Did you really want me to respond to that? I guess you probably did. I will concede that the idea is still in question. Have you looked for any support for the theory, or just looking to disprove it?

YES, as this is one of the things you listed as "evidence" when you started this whole thread!!!

In other words:

Yes, I would like you to answer my question as to whether or not you still believe that there is scientific evidence for creation in regards to your contention that the speed of light is slowing down.

A contention that, I might add, I have just disproven USING YOUR OWN LINKS!!!

However, as you seem to NOT answer a lot of the questions posed to you, I will not be holding my breath.

Do you always carry around a big hammer? I was waiting for your response so I edited my other post. I don't know why you think I don't answer alot of questions, I don't answer them all, but I answer quite a few. I don't think you've disproven the idea with my own links. You pointed out some criticisms - which should be expected from such an important idea. The whole earth is round idea didn't go over so well as I recall. Any way, I offered you a concession. The issue does warrant some more looking into.

Yes, I have looked, and there is much discussion and many theories about the possibility of a variance in the speed of light, but, so far, all of these theories are just that - theories. None of them have been proven and none of them can definitely be shown to disprove Einstein's Principle of Invariant Light Speed.

Also, some of the theories have the speed of light changing so infinitesimally that, even if they were proven to be true, they would have no bearing on the scientific dating of objects.

And that, if I understand things correctly, is what the creationists are hoping for - that the speed of light has slowed to a point at which the scientific dating of objects could be thrown into question.

Yes you are correct about that. I don't think that Einstein's work will be discredited. If his theories are based on a constant velocity of c, it just means that the maximum contant could be higher than 186,000 miles per second. Maybe there will be some more research into the matter that will come to light soon. Regards.

Are you going to address my post with positive mutations, new genetic information and new metabolic pathways or are you going to keep acting like you have no idea what you are talking about?

I think at this point its pretty clear that not many people here actually want to discuss any of these topics in any depth. When you guys feel like addressing points, rather than just typing to type about nothing much, I'll be happy to come back to the conversation.

Simply posting more links about theories that you don't have the foggiest understanding of, or repeating blatantly incorrect science while claiming to have a "science background" or accusing others of "hiding" behind their world views so as not to have address points, is not a very effective way to communicate yourself. Some of you may want to stop and think what this argument means to you, are you here to simply argue or here to actively communicate and better understand others views.

Anyway,
Cheer!

Well it's pretty much common sense that we see more negative mutations than positive mutations. I just gave you two examples.

Sounds like you're relying too much on skeptic websites for your information. When dealing with mutations, you get into things like cancer, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, diabetes, tumors, etc... You see large quantities of these occurring in humans because of mutations. What positive characteristics are you seeing in humans due to mutations? What you're talking about simply isn't true. Mutations aren't known for increasing fitness in humans by any means. Also, these things obviously aren't getting "weeded out" as you suggest because we see many cases of each of them.

At the top of this thread there are forum guidelines, they have been put here for a reason.

QUOTE

Please always respect the beliefs of other members. The bashing of specific religions, countries, races or belief systems is strictly disallowed. A lot of the topics in this section cover some sensitive areas and it is important to respect other people's views. This means no flaming, no flamebaiting, no trolling and no personal attacks.

From our terms of service:

2j. Preaching: Do not promote or push religious beliefs on to others, we have visitors from all over the world of many different faiths and we ask that all beliefs be respected. Using the site to preach to, convert other members or to 'advertise' a belief system is disallowed, this board is about letting people decide for themselves what to believe.

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

This board is primarily aimed at discussing the very nature of spirituality and related topics, so skeptic vs believer style debates are to be expected. For general discussion of religious related topics please visit the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs board.

Several members on this thread are continuing to disregard what are very simple rules and forum etiquette. This will be the last warning on this thread, if members cannot be civilised from here on in, the thread will be closed and warnings issued to those involved.

Well, all of those fossils pre-date humans. I suppose I'll finish posting the more recent ones later.


It is not 'science fiction'. It is the best explanation of how we came to be.

OH good, you answered my questions! Now we can actually have a reasoned debate.


THAT IS NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION!

The question was:
'Why can small changes not build up to become large changes over time?
This seems logical. Obviously, Creationists believe it doesn't happen, so you must have a reason why.

Wait.... You realize that EVERY transitional form on that wikipedia page we have a fossil for today, right?
Can you explain EXACTLY which jumps are not possible? If you can't, then the fossil record completely agrees with Evolution, which is certainly un-expected.

You see, fossils are freak accidents. An organism must be near water, usually must have solid body parts, and must sink to the bottom, sedments must cover it, and then it must be preserved, and not destroyed by nature for millions of years. Fossils are a fat chance.

Yet, in our fossil record, we can see an almost perfect Evolutionary chain of animals! The only 'holes' can simply be filled in with small, micro Evolution changes which Creationists admit exist. I find it quite remarkable we have as many fossils as we do.
So, your 'answer' wasn't even valid, let alone pertaining to the question. Please answer it. Until you do, I must be forced to believe that you agree with Evolution.


One based on a sound fossil record(ALL of those are found fossils), and DNA evidence, right?

So. Questions:

1. WHY CAN SMALL CHANGES NOT ADD UP TO LARGE CHANGES OVER TIME?

2. Please explain the problems in the given fossil record and Evolutionary track of man.

Thanks,
SQLserver

Right, speciation IS evolution. Animal husbandry (selective breeding) is evolution. They are evolution because they require genetic change over a generation and it is clear that all of these show that and the two experiments I presented to you also show that.
EVOLUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE LARGE CHANGES.

I have to dispute your ability to follow anything if you don't realise that speciation IS evolution.

Walkingwith, Dude!

A minute ago you just proposed mutations for polydactylism occur in a limb where they are found! This is some kind of pseudo-intro to Darwin's mode of heritability hypothesis. Mutations for six fingers do not occur in one's hand. Thankfully, we have germ-plasm theory which describes how this works.

Now you don't want to provide any evidence for your claims as it is "pretty much common sense". I think a page out of your buddy Mr. Son's website works nicely here for you:





Link to IU

You can't use common sense to describe genetics, we see by your "knowledge" of genetics you just proved this point marvelously.

Next you go on to state that you provided readers with two examples of how mutations are harmful, The first one you provided was cancer. Now I would love to get into a discussion of what cancer is an evolutionary sense. We are a big colony of cells, cancer is evolutionary rebellion to group dynamics. I think we better come to some kind of understanding on basic genetics before we delve into group selection, selfish-genes and individual's in colonies behaviors.

Your next example you provide is CF. This is one I know as I have actually spent a lot of time working in this field, I studied the Burkholderia cepacia complex and how and why this organism was pathogenic in people carrying the alleles for CF. Anyway, CF is not normal a mutation that occurs during production of germ cells. It is a allele that is very common in our species and the allele was caused by a mutation in the CTR gene. This is not something happening over and over. Again you fail at understanding inheritance.

There is a very sound reason why the allele for CF remains present in our populations in such high numbers, being a carrier of the disease (a heterozygote if you will) grants one resistance to tuberculosis.

So not only have you provided two things which don't support your argument, you have provided two things which have a well understood evolutionary basis.



I don't think this is a matter of people relying on websites. You either understand genetics or you don't. You either can step up to the plate and talk about articles like the one I posted, or you can't. Its a matter of being educated on the matter of genetics, it appears you don't know what you are talking about and don't know it or you are purposely being misleading for whatever ends you seek. I like to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are indeed a man of science.

To that part there in boldface you do realize there are reasons why alleles which you deem "bad" are in our populations correct? Why they aren't being weeded out. Let's stick with your example of CF and take this from a new angle. Let's see if you can give an explanation that fits real world data why being a carrier of CF (when it provides resistance to tuberculosis) might not be "weeded out". Maybe you could play like an "evolutionist" and explain it from that point of view and then explain it from your pseudo-"mutations for six fingers arise in hands"-genetics hypothesis.

I think I answered this in an earlier post. An organism is stuck with the genetic complement it is born with. A single individual cannot change its form. But a population can. Evolution is not about individuals (They're expendable.); it's about populations. Genetic changes occur BETWEEN generations. Neither parent nor offspring can evolve, yet they are both different. It is the population of individuals that is evolving, NOT individual organisms.

Some examples of intermediate forms:
Wooley mammoth - IMPERIAL MAMMOTH - Columbian mammoth
Black Cottonwood - QUAKING ASPEN - Big-toothed aspen
Homo habilis - HOMO ERECTUS - Homo sapiens

In each case, changes occur BETWEEN generations. Individual organisms live out their lives without genetic change.

The idea that individual organisms can somehow turn into something else is a classic example of creationist misunderstanding of biology.
Doug

Copa, can you make your points without also dropping the thinly veiled insults, please.

First of all, I never said that there WERE things outside of science which created emotions, I said that given the FACT that science is limited, we cannot be certain there are no things outside of the purview of science which contribute to the generation of emotions. This is why science is not about absolutes and certainty, because we cannot know if there are situations, events, causes outside of its limits which contribute to what we can determine scientifically.(This in no way implies that science's limits are fixed. We may well discover or learn new methods which will help us expand what we can observe)

I have stated that I really could care less how emotions are caused, my concern all along had more to do with whether stating that we know what causes emotions is a scientifically valid statement or not, which is why I focused my question on the items in the lesson plan which caused me to question the validity of stating we know what causes emotions. And you and others continuing to post links and quotes about what we have determined scientifically have NO impact on this, since I am NOT questioning what we have been able to determine scientifically.

I will quote my post again, maybe this time you will address the actual question. AGAIN I am not saying there are things outside of science which impact emotions, I am stating that given the admitted fact that science is limited we cannot know IF there are things outside of the purview of science which impact those things we are able to observe. The very fact that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of Jehova, the Great Spaghetti Monster or the Pink Unicorn speaks to this limit and this uncertainty of whether things which exist outside of science can impact those things which can be observed.

I am no geneticist. But, I will add my two-cents worth.


Mutations can be neutral (neither helpful nor harmful), strictly harmful, strictly helpful, or (and this is important) whether they are harmful or helpful depends on the environment. Most mutations are either neutral or their effect depends on the environment. A mutation is a change in the genetic material that controls heredity. The genetic material is contained in chromosomes.

Plants/Animals: Have two copies of each chromosome. "Diploids"

Bacteria: Have one copy of each chromosome. "Haploids"


I will try and explain this the best way I can in simple terminology.

Polydactyly have a gene which controls whether or not they will have six fingers or not. Since Polydactyly are diploids,
they have two copies of the gene. If both copies of a given gene are the same allele then the Polydactyly is said to be homozygous for that gene. If the two copies are different alleles then the Polydactyly is said to be heterozygous for that gene. If both alleles are the same then the Polydactyly mutation will occur, depending on which allele it has. People sometimes say "which gene it has" but that is confusing because it mixes up genes and alleles. If a Polydactyly has two different alleles (i.e. if it is heterozygous) then the mutation depends on which allele is dominant.

Plants can be more than diploid actually Moro, many have polyploidy.

Iamson,

If you wish to live by the rule that you cannot know everything so everything is in question that is fine, extreme but fine. Let's use another example -By your argument, we cannot say for certain that there is something outside the purview of science that causes rainbows, like magical rainbow fairies. Also we can just as well not say that there is a pink flower teapot, unviewable by telescope floating in orbit around mars. Because we cannot say for certain that no such magical rainbow fairies exist or no such pink flora teapot exists, we assume a likelihood of it existing.

This is false and where you have missed what the tool of science is used for. Science as a tool, gives us a better understanding of the natural. Its use and understanding provide reason and logic. Better understanding the natural world means, we need not entertain any whim that happens through our heads. Which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Also in your scenario if we are too assume that there may be causes and effects that lay outside the bound the science, we can just as equally assume and expect that there is no cause and effect that lies outside the bounds of science.

If we look back through history, we find an interesting track record of postulates regarding the bounds or purview of science, that is to say things which fall into the world of the supernatural, constantly being over turned with natural explanations. History it turns out, is a great teacher in this regard. If you wish to carry on your belief that we will never know if something is caused/effected or created outside the boundaries of science, that is fine. Its your belief, do with it what you may. I base my belief on the history lessons taught to us, the use of science as a tool for understanding how the world works and the complete lack of evidence that suggests anything is eternally off limits to science. This is all good and well as a philosophical argument, but what does it mean in the real world?

Let's take again, the example of emotion. By your philosophical stance, we can never know for certain if emotions are part of or caused by something outside the scope of science. Great, sounds good. But what exactly is that telling us about the world? How does that help our understanding?

Your philosophical stance is much like the argument, goddoneit. How was the earth created? Goddoneit. How did mankind come about? Goddoneit. You may consider these answers to questions, but we are left with no better explanation than stating "I don't know". I for one adore knowledge and the study of the universe, until there is some kind of tangible evidence that something works based on supernatural laws, which cannot be describe or quantized in a scientific manner, I am inclined to follow what history tells us.

In case you missed it, history tells us to "stop debating philosophically and get back in the lab where, given time you are likely to find your answer!"
(Which as it turns out, I am about to do -Got to go load a matrix for this column!)

I suppose you are correct there Matt. As I said I am no geneticist.

Which is exactly what I was saying 2 or 3 pages back. Mutations are contextual to the population, environment and species in which they arise. There are no "good or bad" mutations, only those that arise in a context to decrease or increase an individuals fitness.



Try explaining this to Walkingwith. I think he is under the impression that cells near the "6th" finger have mutations that give rise to that new finger. I think we are about a step away from hearing how gemmules are sent from throughout the body to the reproductive system for the active passing of learned hereditary material. Somebody was playing hooky when their teacher covered Mendelian genetics methinks .

Let's try and put this to rest using information from the website you quoted.

First, a quote from the website you got your original lesson plan from:



As you maintain that "we know what causes emotions" is NOT a scientific statement, let's use it as an example. (To keep this post as short as possible, I will forego linking to studies of the types I will use as examples. These studies have been mentioned in other posts and are easily "google-able")

So, let's look at the CONPTT for what we know about neurochemistry and biology:

C - Consistency - different studies by different people have shown correlations between the presence of certain neurochemicals and certain observable emotional responses - it passes Consistency check

O - Observable - different studies by different people have shown observable changes in behavior tied to the presence of certain neurochemicals. Please note that the CONPT check allows for the "evidence of the occurrence of the event" IE - this person gets angry when we change this particluar chemical level in the brain - the "anger" is the "evidence" - it passes the Observable test

N - Natural - different studies by different groups have shown a correlation between levels of certain naturally occuring neurochemicals and certain evidentiary emotional responses - it passes the Natural check

P - Predictability - different studies have noted that increasing a certain chemical in the brain causes evidence of a particular emotional change, they make the prediction that lowering that same chemical will provide evidence of a different type of change in the same emotional response, they run that test, and it happens as predicted - it passes the Predictability test

T - Testability - different studies have done controlled tests showing that certain neurochemicals cause certain evidentiary emotional responses - it passes the Testability test

T - Tentative - if evidence of an unknown outside influence (your contention) - and note that all that is required by science is observable evidence of an outside influence and NOT the discovery of the outside influence itself - is shown to cause certain evidentiary emotional changes similar to those naturally occuring or in instances where the neurochemical in question is lacking or not in quantities sufficient to trigger the already established response, the theory or statement can be modified accordingly - it passes the Tentative test.


So, let's review - the statement that "we know what causes emotions" scores a "CONPTT" on the CONPTT criteria scale, which makes it a valid scientific statement.

I give up.

Yes, kiddies, you CAN be all-knowing and all-seeing. Science IS the absolute definer of reality. I'm sorry I wasted your time and mine trying to get you to open your minds just a little.

I will concede one point - the statement that is being used - "we know what causes emotions" - should really be stated as "we know which neurochemicals cause certain emotional responses"

And, just for the record, you did open my mind - I read most of the website you got your lesson plan from and learned about some misconceptions I myself had.

There is nothing all-knowing or all-seeing about it, nor is my mind closed. I understand your argument well -You are essentially playing a suped up version of what if, the game we were fond of playing with our parents. You explained how you arrived at this conclusion based on logic. I agree that your stance is real, but its not a logical conclusion.

You have no logical basis to make the claim, what if something outside the purview of science controls/creates emotion, what if something outside the purview of science creates rainbows, what if something outside the purview of science holds the sky up, or causes the planets not to fall out of their orbits, etc, etc, etc.

This is not a logical assumption about the universe, nothing in our history has been shown to be outside the purview of science, save our technological limitations of the time. Were people like Newton wrong, and planets did periodically have to be reset in their orbits, or were people like Snell wrong in their description of how rainbows occur then you would have a logical argument. Your argument as it stands though, is solely an abstract philosophical thought -an entertainment of a whim, which is fun to do on occasion. But, this is why we do science, so we need not disprove every whim that passes through our heads.

Ideas are great things, powerful things to say the least. While, every individual is entitled to their own ideas, this certainly in now way gives all ideas equal weight. Science, has taught us this; not all ideas are created equally -some ideas better fit the reality of the universe we observe, others fall into the category of whims.

Cheer up Mr. Son, there was no waste of time here, I think it was quite an intellectual exchange of ideas!

~Regards

I particularly love the 10 Commandments of Scientific Method!

10 - The Scientific Method Made Easy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14...feature=related

MK,

Sean

I'm glad you cleared up some misconceptions SO, and thanks for conceding a point, but you're still missing what I'm trying to point out.

Let me try using a language I am more comfortable with and see if it makes more sense.

Say you have a formula: 2x³ + 5y² +z = 296

And you decide that for your purposes z cannot equal 6. By doing that you have by default excluded some values of x and y. So, then to conclude that you know what x and y are is an artificial conclusion because you started out by excluding those values for x and y that can only result when z is 6.

So, if you say, science can't include any supernatural explanation (and I understand it needs to be so, in order for science to work at all, so let's forgo all the links and posts on how science works), you can't then say that you have found THE solution to anything solely by using science. You can only say that we have found the solution IN THE PARADIGM we have established, but to say that rules out all other solutions in different paradigms amounts to a faith that no other paradigm is possible because of your preference for the one you have established.

The constant argument I keep seeing to what I'm trying to point out is, "There is no reason to doubt that this is not true........that we know of" I am pointing out that the "... that we know of" is at least as important as "There is no reason to doubt this is not true." If you want to insist that what we know is all there is to know, you can certainly build a case for that, but doing so requires an acceptance that this is ALL we are going to know. By not conceding this point you're shifting your interpretation of the data from "investigation" to "faith."

I'm suggesting there is a possibility that there will be a future development that may potentially change the current interpretation of the data. THAT'S SCIENCE!


Copa, you seem to be playing up to a straw man version of my point over and over. I am not playing "what if" I'm pointing out that SCIENCE does not allow us to conclusively say we know something.

You point out that Science, has taught us this: not all ideas are created equally -some ideas better fit the reality of the universe we observe, others fall into the category of whims. "the reality of the universe WE OBSERVE" Our observations are based on OUR INTERPRETATIONS of what we observe. We build our theories based on OUR COMPREHENSION of what we observe but to use that as the marker of what the "reality" of the universe IS is an excercise in hubris because unless we consistently concede in our investigation that this observation is based on our limited "what a few thousand years or a few hundred years" of what we have discovered. To suggest that this narrow view actually amounts to anything more than a drop in the ocean of the potentials ESPECIALLY when we are referring backwards to eras in which we have made NO observation whatsoever but only interpretation of what we think happened is ridiculous when its presented as a fact.

Serving the purpose of THEORY is not the same thing as serving the purpose of REALITY.

There's no reason to suggest tea pots and rainbow fairies. That's a straw man. No one is saying that there are tea pots floating in space except for scientists. You can take that tea pot and make it a planet or a moon or some sort of unknown space energy that affects the way the planets rotate in a way that we can not comprehend YET; something we have not yet seen or understood. Finally coming to the awareness of such a thing would change the understanding we have built about things. We can only know what we can understand. That's it in a nutshell. We can only KNOW what we understand and therefore, if there are things that we don't understand they remain unknown to us. That doesn't make them non existent it simply makes US ignorant.


Many thanks to truethat for the immense help in clearing up my thoughts and wording them better than I could have (Hope it was a great birthday true)

Mattshark, if you truly believe that "Animal husbandry (selective breeding) is evolution" -- like, developing a sterile animal such as an ass that can not reproduce off-spring, is proof of evolution, I really and truly say that you do have great faith.

But, I am still waiting for proof that a crocodile evolved into a bird. Can you help here?
Karlis

PS: As I see it, if you are saying that in animal husbandry the animals "... require genetic change over a generation", you are mistaken. It only takes one mating to produce a cross-breed animal that is sterile -- not a generation.

Or, did I miss something that you were saying?
Karlis

Your not going to find any because this is a warped view of evolution. It would be better to say, reptiles evolving into birds.
You happened to choose a good example, because there are no gaps in this pathway.

Check out these journal articles
Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147.
Norell, M. A., and Clarke, J. A. (2001) "Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution." Nature 409: 181-184.
Carroll, R. L. (1997) Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, P.-j., Z.-m. Dong, et al. (1998) "An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian formation of China." Nature 391: 147-152.

This is hard scientific proof of the evolution from reptiles to birds, full of transitional fossils.

Is it proof, or is it just evidence that can be interpreted to support evolution?

It is proof

The hybridisation was in reference to you commenting on "like producing like". You are now confusing animal husbandry with hybridisation. You are just ignoring evidence. So you're not worth the effort.

Whats a reasonable discussion for you? Having people accept your flawed logic as fact?

Could you please post links to show that reptiles evolved into birds, Climber? Somehow, I doubt that they will be clearly convincing, since the ones that I have seen before are quite ludicrous and very far-fetched in their claims.

Regarding the titles of the publications that you give -- do you really expect me to search for them in some library???

Groaning under a load of research suggestions,
Karlis

Yes I do expect you to search for them

What do you honestly expect? No one is going to give you a good explanation except hard scientific sources and if you don't want to search for them, then no wonder you don't believe in evolution.

Subscribe to nature or science if you want to learn more, your not going to learn it any other way. Educate yourself, its what the rest of us had to do.

Do you mean that there is clear, indisputable proof that reptiles evolved into birds?
In that case, can you supply us with indisputable examples in fossil records?
No "ifs", or "perhaps" phrases to explain away any unknowns in this *faith-theory*, please.

Looking forward to your reply,
Karlis

Look at those articles. There is your proof.
Its your choice whether or not you'll go that far.

Theres a reason why evolution is the cornerstone of biology. You choose to ignore the fact that evolution has had implications in the fields of psychology, molecular biology, medication, agriculture, etc. Despite this when you ask for proof and give it to you, you choose not to look into it.

I'm not here to spoon feed you information. I'm here to help you learn.

Well Mattshark -- this reply of yours has left me in the dark ... I have no idea what you are talking about.

You wrote that animal husbandry is evolution.
I wrote that it makes no sense to me.

So -- exactly what evidence am I ignoring?
Karlis

You're being rather dodgy when all you need to do is show some of this proposed positive conditions stemming from positive mutations.

My point was that we see negative mutations lead to poor health/unfavorable conditions in the human body, so it's not reasonable to look at them as a source for human evolution. Here are some negative conditions caused by mutations in humans.

1. Cancers
2. Muscular dystrophy
3. Cystic fibrosis
4. Tumors
5. Some diabetes

Now please give a list of the positive conditions you're proposing are occurring from positive mutations in humans and how they could be more common then the forementioned conditions and then I'll consider the possibility of evolution through mutations.

OK Climber -- I just printed out the following titles that you gave in your last post:

Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147.
Norell, M. A., and Clarke, J. A. (2001) "Fossil that fills a critical gap in avian evolution." Nature 409: 181-184.
Carroll, R. L. (1997) Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, P.-j., Z.-m. Dong, et al. (1998) "An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian formation of China." Nature 391: 147-152.
-=-=-

I will try to get photo-copies of the pages listed there, and get back to you ... whenever that may be.

But, believe me Climber, I will be very, very VERY upset with you if I find that these pages contain lots of postulations and theories, tied together with a number of references to fossils that are simply conjectures of reptiles evolving into birds!

Be warned, Climber!
I hereby reserve the right to invoke the God of Cyberspace to materialise myself to you through your monitor screen, so that I may throw those pages at you, if I will have wasted my time and effort!

May your faith in the god of evolution support your unbelief in creation,

Karlis

Evolution is hardly the cornerstone of biology. It's just a belief system. Many belief in it as a theory and many don't. A year from now, evolution will be viewed differently than it is today as new information is brought forward.

My scree name is Cimber, and I am glad you are going to get these articles. You are showing a lot of initiative. Be warned however that these kind of journal articles are not what you used to reading. It uses highly scientific terms and if you need any help understanding what it says, be sure to ask me since I have to read these sort of things and write these on a day to day basis.

You bring up a good point Karlis. Animal husbandry may not be a good example of evolution. Since one of the aspects of a species is the ability to reproduce, and many hybrids. like the mule or the liger are sterile and cannot reproduce, they are not examples of speciation or evolution.

I think Mattie is highly upset that we've been able to demonstrate that the theory of evolution is a belief system. It is so widely held as fact by the scientific community that it's easy for them to put it up on a pedestal and consider it unapproachable. If nothing else, at least this thread has proved that the theory of evolution is falsifiable and there may direct evidence in the near future that will confirm this.

It is not a belief system Walkingwithfire; you have no idea what you are talking about. It is the conerstone of biology and without it, nothing makes sense and we wouldn't have to deal with drug resistance, for example.

You haven't proved a darn thing. Take it to one of your local professors of Biology at whatever college you're nearest to, if you wish. See what they say and have them laugh in your face in the process.

It most certainly is a belief system. It takes a lot of faith to belief that humans evolved from a puddle of molecules that gained in complexity over time.

Belief in the theory of evolution isn't needed for medications to be developed.

No because animal husbandry IS NOT THE SAME AS HYBRIDISATION!


IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU!

I agree. It's been clearly proven in this thread that evolution is a belief system. Components of evolution are also falsifiable as you say and there is already evidence that demonstrates much of this.

Ok, ok, ok, ok

Please reread the website you got the lesson plan from......I'll give you time.................

Now, reread my post, #721........I'll give you more time............

Now, let me quote YOU again:



Now, if you will look at my post #721, you will see that the very last item that must be fulfilled for something to be a "scientifically valid statement" is that it be Tentative - meaning that it is possible for it to BE DISPROVEN.

In other words, you are driving us all crazy arguing about something that is ALREADY INHERENTLY PART OF THE DEFINITION OF SCIENCE, but trying to make us think you are meaning something else by cloaking it in words like "belief" and "reality", and then arguing about what "belief" and "reality" mean.



I'm gonna try this again even though you already dismissed this out of hand when posed it the first time...

It is possible for something to be "scientifically sound" EVEN IF IT CAN BE DISPROVEN LATER. There is NO paradox here.

Many things that used to be considered "supernatural" have been shown (perhaps if I use "shown" instead of "proven", you will be happier) to have a natural cause by the application of scientific knowledge that is applied to the direct or indirect evidence of said "supernatural" event or belief.

Since you **** all about biology and your all determined to deliberately misinterpret evidence, have an inability to read or understand. What position are you in to make such statements. You have only posted information that has been discredited or use half the available information. So until your actually willing to actually learn something I see no point in continuing.