Evolution is a joke pt V

http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391EvidEvol.htm

 

Nah, math is just a concept, any answers are merely ideas, therefore mathematics is just a religion, and you believe the answers are real because you have faith.

See, I can play the stupid theist game, too.

 

Don't cry little guy, just educate yourself or stop posting ignorant bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Either will suffice.

 

Gravity can be quantified and described, but it can't be explained, why two bodies of mass attract each other. There is no radiation of any sort exerted one body upon another. Gravity remains one of the greatest mysteries in the scientific world. Proving it exists is easy. Proving why it exists is difficult. But every atom needs gravity to remain continent. The nucleus is held together by gravity. Electrons orbit by gravity. If gravity were to cease, the entire universe would dissolve.

 

Birds are not feathered dinosaurs… but do belong to the classification. Please do not confuse the two. Just because they belong to the same classification does not mean they are the same as humans and Lemurs.

The smoking part is they (evolutionary biologist) will not admit they are wrong (again) and just change up and still say that evolution is a real thing. Even though they haven’t got it right yet…

Ummm… No… when do you think that the ostrich was able to fly? Is there fossils or any evidence to show that this is to be right? There isn’t so why do you suggest this? Fossils of emu’s with gigantic wings?

 

No, birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaur is a very broad category, of which birds are a part. It's like saying that humans and lemurs are both euarchontoglires, which is correct.

New evidence arises, so one changes conclusions based on the evidence.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/27/7179711-oldest-bird-knocked-off-its-perch

"It may well be they're going to suggest that we evolutionists don't know what we're doing," he told me. "In reality, it's just the opposite. It just shows what evolution is all about. A prediction of evolutionary theory is that it should be really hard for us to figure out what's going on in an origin."

http://blog.darwinsbulldogs.com/phylogenomics-suggest-ratites-lost-flight-mul

 

It states that "rings species" suggests that evolution can happen... But, they are still salamandars! Also, I still wondering where evolution (common descent) has passed the scientific method.

Here is what it states:
1. It speculates about common ancestry by guesses, not what is defined within the scientific method. So, per the class it states this: We develop hypotheses: possible explanations for the phenomena we observe in the natural world (possible answers to our questions) that can be tested based on observations and/or experiments and that are consistent with what is already known about these phenomena.
Now, how was common descent observed or the experiment in which it happened? How was evolution (since it stated it passed the scientific method) observed? What paragraph does it state the common descent was observed or tested within an experiment? I didn’t see that…

Anyone? Anyone see where it states that common descent was tested or observed? I could have missed it?

I surely hope that the site from that class wasn’t lying and giving false truth to people who might have faith that what the class is teaching is truth without compiling the data needed to pass the scientific method…

It wouldn’t do that would it?

(It’s like the website just posted – “Oh yes I did go there!! And didn’t even use Vaseline!!!”)

Thank you Lopey for furthering my argument that those who believe have been DUPED and follow blindly in the FAITH of what others say without any evidence that the science community needs for validation of any sort for a hypothesis to be even considered to be a theory.

Evolution is a faith based religion...

 

You just posted that you like playing stupid... That's Kool Aid... Have fun!

 

I know that, but most do not say (or post) it correctly so I don't let them "know" and just take it in stride that they are within the realm of Creationist vs. Darwinist and just use what they have found within Google and TalkOrigins...

 

http://www.utm.edu/departments/cens/biology/rirwin/391/391Brodie.htm

 

I figured it's like a masquerade ball, it's only fun if you participate with the host.

 

I have made a mistake. I stand corrected. Thank you…

That quote is horrible… especially in science. How can you just say- we are always wrong and we’ll keep being wrong since the science that we suggest is true gives us no clues on what the theory is… If I said that in college that I got all the answers wrong because biology is hard, would be unacceptable. How can “they” put together clades then? Why do they even attempt if they are just going to be wrong and make grand statements of “The Missing Link” and all this blah blah blah.

It’s just propaganda without evidence. Why can’t they just say, “We don’t know right now, but we are working hard to come up with something concrete..”

 

Thank you for sharing an overexaggerated example of evolution. Snake color is like hair color. Change of hair color or kinkiness in white males in the United States due to mix breeding within it's own species is NOT - and I will say this again... IS NOT evolution.

but, you can still believe your preachers as they tell you all these wonderful fairytales of this guy named Darwin and how he CHANGED THE WORLD OF THINKING!!!

I am still waiting for the common descent part and observed and/or done in experimentation. Snakes changing color is not that in the least bit, but again... Preachers are ALWAYS right aren't they!!

 

still waiting on an answer

 

Here are a number of observed speciation events that have passed academic muster.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Evolution is not in doubt within the scientific community.

 

Biology is not physics; biology is messy, untidy, and full of unusual situations. Unraveling origins is dirty work, as there will be dozens of false-starts and dead-end clades, as well as the fact that there will be organisms that have nearly identical morphologies but are still different species (see: numerous frog species) whereas there are species that have large variations in morphology but can still interbreed with one another (see: certain parasites that have complex, multi-generational lifecycles wherein some members of the species are free-living for part or most of their lives before laying eggs that parasitize an organism).

As such, working with fossils intensifies that problem immensely. One can't run a PCR test to work out degrees of relatedness; one must rely on morphology, which, while useful, is not 100% accurate for determining phylogenetic relationships between organisms.

Thus, for new niches being exploited by an organism, we expect to see a lot of messy relationships because a lot is going on and it is hard to figure out exactly what happened with the relative dearth of information we're working with.

 

Nope, only nutters with a religious bent.

 

I know... I am waiting... It's been days!

http://www.politicalforum.com/4245375-post31.html

Weird how none of my questions to you have been answered yet... Can you please go back and stop side stepping and discuss what I have presented to you?

Can you do that?

Do you understand my request?

 

Care to elaborate??? The evidence for evolution is not solely biological. Evolution is also supported by evidence from scientific fields such as geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, nuclear physics and cosmology. All credible scientific evidence to date supports the common descent of all life on the planet from a single common ancestor. There really is no scientific debate about it today.

 

Lets start off with one REALLY simple question:

Are human beings primates?

Simple yes/no question

 

Indeed, the only people who disagree with evolution are religious nutters.

 

Okay… I’ll give you that… So, why are they not pronouncing the dead ends and just saying that we are unsure… I don’t like how “evolutionary biologist” just make stuff up and are not definite on material that they express to the world. Good Gravy that last “presentation” of (I forgot what it was called) the “Missing Link” was horrific to say the least! It’s like they are searching for another Federal Grant and some recognition. I don’t like it one bit…

This is equivalent to the church putting out propaganda for money… Same – Same to me…

I agree, just wish that the “evolutionary biologist” would agree also and stop putting out propaganda.

Now the question. If you believe in evolution (which I assume you do) why do you have faith in this messy, untidy, unusual hypothesis? What evidence (since I find none really) that isn’t or doesn’t hold water is left that you think sustains evolution (common descent)….

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/4245375-post31.html

First off genius - you can't be a primate. I suggest you rephrase the question a bit or do you not know how?

 

There is...

 

The one piece of this there is hot debate about is the "single common ancestor" thing. There is no reason that life had to have begun with a single living cell from which all other cells came. Consider that the environment that could have led to such a thing must have been a "stew" on the verge of life over an area of some size. Perhaps the first life was a sort of colony arising in this stew. This seems more likely to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Multiple_genesis

http://www.pnas.org/content/80/10/2981.full.pdf