695 replies to this topic

[cormac mac airt]

kmt_sesh, on 31 October 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

Swede, best wishes on your research. You will be missed...so hurry back, dammit!



Is that anything like getting beaten by the ugly stick?

Not quite. Willfull ignorance is self-inflicted.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 30 October 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

You have no idea what shifting the goal-posts means; kindly prove me wrong by defining it, in your own words.



You certainly have taken that initiative; I simply request you use the established definitions of words, not your own invented definitions.



False. Cite just one scientific paper which proposes a limit to biological change through the principle of natural/artificial selection.



Darwin didn't ignore any evidence which existed at his time. You're just pulling claims out of your ass now.

And no, it isn't irrational at all to equate variation-speciation inevitability with falling-pebble inevitability; not if you understand how biology works.



Which is an entirely meaningless definition, devoid of useful content.



Again, you're just inventing stories out of your ass now. You simply don't understand how science works, at all.



At least we agree on the definition. And based on that definition, yes, for the n^th time, evolution has been proven empirically.

You said variation leads to speciation and evolution which is a false premise.A good analogy is "you look at a man jumping 5 feet high and extrapolate that after billions of years and random genetic mutations the man will start flying"

Macroevolution has not been proved empirically,there would be no debate otherwise.Only variations have been proved empirically,which is a fact that was never contested.

I understand how science works very well,and the only two black sheep that the scientific community has are evolutionists and a few astrophysicists.

Variations have been taking place naturally and artificially (by breeders etc) and have been observed for quite some time now and there has been not even a single case of variation leading to speciation and class transitions naturally.

Darwin ignored the above empirical evidence which was available to him.He ignored that variations have limitations and there is a strong tendency for the population to always return to wild type over a couple of generations.His theory bodered on illogical irrational fringe when he put it forward,and his suscribers since then i.e evolutionists (Darwinists)are comparable to the modern cult of UFO abductees.

Darwin observed beak 'variations' in Finches and extrapolated evolution and speciation.(If you argue that finches were not important then please highlight what Darwin based his theory on.)
http://www.creationb...d=112&Itemid=67

Darwin was a Fringe Conmen very comaprable to David Icke of modern times and suckers called evolutionists bought into his ramblings without any sort of empirical evidence and under false premises.The only beneficial effect of Darwin's theory was to give an excuse to many atheists to liberate many people from biblical creationist views and no other gain was acheived.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Swede, on 31 October 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

Given your fondness for dictionary definitions (and your apparent attempts to manipulate such):

re·gime also ré·gime  (r-zhm, r-)n.1.
a. A form of government: a fascist regime.
b. A government in power; administration.


regime, régime [reɪˈʒiːm]n1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a system of government or a particular administration.

http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/regime

These are the primary contemporary definitions. Social conceptualizations play a somewhat secondary role.

Despite my technical contributions to the sciences, it would be quite difficult to consider these contributions to be of the level of the accepted definitions. Was quite unaware of the extent of my authority. Will need to be mindful of such.

Sarcasm aside - Please define "observed" as per the definition of empirical evidence. Would you now be suggesting that genetic research is not empirical? Morphology? Etc. Realize that the above are rather redundant. You would appear to have difficulty in providing credible references to support your position. And you are aware of the position of Class differentiations in the phylogenic "tree"?

Note: Will be out of contact for one to two weeks due to professional research obligations.

.

Thank you for defining regime.That is exactly the context in which i used the word when i said 'evolutionist world view regime' that is sadly dominating the current Biological Academia.

Observed empirical evidence works perfectly for genetics and almost all other feilds of real science other then for the two black sheep that i mentioned in my previous post to Tran and few other psuedosciences.

And it is good to know that such intelligent minds like yours are given reseach grants to do research,hope it's not for the elusive empirical proof for macroevolution.

Any which ways best of luck for your research and remember with great amount of research grants comes great scientific responsibility.

[Harsh86_Patel]

cormac mac airt, on 31 October 2012 - 02:40 AM, said:

Not quite. Willfull ignorance is self-inflicted.

cormac

Soft trolling?

[cormac mac airt]

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

Soft trolling?

Self descriptive?

cormac

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

You said variation leads to speciation and evolution which is a false premise.A good analogy is "you look at a man jumping 5 feet high and extrapolate that after billions of years and random genetic mutations the man will start flying"

What an absurd analogy. You can't simply declare evolutionary biology false because you don't understand it; which you absolutely do not.

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Macroevolution has not been proved empirically,there would be no debate otherwise.Only variations have been proved empirically,which is a fact that was never contested.

Yes, it has been proved empirically, and again (STOP ******* IGNORING EVERYTHING I SAY), there is no debate among scientists. It's just the lay, uneducated creationists with a vested interest in disseminating misinformation and propaganda that muddle the facts for those (such as yourself) who don't know enough about evolution to differentiate between valid and invalid points. Yes, variations have been empirically; your assertion that evolution has not been is untenable, given that it has, and you have been provided with numerous (but by no means any large portion of the existing) examples of such.

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

I understand how science works very well,and the only two black sheep that the scientific community has are evolutionists and a few astrophysicists.

If you really understood how science works, you wouldn't have a number of scientists telling you that you don't, now would you?

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Variations have been taking place naturally and artificially (by breeders etc) and have been observed for quite some time now and there has been not even a single case of variation leading to speciation and class transitions naturally.

We've been over this: your claim is false.

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

http://darwiniana.or...ansitionals.htm

http://darwiniana.or...m#Transitionals

http://darwiniana.or...rses.htm#Horses

http://darwiniana.or...birds.htm#Birds

http://darwiniana.or...osea.htm#whales

Just because a process takes longer to happen than we have time to watch, doesn't mean that it's impossible; that's like saying that a man can take a single step, but putting together a series of steps and walking down the street is impossible. Class transitions and the empirical evidence for them have cropped up dozens of times in the history of our planet; but they do happen to take a very long time to happen. And as has been explained to you before, the distinctions between one class and another are purely man-made; in nature it's much harder to tell where one begins and the other ends. You don't seem to understand the concept of a continuum of organisms.  

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Darwin ignored the above empirical evidence which was available to him.He ignored that variations have limitations and there is a strong tendency for the population to always return to wild type over a couple of generations.

Sheer nonsense. Variation has only as much limitation as mutation (i.e., virtually none), and populations almost never return to ancestral haplotypical forms. If that were true, every dog on Earth would be a wolf right now; humans have been breeding dogs for tens of thousands of years. Why haven't they all "returned to the wild type" by now? The answer of course is that you invented that claim out of thin air, and it's complete crap.

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

His theory bodered on illogical irrational fringe when he put it forward,and his suscribers since then i.e evolutionists (Darwinists)are comparable to the modern cult of UFO abductees.

Yes, evolutionary theory took time to be accepted. That is because, as we have established, paleontology, genetics, and a number of other sciences which have provided much of evolution's strongest evidence were very underdeveloped in Darwin's time. Hell, Darwin wrote Origin during the era when they still thought that Iguanodon actually resembled a giant iguana. Fortunately, that didn't have any bearings on the principle of his thesis, which was as unassailable then as it is now. Any new, revolutionary theory in science will take time to be accepted; the inflationary model of cosmology, though almost unanimously accepted today, took more than half a century to attain that status. Evolution was radical to begin with, sure, as much as heliocentrism or gravity; it certainly isn't radical today, after more than a century and a half of every single scientific discovery corroborating the veracity of Darwin's premise.

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Darwin observed beak 'variations' in Finches and extrapolated evolution and speciation.(If you argue that finches were not important then please highlight what Darwin based his theory on.)
http://www.creationb...d=112&Itemid=67

Darwin's finches were one example among many. Incidentally, yes, Darwin extrapolated the evolution of the finches. We now know much more than he did: we found their ancestral lineage. The finches of the Galapagos that Darwin was so inspired by are descended from South American populations of seedeaters: tanagers from the western coast of the South America continent, flown to the Galapagos millions of years ago. Genetics has confirmed this beyond any doubt whatsoever.

http://mbe.oxfordjou...t/18/3/299.full

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Darwin was a Fringe Conmen very comaprable to David Icke of modern times and suckers called evolutionists bought into his ramblings without any sort of empirical evidence and under false premises.The only beneficial effect of Darwin's theory was to give an excuse to many atheists to liberate many people from biblical creationist views and no other gain was acheived.

Such a statement only demonstrates empirically that you have been thoroughly brainwashed by the creationist sites you read. Your claim is categorically false, on each point. Plain and simple.

Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with atheism; and Darwin's "ramblings" are supported by more evidence than any other theory in science.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 31 October 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

What an absurd analogy. You can't simply declare evolutionary biology false because you don't understand it; which you absolutely do not.



Yes, it has been proved empirically, and again (STOP ******* IGNORING EVERYTHING I SAY), there is no debate among scientists. It's just the lay, uneducated creationists with a vested interest in disseminating misinformation and propaganda that muddle the facts for those (such as yourself) who don't know enough about evolution to differentiate between valid and invalid points. Yes, variations have been empirically; your assertion that evolution has not been is untenable, given that it has, and you have been provided with numerous (but by no means any large portion of the existing) examples of such.



If you really understood how science works, you wouldn't have a number of scientists telling you that you don't, now would you?



We've been over this: your claim is false.

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

http://darwiniana.or...ansitionals.htm

http://darwiniana.or...m#Transitionals

http://darwiniana.or...rses.htm#Horses

http://darwiniana.or...birds.htm#Birds

http://darwiniana.or...osea.htm#whales

Just because a process takes longer to happen than we have time to watch, doesn't mean that it's impossible; that's like saying that a man can take a single step, but putting together a series of steps and walking down the street is impossible. Class transitions and the empirical evidence for them have cropped up dozens of times in the history of our planet; but they do happen to take a very long time to happen. And as has been explained to you before, the distinctions between one class and another are purely man-made; in nature it's much harder to tell where one begins and the other ends. You don't seem to understand the concept of a continuum of organisms.  



Sheer nonsense. Variation has only as much limitation as mutation (i.e., virtually none), and populations almost never return to ancestral haplotypical forms. If that were true, every dog on Earth would be a wolf right now; humans have been breeding dogs for tens of thousands of years. Why haven't they all "returned to the wild type" by now? The answer of course is that you invented that claim out of thin air, and it's complete crap.



Yes, evolutionary theory took time to be accepted. That is because, as we have established, paleontology, genetics, and a number of other sciences which have provided much of evolution's strongest evidence were very underdeveloped in Darwin's time. Hell, Darwin wrote Origin during the era when they still thought that Iguanodon actually resembled a giant iguana. Fortunately, that didn't have any bearings on the principle of his thesis, which was as unassailable then as it is now. Any new, revolutionary theory in science will take time to be accepted; the inflationary model of cosmology, though almost unanimously accepted today, took more than half a century to attain that status. Evolution was radical to begin with, sure, as much as heliocentrism or gravity; it certainly isn't radical today, after more than a century and a half of every single scientific discovery corroborating the veracity of Darwin's premise.



Darwin's finches were one example among many. Incidentally, yes, Darwin extrapolated the evolution of the finches. We now know much more than he did: we found their ancestral lineage. The finches of the Galapagos that Darwin was so inspired by are descended from South American populations of seedeaters: tanagers from the western coast of the South America continent, flown to the Galapagos millions of years ago. Genetics has confirmed this beyond any doubt whatsoever.

http://mbe.oxfordjou...t/18/3/299.full



Such a statement only demonstrates empirically that you have been thoroughly brainwashed by the creationist sites you read. Your claim is categorically false, on each point. Plain and simple.

Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with atheism; and Darwin's "ramblings" are supported by more evidence than any other theory in science.

No empirical evidence for macroevolution exists.The material you provide is pure hypothesis or in laymen words stories.
It is you who doesn't understand how science works or the meaning of the word 'empirical'.
It is you who has been thoroughly brainwashed into a being a evolutionist parrot,you have been brainwashed and probably bribed enough (money/academic accolades/degrees) to throw scientific honesty down the drain and follow the regime.
Variations have limitations with respect to their sustainability through successive generations,ofcourse you can also include organism suffering from genetic disorders caused by mutations to be a type of variants but their survival is usually marred by the debilitating effects of the disease and the variation is not fit to survive.
Absolutely none of the modern breakthroughs in Biology have corroberated with Darwin's hypothesis and that has lead the evolutionists to different tangents altogether,like i said they have survived as apologists.
I did not read creationist content to come up with scientific objections to evolution,but sadly the creationists have taken the mantle to disprove evolution and sadly i support them in this endeavour of theirs.Since scientific criticism from within the academia of evolution has been made increasingly difficult by the regime hence the outsiders benefit from pointing out evolutionist stupidities.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

No empirical evidence for macroevolution exists.

False.

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

The material you provide is pure hypothesis or in laymen words stories.

Also false. If you had bothered to actually read any of the materials I provided, you might realize how idiotic your last statement was.

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

It is you who doesn't understand how science works or the meaning of the word 'empirical'.

Oh really? So it's just you, random layman who understands science, while every actualscientist doesn't? You're more delusional than I thought.

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

It is you who has been thoroughly brainwashed into a being a evolutionist parrot,you have been brainwashed and probably bribed enough (money/academic accolades/degrees) to throw scientific honesty down the drain and follow the regime.

I wish I could express in textual form how hard I'm laughing right now. Of course, you can't actually assail evolution honestly, and so have to claim a scientific conspiracy. It is you has been brainwashed son.

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Variations have limitations with respect to their sustainability through successive generations,ofcourse you can also include organism suffering from genetic disorders caused by mutations to be a type of variants but their survival is usually marred by the debilitating effects of the disease and the variation is not fit to survive.

You don't understand what mutation means either. Not all mutations cause diseases, etc., most of them are neutral and have virtually no noticeable effect on the organism at all. You yourself are likely to be carrying around sixty mutations which you didn't get from your parents, most of which are neutral and don't affect you much.

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

Absolutely none of the modern breakthroughs in Biology have corroberated with Darwin's hypothesis and that has lead the evolutionists to different tangents altogether,like i said they have survived as apologists.

You've been brainwashed by the creationist propaganda; no creditable biologist in the world questions evolutionary biology, and every single discovery (not just biological) in the history of science has corroborated evolution. Just because you've bought into the creationist lies doesn't change that fact.

Harsh86_Patel, on 31 October 2012 - 08:40 AM, said:

I did not read creationist content to come up with scientific objections to evolution,but sadly the creationists have taken the mantle to disprove evolution and sadly i support them in this endeavour of theirs.Since scientific criticism from within the academia of evolution has been made increasingly difficult by the regime hence the outsiders benefit from pointing out evolutionist stupidities.

The "evolutionist stupidities" you've "pointed out" (and which you evidently cannot "point out" without referencing creationist sites), are utterly invalid. They have been debunked ad nauseam over more than a century.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, would you be so kind as to tell us all what it is that you want? You ask us to provide examples of evolution, we do, but because they don't suit you, you dismiss them. What precisely would you like us to show you?

[cormac mac airt]

I know what I'd like to see him do. And that's to actually post something relevant to the thread, concerning possible Ice Age civilizations, instead of continuously hi-jacking it to drone on and on about how he doesn't believe in evolution. His inability to comprehend it is his own failing and off-topic. Bet he can't do it.

cormac

[Arbitran]

cormac mac airt, on 31 October 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

I know what I'd like to see him do. And that's to actually post something relevant to the thread, concerning possible Ice Age civilizations, instead of continuously hi-jacking it to drone on and on about how he doesn't believe in evolution. His inability to comprehend it is his own failing and off-topic. Bet he can't do it.

cormac

He's convinced that evolutionary biology actually would comment on ice age civilization somehow...

[Harte]

I can see why he doesn't believe in Evolution.

After all, he was left behind by it.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

Arbitran, on 31 October 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

He's convinced that evolutionary biology actually would comment on ice age civilization somehow...

Much like Brane Theory explains warts, right?   His apparent lack of knowledge of evolutionary biology wouldn't help him in any case, since we've (Homo sapiens) been around for the last c.200,000 years BP and the last Ice Age (actually glacial period) only started c.120,000 BP. It'd be like striking a match, blowing it out and trying to convince others it went out on its own.

cormac

[Clobhair-cean]

We have to give one thing to him though: despite being proven fundamentally wrong in a number of independent scientific fields and despite having no-one around who would support any of his outlandish claims, he is still going strong. The guy has tenacity.

[Arbitran]

Clobhair-cean, on 31 October 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

We have to give one thing to him though: despite being proven fundamentally wrong in a number of independent scientific fields and despite having no-one around who would support any of his outlandish claims, he is still going strong. The guy has tenacity.

He does at that. Of course, under the circumstances, tenacity on his part isn't exactly admirable...