Evolution is a joke pt V

Please let us stay with the topic. Gravity has nothing to do with evolution. Trying to suggest that they fall under the same circumstances in not applicable. And that is not factually incorrect - if the theory of common descent is a hypothesis, and hasn't passed the scientific method, which it hasn't, then it is a hypothesis. Common Descent does not stretch over to theory when it hasn't passed the process to become a theory.

Just to let you know though - there is a reason why gravity is a law and hypothesis. You should look into why and realize that this reason cannot be applied to the hypothesis of evolution.

You are welcome as those words were deserved by you for an excellent post!

I already have on several occasions. How is evolution falsifiable? If you do suggest the whole "rabbit in Pre-Cambrian period fossils" I will be more than happy to discuss that with solid points. Reading and websites from evolutionary biologist sites that can show my points.

Those are good points, I do have to admit, but for evolution to sit there at the top and have this pass - we would need to find a control. Where is there life that has existed or life on this planet that "doesn't" comprise of life? See, this doesn't help evolution. What or how can it? If life cannot exist outside of RNA and DNA - then all life in this Universe will be comprised of this - does that mean that life on Seti Alpha Six 15 light years away in the Klingon Nebula are our common ancestors also? If life in this Universe can only exist with RNA, Proteins and so forth - water, then it doesn't say nothing about common descent whatsoever. Thus, evolution better come up with a control that "isn't" based on life as we know it. If that can be brought to the table we could and would be able to say that life evolved from sulphur can jellybeans on this planet, and evolved to fire breathing gummy bears, thus we evolved from pond scum (not too appealing - I'd rather breath fire and taste yummie!)...

 

Congrats!! You took all that time to post up a sea horse... What about the ones I stated? What about the ones that show us (per our previous discussion) on how cows went back to the water with mammals with fins and so forth?

That was the discussion and you showed us a sea horse. I want to know these mammal cartoon that have fossils to support that suggest that your argument holds water, because it doesn't!!!

It never will...

 

Uh, you specifically brought up the Wiki link, so I don't know why you're acting surprised that I picked something for that.

As for the... cow? What cow? There was no cow in discussion. We were talking about cetaceans as far as I can tell. You suck at trolling, and are clearly a moron.

 

It sucks I cannot rep you... So this is the best I can do - and thank you!




REP!!!

 

You don't remember because

You - are clearly a moron.

You don't remember because you jumped in on someone else's posts and had no clue then so of course I expect you to talk like a baby with a pacifier in their mouth... I can't and never will understand.... The first time you jumped in with your pacifier was for rs199 about birds with different beak sizes of the same species of finch... rs199 was so wrong not even he/she posted back on the subject - but you did!!

Then there was this thing about you stating - as I said earlier - about you saying mammals in the water were descendants from cows or whatever diarrhea your fingers were stinking up...

So you posted this:

Now I ask you to deliver on what you say! I don't want to see fossils of Sea Horses or Star Fish... I want to see how YOU came to this conclusion, using full fossils of the life that evolved from whatever you think to dolphins and whales!

Because again, if I am a moron and too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dumb to know that an illustration is nothing more than a cartoon - which you think a cartoon is obviously MORE than that - you can show us what it is you see behind these cartoon figures (Good Gravy - they were so cheap they didn't even use CGI...).

One day Grasping you will be right... We all wait to see you Glorified!!! I am serious too. I know there are people just WAITING for you to be right at least once... After you FAIL yet again - you'll be up to 58 I believe...But, don't worry Grasping - I'm routing for you!!!

 

The only thing worse than DBM not understanding anything about evolution, is that there are some other people who actually take him seriously and believe him.

There hasn't been a single thing he has stated that hasn't been summarily refuted, almost always with sources. Even though he may use big words related to biology, he almost always applies them incorrectly or makes up his own definitions.

If everyone else is showing how he is wrong, why would you possibly jump in the same boat with him? Is it because evolution goes against your currently held world-view, so you are fighting to maintain it? Or something else?

I'm honestly curious, because it boggles my mind.


(EDIT: Unless you are being sarcastic, which totally flew over my head. In which case, please ignore the above.)

 

No wonder you have no understanding of anything...

(a Grasping Classic)

That post you just posted above just made the whole forum dumber!!

 

Oh, God, you're right, he actually does believe you. Incredible. But seriously, DBM, you can't even get the definition of evolution right. You keep parroting that evolution is descent with modification without actually knowing what the hell that means. You also seem to have a terrible fear of conspiracies.

 

Wait - Grasping is saying that he's making fun of me... So, which one of you is right?



I know you are Nullity - just wanted to rub it in with Grasping because his/her posts are always so "right on the money"!

 

Whatever Grasping...

I am not the one who said the definition was THREE DIFFERENT THINGS - I believe you get that crown.

Also, my conspiracies are claimed that by you and only you. I have provided only fact on what I have posted. If you can provide evidence against my "conspiracies" as you call them - go right ahead because you HAVEN'T YET!!!

Thus recieving over 25 FAIL's in one week... We can recap all that if you want?

 

This is important Nullity!

All those links that "your side" has provided the poster did not read. They rearly do. Nothing that I have posted in this entire thread has been faslified. They are from sites that "believe" in evolution!

We get people posting seeing evolution in nature then providing links of the same bird with different beak sizes!

On person with four different definitions of evoluion with links mind you that don't even agree with what they are saying!

The problem is - they do not know jack squat about biology and thus post up some link that has what they are talking about in a sentence without understanding the material before and/or after the sentence they are looking for like speciation for instance.

Is speciation the "result" of evolution? Some think it is - others think it's not... Show a link on what you think and I will guarantee you do not know what it is your posting!

So... take your time...

 

You've just made a lot of enemies! How dare you talk bad about their "religion" like that!!!!



Funny isn't it?

 

Hahahahaha, yeah, right. Three different definitions. Evolution is descent with modification, but can also be called the defined as the change in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time. They are two interrelated definitions. One is simpler, one is more complex.

They are conspiracies. And it isn't my job to debunk your theories, though I have done before. The evidence is on YOU to show that there is something to your claim. So have many others. I've posted before Eastern schools that teach evolution, and you just ignore them.

 

Please provide the first three links that you find for the definition of genetic drift or allelic drift please?

You posted a school based out of England that was in the East is all you did. Then I stated find me a Evolutionary Biologist that isn't or has not been schooled in a country that has a large number of Athiest and Whites...

Still waiting...

 

implied ad hominem

 

SHEESH GRASPING - I'LL DO IT!!!

Now you said what was the definition of evolution? Was it change in gene frequency within a population over time? Interesting - because that is not what I found in Google, it seems you have confused (as always) meanings AGAIN and thus post... well what only Grasping can post...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Genetic_drift
The process of change in the genetic composition of a population due to chance or random events rather than by natural selection, resulting in changes in allele frequencies over time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genetic+drift
random changes in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool, usually of small populations.

So what is it? Is the definition of genetic (allele) drift interchangeable with the definition of evolution? Are they the exact same thing?

Please - we REALLY enjoy your responses when you are wrong - they are so entertaining!!!

 

By definition you are calling out one of your own, because stating that makes no sense on the post you just quoted...

 

No. You keep posting this and it's really, really pathetic that you can't read. Genetic drift is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population due to random chance. What the flying (*)(*)(*)(*) do you not get out of that? Do you see that word "random"? That is what is different. RANDOM. Natural Selection is NON RANDOM change in the frequency of alleles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#Genetic_drift_versus_natural_selection

Honestly, do you think these two sentences are the same:

"Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time"

"Genetic drift is the change in the frequency of alleles in a population due to random sampling."

I posted a ton of links awhile ago where university websites use the definition of evolution as the change in the frequency of alleles. Berkeley even uses this definition.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_15

"Hi, my name is DBM aka FDS and for the life of me, I cannot read!"

 

You asked for a different source, implying the other source was from an area too white and too atheist. You attack the source rather than deal with the content from the source. This is ad hominem. Very often ad hominem is employed as an attempt to change the subject, as you do here.

 

No, I posted quite a few schools including schools in Japan, China, and India. REGARDLESS, what does the amount of evolutionary biologists in different countries have anything to do with the VALIDITY of the theory? And why does it automatically mean that the West is imposing scientific views? You have yet to answer those two questions. I'll help with the first question, the answer is "Nothing". As Kmisho pointed out, this is an ad hominem fallacy.

 

You have no clue what the initial subject was three threads ago! Unless you can find it and post it as a link (if you do - you really need to get a life) I suggest you stop posting about things you know nothing about kmisho.

Wakata - Wakaru?

 

Wait for a second - I see how you are trying to justify your FAIL... Got it...

Well, just a question then - are you suggesting that genetic drift does not happen over time? Time is not within the equation? Because I bet that genetic drift is the change of allele in a population due to (your) "random sampling" over time.

Wanna bet your avatar?

Hi my name is Grasping and I can't read...

No where in any of that does it state that anything about the "DEFINITION" of evolution...

Go ahead - read it... oh wait... My mistake...

 

Of course it's over time, everything is over time. But, with genetic drift, it really matters what happened. For instance, if a freak storm wipes out a certain subset of species and leaves the survivors to take their place, obviously this takes place over a short time.

Uh, if evolution can't occur without a change in the frequency of alleles, I'm pretty sure that is a pretty vital part of the definition. It even mentions back to the definition previously used.

 

Exactly Grasping... So... are the definitions the same or are they different? Is the definition of evolution exactly the same as the definition of gene drift?

I don't think so, but you do and why?

Please for us... Explain what "Change in the Frequency of Alleles" means? You have misused it enough for me to ask. I might not be saying it here, but I never know with you so - please explain.

Also, evolution is defined by genetic drift nor is it a "vital part" of the definition. If you think so - where in the "definition" is genetic drift? You posted it - you said it...

Now I said it's not true so prove to us that you are not lying yet again!

 

No, I've been arguing with you that point over and over again. Evolution can be defined as change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. Okay? Now, genetic drift CAUSES that change randomly. Natural selection, on the other hand, causes CAUSES that change non-randomly.

What is there to explain? Do you know what alleles are? Do you know what a population is? Do you know what frequency is? Do you know what change is? Simply put, some genes become more dominant and some become less dominant in a population over time (meaning they appear in higher frequency or lower.)

You really need to brush up on your typing skills or your English skills. Specifically, the bolded paragraph doesn't make sense.