Is evolution a fact?

[Mr_Wilford]

Don't worry idt... Muslims do the same thing... When a Hadith comes up that contradicts their Quran they chuck it under the bus... Call it irrelevant... Common practise of the indoctrinated... Helps them stay in the cult. To claim everything that opposes evolution as laymen interpretations and irrelevant is a brilliant method for remaining in the cult . You'll go far. You doing exactly the right thing to remain an evolutionist.

Yep, you have no interest in open discourse about scientific models at all. A shame, but you are good for a good laugh.

Keep mocking Bernhard. You said it yourself, mocking and insults are the prime example of the indoctrinated trying to find any reason to ignore their opponent. Funny that's all you did when I tried to give you advice on how scientific discourse works.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Question simple to complex

Answer: the fossil record indicates and refers to simple life forms on bottom... Complex life forms on top. That is the alleged evolution from simple to complex... Refer to fossil record.

Again, you must be referring to the straw man of evolution that only exists in your head. No one is arguing for that. Now stating the fossil record indicates simple at the bottom and complex on top appears to be ignorance on your part and not a claim made by evolutionary scientists. Let us refer to the fossil record and pick out some early animals such as Hydrocephalus, Peytoia, and Promissum. Now how are they "simple" compared to tigers, spiders, and hagfish? Do you mean single cellular life? Again, how do you show that single cellular life is simple compared to multicellular life? What metric is allowing you to make these judgments? You see how without a biologically meaningful definition for "simple" and "complex" you have no argument. You are making this argument, not evolutionary scientists. Biologically speaking, terms like "simple" and "complex" are value judgments that are arbitrary and meaningless. Thus, we have another failed answer by you.

Perhaps the troll would like to deal with the evidence (i.e. the fossils in the fossil record) after all this time?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Then I show you do exactly what Muslims do and you are offended. Good you are supposed to be. But you being offended does not mean Muslims are not doing exactly what you are doing.

Not offended

Personally I don't care what Muslims are doing. Evolution, in the relevant scientific fields and literature, has never been defined as simple to complex. You can throw me 1000 laymen who define it that way, but that is not the scientific definition, and in a discussion about scientific models, scientific definitions are used. You can kick and scream and call me indoctrinated all you want. I could care less. It's laughable.

And I get you don't like me, whatever. But you've been given a warning about insults before, so if you want to avoid a ban, I'd watch my tongue. They banned Hack for it, and we had to petition to get Rumracket back. It's taken seriously by the mods.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

And I get you don't like me, whatever. But you've been given a warning about insults before, so if you want to avoid a ban, I'd watch my tongue. They banned Hack for it, and we had to petition to get Rumracket back. It's taken seriously by the mods.

This thread was unlocked because hackenslash ask for it to be unlocks. I honestly do not see a reason why it should remain unlocked. Thus far, it has only lead to the banning of two great members of this forum. What I quoted above is from 70 plus pages back and is still relevant, because this thread is just going in circles.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

News flash... I don't care if I am banned.

You will always complain about insults... It helps you remain in your cult.

I wasn't complaining. Like I said, you can insult me all day long. Doesn't bother me. I was just giving you advice if you wanted to avoid being banned

Which you clearly don't care, so in that case, ignore it.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

It's not that I don't like you. I am simply claiming you are indoctrinated. That doesn't mean I don't like you. Just because your mind you don't like who you believe are indoctrinated does not mean in my mind I don't like the indoctrinated.. Your presuppositions are not my presuppositions. Well shit you don't even know you have presuppositions. Lol

And round the circle it goes

You left a literal list of insults towards me, so sorry if I don't believe you. Not that they bother me, just I detect some serious bullshit.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Evolution:

Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations

I said give a scientific source. Google does not fall under that category.

Google gives you common term definitions. In a discussion on science, particularly when discussing scientific models and theories, one uses the scientific definitions and terminology.

Am I going to have to explain this 10 more times? 100? 1000?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Ok special frog..... scientific fact: Dr. Love joy used power tools to re mold Lucy.

I dealt with this here.

Your claim is not only clearly an interpretation it is a bad one.

Also, the fact that you chose that example shows that you don't want to put a real scientific fact to the test.

More cowardice.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Make it a 1000 ... I don't care. Whatever agrees with you you will call a scientific source. So that's cute, but it doesn't mean you have a point.

And you mock and call the actual scientific definition bullshit made up by "Evolution High Priests"

If this disagreed with me, I'd change my position. The scientific definitions do not hinge on what I want, or what you want, or what any of us here want. It is what it is. You can call it bullshit and mock the actual scientists, no one cares.

 

[SpecialFrog]

And Bernhard, note that your own source only talks about that definition applying to things other than biology. Good job.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Ok special frog..... scientific fact: Dr. Love joy used power tools to re mold Lucy.

I dealt with this here.

Your claim is not only clearly an interpretation it is a bad one.

Also, the fact that you chose that example shows that you don't want to put a real scientific fact to the test.

More cowardice.

Specifically, you dealt with it here.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mr_Wilford]

And you mock and call the actual scientific definition bullshit made up by "Evolution High Priests"

If this disagreed with me, I'd change my position. The scientific definitions do not hinge on what I want, or what you want, or what any of us here want. It is what it is. You can call it bullshit and mock the actual scientists, no one cares.

Aww more sweetness thinks he can just change his position. What are you not getting? Whatever disagrees with you you simply call unscientific or irrelevant.

No. Whatever is not a scientific definition is irrelevant to a discussion on science. Not because it disagrees with me.

You however, tried to redefine what a telomere is. And leg.

"A telomere that fails isn't a telomere"

No, it's a broken telomere. That doesn't make it NOT a telomere. :facepalm:

So when you accuse people of redefining things because it disagrees with them, it's palpable projection.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

So your saying a single cell becoming a human being is " change in heritable traits..... " ?

Are the traits in DNA inherited over generations when this happens? Yes.

Do the traits change as the generations pass? Yes.

So yes, thats a fair summary.

Really, this only brings us back to "How does new DNA come into being?"

Which I have an answer to that does not involve HGT

Maybe it's time to stop with the semantical nonsense and get back to discussing evidence.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Bernhard, you keep using general dictionary explanations - these are not sufficient when dealing with special usage of terms such as used in science. It's the difference between "theory" as used in common language and "theory" as scientists use the term. You need to stick with scientific definitions for these terms.

And in reference to a number of posts you've made regarding evolutionary "trees" and dogs, here are a few recent findings over which you'll likely fret ...

The Tree of Life may be a bush

The pronoun 'I' is becoming obsolete

Fossil study: Dogs evolved with climate change

Edit: The second article/paper is particularly relevant for arguments/discussions about morality.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Collecemall]

Did I tell yall I was thinking about buying a boat?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Did I tell yall I was thinking about buying a boat?

:lol:

 

[SpecialFrog]

Did I tell yall I was thinking about buying a boat?

According to Google, a boat is, "a container for holding incense before it is placed in the censer." Other definitions may or may not exist but that is clearly what all sailors mean when they use the word.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

So what do you consider the greatest change in heritable trait that has been observed? Itsdemtitans?

I don't know all of the heritable changes observed so I could not tell you

 

[Mr_Wilford]

I don't ask for all.... I ask for what you consider the biggest change that has been observed.?

I don't consider any to be bigger than the others. I say this because I'm not too familiar with much literature outside cetacean biology, beyond certain points. Literature on cetaceans is where I learned most about evolution from, and the majority of that was fossil, phylogeny, and antibody studies. So sorry, but I won't speak on areas I'm not too familiar with.

But I can give you a known mechanism, and observed examples of it at work, generating new "information" in a genome.

If you want me to elaborate I'll tell you. Or you can continue with definitions and presuppositions, in which case I'm out.

 

[Mugnuts]

So your saying a single cell becoming a human being is " change in heritable traits..... " ?

Not sure what you are getting at, but you don't think you can get a human starting with a single cell?