you are not approaching it from an unbiased position, you have not yet let go of your preconceived ideas, you wouldn't change your mind even if I put you in a time a machine and had you see everything unfold in fast forward until the present day.

Your problem is what I have highlighted in red, it is because it doesn't seam right to you, because your common sense protests.

And yet you have the audacity to claim that because small changes adding to larger ones seems like common sense to you then therefore it is true... Did you have a go at all the others claiming or implying that because evolution seems logical therefore it is true... Can you not see the double standard here?</COLOR>

Dude. Did I ever say that "small changes adding to larger ones seems like common sense to me"? Did you ever see me say "that because it seems logical it is therefore true"?
Did I even asked you to accept that evolution is true by any reason at all?
Did I ever asked you to accept anything at all on common sense?
Do not misrepresent me!

At any rate, thanks for taking the hook Since my statement would still stand even if you delete the "In my mind" (it was an embellishment, nothing more).

No, it doesn't. It would still have the same validity, i.e. none at all. The only difference is, that you wouldn't made the reason why you made an incorrect statement, obvious.

<COLOR color="#00FF00">Now the fact remains that you are simply assuming that these small changes lead to the large scale structural changes, nobody has been able to provide an EXPERIMENT that verifies that they can, meaning you have no basis to claim that they can, except for your own assumptions or believing it seems logical to you, (which is what you scolded me for... ). I am merely being skeptical of the assumptions being presented, demonstrate how these assumptions are indicative of reality or stop claiming they are scientific... Either way I'd be happy.

Again I'm not asking to assume anything, I am asking you not to assume anything. Once you have done that, we can move on to the next step, i.e. to demonstrate that what you call assumptions are in fact no such thing, and the only one who has made assumptions was you all along.
Start from the position that it might be possible until you have a reason to suspect the opposite, let us see where that will lead us. Only then can we see what are the consequences of it being true and the consequences of it being not true.
Only then, you can have all the proof you want.