Here comes another one...

[Inferno]

Just a request: Gilbo, can you quote sensibly? The whole "green text inside a quote"-thing is extremely annoying.

No I said there is no Law of evolution, there is a difference....

Wrong, I can actually quote you!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo equivocates:

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

You're equivocating. Evolution is a FACT. It is observable, repeatable and falsifiable. The Theory of Evolution is a theory. No one with even a basic understanding of science claims the Theory of Evolution to be a fact. Theories explain facts and are falsifiable for that very reason. If you can provide an alternate hypothesis to explain the observed fact of evolution you can falsify the theory. It's that simple. As an analogy, gravity is a fact. It is observable, repeatable and falsifiable. The Theory of Gravity is not a fact. It is simply an explanation of the facts. The idea of theories as facts is nonsensical. A fact that explains the facts? Does that make any sense whatsoever? Of course not.

I also want to point out your incessant and incorrect use of the word assumption. An assumption is something that is accepted to be true without proof and with no regard for the rules of logic. For instance, you must assume that God exists because there is no physical evidence for his existence. What scientists do is called inference. When you infer something you do so based on facts and you follow the rules of logic. We look at multiple lines of evidence (facts) and infer that descent with modification is the most valid explanation for our observations. There are no assumptions being made because there are observable facts available to us with which to infer logical conclusions. We wouldn't infer God as the cause of evolution because we have no evidence of God. If there was physical evidence of God we would have to factor that in to our inductive reasoning. You can assume God if you like but understand that you are doing so without any evidence. Just to be clear, logical arguments are not evidence, so please don't claim to have evidence of God. All you have is logical arguments for his existence and as I am sure you're aware we can create a logically sound argument for just about anything. Without evidence, however, the argument is useless.

Let me explain this another way so we can be sure you understand what I'm saying. Creationists infer design, correct? They do so based on the exact same set of observable facts that real scientists use to assume evolution, correct? Do you see the false dichotomy you've created? Why are we assuming evolution yet the creationists are inferring design? Do you understand how backwards you have it? The creationists see design and assume a designer and use design as proof of this designer. The scientist sees evidence and without making any assumptions follows the evidence to the logical conclusion of formulating a theory that explains the facts. The creationist, on the other hand, posits a cause for which there is no evidence and then uses the "evidence" as proof of this cause even though the cause must be assumed before the "evidence" can be considered designed. Are you starting to understand this yet?

Now that you understand the difference between inference and assumption it shouldn't be that hard to understand how small changes can cumulatively become "large changes". Fact: we observe change. Fact: we know of no known barrier that prevents cumulative change. Therefore, we can logically infer that small changes will cumulatively result in "larger changes". We don't assume there is no barrier. We know of no barrier. So until one is demonstrated we work from the null hypothesis that there is no barrier. You can assume one exists if you like but I hope you understand by now what it means to assume something. :lol:

One other point I'd like to make and then I will give you time to go and lick your wounds. You are asking for experiments to prove a straw man. Evolution DOES NOT predict that large changes occur. An experiment to show that large changes occur would actually falsify evolution. Evolution predicts small, cumulative changes, which is exactly what we observe. You have already admitted that time constraints prevent us from demonstrating cumulative change leading to "larger changes" so by continuing to ask for this evidence you are tilting at windmills. You are asking for proof that you know we cannot provide. This is dishonest to say the least and this is EXACTLY why you refuse to define what sort of experiment you would accept.

If you truly are a student of science then I suggest you pay more attention in class. You have somehow managed to completely misunderstand some of the most basic concepts of the scientific method.

 

[gilbo12345]

Gilbo equivocates:

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

You're equivocating. Evolution is a FACT. It is observable, repeatable and falsifiable. The Theory of Evolution is a theory. No one with even a basic understanding of science claims the Theory of Evolution to be a fact. Theories explain facts and are falsifiable for that very reason. If you can provide an alternate hypothesis to explain the observed fact of evolution you can falsify the theory. It's that simple. As an analogy, gravity is a fact. It is observable, repeatable and falsifiable. The Theory of Gravity is not a fact. It is simply an explanation of the facts. The idea of theories as facts is nonsensical. A fact that explains the facts? Does that make any sense whatsoever? Of course not.

I also want to point out your incessant and incorrect use of the word assumption. An assumption is something that is accepted to be true without proof and with no regard for the rules of logic. For instance, you must assume that God exists because there is no physical evidence for his existence. There is logic which I guess you don't regard because I have already told you this... Plus considering your post here I guess logic isn't that high on your priorities list :lol: What scientists do is called inference. When you infer something you do so based on facts and you follow the rules of logic. Yes that is called a hypothesis... Carry on We look at multiple lines of evidence (facts) and infer that descent with modification is the most valid explanation for our observations. Great you made a hypothesis... What is next on the scientific method... EXPERIMENTATION.... Hence why I ask There are no assumptions being made because there are observable facts available to us with which to infer logical conclusions. Conclusions? How did you reach a conclusion when you only made a hypothesis? Do you mean to tell me that your inference is your conclusion?... :lol: Yeah because that is logical... Why even bother with doing experiments when we can claim our inferences are conclusions.. You sir have destroyed science. We wouldn't infer God as the cause of evolution because we have no evidence of God. No scientific evidence, however there are many forms of evidence unless you are attempting to claim that science is the only way to know anything... Despite the fact that

1. Logic and maths cannot be supported or known by science since science already presupposes these hence circular reasoning
2. Metaphysical beliefs- there are other minds like my own and that the world wasn't created a few seconds ago with the appearance of age cannot be assessed by science
3- Moral beliefs cannot be assessed by science. There is no experiment or measurement for morality
4- Aesthetics, personal judgement on what is good also cannot be assessed by science
etc

If there was physical evidence of God we would have to factor that in to our inductive reasoning. You can assume God if you like nope I have evidence from philosophy see previous posts for them since i have had to explain this to people (probably you knowing your propensity to read my posts...) but understand that you are doing so without any evidence. Just to be clear, logical arguments are not evidence, so please don't claim to have evidence of God. All you have is logical arguments for his existence and as I am sure you're aware we can create a logically sound argument for just about anything. Without evidence, however, the argument is useless.

Let me explain this another way so we can be sure you understand what I'm saying. Creationists infer design, correct? They do so based on the exact same set of observable facts that real scientists use to assume evolution, correct? Do you see the false dichotomy you've created?

Where have I discussed design in this thread? Now you are changing goal posts....

Why are we assuming evolution yet the creationists are inferring design?

Did I say that? I never mentioned creationists...

Do you understand how backwards you have it? The creationists see design and assume a designer and use design as proof of this designer. The scientist sees evidence and without making any assumptions follows the evidence to the logical conclusion of formulating a theory that explains the facts. Except they do not TEST their hypothesis to verify that it explains the facts in terms of reality... That is the point. If you want to assume evolution do so but realise that it is still an unverified hypothesis due to the fact that there have been no experiments done to verify it. The creationist, on the other hand, posits a cause for which there is no evidence and then uses the evidence as proof of this cause even though the cause must be assumed before the evidence can be considered designed. Are you starting to understand this yet?

Now that you understand the difference between inference and assumption it shouldn't be that hard to understand how small changes can cumulatively become "large changes". Fact: we observe change. Fact: we know of no known barrier that prevents cumulative change. Therefore, we can logically infer that small changes will cumulatively result in "larger changes". We don't assume there is no barrier. We know of no barrier.

Evolutionists didn't "know" "junk" DNA wasn't junk... and look how that turned out for you You are assuming that you KNOW everything, a position of arrogance if ever I saw one. Just because there is no evidence against the thing doesn't mean it is true, this is an argument from ignorance (a logical fallacy).... What you need is evidence to support your claims rather than say because there is no evidence that debunks it therefore it is true.

Additionally you are defying scientific skepticism

Scientific skepticism ( also spelled scepticism) is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge".[1] For example, Robert K. Merton asserts that all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny

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

Therefore because I am the one here questioning the assumed hypothesises of evolution I am the only TRUE skeptical person here

We have no evidence against the belief that
Atheists have no evidence against God, (and use that claim to get out of the burden of proof), does that mean therefore there is a God? :lol:

So until one is demonstrated we work from the null hypothesis that there is no barrier. You can assume one exists if you like but I hope you understand by now what it means to assume something. :lol:

No you are assuming that one doesn't exist, additionally you are assuming that these small changes are capable of adding up even if a barrier is present or not.

However I have multiple times demonstrated how we observe evidence of a barrier on EFF, artificial selection- see persian cats. I have made this claim on this thread before so I guess you've either missed those posts or decided to ignore them.

One other point I'd like to make and then I will give you time to go and lick your wounds. You are asking for experiments to prove a straw man.

No I am asking for experiments to support your hypothesis... The one you cited above.....

Evolution DOES NOT predict that large changes occur.

Oh so you'll tell me that bacteria to human isn't that large a change :lol:

An experiment to show that large changes occur would actually falsify evolution. Evolution predicts small, cumulative changes, which is exactly what we observe.

[color=#00FF00]As I asked I have been asking for experiments that support that hypothesis that small changes can add up to larger ones

Claiming "cumulative small changes" is exactly the same as what I was saying, small changes adding up to larger ones, so you are merely debating semantics and word play to dodge the issue....
[/color]

You have already admitted that time constraints prevent us from demonstrating cumulative change leading to "larger changes" so by continuing to ask for this evidence you are tilting at windmills.

No I am hoping that someone on here will display some form of reason and realise that because there are no experiments to test and verify that hypothesis, how can it be deemed as fact?

You are asking for proof that you know we cannot provide. This is dishonest to say the least and this is EXACTLY why you refuse to define what sort of experiment you would accept.

How is it dishonest? I already claimed that you guys cannot provide it so how is that dishonest? I was hoping that the scientific people here will wake up and realise that no experiments have been done to verify the hypothesis being assumed, I guess you are not one of them my friend So I guess you are admitting that there are no experiments done to verify that hypothesis?

If you truly are a student of science then I suggest you pay more attention in class. You have somehow managed to completely misunderstand some of the most basic concepts of the scientific method.

As I have asked multiple times, where in the scientific method does it say "assume your hypothesis is correct"? If you cannot demonstrate this, yet continue to imply it here then who is the one who doesn't know the scientific method?


You do realise that EXPERIMENTATION is the basis of the scientific method, and I have been asking for experimentation, and you have admitted that you cannot do experiments... Therefore does this mean that the scientific method is not being followed by evolutionists... Something to consider.

How in the world can you claim that as equivocation?

All I did was DEMONSTRATE how your "evolution is a fact" claim is not factual... ironic huh... Lol...

The FACT of the matter is that if you cannot verify that evolution was the cause of what we observe ad hoc then you cannot be sure if it is indeed the cause and thus you cannot be sure if the ad hoc observation is evidence of it or not.

Here I will use an example from REAL science.

Currently our lab are doing studies with actinomycetes and other types of soil bacteria.

One test can be an antagonism test which is done to assess the antagonistic potential our actinomycete samples have in regards to the soil bacteria. This is done on media which promotes metabolite production, namely ISP2.

Lets say I observe some actinomycetes that have a strong antagonistic effect with a large zone of inhibition observed. Can I then claim that this actino will be antagonistic towards soil bacteria when introduced to soil?

If I claim yes and declare the hypothesis, "each actinomycete species will produce the same metabolites in soil as per the in vitro test/s" then I would be making an assumption since whatever metabolites are produced on ISP2 media may or may not be produced when in a soil environment due to the fact that environment and available nutrients influence the secondary metabolite production actinos undergo.

Therefore I would need to do a field study in which I test the propensity of these actinos in the proper environment pertaining to reality.. I have recently done something similar to this and some of my results were in direct contradiction with my previous antagonism test demonstrating that there was a difference in metabolite production between the two environments..

Now this isn't to say that in vitro studies are not useful as a screening process, it does however highlight that a test must be indictative to reality and one should not make assumptions about what we think a conclusion to a hypothesis may or may not be.


This is what evolutionists do... They observe fossils ad hoc, granted a case can be made to imply that evolution MAY have been the cause, however what you do then is TEST that hypothesis, you do not merely assume that what you THINK is the cause is the real cause... Like the metabolite production capability of the actinos I needed to TEST their ability in reality... This is what evolution lacks, it is devoid of any and all TESTING and is held up by religious belief that what one assumes is correct is indeed correct.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Can you please go back one page and give me an answer?

 

[Prolescum]

Bilbo, it would be of benefit to heed Inferno's request with regards to quoting.

<i>
</i>This is a quote tag:

[quote] [/quote]

As is this:

[quote="Inferno"][/quote]

Just use [/quote] to end a paragraph you want to respond to and either a plain [quote] or named [quote="Inferno"] to place the rest of the quote back within a new highlighted (quoted) section.

Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I'll take that as a 'no', then.

 

[Dave B.]

Guys, I apologize for hijacking your thread. I'm going to step aside so that your questions can be addressed. I feel that I've said all that needs to be said. I cannot make sense of Gilbo's posts because of the format and because it's mostly just Gish Gallop and I just don't have the patience for it right now. If I feel something needs to be addressed I will start another thread. Thanks.

 

[gilbo12345]

Guys, I apologize for hijacking your thread. I'm going to step aside so that your questions can be addressed. I feel that I've said all that needs to be said. I cannot make sense of Gilbo's posts because of the format and because it's mostly just Gish Gallop and I just don't have the patience for it right now. If I feel something needs to be addressed I will start another thread. Thanks.

Surely you can tell green from white?....

Will you admit that claiming something is true because of a lack of evidence against it is called argument from ignorance?

How then can you claim a fallacy in support of your assumption that small changes lead to larger ones?.... Do evolutionists think fallacies are decent evidence now?

Additionally where are the EXPERIMENTS? As I continually tell you the scientific method demands experiments to verify a hypothesis as pertaining to reality, (and I gave a clear concise example from REAL science). Therefore a lack of experiments means you do not know whether your hypothesis pertains to reality or not... That is the point since if you claim it does pertain to reality, (which you do), then you are assuming it is... Understand now?

I'll take that as a 'no', then.

It sounded like you were trying to "sell" it, I don't care about my "CV" since I am sure any real scientist in the real world doesn't give a crap if I can debate people on the internet... Additionally I do not know who you are, you may think that you're big in the world of atheism but the fact remains that I've never heard of you until now so your claims about being big in the atheism world is yet to be demonstrated.

I know its harsh, but being known of a forum doesn't put you in the forefront of any arena of debate. I could be wrong, however the fact remains I had never heard of you.

I'm still waiting for Aron Ra to try and convert me to evolution since that was HIS challenge in the first place. Yet whilst I have noticed he has been lurking on this thread he hasn't replied... I wonder why :lol:

Just a request: Gilbo, can you quote sensibly? The whole "green text inside a quote"-thing is extremely annoying.

No I said there is no Law of evolution, there is a difference....

Wrong, I can actually quote you!

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.

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.

I critique your claiming that the formation of a colony is the formation of a multicellular organism, perhaps you were too excited and didn't realise that all they did were form colonies... NOT multicellular organisms, which you claim...

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.

Did I ask you to demonstrate that? No so why are you complaining? Oh because you must reply to my posts regardless of how inane your reply is... I guess its a point of pride...

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!

Sigh... Claiming colonies are multi-cellular organisms is not demonstrating evolution, its demonstrating your inability to comprehend the difference between a colony of single celled organisms and a multicellular organism. I have already detailed that multicellular organisms have specialized cells where are the specialized cells in the colony of algae? No specialized cells = no multicellualr organism... Period!

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. Ah so it was a trap... Guess I didn't fall in since I pointed out they were imaginary...


You were also in error, as I pointed out, so they were not at all moot.
Claiming colonies of single celled organisms are multi-cellular organisms is inherently wrong, (as demonstrated above and in earlier posts which you do not bother to read and comprehend), hence your one point you claim isn't moot is moot because it is false.

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.

If I choose to give a detailed response is my prerogative, you cannot complain about that and how it allows me to not fall in your trap

The closest you could give me was "maybe", IF IT WERE TRUE AND NOT IMAGINARY.. Honestly do you even read my posts? 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.

As I told you there, and now yet again... I do not debate imaginary crap it is senseless waste of time since its imaginary meaning nothing is gained for anything. However I thought pointing out that they were imaginary should have embarrassed you since you were posing imaginary things as if they were legitimate questions... Because that is quite stupid...

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.

Evidence?

No, it's not an assumption, what else would be responsible for it? Any number of reasons known or unknown.... You're merely quibbling over the name here... The fact is that these fish did grow arms/legs, would you agree?

Loaded question...That is assuming they didn't have them previously.. Perhaps they have always been that way, can you debunk that hypothesis? Can you support your own that they grew them later on? If its unknown then we cannot claim anything about it since it is unknown... Real scientists do that, they don't overstate their data and are happy to mention when the data doesn't cover stuff.

They also did not have them before, as is evident by their heritage, would you agree?

Another loaded question.... How do you KNOW that what you claim about their heritage is true? Or are you assuming that too? Were you there to chronicle the reproduction of these fish over time? No? Then on what justification can you claim this assumed heritage is reality? Where are the experiments to support this new assumption?

So some natural process was responsible for that happening.

If you first assume that it happened, because none of it can be demonstrated

Whether we call that process evolution or humpedidumpedy is completely irrelevant,

Was I questioning the name???? This is incoherent...

but surely you will agree that it did happen.

I agree that you THINK it did :lol:

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?

Ah so now you are shifting the goal posts and are now asking me to support Creationism.. I'd ask that you stay on topic which is the foundation of the belief of evolution.

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. Ah ad hominem fallacy


It's not quite understood how multicellularity can arise,

Ah so you admit that your paper isn't demonstrating multcellular organisms? (Despite you claiming before it was)

though it has happened at least 25 times independently.

Assumed to have happened 25 times... How can you KNOW it has when its not quite understood as you admitted above? :lol:

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.

Whats this so you now admit that they are not multicellular!!! :shock: If the guy didn't call them that then what that means was all this came about from YOUR misunderstanding of the paper... Meaning all your trash talk before was merely puerile banter....


I'll provide you with the paper, you read through it and may critique it, but I won't do your work for you.

Why do I need to when you finally admit that they are not multicellular?

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.
You admitted that the colonies of single celled organisms are not multi-cellular organisms, so all your claims here

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.

Did I mention magic? Now you're putting your words in my mouth... A bit childish don't you think? As I said rehashing stuff that is already debunked is not doing you any favours... You admitted that a colony of single celled organisms was not a mutlicelled organism, (and mentioned the paper said that too!!) , and yet you continue on that.... As I said A+ for persistence F- for logic.

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.

I told you I would accept an experiment that is observable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable... Any experiment within these guidelines is what I would accept.. I have already told you this many times before so I suggest you get some glasses or something since you are obviously not reading my posts...

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,

Which is a good thing because it means you can make any kind of experiment you want... Duh!

it surely wouldn't qualify at our university.

Go ask your lecturers because this is what we were told are the basic characteristics of a proper experiment

"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 have been you just refuse to accept it...

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!"

Idiot... Firstly that analogy would only apply if all I did was say do an experiment. I have already defined what hypothesis you need to support with said experiment... Therefore the experiment has been defined, you merely continue with this charade in order to dodge the question which I have demonstrated time and again. IF you really did have such an experiment then you'd happily post it, the only reason you want to keep talking in circles is because you cannot admit that there is no verification for the hypothesis that small changes lead to larger ones, and thus is assumed by the evolutionist...

I was hoping to not have to do this, however your mod Gnug had admitted to this assumption, (after much dodging which is what you are doing too).

If someone accept that evidence, then it stands to reason that they might accept "evolution" and "the Theory of Evolution" as being connected, right?

And if they accept that evidence, does it not stand to reason that they would accept that small changes accumulate to larger ones?

So it is off the belief that evolution is true one assumes that small changes lead to larger ones....

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.

As I have told you over and over and over...The experiment should be observable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable. This also implies that it DIRECTLY demonstrate that small changes lead to larger ones... This is what an experiment is.

To state that the experiment should be falsifiable, repeatable, etc. is stupid because that's already the definition of an experiment,

Hang on if this is the definition of an experiment then what is with your claim before saying that your university wouldn't accept this definition?... :lol: Someone has contradicted himself in his own post.... Additionally you were asking me to define what experiment I would accept, I have defined it as a normal experiment... I will accept an experiment that is a normal experiment. As I said F- for logic.


so you're basically saying "I want an experiment that's an experiment", which isn't very helpful at all.

That is what an experiment is.... Duh! Now go produce one which evolutionists have done to support their hypothesis of small changes leading to larger ones...

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.

I need an experiment that is observable, repeatable, measurable and falsifiable which directly demonstrates that small changes do lead to large scale structural change as evolutionists claim has happened.

Please note this is exactly what I have been asking you for....... F- :roll:

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".

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.

And I have demonstrated it over and over...

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 is what I am asking for, for YOU to give me an experiment that supports the hypothesis I have stated before and demonstrate how it is valid and supports that hypothesis, and doesn't assume that the hypothesis is correct. Its a reasonable request, unless you want to avoid it like you are now...

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!

And 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.

So you are admitting that "not a single one of these has been done"? Since if you want me to do the same for you then you are admitting that there are no experiments... (Finally progress, no more dodging!!)

Unpack them... DEMONSTRATE.

No no, we'll go by the letter here. You asked us to "provide" and so I did.

If you won't unpack the argument then I won't address it. Its intellectual dishonest to simply post links without unpacking what you are attempting to do with them.


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.

I am asking you to be intellectually honest and not merely post links.

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.

No they have not been provided... I still maintain that such experiments are impossible.

 

[gilbo12345]

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?

I say it is unknown on the fact that it hasn't been demonstrated that it can... Honestly you are not telling me that its true because it hasn't been proven false? That is an argument from ignorance.. a logical fallacy.



But then it would be your assumption that "evolutionists" assume their conclusions, because so far you are not interested in the evidence

Evidence which first presupposes evolution cannot be used as evidence for evolution... That is called circular reasoning.

I have been asking for the EXPERIMENT that has been done to verify that evolution is the cause of what we observe ad hoc. In other words you cannot use similarities in fossils as evidence of evolution because you are assuming that the similarities in the fossils was caused by evolution. If you cannot verify that evolution was the cause how can anyone use it as evidence of evolution when it is unknown if it was the cause or not...

I suggest you go back and actually READ my previous posts because I explain this quite clearly before.

You are wrong, and I can prove it.

I am wrong? All I am doing is asking evolutionists for the experiments that support their hypothesis... Are you implying that experiments are "wrong"? I suggest you go look at the scientific method... what comes after hypothesis?.,.. Yeah I thought so....


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.

I could have said the same thing for everybody else here...

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.

I will state that it is unknown UNTIL there is experiment to verify it

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?

Mutations are not miles, comparing apples to oranges.. Again this is not a DEMONSTRATION you are simply asserting it... again.... Philosophical meanderings mean nothing in the context of reality when it is devoid of direct evidence.

I know because it is cumulative, because large things are a collection of small things.

How do you KNOW that this is the case for mutations? All you have done is assumed that it is because you think it is logical... You are using the "it seems logical to me so it must be true" rhetoric, I have already pointed this out before what you think is logical has no relevance to reality because what you deem logical is a subjective determination... Meaning your argument here makes no sense. Perhaps consider that to all theists, God is logical therefore God exists?


Could small changes lead to large changes? Yes. We have many examples of that.

No not small things leading to larger ones... Small changes via mutations leading to large scale structural changes (presumably by mutations). So you wish to propose that because something does X a completely unrelated thing can do X too?

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.

How can you claim it is the natural behaviour for mutations when it hasn't been demonstrated?

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.

As I have already pointed out this is observed in domesticated animals, the Persian cat is a good example... (Again you need to go and read my previous posts).

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).

Ah so I have to demonstrate this whereas you are free to assume whatever you want... Double standards much?

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.

You haven't demonstrated that you are unbiased since you automatically assume that mutations can accumulate solely on the basis that other things can accumulate... How is that scientific?

REAL scientists are skeptical of anything UNTIL it is demonstrated and verified by experiment. No experiment = no philosophical meanderings of semantics.

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?

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!

Sigh....You implied it in this post and the other... :roll: Go read above....

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.

Now who is biased? Me pointing out that the only changes you have demonstrated are small and are not large ones implied by evolution still stands. Unless you can demonstrate an example of small changes leading to larger ones which has been experimentally verified...

The only difference is, that you wouldn't made the reason why you made an incorrect statement, obvious.

So how is this a reply to my demonstration of your double standards? I demonstrated it with my little test before, how do you respond? Additionally its a demonstration that YOU sir are biased, that is what double standards are...



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,

That is called the argument from ignorance....Guess I need to educate you guys on this since you keep on using this fallacy...

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).

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



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.

All I want is the experiments done to support the hypothesis that evolution is the cause of similarities in fossils, either give me the experiment or admit that you have none.

 

[Prolescum]

Surely you can tell green from white?....

So you're saying that despite being shown how to format your posts, and having been asked to do so to make your posts clearer and easier to read, you won't?
Now, what does that say?
It says that you're only here because your home patch is probably dry... but I only suffer trolls when they're worthwhile.

Oh, and before you misapply yet another fallacy, this isn't an ad hominem, I don't give a flying fajita about what you risibly describe as objections to evolution nor what collection of caricatures you worship; I don't care what you think of this website or how high pitched your bitching is when you have your arse handed back to you with extra salad. It's a warning.
Grasp this or go back to devolvedfuckwitteryforum or whatever it's called.

If you can't play together with the other boys and girls, you might as well go home.

P.S. With English not being your native tongue, I should inform you we have a thing called an apostrophe. You're welcome.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Evidence which first presupposes evolution cannot be used as evidence for evolution... That is called circular reasoning.

I think it is important to note that I haven't presented any sort of evidence for evolution so far, nor did I ever asked you to assume it.
What I am asking you is to be unbiased, not to assume you preconceived conclusion right from the start.
To accuse me of circular reasoning, of being biased as to presuppose my conclusions as my evidence, is greatly disingenuous.
It only reveals one thing, that you are not unbiased, that you have set right from the start that evolution must be false, and no matter what does anyone else have show (in fact you didn't even cared what anyone had to say to you, you didn't even noticed that I haven't even tried to give you evidence yet) you are going to try to prove them wrong with the one liner "but you are just assuming evolution to prove evolution".
You can get evidence when you are listening, when you really want to have an answer. Until then you are just wasting my time and wasting everybody else's time, because it is to much proved that no matter what anyone else has to say, you have already settled that you are not going to change your mind, so much so that you didn't care to listen.
And this interaction makes it clear as day.

I have been asking for the EXPERIMENT that has been done to verify that evolution is the cause of what we observe ad hoc. In other words you cannot use similarities in fossils as evidence of evolution because you are assuming that the similarities in the fossils was caused by evolution. If you cannot verify that evolution was the cause how can anyone use it as evidence of evolution when it is unknown if it was the cause or not...

I can explain that to you, but right now you don't care for the answer. You just make this question in the smug assumption that we have no answers.
But right now you are not listening. I will give you an answer, but only when you are listening, only when you care about the answer, until then you are just wasting my time.

I am wrong? All I am doing is asking evolutionists for the experiments that support their hypothesis... Are you implying that experiments are "wrong"? I suggest you go look at the scientific method... what comes after hypothesis?.,.. Yeah I thought so....

You are wrong because I can prove it, not because experiments are wrong, but because all experiments are of the side of evolution and none at yours.
I have an extensive scientific training, while you do not. Do not presuppose that you are lecturing me with your 4th grade understanding of science, while you clearly do not understand how to do science, for instance, you have yet to entertain the consequences of the "if you are wrong" and you are yet to stop assuming a predetermined conclusion before looking at any evidence/theory/data.

I will state that it is unknown UNTIL there is experiment to verify it

Not good enough for me. I want you to explicitly state, "That for all you know, evolution can in principle be possible."
This does not mean that evolution is true or that it is false, or that you cannot latter state that "Evolution is true" or that "Evolution is not possible" when new evidence comes in.

Mutations are not miles, comparing apples to oranges..

Yes, mutations are not miles, but they are none the less quantifiable. Your assertion that they are incomparable is false.

Again this is not a DEMONSTRATION you are simply asserting it...

What I have demonstrated is that small changes can lead to big ones. I have not however demonstrated that this is the case for evolution, nor did I tried to do so at this stage, thus I find your accusation that "I have just asserted it" completely ridiculous for reasons I have already explained. Or you either don't understand English, or you are not paying attention.

I know because it is cumulative, because large things are a collection of small things.

How do you KNOW that this is the case for mutations?

Good question, I can show you that. But first you have to listen.

All you have done is assumed that it is because you think it is logical... You are using the "it seems logical to me so it must be true" rhetoric, I have already pointed this out before what you think is logical has no relevance to reality because what you deem logical is a subjective determination... Meaning your argument here makes no sense. Perhaps consider that to all theists, God is logical therefore God exists?

I have warned you once, and I am warning you again. Do not misrepresent me. I have never used the argument "that it is true because it seems logical to me", you are projecting again.
I agree with you that philosophy is completely powerless to establish what is real. However it is far from useless, for instance in the ethics of discourse, you should not try and miss-attribute arguments to your opponent that where not made because then you are not addressing your opponents point, how about listening and paying precise attention to what your opponent is actually saying instead of creating your own misconceived version of the position of your opponent, how about the ability to entertain the other points of view and check its consequences in a honest fashion without having decided A priori that you are right and everything else is wrong because then you would be engaging in an exercise in futility. But then again, if creationists knew anything about honesty in discourse, they wouldn't be creationists.
More on that point, let me just juxtapose 2 points that you have here.

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.

Philosophical meanderings mean nothing in the context of reality when it is devoid of direct evidence.

I guess thank you for proving you wrong, and for proving that you are not interested in the answer, but only interested in re-ashing you already made conclusions.

Could small changes lead to large changes? Yes. We have many examples of that.

No not small things leading to larger ones... Small changes via mutations leading to large scale structural changes (presumably by mutations). So you wish to propose that because something does X a completely unrelated thing can do X too?

I know you believe you are making a point. But you are so babbling incoherent that I seriously doubt that your brain was ever involved.
So I am giving you the opportunity to restate that before letting you know what I think of it. If you don't want to restate that, then don't come and complain afterwards that I was rude.

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.

How can you claim it is the natural behaviour for mutations when it hasn't been demonstrated?

Seriously, do you speak English?

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.

As I have already pointed out this is observed in domesticated animals, the Persian cat is a good example... (Again you need to go and read my previous posts).

No it isn't. What would make you think that it is?

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).

Ah so I have to demonstrate this whereas you are free to assume whatever you want... Double standards much?

1. I have made no assumptions.
2. Do you understand English?

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.

You haven't demonstrated that you are unbiased since you automatically assume that mutations can accumulate solely on the basis that other things can accumulate... How is that scientific?</COLOR>

First of all, what is in question is your ability to be unbiased. Second of all how do you meld this, with this:

Could small changes lead to large changes? Yes.
[...]
Could there be such a system, in which cumulative changes does not amount to a large change? Well yes it could.

Do not misrepresent me.

REAL scientists are skeptical of anything UNTIL it is demonstrated and verified by experiment.

Wrong, real scientists do not make A priori conclusions.
Being a skeptic isn't about denying everything until you are proven wrong, its about not accepting something as true without sufficient justifiable reason.
Being a skeptic isn't being a negative Nancy.

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!

Sigh....You implied it in this post and the other... :roll: Go read above....

No I didn't. You just didn't care to listen to precisely what I was saying, and constructed your own strawman version of it.
You already do this so naturally, that you don't realize that you are doing it.

No, it doesn't. It would still have the same validity, i.e. none at all.

Now who is biased? Me pointing out that the only changes you have demonstrated are small and are not large ones implied by evolution still stands. Unless you can demonstrate an example of small changes leading to larger ones which has been experimentally verified...

No, that is not what you said, what you said was this:

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

And then I replied:

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.

What you are asking is to dismiss evolution on the basis of "dogs changing form... there is nothing here to suggest that they can change to something outside what they are" (whatever "outside what they are" would mean since they already are something different from their ancestors and their cousins), without caring to know what else there is to suggest that it is that evolution could produce something as radically different as fish and amphibians (which I think is more in line to what you actually want to know).
In that case we have this:

When you want to know what this is, what is the reasoning and the evidence behind it, when you are willing to listen, when you honestly care about the answer and approach it from an unbiased perspective, then we will be happy to explain it to you.
Until then, you don't deserve t.

</COLOR>

The only difference is, that you wouldn't made the reason why you made an incorrect statement, obvious.

So how is this a reply to my demonstration of your double standards? I demonstrated it with my little test before, how do you respond? Additionally its a demonstration that YOU sir are biased, that is what double standards are...

You demonstrated it? Then explain, I would be happy to know.

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,

<COLOR color="#00FF00">
That is called the argument from ignorance....Guess I need to educate you guys on this since you keep on using this fallacy...

No it's, not. If you had paid attention in philosophy class, you would know what an argument from ignorance is, and you would also know that you can't have one without having an argument in the first place or asking you to accept a truth value. You would think that would be important.

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

No it doesn't, I haven't asked you to accept anything as true.

This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option,

No it's not, I haven't even presented you any alternatives.

which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).

See, you shouldn't have skipped philosophy class. Statements are always true or false no matter if you know them or not, there is no such thing as in between true or false, if it is not exactly true then it is false. True and False are entities of Boolean logic. A statement that you "don't know" or that it is "unknowable" it is not a statement about the truth value of the statement to which it refers, but statement about the knowability properties of the referenced statement.

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.

All I want is the experiments done to support the hypothesis that evolution is the cause of similarities in fossils, either give me the experiment or admit that you have none.

<COLOR color="#00FF00">
No. What you want is to re-ash your preconceived conclusions.
And until you admit "That for all you know, evolution can in principle be possible". You will not get anywhere.

 

[Dave B.]

Okay, I know I said I was going to stay out of this but this is too good to pass up.

Philosophical meanderings mean nothing in the context of reality when it is devoid of direct evidence.

I have evidence from philosophy see previous posts for them since i have had to explain this to people

:facepalm:

 

[Dave B.]

Gilbo, I'll address your last few points and then I would ask that you please start a new thread if you wish to continue this.

Will you admit that claiming something is true because of a lack of evidence against it is called argument from ignorance?

You are confusing the absence of evidence with evidence of absence. We have evidence that there is no barrier. That is not the same thing as having no evidence that there is no barrier and then claiming that it must therefore not exist.

Seriously, you need to pay more attention in class. Your grasp of logic is tenuous at best.

How then can you claim a fallacy in support of your assumption that small changes lead to larger ones?

It is NOT an assumption. We have evidence of gradualism.

Do evolutionists think fallacies are decent evidence now?

No, but apparently Creationists do. You have repeatedly asked for evidence against God as proof that he doesn't exist. By your own definition above you are making an argument from ignorance. You are assuming his existence to be true because, as you claim, we have no evidence against him.

Additionally where are the EXPERIMENTS?

This has been explained to you several times. Learn to read.

As I continually tell you the scientific method demands experiments to verify a hypothesis as pertaining to reality

And we have asked that you define an experiment that would satisfy your criteria. Unless I have missed something you have yet to do so.

Therefore a lack of experiments means you do not know whether your hypothesis pertains to reality or not

There is no "lack of experiments". There is only a lack of experiments that you will accept as evidence.

 

[WarK]

Okay, I know I said I was going to stay out of this but this is too good to pass up.

Philosophical meanderings mean nothing in the context of reality when it is devoid of direct evidence.

I have evidence from philosophy see previous posts for them since i have had to explain this to people

:facepalm:

I say keep it coming, Dave

 

[Frenger]

And what do you do when your model is based on an assumption...

It's not, so nothing. The model is built to explain all the available data. Also, you're appreciation for the word "assumption" is duly noted, however after a while, catchphrases do tend to grate.

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?

We see gradual change throughout the fossil record and this is confirmed with all the molecular evidence we have. Evolution could be quite easily proven wrong if we were to find a modern species buried in the Jurassic period. As of yet though, nothing. Not a single fossil out of place. Funny huh?

How can you claim it is science when the scientific method literally demands you to do these experiments?...

Hypothesis - Modern Humans and Chimpanzees share a common ancestor
Test - We should share a large percentage of our genome as well as see a gradual evolution in the fossil record.
Results - Exactly fucking that.

Can you point out which bit didn't adhere to the scientific method? Are you REALLY suggesting that because evolution is a slow process which no human life could witness, their is literally NO way of testing it? Or are you just being ridiculous for the sake of it?

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...

That is an experiment, get over it.

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

Says the person who can't even quote on a forum properly.

Now you are simply posting troll comments...

No, I am pointing out that your position has no logic to it AT all, and yet you try and shout down from your high horse. The assumptions you require to get your ridiculous theory off the ground are nothing short of magical fuckwittery. That you have the gall to call any part of evolutionary theory, which is based on masses of amount of data an assumption, is beyond rich.

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.

You couldn't teach yourself to use quote marks, why would I trust you to teach me evolutionary biology?

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

If whatever seems logical is true, wouldn't we still be believing in in the theory of William Paley. That things need to be created fits in with our common sense, that we are evolved primates most closely related to the chimpanzee, is not logical. That it is true however, is beyond doubt.

Remember, creationism ruled the roost for a long time because it was simple and needed no evidence. Now we have the evidence however, we see it to be the simple solution at a time of relative ignorance.

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.

This only shows you don't understand what a transitional fossil is. Do you think it needs to be a direct lineage? Of course not, a transitional fossil is a species which shows us the transition between 2 major lines. This is what it does. It exhibits traits of both tetrapods and fish. You can criticise that if you like, but saying it's not a transitional fossil betrays only your ignorance of basic definitions.

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).

The experiment went as follows.

Hypothesis - According to molecular evidence, we should see a transition between tetrapods and fish around the late devonian
Test - Lets dig around there to see if we can find such a transitional fossil
Results - Can you guess?

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

I'm not nor have I ever suggested it is a perfect system, it's merely the best we have. It limits our subjectivity and creates real results. We can see this in our average life expectancy doubling over the last 100 years. Peer review works, it's shown to. Are their problems? Probably yes. Does that mean it's wrong by definition? No. Show where the papers are wrong, not just criticise how they are published.

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

Yes you are, any dictionary will tell you that you are wrong. Unless of course you can find me something that says transitional fossils have to be of the exact lineage, and then tell how we would ever be able to know that?

We might never know exactly what line we took from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, but we can see the KIND of lineage we took, through australopithicus to early homos to modern homo sapien that we are now. Is the definite line? Who knows, what we do know is that these fossils fit in with what we know about homo sapiens and modern chimpanzees.

(You realise that wikipedia can be altered by anyone, ergo its LESS creditable than dictionaries since dictionaries attempt to remain neutral and objective...)

Dictionaries do, however in terms of scientific definitions, they are usually lacking.

So if its not part of a direct lineage then how is it transitional?

Because it exhibits traits of two major lineages. Like the definition says,. FFS

Since transitional implies it is a transition between organism A and organism B hence implying ancestry...... Sorry, logic says no.

The dictionary however, says yes.

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 suggesting it lived whenever the evidence says it did. But again,. that has nothing to do with the fact that it is still a transitional fossil as it exhibits traits of two major lineages. Feel free to criticise that if you like, it sounds better then continually getting definitions wrong.

Actually its called an ad hoc hypothesis,

I know, I was taking the piss out of your constant barrage of nonsensical gibberish.

commonly used in pseudoscience when data conflicts with their claims....

It made us reevaluate out claims, but it did nothing to stop Tiktaalik being a transitional fossil.

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

Nope, it's a continued attempt to understand as much as we can. However, tiktaalik is still a transitional fossil.

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

Nope, I've shown it exhibits traits of two major lineages, and shown that is the definition of a transitional fossil. Your continued fuckwittery on the issue is cute and all, but maybe you should stop.

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.

I did, in the study I linked and quoted. You putting your fingers in your ears isn't a valid rebuttal.

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).

You haven't debunked anything, unless a constant misunderstanding counts for something nowadays?

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

I've addressed this, everyone has addressed this, your simply playing that tit at the moment.

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

Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. Simply this is one thing you CAN actually understand?

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?

The hoardes eh? Saying is not demonstrating.

Remember also, when I corrected you saying no one says the Universe came from nothing, you told me Krauss did. I told you hwo wrong you were and you continue to pretend you didn't make a straw man. You did, get over it.

To assert is not to demonstrate...

Ok, well find me the time he said the universe came from nothing, you know, a time where he said something different to "nothing doesn't appear to be possible".

I'm excited to see.

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

Evolution is biology, cosmology is physics. Biologists don't talk about physics. I am yet to here a biologist, when asked about physics pipe in with an answer. They always start with "I'm not a physicist".

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

Asserting is not demonstrating.

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.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=c...Aejp4DYCg&ved=0CDwQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=667&dpr=1

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...

This is an assumption. Please provide evidence or my logical argument stands.

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.

I'm sure he does, flowery language and a misunderstanding of physics is always neat. Perhaps I'll buy Deepak Chopra's book at the same time?

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...

[/quote]

There's no way to verify, but so far many experiments have provided amino acids and even adenine from simple early atmospheric replications. We've created many experiments which all show organic molecules can come from organic matter. Will we find the exact one? Maybe. Will we ever know it's the way happened? Probably not, but we know it works. Occam's razor suggests we go with the natural way as opposed to the supernatural way.

 

[Inferno]

I thought this was funny and appropriate!

 

[Frenger]

I thought this was funny and appropriate!

Ha, I heard that one recently. It is very funny.

This whole thread however, is less funny. I'm beginning to see why Estheria Quintessimo is so angry all the time

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I just want to point out a few things, first off:

gilbo12345[/url]"]

Do you know what a null hypothesis is? Are you sure you're a science major?

Sure do, its the hypothesis that nullifies the original hypothesis.

:lol:

Why has no one else pointed this out and laughed? There are many examples of gilbo12345 exposing his ignorance of just about everything, but this one takes the cake.

When gilbo12345 talked about abiogenesis:

gilbo12345[/url]"]

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?

This flies in the face of what he has been demanding for evolution to be correct (I will come back to this point later).

gilbo12345[/url]"]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?

I am underlining DNA in this sentence because it demonstrates that gilbo12345 does not know the first thing about it, yet still wants us to believe he is studying biology. DNA is heritable, meaning one acquires it based on their ancestry. The similarities seen in DNA between different species are because they once had a shared lineage. We are able to trace that with genetic testing. I would expect any first year biology major to know this fact.

gilbo12345[/url]"]Where have I discussed design in this thread? Now you are changing goal posts....
----------------------------------------------------------
Did I say that? I never mentioned creationists...

:|

gilbo12345[/url]"]What makes you say that? A creationist perspective is similar design = similar DNA needed for the similar functions to be utilized by the similar organisms.

:lol:

Are you unaware that someone can look back at what you have already typed or is your memory as bad as your reading comprehension? This is just one example of a few.

gilbo12345[/url]"]I'm still waiting for Aron Ra to try and convert me to evolution since that was HIS challenge in the first place. Yet whilst I have noticed he has been lurking on this thread he hasn't replied... I wonder why :lol:

Is it not obvious from what I have posted above? You are not worth his time.

This next example of gilbo12345’s ineptitude is classic:

gilbo12345[/url]"]

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.

Whats this so you now admit that they are not multicellular!!! :shock: If the guy didn't call them that then what that means was all this came about from YOUR misunderstanding of the paper... Meaning all your trash talk before was merely puerile banter....

:facepalm:

I think there is no better example on this whole thread of gilbo12345’s lack of reading comprehension. It is my guess that he gleaned the last three words from Inferno’s post and read nothing else from the very sentence it came from. If gilbo12345 had read the sentence, he would see that Inferno’s point is they are not colonial, but are multi-cellular. He also would have known that if he took the time to read the source Inferno posted, but the rest of that post exposes how he did not even look at it. Instead, he ran with this error, trying to smear Inferno and the source.

Now, back to the point I want to make.

Nearly a year ago, gilbo12345 came to this site and was stating nonsense like this:

gilbo12345[/url]"]Change from one species to another (common descent as per Darwin) = not observed

I (and a few others) easily pointed out several observed examples of speciation events, to which gilbo12345 objected:

gilbo12345[/url]"]All claimed "speciation events" have been mere variants of the same species, ergo no new species, (though I have met some evolutionists who claim that different breeds are different species). If you feel this is wrong, please give examples of a new organism being formed... In the same light of a fish to an amphibian or a dinosaur to a bird, are these scale changes observed?

I pointed out, using his own source; those observed instances of speciation were actual macro-evolutionary events based on the definition of species. From there gilbo12345 has abandoned any attempt to be objective. Keep in mind; this is just about a year ago.

Apparently, gilbo12345 has learned his lesson in that year and is trying to stay as vague as possible. Gilbo12345 saw that when he is being objective, his arguments fall apart like a house of cards. Instead of making demonstrably false statements (i.e. species to species evolution has never been observed) he has waited nearly a year and returned with this new argument of X = X = X.

gilbo12345[/url]"]Fish = Fish = Still Fish.... Where are the experiments verifying bacteria to you evolution?

As I have been saying from the beginning of gilbo12345’s return, he is arguing semantics. Fish is an enormous clade and, just as an example, if I were able to show a shark population evolve into a boney fish population, gilbo12345 will retort, “fish = fish = fish;” an argument that essentially says nothing. Inferno has given him wonderful examples, which should satisfy any reasonable skeptic, with no success.

Gilbo12345, everyone can see that you are not objective. You are merely here to reinforce your preconceived notion. With your X = X = X argument, there is nothing anyone could give you that you would not be able to use that against. Not to mention it also displays a gross misunderstanding of evolution you have in your head. I have already pointed this out to you and will quote it back to you at the end of this post. Nevertheless, I think there is a reason gilbo12345 started posting in this thread and not the other one, he wanted everyone to forget the evolution of his argument, so he could start fresh.

I also want to make this clear, until you are able to answer Inferno’s question, there is no point in citing sources for you. Believe me; I have several that would satisfy any honest skeptic. Just as Inferno pointed out, until your parameters are defined, you will keep dismissing evidence outright (and as I showed above, you will not even look at it).

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Here I'll make it easier for you. Is a human who is resistant to aids still a human? Yes, then there has been no major change. No then I ask you how is the person no longer a human. If the mechanism of resistance were to increase, would this lead to some other change that would make the human no longer human? If No then its not supporting common descent, if yes then I ask for evidence of such.

:facepalm:

You obviously do not know anything about evolutionary theory, because you have constructed another straw man. A human cannot accumulate enough changes to stop being human. Apparently, this is why I am unable to show you that evolution is true, you have constructed a false idea of what evolution is in your head. Let me make this simple for you, something cannot evolve out of it's evolutionary history. That is why you and I are still vertebrates, mammals, primates, and apes.

 

[DutchLiam84]

HWIN is not the first to mention a lack of understanding in the topic of biology to you gilbo. This forum is loaded with actual scientists (some are biologists). Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? HWIN clearly demonstrates a painfully obvious double standard in your reasoning skills.

Personally, I don't believe for a second you study biology. Can you actually prove that you do? I can if you want to (on my way to finish my MSc cum laude, so there). Sorry for bragging.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

...ASSUMPTION...