horrible thought on evolution

[aquatus1]

No sure, I'm not mistaken about anything.

Surely you don't believe in your own inerrancy? That your knowledge set is complete and you have nothing else to learn about the world?

Just because you stick a definition beside the word "theory", then say look, it's a scientific theory, oppose to a regular theory, does not make it legitimate. Who's going to believe that made up word without support? We where not born last week friday.

You don't need to take our word for it. When it comes to definitions, looking up a word in a dictionary is something that takes a matter of seconds. When you have multiple people telling you the exact same thing, in this case, that you are using the wrong definition for a word, it bears considering that maybe everyone else is right, and you are wrong.

No one posted it, because, frankly it is a rather basic sort of thing and posting a dictionary definition is a bit...awkward (it might feel a bit insulting if one presumes to do something so basic for a person who is knowledgeable in the field). Being, however, that you obviously chose to not take the opportunity to check yourself, learn something new that everyone is telling you you got wrong, and so not expose yourself on a public forum defending something that is quite indefensible (and ignoring that a link was even provided which explains the terms "law" and "theory" as used by the scientific community...you don't think the word "law" in science is some sort of legal enforcement code, do you? That would be wrong as well), here is a dictionary definition of the word theory, as used in the scientific context:

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

the·o·ry

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b : an unproved assumption : conjecture

c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

As you can see, theory can mean more than one thing depending on the context (and in only one of the definitions, can theory be simplified down to a mere "guess"). We are given a specific definition for the word in a scientific context in definition 5. Your next question, then, should be "What makes something scientifically acceptable?"

Or, you know, you could just ignore all that, pretend you have nothing new to learn, and continue denying the existence of an entire scientific field.

Even your father, Charles Darwin said,without the presents of 'transitional links" being found in the fossil record, the "theory" of Evolution is doomed. Now you think abut that.

My father?

Are you under the impression that I am a biologist?

Larryp, you don't quite realize at what intellectual level you are arguing at. These things here, the definition of theory, the definition of evolution definitions in general, whether evolution is actually a "thing"...this isn't at the academic level. Not in college, not even in high school. Even in Junior High, you already expected to have an understanding of these basic things (particularly how to use a dictionary). No one is asking you to believe it, but you should, at least, understand what it is. Right now, it is clear that you do not understand what evolution is or what the various theories of evolution posit. You are not discussing evolution. You haven't gotten to the point where you can be considered to be even talking about the subject. This isn't biology and I am no biologists. This level of knowledge is basic, non-professional, common-conversation-level science.

Evolution is something so utterly basic that dozens of fields in science are based around its regular functioning. Now, you think about that:

• It isn't that biology researchers are hoping on faith that evolution works. They prepare their experiments knowing that it does, in the same way they prepare their equipment knowing the electrical power will work, and the way they type their reports in the computer knowing their words will be saved. The process of evolution isn't in question.
  
• Major corporations and research centers fund research in new medicines. All of these are based on evolution doing what it does. It is so predictable that the pharmaceutical market regulalry invests billions of dollars into allowing scientists to continue tinkering with genes in order to come up with the medications that are used every day all over the world.
  
• The only place-The Only Place-in the world(!) where people argue that evolution at this beginner level isn't real, is in the United States. In every other 1st world country, claiming that evolution isn't real is similar to claiming that clay won't dry into bricks, and therefore skyscrapers are impossible, or that imaginary numbers aren't real, therefore electrical engineers are defrauding the construction industry.
  

Now, earlier, I pointed out how you were doing what is referred to as "Quote Mining", which is when you take a quote out of context and use it to mean the exact polar opposite of what the writer actually meant. You were called on it and you showed that you had never bothered to look up the actual quote yourself. The quote was then provided for you, with the full paragraph for contextual reference, and we found that the writer did not, in any way, doubt the existence or process of evolution.

The process of Quote Mining is considered dishonest, considering that it takes a persons opinions, edits out anything it needs to, and then pretends the opinion is the exact opposite. But I know that you are not being dishonest. I know that all you are doing is repeating something someone else said without checking for yourself whether it was accurate or not, rather, just assuming it was correct because they told you so.

In other words, you were being gullible.

And, just now, in the above post, even though the process was explained to you, the quote was sourced to you, and it was shown to be wrong...you did the EXACT same thing again, with a different quote.

If doing it once is gullible, what is doing it twice? In a row?

[danielost]

We did. We've found them.

Really show the links to the links.

There are no half fish half frogs any where I am aware of.

[Arbenol]

Really show the links to the links.

There are no half fish half frogs any where I am aware of.

Is this what you think a transitional species would look like?

[Odin11]

Really show the links to the links.

There are no half fish half frogs any where I am aware of.

Here's a link showing 7 good ones: National Geographic

I don't even know why I'm posting this. You have been provided with links and evidence of transitional species countless times in the past, and yet you still ask the same questions as if you have not.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Odin11

[Odin11]

Now, earlier, I pointed out how you were doing what is referred to as "Quote Mining", which is when you take a quote out of context and use it to mean the exact polar opposite of what the writer actually meant. You were called on it and you showed that you had never bothered to look up the actual quote yourself. The quote was then provided for you, with the full paragraph for contextual reference, and we found that the writer did not, in any way, doubt the existence or process of evolution.

The process of Quote Mining is considered dishonest, considering that it takes a persons opinions, edits out anything it needs to, and then pretends the opinion is the exact opposite. But I know that you are not being dishonest. I know that all you are doing is repeating something someone else said without checking for yourself whether it was accurate or not, rather, just assuming it was correct because they told you so.

In other words, you were being gullible.

And, just now, in the above post, even though the process was explained to you, the quote was sourced to you, and it was shown to be wrong...you did the EXACT same thing again, with a different quote.

If doing it once is gullible, what is doing it twice? In a row?

He is most likely looking at a anti-evolution web site and is just going down the list of arguments without looking into them himself.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Odin11

[Odin11]

Even your father, Charles Darwin said,without the presents of

'transitional links" being found in the fossil record, the "theory" of Evolution is doomed. Now you think abut that.

Again, you don't even know the quote that you are trying to take out of context. It's: But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?

Again, it from It's from the Origin of Species: Chapter 9 on page 172. Lets see it in context:

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote."

Darwin is not talking about the nonexistence of transitional fossils, he is only saying that any fossil would be hard to find.

Darwins usual method is to first pose a problem and then respond to it. The omission of the rest of the paragraph could have only been deliberately intended to give a false impression of Darwin's own assessment of his work. The only possible "excuse" for using the quotes you have used, is that it was copied mindlessly from a secondary source without the minimal effort of checking the original. It is either a display of an absolute lack of scholarship or you just being dishonest.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Odin11

[Space Commander Travis]

No sure, I'm not mistaken about anything.

I don't think even the Pope claims that now.

[Emma_Acid]

Even your father, Charles Darwin said,without the presents of

'transitional links" being found in the fossil record, the "theory" of Evolution is doomed.

There are no half fish half frogs any where I am aware of.

I love posts like this. It proves just how utterly toothless creationism actually is, conceptually at least. There are no new ideas, and the ideas that they do have just demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about how science works, and what evolution actually is.

[Leonardo]

*Patiently waits for arguments concerning "irreducible complexity" to be rolled out in support of Creabaitionism*

[scowl]

He is most likely looking at a anti-evolution web site and is just going down the list of arguments without looking into them himself.

These polemical arguments are often someone misunderstanding what someone wrote about something they didn't understand.

[danielost]

Yes, you are.

Yes, it does.

Every scientist on the planet. Every human being who has even a most basic grasp of scientific principles and the Scientific Method. But since you wanted support for this view I link you to Exhibit A -

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

There's more in the link but this, particularly the highlighted area, shows how a scientific theory is not just unsupported guesswork, as you are implying it to be.

Flippancy won't get you very far, Larry. Especially when you haven't put forward any information of your own and routinely ignore 99% of points made to you.

My physical father was a great man, immigrated to Australia from Latvia in the late 40's/early 50's, and raised me and my brother in total love, unfortunately passing away in December last year. My spiritual father is God, the creator of heaven and earth who loved us so much that he gave his only son to death, so that whoever believes in him would have eternal life.

I don't have any fatherly emotions to Charles Darwin, so I can only assume this statement is an attempt to dismiss the view without considering it in detail.

Thinking, thinking, thinking. Now linking

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_forms

There are transitional fossils!

There are fish that live at that never set fin on land that ûse their fins for walking. Some catfish are able to walk on land without lung or limbs. The lung fish has both lungs and gills and ribs. They don't walk on land.

As for the half flatfish, all flatfish start life off with eyes on oppisite sides of their body and end with eyes on the same side. So all this fish shows is a baby becoming an adult.

Seals and sea lions.

The human ancester to modern human is easy to explain. For one thing it looked like us not like a chimp. The rest is micro-evolution not macro-evolution. The only reason to call this macro-evolution is to take god out of it.

The dawn horse to todays horse I can buy but that is micro-evolution not macro-evolution.

As I have said before it isn't a ,mammal until it produces milk for its young. Which means in a single generation said mammal has. To go from taking care of jts self at birth to taking care of its young at birth.

[scowl]

The human ancester to modern human is easy to explain. For one thing it looked like us not like a chimp.

You are correct! This is exactly what scientists have discovered! It supports evolution, the one you give the "macro" label since even Creationists can't deny all of the evidence any more.

[+Link of Hyrule]

The human ancester to modern human is easy to explain. For one thing it looked like us not like a chimp. The rest is micro-evolution not macro-evolution. The only reason to call this macro-evolution is to take god out of it.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a larger scale. And since I believe in God (similar to yours, even) and also in "macro"-evolution, I think you have your statement backwards - the only reason to deny the macro-evolution is to put God into it and then decree that God created the world in a certain creationist way. In other words, you put the cart before the horse by starting with the conclusion and then working backwards from there. A very unscientific approach, wouldn't you say? Edited November 6, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Arbenol]

My sentiments, exactly.

[+Liquid Gardens]

There are fish that live at that never set fin on land that ûse their fins for walking. Some catfish are able to walk on land without lung or limbs. The lung fish has both lungs and gills and ribs. They don't walk on land.

As for the half flatfish, all flatfish start life off with eyes on oppisite sides of their body and end with eyes on the same side. So all this fish shows is a baby becoming an adult.

Seals and sea lions.

I'm not sure what the point of all those factoids was but I'll just say the obvious: "I know it! Isn't evolution amazing?". It's so amazing, and logical, empirical and rational, that a lot of Christians are actually buttressed in their faith by the wonder of evolution, the study of science enriches their faith. God just poofing the ever-vague 'kinds' of life into existence, meh, neat but pretty boring for God. But God creating a reality where just based on (at a super-high level) a combination of the rules of natural selection and genetics, a process simple and understandable at a high level, ultimately produced all life on this planet, microbes to plants to animals. It makes my jaw drop, it's incredible, and for a Christian it seems like it could be that much deeper; did God program into it that humans themselves would emerge, or just an intelligent being, why the huge time spans, who knows, but I would think it would be interesting. Or, yea, abracadabra, poof, all kinds of life instantly exists, wow...

[AtlantisRises]

Macro and Micro evolution are just degrees of the same thing. There is no real difference between the two. Personally I think that trying to differentiate the two is poor science. Given the incredibly large amount of time and number of generations that these changes occur over it is naive to think that Micro-evolution won't eventually become Macro-evolution.

[Emma_Acid]

As for the half flatfish, all flatfish start life off with eyes on oppisite sides of their body and end with eyes on the same side

This kind of proves my point - creationists are completely stuck constantly repeating the same pointless, out-dated arguments.

Evolution doesn't talk about "half this, half that" animals. If that's what you expect from evolution, you're always going to be in the dark.