Evolution is a joke pt V

Evolution is not dependent on natural selection... It is suggested that evolution can happen in a test tube. When bacteria replicates, then seperated it "should" evolve. There is no "selection". What is "presumed" to happen is each test tube will evolve and split into different species of life. There is no selection on what gene sequences are kept and which are not, since there isn't anything to predetermine what is needed to survive - everything is exceptable.

This experiment, if it were successful, would be the best way to get throught the muck of gene sequences being deemed "not good enough" and letting everything go through. By doing this, it is believed to "increase" the probability of common descent with modification since natural selection is not a factor.

Do you understand?

Sorry, but evolution is completely random, if it were to happen. But, I do understand what you are suggesting. In the wild and outside of a lab, I would say that you are more right than wrong...

Also, I apologize if I made it seem that I was "forcing" a yes or no answer, you just stated something and I was questioning if you thought evolution was random...

 

That is correct. Here is how it works. I say that every night Gremlins come into my house and steal all my left socks. I say they phase in from a different dimension and only I can see them due to having too many MRI after the war.

There is no way to falsify that statement.

There is no experiment that can be done to prove it.

It does not and cannot ever pass the scientific method.

There is no way to prove evolution false... None...

 

Ugh, I'm sorry, but I just had to refute this. That is completely wrong.

1) You could falsify your claim by having somebody watch your left socks, put a tracking device on the socks, or set up a camera.

2) Precambrian rabbits, organisms being created spontaneously, mutations shown not to be able to accumulate. Any of these makes evolution falsifiable.

You shouldn't even be allowed to discuss this idea because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Falsifiable refers to whether a theory CAN be proven wrong, not IF it has been. Jesus, you're just an idiot. Back on the block.

 

Sorry, but an analogy is needed to show how idiotic your claim is:

What you said, evolution being unfalsifiable because there is no evidence against it, is like saying that cell theory is unfalsifiable because we have no evidence of an organism that isn't made up of cells or a cell. It's like saying germ theory is unfalsifiable because there is no evidence against it. That's how dumb it is.

 

Ha ha haaaaa...

Is it?

They won't come if they know someone else is there and they can sense electrical equipment...

There could have been a rabbit, just because we haven't found one in the fossil record is insignificant. But, rabbits live today... are there life that lived today and are in the Precambrian Era? That answer would be yes!

If you knew how to read you would know that I never said anything like that it IS wrong, but stated that a hypothesis becomes irrelavent if it is unfalsifiable. Jesus, you're just an idiot....

FAIL - 64, and 65 not to exclude FAIL 66

 

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and I refuse to talk respond to retardation like the post above.

If any of you want to help this... poster per say out and post up some links to try to teach the unteachable, go right ahead, but if you have been reading you already know it's a waste of your time that you will never get back!!!

But, for you Grasping - those theories have passed the scientific method with experimentation, thus they are theories... Do you understand that? I don't think you do, nor will you ever understand jack @#% but for the readers who have been reading - I post back to you basically for them... I don't expect you to know nothing except your real name and the person who cleans you and feeds you at night...

 

Which makes it falsifiable. There, you just agreed, evolution is falsifiable. What a boob.

 

You can't be more precise. Got it.

You didn't have to detail your lack of precision, DBM aka FDS. As pointed out above, I got it the first time.

 

I find that funny when I give you experimentation to actually back my hypothesis and you say "lack of precision", but evolution gives you nothing but some old dude telling you it's true and you believe it...

Where is there precision? Where is your questions about evolution? Where is evidence? Where is anything Freeware except your blind faith in that which is evolution?!?!

Please... you show a bias within that which you post - bias does not belong within science nor in any discussion. If you are going to hold one hypothesis to questioning - you MUST do it for all...

What is your unanswered question about evolution? What is any question that you asked of evolution? What is ANYTHING that you find wrong with the hypothesis of evolution?

See the joke in it all? See the religion in it? See your blind faith that you have NEVER QUESTIONED?!?!

Don't worry... You may not have, but the readers and I did... We caught it Freeware...

 

Look Boob!!! Did you even read.... Wait... I keep forgetting who I am asking!!!

Grasping - let me hold your hand and walk you through the steps of my post. There might have been a rabbit in the PreC period, but that proves nothing. As I stated, that's why they picked it is because one hasn't been found yet and that rabbit is here surviving today - walking around and that is why they picked it. BUT... Now, you need to pay attention. Is there life today that IS represented in the PreC period? YES!!! There you go - there is your Rabbit. Life that has lived since the Precambrian period until now. But, they say rabbit... Why? Because one hasn't been found. What happens if they find one? They'll change it up and say something like, "Well, the rabbit was found during that time doesn't exclude that evolution didn't happen. You can't take one lifeform and say this. We have seen that some life is unchanged since the Precambrian period all the time in the fossil record, and this does not give evidence that the rest of all life on this planet did not evolve taking in such a small number of life that we have found within the fossil record that has small changes, but no evolutionary mutations." Just give some other bull#@$% story just like when the missing link was proven wrong, the bird dinosaurs were wrong and everything else that has been proven wrong with evolution...

If you want to explain something to me Grasping and actually be taken seriously (since I don't take you seriously at all) explain my next post please...

 

Address the pictures and my response to those pictures please...

http://www.politicalforum.com/4287036-post157.html

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/4317755-post227.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/4318569-post233.html

Evolution is DONE!!!

DONE I SAY!!! How can evolution recover without mutation and genetic drift? That is the proposed outcome IF we have the genes from everything within us and all we do is adapt with the DNA that we already have...

Question to those who believe in the HYPOTHESIS of evolution:

How does evolution work with the experiments that have been above? How can something turn "on" or "off" dealing with evolution? This goes against evolution since evolution states that to Change into something else - with complexity and/or modification there has to be mutation, natural selection and then genetic drift. But, there would not be "mutation" and "genetic drift" if the GENES ARE ALREADY PRESENT WITHIN THE SPECIES OF LIFE!!!

There is your experiment!!! There is what is UNDOUBTABLE EVIDENCE!!!

So... Why do you still believe in your Religion??!?! Why do you hold on to your Faith since I have just shown you that you are wrong - dead wrong in your faith that "proclaim" as science!!!

Show me a link and prove I am wrong!! You cannot...





You will not...






The Peanut Gallery just got Honey Roasted...

 

NEWS FROM TODAY!!!

Specimens include simple filament structures similar to the earliest feathers of non-flying dinosaurs — a form unknown in modern birds — and more complicated bird feathers "displaying pigmentation and adaptations for flight and diving," the researchers reported.

Indications of feathers have been found on much older fossils, and the new discoveries indicate feathers continued to develop into modern form before the extinction of dinosaurs, explained Norell, who was not part of the research team.



Thank you Margot - I could kiss you!!! Wait...




Are you a female?

 

The funny part about this is I never knew there were experiments to PROVIDE evidence of this.

I of course KNEW this and have been posting this for, what now... two - three years? And it was someone from the EVOLUTIONARY SIDE that did them in!! A former member of the Peanut Gallery that posted it, who used to post just ridiculousness trying to take shots at my character!

But, as I have stated from the beginning of time:

YOU WILL NOT CHANGE OR ADAPT OR "EVOLVE" INTO NOTHING MORE THAT WHAT YOUR PRE-EXISTING GENE SEQUENCES WILL ALLOW YOU TO!!!!


period...

Oh MAN - I never knew - I never in a million years would think that they were conducting experimentations on this. Dino's are birds and birds are dinosaurs!!! Ha haaaa ha aahaaaa...

You have no clue how happy I am - I have to go laugh in a couple people's faces here at the job site! I will be right back!!!

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing dirt diggers!!! I hate those narrow minded bastards!!!

 

They use rabbit as an example because mammals didn't exist during the Precambrian. So, a finding of any mammal fossil, especially a rabbit fossil would poke holes throughout the theory of evolution. Our understanding, our modern understanding of evolution as we know it, would just be completely eradicated. Not only that, but I also gave you two other examples of how evolution is falsifiable, retard. Ignoring those and just concentrating on one example is just downright dishonest. The rabbit example, as well as the other two examples make evolution falsifiable. Claiming that scientists would just change the theory is just guesswork and doesn't make evolution unfalsifiable. Oh gravity is unfalsifiable because they can just change the theory! WAH! Grow the (*)(*)(*)(*) up, dude.

 

You said you could not be more precise as to the beginning you mentioned.

End of story. Unless, of course, you are able to elaborate now? Are you? Can you be more precise about the beginning you mentioned?

 

Riddle me this... As I stated... How did evolution begin? Did you ever ask that about your OWN religion?

You are one of the blind faithful Freeware. Don't think people read this and see you for what you are just like the rest of the Followers of Evolution...

So, this Earth has been around for billions of years and you never asked that after a billion years life is able to replicate and reproduce which is an evolutionary step (a HUMONGOUS ONE AT THAT) and you never asked how it started? You never asked how the first life on this planet started evolution? Was the life that was present as advanced as it is now... Well, that couldn't be now could it Freeware... That would kinda throw evolution under the bus now wouldn't it.

So, be precise and tell us how it all began!!! Tell us about your religion. As I stated, and being truthful, I stated that my analogy was a hypothesis - YOU stated that evolution WAS A FLIPPIN FACT!!!!

ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

 

You truly have no clue. Riddle me this, how long can a fossil of a mammal withhold in time? What conditions must there be? CAN a mammal fossil be found that far back even if it was fossilized? What conditions, outside of sea life, needs to happen to preserve a "mammal" dating back to the Pre-Cambrian period?

Then after you FAIL that - give us, if it were to happen, what is the likelihood for a mammal to succumb to fossilization. What would be the perfect conditions so the fleshy mammal just didn't appear as rocks?

Will be patiently awaiting your answer which will never come... This will be FAIL 66...

Don't remember your other two... Sorry, but I can't remember all your FAIL's Grasping - your post are usually... Well, the readers understand where I'm going with that...

Readers - have you noticed that the only defense OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again is gravity? Do you know how different Gravity is compared to evolution? I will dispel this gravity comparison now (as I have before but it seems some people cannot retain information or just can't read)

Gravity is a law for one reason - it has been proven. There is math that states such. I believe off of a guess it is 9.8 meters squared per second. No matter where you are on this planet it is the same. We have sent space probes across the universe using (so I don't (*)(*)(*)(*) others off) other planets presumed "mass" to propel our probes past obstacles using this giants gravitational pull. It's a law. Now - how it works... We do not know. Why do large (mass) objects produce gravity? We do not know. But, we have the math to show that is happens, we have shown it happens with other planets and have used math to produce results inside labs and outside in common life situation.

Evolution has no math - has not bet seen, not produced in a lab, it has absolutely nothing. The hypothesis of common descent with modification has never had anything but people saying it happened without any evidence of such nor math. Until Evolution has a mathematical equation that gives us rate of change in any lifeform to produce "x" within these situations and it has been observed in a lab and outside then evolution is a crack head pipe dream.

I know THEY won't see the difference (the ones that use that horrific example), but I hope you readers do...

Also, where is this "evidence" the Darwin Followers keep screaming but never post? I mean they can make cats glow in the dark - http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/12/glow-in-dark-kittens-lend-paw-to-aids-fight/?test=faces

But, for some odd reason, they can't show common descent with modification?

 

I am unable to use the slang word for urinate? What the heck is wrong with using the word urinate in slang? I am QUITE confused... and just checked (this is me coming back after checking in edit mode) urinate is allowed!!

 

The conditions don't have to be different simply because its a mammal, you idiot. Why are you distinguishing mammal fossils between, say, a fish fossil? Is there a difference?

Right, of course, and it must kill you to look back like three pages.

1) Gravity isn't a law, there are laws OF gravity, but gravity is a force. There is also a THEORY of gravity. Ever heard of the Theory of General Relativity? What the hell do you think that is, you (*)(*)(*)(*)****?

2) Gravity does differ on this planet, go figure you're wrong on that too. What a SHOCKER!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Variation_in_gravity_and_apparent_gravity

 

WHAT?!?! Did you just call me an idiot?!?!

Grasping… Does a fish and a rabbit live in the same ecosystem? They are both vegaterians, do they eat the same food Grasping?!?!

I’m the idiot?!?! Really… The retardation that flows from your fingers is amazing… OH – My mistake Grasping you must be talking about the 6 gilled spotted tiger rabbit fish from Madagascar… My mistake…

FAIL 66

Again – I don’t need to call you an idiot Grasping – your posts do that for me!!! Hilarious…

It would… It would kill my eyes reading your posts more than once and I heard your retarded posts might be contagious…

Again- I’m a retard?!?! Here you go Grasping – Newton’s Law of Gravity for Kids…

http://paul-a-heckert.suite101.com/newtons-laws-for-kids-gravity-a41285

FAIL 67… You’ll be at 70 by the days end… and if that doesn’t work for you here is Google and maybe you can find Law of Gravity for Idiots book or link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=law+of+gravity&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

If it does, then please provide the equation that is different than 9.8 m/s squared. Also, since you have no clue… Do you know what the word “model” means? I mean dealing with science…? So, if someone says that there is a model equation for earth that does not differ on the planet surface and works all over the planet equally – do you refute that with .001 differences? Do you know what “tolerances” are?

I figured you didn’t… I am right and you are… well how did you put it…? You are an idiot!

FAIL 68

 

So, no, you have no explanation as to why you were making a distinction between fossil types. What does what they eat have to do with how long they will remain fossilized or what conditions are required? Nothing. Pressure and time, that's what it takes for fossilization. The only difference is that mammals are more likely to be preserved then animals without bones, of course.

LAW OF GRAVITY.

From my previous post:

So, thanks for pointing out what I just said? This doesn't make gravity itself a law. There is a theory of gravity and laws of gravity. You still haven't addressed what you think the Theory of General Relativity is. Here, let me give it you straight.

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

What's that? There is no theory of gravity?

Durrrr, I am DBM, I can't read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Variation_in_gravity_and_apparent_gravity



God, I'm so happy to prove you wrong over and over again.

 

Did you honestly believe that this gov clerk who spend his time posting on this forum and waisting your hard earned money would know anything about gravity??? Hell, he's supposedly a bio major and yet doesn't know anything about anything related to that field.

 

He once said to major in math but then DBM aka FDS has never been big on factuality. One thing is for sure, though, DBM aka FDS has never in his life passed any kind of test in any field of biology. Except maybe from Creation College. Or similar.

 

Durr I am 12 and post retarded things like "durr" and can't read.

Grasping what is the difference between The Law of "X" and "X" is a Law?

Here: http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

You are so... such a ... I'm done... You give me a headache!!! SERIOUSLY!!! You have no understanding of anything and I really do think I should stop calling you retarded, because it is coming clear that I actually might be right!!!

Good Day Grasping and whenever you want to discuss evolution - decide against it because all you want to do in your three brain cell mind is be right... Not on a topic, just be right.

You've probably been called idiot so many times that the satisfaction of just "being right" is like crack cocaine to others. It's like all you want to do show others that for once - Grasping can be right... He can!!! He really really can! Then you run to your mother (trying to not knock thing over since you are not use to running) and tell her to come and look - your not an idiot - your not as retarded as the doctor stated... You're "normal" and want to hold your own spoon! By God you're 21 years old and you should be allowed to sleep without wearing pull ups!

I understand - my lady is a psychology major... You are looking for some satisfaction - some avenue to show the WORLD your intelligence...

See this Grasping watch this and learn...

Per Grasping's post dealing with elevation on the planet the rate of change does occur. Not taking this into my post I am wrong. I have no problems being wrong as that is what makes us "human". I can admit that I am wrong because I am an honest man with integrity. I will not deny that I am wrong because I really do not care about how you percieve me over the internet!

My basic statement does hold true, but I did not clarify the tolerance of gravity and thus, I am wrong.

FAILS: DBM AKA FDS 1 (dealing with something off the topic of Evolution) - Grasping 68!!

So, dealing with Evolution I am still running a perfect score of "0" FAIL's!!! Grasping you are and still are headed for 70 before today's end... Good Luck! I have complete faith you will go beyond what we expect out of you as always!!!

Come on readers... You know you laughed!!! IT'S GRASPING FOR GOD'S SAKE!!! You actually think he is going to one up me? Grasping?!?!

HA ha haaa ha haaaaa!!!!