Just a request: Gilbo, can you quote sensibly? The whole "green text inside a quote"-thing is extremely annoying.
Wrong, I can actually quote you!
The very first part of your sentence is the relevant bit: "there are no lawS of evolution". That is what you said and that is what you commented on.
That evolution is not a law in itself is correct, yet trivial: Nobody claimed that. Evolution itself is both a fact and a theory, and there are laws underlying the theory: Mayr's law of monophyly, Gould's law of evolutionary economics, Dollo's law of irreversibility (technically just a statistical finding), etc.
That is what I corrected you on and that is what you still have to understand.
Incorrect, the paper is quite clear. I provided you with the link down below, I expect you to critique specific portions if you intend to challenge it.
How can I demonstrate something that can't ever happen, i.e. fire coming from people's hands? You're not making a lot of sense.
If you want to disprove evolution, you could start there. Also, I already answered your original question (experiments to prove evolution) but what I predicted came true: They weren't good enough for you, not enough, whatever. Yet you didn't even look at them! How dishonest is that!
Since the point was to prove that you didn't (and still don't) understand even the basics of evolutionary theory (I'd recommend coursera's free intro to genetics and evolution), I'd say I was very justified. You were also in error, as I pointed out, so they were not at all moot.
I was asking for yes/no answers, which shouldn't have been all that hard for a supposed biology major. The closest you could give me was "maybe", which I had to count as something if I was ever to move the topic along, the rest of the people on that forum merely stalled for ages. (Isn't it funny how out of the whole forum, only you gave some half-arsed answers while nobody else even tried?)
However, let's assume that all my questions were imaginary. Wouldn't they still be worth answering so you could show me how dumb I am? You didn't, because you can't show that. You did the only sensible thing from your perspective: Back out and avoid humiliation.
Yes.
No, it's not an assumption, what else would be responsible for it? You're merely quibbling over the name here... The fact is that these fish did grow arms/legs, would you agree? They also did not have them before, as is evident by their heritage, would you agree? So some natural process was responsible for that happening. Whether we call that process evolution or humpedidumpedy is completely irrelevant, but surely you will agree that it did happen.
If you don't, that gets you into even bigger trouble: Where did these handy fish come from? To save your precious creationist nonsense, you must invoke a magical intervention not too long ago. Will you really go that far?
Calypsis is an idiot and doesn't know what he is talking about. It's not quite understood how multicellularity can arise, though it has happened at least 25 times independently. One of the contending hypotheses is the "colonial hypothesis", which states that flagellates first bond together and then evolve specialized functions. This has been seen a number of times, 16 if we trust wikipedia. This is what Boraas observed.
Boraas specifically did not call them "pluricellular" organisms, which would mean that they merely live in a colony and aren't truly multicellular.
I'll provide you with the paper, you read through it and may critique it, but I won't do your work for you.
No, the difference is that I can read and you can't. Have you had a look at the paper? I highly doubt it.
I know deducing/inferring stuff from evidence looks like magic to you folk, but it really isn't.
I did not ask for the criteria of what an experiment is, but for the criteria of an experiment you would accept, which clearly isn't the same thing. I then very specifically laid out how that should look like. You still fail to give them.
"clumsy" because that's a very broad definition of what an experiment is, it surely wouldn't qualify at our university.
"clumsy" also because you're still not giving me what I'm asking of you, so how can you expect me to give you what you're looking for?
I'll try an analogy to help you understand what's happening here:
You're at a library and you want a very specific book. You come to me, the librarian, and ask me: "Do you have a book?"
"Yes" I say, "we have a few of them. Which one do you want?"
You reply: "A book."
I look at you slightly confused and say: "OK, well here I have a nice book for you" and hold out "Peter Pan".
Your face contorts in anger and you bark: "That's not the book I want! I want the book I'm looking for!"
I reply, trying to keep my calm: "Yes, but what sort of book are you looking for? A children's book, a novel, fiction, etc? By which author? From what century? Can you restrict your query so I can better help you out? I don't want to go through the millions and millions of books I have in here and stumble on the one you want by sheer luck. You can do that yourself."
You add the final straw by shouting: "But I already TOLD you what I want!"
This is where we're at now. I can fling literally hundreds of papers your way and you would not even have to read them (as indeed you didn't, see below), yet you could still reject them outright as being "not the right stuff" or something to that extent. That's why I'm asking you, and Liam did so before me, what criteria the experiment should fulfil.
To state that the experiment should be falsifiable, repeatable, etc. is stupid because that's already the definition of an experiment, so you're basically saying "I want an experiment that's an experiment", which isn't very helpful at all.
In my own field of research, I'm currently studying the impact of various teaching methods on kids. In doing so, I needed a very specific paper on cartography. Did I look for it by saying "I need a paper" or "I need a paper on cartography" or "I need an experiment" or anything like that?
No, I laid out some parameters or criteria the paper needed to fulfil: I need a paper on cartography that explains a competency-based approach to constructivist cartography in a germanophone school setting, with an outlook on future applications and development perspectives.
Did that mean I then provided my own paper? No, how ridiculous! I then went to the geographical institute and looked for it. Lo and behold, I found exactly what I was looking for in one of the "Sammelbände".
See above, you're simply misunderstanding what I want of you.
Wrong, read what I wrote!
If I were to come to a creationist forum and ask them for an experiment that would prove creationism, I know exactly what I would ask them.
"Show me an experiment in which the researchers did comparative DNA analysis and then used the findings to establish clear-cut baraminological definitions. Not accepted are cognitum-based approaches (highly unscientific) and so on. I laid out the basics here."
That's a fairly restrictive set of criteria and we'd quickly notice that not a single one of these has been done. So how can I logically ask how an experiment is performed which I do not know about and which I do not believe exists? By using my faculties of mind. I ask you to do the same.
No no, we'll go by the letter here. You asked us to "provide" and so I did. If you want to critique them, read them and quote specific portions you think are wrong. I already did more than I should have, I'm not about to do all your work for you.
Provided they have been, criticize them you did not.
gilbo said:No I said there is no Law of evolution, there is a difference....
Wrong, I can actually quote you!
[url=http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5314&p=88103 said:gilbo[/url]"]Firstly there are no "laws of evolution", evolution is not a law and I'd be tempted to not even call it a theory since it has zero predictive power as well as zero experimentation to confirm it via the scientific method. There are however rules which evolution must abide by, (despite the fact that in some cases these rules actually demonstrate how evolution cannot occur).
The very first part of your sentence is the relevant bit: "there are no lawS of evolution". That is what you said and that is what you commented on.
That evolution is not a law in itself is correct, yet trivial: Nobody claimed that. Evolution itself is both a fact and a theory, and there are laws underlying the theory: Mayr's law of monophyly, Gould's law of evolutionary economics, Dollo's law of irreversibility (technically just a statistical finding), etc.
That is what I corrected you on and that is what you still have to understand.
gilbo said:Actually all of them are hypothetical, unless you want to claim a colony of single celled organisms is a multi-cellular one
-----------------------------
Yes they were hypothetical / idiotic and the fact that colonies are not multi-cellular organisms means number 8 was also imaginary
-----------------------------
Colonies are not multicellular organisms... So anytime a person grows bacteria on a plate of agar that means they are creating a multicellular organism?
-----------------------------
Incorrect, the paper is quite clear. I provided you with the link down below, I expect you to critique specific portions if you intend to challenge it.
gilbo said: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?
How can I demonstrate something that can't ever happen, i.e. fire coming from people's hands? You're not making a lot of sense.
If you want to disprove evolution, you could start there. Also, I already answered your original question (experiments to prove evolution) but what I predicted came true: They weren't good enough for you, not enough, whatever. Yet you didn't even look at them! How dishonest is that!
gilbo said:Meaning they are moot, so your complaints about me not answering them, (since they are imaginary) were unjustified
Since the point was to prove that you didn't (and still don't) understand even the basics of evolutionary theory (I'd recommend coursera's free intro to genetics and evolution), I'd say I was very justified. You were also in error, as I pointed out, so they were not at all moot.
gilbo said: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?
I was asking for yes/no answers, which shouldn't have been all that hard for a supposed biology major. The closest you could give me was "maybe", which I had to count as something if I was ever to move the topic along, the rest of the people on that forum merely stalled for ages. (Isn't it funny how out of the whole forum, only you gave some half-arsed answers while nobody else even tried?)
However, let's assume that all my questions were imaginary. Wouldn't they still be worth answering so you could show me how dumb I am? You didn't, because you can't show that. You did the only sensible thing from your perspective: Back out and avoid humiliation.
gilbo said: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.
Yes.
No, it's not an assumption, what else would be responsible for it? You're merely quibbling over the name here... The fact is that these fish did grow arms/legs, would you agree? They also did not have them before, as is evident by their heritage, would you agree? So some natural process was responsible for that happening. Whether we call that process evolution or humpedidumpedy is completely irrelevant, but surely you will agree that it did happen.
If you don't, that gets you into even bigger trouble: Where did these handy fish come from? To save your precious creationist nonsense, you must invoke a magical intervention not too long ago. Will you really go that far?
gilbo said: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?
Calypsis is an idiot and doesn't know what he is talking about. It's not quite understood how multicellularity can arise, though it has happened at least 25 times independently. One of the contending hypotheses is the "colonial hypothesis", which states that flagellates first bond together and then evolve specialized functions. This has been seen a number of times, 16 if we trust wikipedia. This is what Boraas observed.
Boraas specifically did not call them "pluricellular" organisms, which would mean that they merely live in a colony and aren't truly multicellular.
I'll provide you with the paper, you read through it and may critique it, but I won't do your work for you.
gilbo said:The only difference is that he thinks colonies of single celled organisms are multi-celled organisms...
No, the difference is that I can read and you can't. Have you had a look at the paper? I highly doubt it.
gilbo said: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.
I know deducing/inferring stuff from evidence looks like magic to you folk, but it really isn't.
gilbo said: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
I did not ask for the criteria of what an experiment is, but for the criteria of an experiment you would accept, which clearly isn't the same thing. I then very specifically laid out how that should look like. You still fail to give them.
gilbo said:How is me pointing out that an experiment is observable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable, clumsy? Because all these attributes apply to an experiment
"clumsy" because that's a very broad definition of what an experiment is, it surely wouldn't qualify at our university.
"clumsy" also because you're still not giving me what I'm asking of you, so how can you expect me to give you what you're looking for?
I'll try an analogy to help you understand what's happening here:
You're at a library and you want a very specific book. You come to me, the librarian, and ask me: "Do you have a book?"
"Yes" I say, "we have a few of them. Which one do you want?"
You reply: "A book."
I look at you slightly confused and say: "OK, well here I have a nice book for you" and hold out "Peter Pan".
Your face contorts in anger and you bark: "That's not the book I want! I want the book I'm looking for!"
I reply, trying to keep my calm: "Yes, but what sort of book are you looking for? A children's book, a novel, fiction, etc? By which author? From what century? Can you restrict your query so I can better help you out? I don't want to go through the millions and millions of books I have in here and stumble on the one you want by sheer luck. You can do that yourself."
You add the final straw by shouting: "But I already TOLD you what I want!"
This is where we're at now. I can fling literally hundreds of papers your way and you would not even have to read them (as indeed you didn't, see below), yet you could still reject them outright as being "not the right stuff" or something to that extent. That's why I'm asking you, and Liam did so before me, what criteria the experiment should fulfil.
To state that the experiment should be falsifiable, repeatable, etc. is stupid because that's already the definition of an experiment, so you're basically saying "I want an experiment that's an experiment", which isn't very helpful at all.
In my own field of research, I'm currently studying the impact of various teaching methods on kids. In doing so, I needed a very specific paper on cartography. Did I look for it by saying "I need a paper" or "I need a paper on cartography" or "I need an experiment" or anything like that?
No, I laid out some parameters or criteria the paper needed to fulfil: I need a paper on cartography that explains a competency-based approach to constructivist cartography in a germanophone school setting, with an outlook on future applications and development perspectives.
Did that mean I then provided my own paper? No, how ridiculous! I then went to the geographical institute and looked for it. Lo and behold, I found exactly what I was looking for in one of the "Sammelbände".
gilbo said: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...
See above, you're simply misunderstanding what I want of you.
gilbo said: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".
-------------------------------------------
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...
Wrong, read what I wrote!
If I were to come to a creationist forum and ask them for an experiment that would prove creationism, I know exactly what I would ask them.
"Show me an experiment in which the researchers did comparative DNA analysis and then used the findings to establish clear-cut baraminological definitions. Not accepted are cognitum-based approaches (highly unscientific) and so on. I laid out the basics here."
That's a fairly restrictive set of criteria and we'd quickly notice that not a single one of these has been done. So how can I logically ask how an experiment is performed which I do not know about and which I do not believe exists? By using my faculties of mind. I ask you to do the same.
gilbo said:Unpack them... DEMONSTRATE.
No no, we'll go by the letter here. You asked us to "provide" and so I did. If you want to critique them, read them and quote specific portions you think are wrong. I already did more than I should have, I'm not about to do all your work for you.
gilbo said: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.
Provided they have been, criticize them you did not.