NationStates Jolt Archive

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

If you get two things which are similar, that in no way is proof that they evolved from each other or share a commen ancestor. There is absolutely no way you can test or show macro-evolution happening, the only thing they can show is how animals can adapt within their species to suit their environment. Even so, that prooves nothing about where we came from? It assumes and concludes that because a and b are c, D must of happened. There is no pure proof of this backing, it is just assumption.

Why do so many evolutionists pride themselves on criticizing ID on the basis that it is just an assumption, that there is no way that you can logically conclude one statement (animals were designed) based on another statement (animals are irreducibally complex) even though evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing.

/end of rant :sniper:

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

They don't.



[/End thread]

They don't.



[/End thread]

O rly? So you speak for them all do you? Doesn't that make them hypocritical when the flaws they point out in the ID argument are the same as the ones in the evolution argument anyway.

Another evolution thread? *groan*

O rly?


http://cornontherobb.wordpress.com/files/2006/05/yarly7hp.gif

[/End thread]

*leaves for the lobby*

http://cornontherobb.wordpress.com/files/2006/05/yarly7hp.gif

Care to answer the other part of that reply?

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

If you get two things which are similar, that in no way is proof that they evolved from each other or share a commen ancestor. There is absolutely no way you can test or show macro-evolution happening, the only thing they can show is how animals can adapt within their species to suit their environment. Even so, that prooves nothing about where we came from? It assumes and concludes that because a and b are c, D must of happened. There is no pure proof of this backing, it is just assumption.

Why do so many evolutionists pride themselves on criticizing ID on the basis that it is just an assumption, that there is no way that you can logically conclude one statement (animals were designed) based on another statement (animals are irreducibally complex) even though evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing.

/end of rant :sniper:

Not everyone says evolution has been proved,because it happens.Some people believe evolution has happened,but it's just a belief.Same as believing in a religion.No one can really prove anything,happened too long ago,but you can believe in something.

Not again. Please no. Please "God" no.....

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

If you get two things which are similar, that in no way is proof that they evolved from each other or share a commen ancestor. There is absolutely no way you can test or show macro-evolution happening, the only thing they can show is how animals can adapt within their species to suit their environment. Even so, that prooves nothing about where we came from? It assumes and concludes that because a and b are c, D must of happened. There is no pure proof of this backing, it is just assumption.

Why do so many evolutionists pride themselves on criticizing ID on the basis that it is just an assumption, that there is no way that you can logically conclude one statement (animals were designed) based on another statement (animals are irreducibally complex) even though evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing.

/end of rant :sniper:
It isn't *proven* per say, but it is the leading theory and has a ton of evidence from observational, fossil, DNA, carbon dating, etc.
It take an incredible find to make biologists to throw out this theory. For every one piece of evidence that might question evolution there are hundreds more that prove it. It wasn't to long ago(40 years) that plate tectonics was just a *theory* and a lot of people were skepical. Today we know it is absolutely true.

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

If you get two things which are similar, that in no way is proof that they evolved from each other or share a commen ancestor. There is absolutely no way you can test or show macro-evolution happening, the only thing they can show is how animals can adapt within their species to suit their environment. Even so, that prooves nothing about where we came from? It assumes and concludes that because a and b are c, D must of happened. There is no pure proof of this backing, it is just assumption.

Why do so many evolutionists pride themselves on criticizing ID on the basis that it is just an assumption, that there is no way that you can logically conclude one statement (animals were designed) based on another statement (animals are irreducibally complex) even though evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing.

/end of rant :sniper:

Troll, ignoramus, or twelve year old. Next.

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

If you get two things which are similar, that in no way is proof that they evolved from each other or share a commen ancestor. There is absolutely no way you can test or show macro-evolution happening, the only thing they can show is how animals can adapt within their species to suit their environment. Even so, that prooves nothing about where we came from? It assumes and concludes that because a and b are c, D must of happened. There is no pure proof of this backing, it is just assumption.

Why do so many evolutionists pride themselves on criticizing ID on the basis that it is just an assumption, that there is no way that you can logically conclude one statement (animals were designed) based on another statement (animals are irreducibally complex) even though evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing.

/end of rant

the theory of evolution is evolving.

when charles darwin wrote the origins of the species the mechanism of passing traits on to the next generation was completely unknown.

its only in the last decade or 2 that the study of genetics has progressed to the point where we can actually see the relationship between species. in darwin's time like was assumed to be related to like. now we know that that isnt necessarily so. the theory of evolution changes with each new discovery. the theory changes to fit the facts.

when it comes to intelligent design, they proposed a theory that evolution is being directed by a higher power. when their proof has been shown to be inadequate they dont change the theory. without a willingness to make the theory fit the facts, you dont have science. you have faith masquerading as science.

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

If you get two things which are similar, that in no way is proof that they evolved from each other or share a commen ancestor. There is absolutely no way you can test or show macro-evolution happening, the only thing they can show is how animals can adapt within their species to suit their environment. Even so, that prooves nothing about where we came from? It assumes and concludes that because a and b are c, D must of happened. There is no pure proof of this backing, it is just assumption.

Why do so many evolutionists pride themselves on criticizing ID on the basis that it is just an assumption, that there is no way that you can logically conclude one statement (animals were designed) based on another statement (animals are irreducibally complex) even though evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing.

/end of rant :sniper:

Take a biology class plx.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html)
Irreducible complexity? (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html)
Evidence for Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html)

O rly? So you speak for them all do you? Doesn't that make them hypocritical when the flaws they point out in the ID argument are the same as the ones in the evolution argument anyway.

Nobody with a basic knowledge of scientific research claims it's proven. It's a well-documented, non-disproven theory.

Take a biology class plx.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1160844860966.png

happened too long ago

That's not true. There are several examples where we can see it happening around us - for example, there are insects that have developed immunities to certain pesticides and there are bacteria that have developed resistance to antibiotics.

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

If you get two things which are similar, that in no way is proof that they evolved from each other or share a commen ancestor. There is absolutely no way you can test or show macro-evolution happening, the only thing they can show is how animals can adapt within their species to suit their environment. Even so, that prooves nothing about where we came from? It assumes and concludes that because a and b are c, D must of happened. There is no pure proof of this backing, it is just assumption.

Why do so many evolutionists pride themselves on criticizing ID on the basis that it is just an assumption, that there is no way that you can logically conclude one statement (animals were designed) based on another statement (animals are irreducibally complex) even though evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing.

/end of rant :sniper:
Nothing has ever been scientifically proven. Gravity? Not proven. Relativity? Not proven. In fact, the only possible way for something to be scientifically proven is for someone to go through every possible way a thing can happen and see that they all have a certain quality. Which has never happened.
However, since evolution has as much or more proof behind it as gravity or relativity, I'd say it's doing quite well.

EDIT:Read this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution)

You all seem to be admiting that you are hypocrits, as you admit that there is no actual proof for evolution. Yet for ID no proof means theory is DISPROVEN, where as evolution means it is TRUE but NOT PROVEN. Great work:rolleyes:

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/pepsi542.gifhttp://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/popcorn.gifhttp://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/scared.gif

You all seem to be admiting that you are hypocrits, as you admit that there is no actual proof for evolution. Yet for ID no proof means theory is DISPROVEN, where as evolution means it is TRUE but NOT PROVEN. Great work:rolleyes:

There is plenty of evidence for evolution, zero evidence for intelligent design. I suggest you read up on the philosophy of science because intelligent design is not scientifically viable, while evolution is, and has more evidence than ID could ever possibly muster.

In fact, in addition to the other load of links (that I'm sure you didn't even glance at), I'll post this tidbit for you to educate yourself: Philosophy of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science)

There is proof of evolution.
Fruit flies have even been artificially evolved over many generations in a laboratory.

Care to answer the other part of that reply?

*sigh*

So you speak for them all do you?
Define "them" if you mean the entire population of this little rock, then no, obviously.
If you mean the credible, established scientific community then yes.

Doesn't that make them hypocritical when the flaws they point out in the ID argument are the same as the ones in the evolution argument anyway.

The flaws the scientific community point out is that there is no credible evidence supporting ID, where there most certainly is evidence supporting evolution. They also point out that ID is basically re-worded creationism.

Most, if not all metaphysical questions cannot be proven or disproved.

You all seem to be admiting that you are hypocrits, as you admit that there is no actual proof for evolution. Yet for ID no proof means theory is DISPROVEN, where as evolution means it is TRUE but NOT PROVEN. Great work:rolleyes:

Nope. For ID, "not possible to disprove" mean "not scientific, but a mere belief". Evolution can be disproven and will in that case have to be adjusted to fit the evidence or abandoned altogether. So far, however, it is the one theory with the most evidence going for it. There is no evidence to disprove it yet, but there might be some day.

You all seem to be admiting that you are hypocrits, as you admit that there is no actual proof for evolution. Yet for ID no proof means theory is DISPROVEN, where as evolution means it is TRUE but NOT PROVEN. Great work:rolleyes:

There is a wealth of evidence, but science is not really a ballpark where one 'proves' things.

That's pretty much entry level - if you can't accept that, science has nothing for you.

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.
Oh jeez--not this bullshit again.

It's been demonstrated. Proven. It's a fact. Stop your whining.

ID is just literalist biblical cretinism in new clothing. It's religion--not science.

Now please educate yourself so that you do not get *ZOTTED*.

Fruit flies reproduce fast and have a high rate of genetic drift, making them ideal for practical investigation of evolution, and lab variants have been influenced by factors preventing or reducing reproduction success (such as an experiment producing fruit flies which will only lay on non-bitter jellies because all eggs lain on jellies were removed and not hatched within the microcosm, a laying pattern such as is seen in the order lepidoptera), some to the extent where genetic drift has made them entirely seperate species which cannnot interbreed.

Besides that, ID is scientifically flawed because it invokes the ineffable, whereas evolution provides a pure physical basis for the phenomenon.

Besides which, the original poster displays a flawed understanding of scientific proof. A hypothesis is said to be scientifically "proven" if it fits all availible evidence, does not involve unnecessary complication (Occam's Razor), and there has been unsuccessful attempt to prove its corresponding null hypotheses.

It's been demonstrated. Proven. It's a fact. Stop your whining.


Surprise surprise. Heres for "nobody claims that evolution is fact".

As for you BAAWAKnights, would you like to provide a source?

You all seem to be admiting that you are hypocrits, as you admit that there is no actual proof for evolution. Yet for ID no proof means theory is DISPROVEN, where as evolution means it is TRUE but NOT PROVEN. Great work:rolleyes:


There is no absolute PROOF for gravity either, we may all be tormented by invisible demons.

At this point in time I don't really have proof that you exist either actually.

There is, however, an immense and hugely important difference between "not disproven" and "not disprovable". Evolution is not disproven. ID is not disprovable. The not disproven has a firm place in science. The not disprovable does not.

That's not true. There are several examples where we can see it happening around us - for example, there are insects that have developed immunities to certain pesticides and there are bacteria that have developed resistance to antibiotics.

yes but that's macroevolution not microevolution which is what the topic is about. please please please before anyone else knocks religion please realize that both science and religion take a bit of faith.


when it comes to intelligent design, they proposed a theory that evolution is being directed by a higher power. when their proof has been shown to be inadequate they dont change the theory. without a willingness to make the theory fit the facts, you dont have science. you have faith masquerading as science.

ID is a new theory that has yet to be worked out. Give it some time before you completely dismiss it. Also evolution doesn't fit all of the facts either. If it did, it would be a law not a theory. And if evolution is the complete answer explain the Cambrian explosion. Both theories are a work in process which is why I don't dimiss either theory completely.

You all seem to be admiting that you are hypocrits, as you admit that there is no actual proof for evolution. Yet for ID no proof means theory is DISPROVEN, where as evolution means it is TRUE but NOT PROVEN. Great work:rolleyes:

No, the way science works is trying to DISPROVE theorys.
Actually, ID gets a worse position then just wrong, it's undisprovable.
That means that no matter what proof science offers for ID being wrong, it will not be proved wrong, because it can't be.
This means that ID is just not science at all, which means that it's supernatural, which almost certainly means it's wrong.

Surprise surprise. Heres for "nobody claims that evolution is fact".


I already addressed this, of course you won't return the favor.

Fruit flies reproduce fast and have a high rate of genetic drift, making them ideal for practical investigation of evolution, and lab variants have been influenced by factors preventing or reducing reproduction success (such as an experiment producing fruit flies which will only lay on non-bitter jellies because all eggs lain on jellies were removed and not hatched within the microcosm, a laying pattern such as is seen in the order lepidoptera), some to the extent where genetic drift has made them entirely seperate species which cannnot interbreed.

Besides that, ID is scientifically flawed because it invokes the ineffable, whereas evolution provides a pure physical basis for the phenomenon.

Besides which, the original poster displays a flawed understanding of scientific proof. A hypothesis is said to be scientifically "proven" if it fits all availible evidence, does not involve unnecessary complication (Occam's Razor), and there has been unsuccessful attempt to prove its corresponding null hypotheses.

First post....no gun smilies...reasonably intelligent argument...proper use of Occom's Razor.....

OK, you can stay.

You all seem to be admiting that you are hypocrits, as you admit that there is no actual proof for evolution. Yet for ID no proof means theory is DISPROVEN, where as evolution means it is TRUE but NOT PROVEN. Great work:rolleyes:
No one here admitted there is NO proof for evolution. We gave plenty of examples, but it wasnt' *absolutely* proven. In terms of other theories its like a notch below gravity.......yea...NOT PROVEN alright ...:rolleyes:

Surprise surprise. Heres for "nobody claims that evolution is fact".

As for you BAAWAKnights, would you like to provide a source?
Yes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Now then, would you like to educate yourself, or would you like to stay with a bronze-age myth?

ID is a new theory that has yet to be worked out. Give it some time before you completely dismiss it. Also evolution doesn't fit all of the facts either. If it did, it would be a law not a theory. And if evolution is the complete answer explain the Cambrian explosion. Both theories are a work in process which is why I don't dimiss either theory completely.

Laws are no longer used in science anymore. A theory is as far as any scientific concept goes, because there is always the possibility that new evidence will emerge that may change or discard it entirely. That doesn't mean it's any less valid, just that the door is opened to new evidence.

An idea that invokes some completely unobservable and untestable explanation for natural processes and which cannot be falsified is pseudoscience and has no place in the classroom. ID is not science, and it will never be science.

Yes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Now then, would you like to educate yourself, or would you like to stay with a bronze-age myth?

And, if I agree with BK on something, there really might be something about it worth listening to... ;)

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

If you get two things which are similar, that in no way is proof that they evolved from each other or share a commen ancestor. There is absolutely no way you can test or show macro-evolution happening, the only thing they can show is how animals can adapt within their species to suit their environment. Even so, that prooves nothing about where we came from? It assumes and concludes that because a and b are c, D must of happened. There is no pure proof of this backing, it is just assumption.

Why do so many evolutionists pride themselves on criticizing ID on the basis that it is just an assumption, that there is no way that you can logically conclude one statement (animals were designed) based on another statement (animals are irreducibally complex) even though evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing.

ID's failure is that it is completely untestable. It can never be tested or prooved because it depends on an unreachable agent. It is therefore bad science. That is the problem with ID.

Evolution has shit tons of proof behind it, starting with the fact that we've OBSERVED micro-evolution countless times in laboratories, and the fact that we've OBSERVED macro-evolution in fruit-flies. Other important details are that, given what we know, micro-evolution has to occur, and that, given what we know, the earth has been around long enough for Macro-evolution to occur.

Sorry, but that isn't "Look, gorillas and chimps look similar" it's, "Look, we can show the mechanism by which both went from one common ancestor and became two seperate species."

yes but that's macroevolution not microevolution which is what the topic is about. please please please before anyone else knocks religion please realize that both science and religion take a bit of faith.

There is no difference between macroevolution and microevolution. Macroevolution IS microevolution. Accumulated evolutionary changes over a long period of time can eventually result in speciation. *sigh*

Yes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Now then, would you like to educate yourself, or would you like to stay with a bronze-age myth?

Thats not proof at all in the sense that would satisfy the critiques of ID.

Fruit flies reproduce fast and have a high rate of genetic drift, making them ideal for practical investigation of evolution, and lab variants have been influenced by factors preventing or reducing reproduction success (such as an experiment producing fruit flies which will only lay on non-bitter jellies because all eggs lain on jellies were removed and not hatched within the microcosm, a laying pattern such as is seen in the order lepidoptera), some to the extent where genetic drift has made them entirely seperate species which cannnot interbreed.

Besides that, ID is scientifically flawed because it invokes the ineffable, whereas evolution provides a pure physical basis for the phenomenon.

Besides which, the original poster displays a flawed understanding of scientific proof. A hypothesis is said to be scientifically "proven" if it fits all availible evidence, does not involve unnecessary complication (Occam's Razor), and there has been unsuccessful attempt to prove its corresponding null hypotheses.

Really? that's interesting. Where did you hear about this fruit fly experiment?
As a response to the last part, evolution does not meet this criteria yet otherwise it would be a law not a theory.

Laws are no longer used in science anymore. A theory is as far as any scientific concept goes, because there is always the possibility that new evidence will emerge that may change or discard it entirely. That doesn't mean it's any less valid, just that the door is opened to new evidence.

An idea that invokes some completely unobservable and untestable explanation for natural processes and which cannot be falsified is pseudoscience and has no place in the classroom. ID is not science, and it will never be science.

really? than why is it called Newton's Laws not Newton's Theory or Kepler's Laws not Kepler's Theory? Laws are still used even though there hasn't been one made in decades.

New Genoa there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Why else would there be two terms? Microevolution envolves the creation of a new species which has not been proven. Macroevolution involves the adaptation of a species but the things in the species are still in the same species if that makes any sense. Also look at your own wording.

Accumulated evolutionary changes over a long period of time can eventually result in speciation.

This means that macroevolution may lead to microevolution but does not necessarily.

Really? that's interesting. Where did you hear about this fruit fly experiment?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

Lot's.

As a response to the last part, evolution does not meet this criteria yet otherwise it would be a law not a theory.


There is no such thing as a scientific law. The term "Law" is a colloquialism that is, in fact, deceptive. The most accepted level a scientific postulation can reach is the level of theory.

The "Law" of Gravity? It is, actually, the theory of Universal Gravitation. So on so forth..

Really? that's interesting. Where did you hear about this fruit fly experiment?
As a response to the last part, evolution does not meet this criteria yet otherwise it would be a law not a theory.

:headbang:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

New Genoa there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Why else would there be two terms? Microevolution envolves the creation of a new species which has not been proven. Macroevolution involves the adaptation of a species but the things in the species are still in the same species if that makes any sense. Also look at your own wording.

Because creationists want to make it seem that evolution doesn't occur? My own wording says that these changes may result in speciation, but they will not always result in speciation for a particular population. There are other factors to consider, such as gene flow, environmental changes, mass extinction...etc.

"In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations. This is determined by variation in the units of heredity ("shifts in the allele frequency of genes") and the reproductive success of any variation. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record." -- Evolution from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

really? than why is it called Newton's Laws not Newton's Theory or Kepler's Laws not Kepler's Theory? Laws are still used even though there hasn't been one made in decades.

Surprise, surprise, Einstein's Theories of General Relativity and Special Relativity have replaced Newton's laws.

Surprise surprise. Heres for "nobody claims that evolution is fact".

As for you BAAWAKnights, would you like to provide a source?

isnt it time that YOU made some sort of argument or put up some kind of proof that ID is scientifically valid?

or at least show you have some understanding of why evolution is accepted as true even though its called a theory?

isnt it time that YOU made some sort of argument or put up some kind of proof that ID is scientifically valid?

or at least show you have some understanding of why evolution is accepted as true even though its called a theory?

You see, that would require that he knew anything on the subject that wasn't force-fed to him by cretins like Dr. Dino and the Discovery Institute.

Edit: Dear Lord, I'm posting like a newb! Help!

yes but that's macroevolution not microevolution which is what the topic is about. please please please before anyone else knocks religion please realize that both science and religion take a bit of faith.
Wrong.


ID is a new theory
It's not a theory.


that has yet to be worked out. Give it some time before you completely dismiss it. Also evolution doesn't fit all of the facts either. If it did, it would be a law not a theory.
False. You have no idea what a theory in science is.


And if evolution is the complete answer explain the Cambrian explosion.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

really? than why is it called Newton's Laws not Newton's Theory or Kepler's Laws not Kepler's Theory? Laws are still used even though there hasn't been one made in decades.

They're called laws, but that doesn't mean they are absolutely true. It's an old naming convention that is no longer used because it is incorrect to do so. And those "Laws" aren't even laws anyways; both of them have seen new discoveries modify or outright contradict them on certain scales.

really? than why is it called Newton's Laws not Newton's Theory or Kepler's Laws not Kepler's Theory? Laws are still used even though there hasn't been one made in decades.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

"If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact. "

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

proven is a messy word to use. i can say that i have personally observed a change of allele frequencies in a population over time. and thus evolution is an observable and observed fact. as for the explanatory framework for the fact of evolution (otherwise known as the theory of evolution), well, that's not the sort of thing that our epistemic position in the world allows proof of.

proven is a messy word to use. i can say that i have personally observed a change of allele frequencies in a population over time. and thus evolution is an observable and observed fact. as for the explanatory framework for the fact of evolution (otherwise known as the theory of evolution), well, that's not the sort of thing that our epistemic position in the world allows proof of.

Further making your point: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

I love talkorigins now...

Further making your point: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

I love talkorigins now...

If only creationists would read the articles posted.

They're called laws, but that doesn't mean they are absolutely true. It's an old naming convention that is no longer used because it is incorrect to do so. And those "Laws" aren't even laws anyways; both of them have seen new discoveries modify or outright contradict them on certain scales.

do we actually have any 'laws' left that haven't been shown to be wrong or inexact approximations? i can't think of any off the top of my head.

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

If you get two things which are similar, that in no way is proof that they evolved from each other or share a commen ancestor. There is absolutely no way you can test or show macro-evolution happening, the only thing they can show is how animals can adapt within their species to suit their environment. Even so, that prooves nothing about where we came from? It assumes and concludes that because a and b are c, D must of happened. There is no pure proof of this backing, it is just assumption.

Why do so many evolutionists pride themselves on criticizing ID on the basis that it is just an assumption, that there is no way that you can logically conclude one statement (animals were designed) based on another statement (animals are irreducibally complex) even though evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing.

/end of rant :sniper:
In the German magazine Konr@d, there was described how the concepts behind natural evolution were successfully used in chip-design. There are also so called genetic algorithms, which use evolutionary methods. Does that count as proof that the concept works?

:headbang:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm


Sorry that's not how i was taught but then again i really shouldn't be relying on my physics teacher. He's kinda hard to understand sometimes...



Because creationists want to make it seem that evolution doesn't occur? My own wording says that these changes may result in speciation, but they will not always result in speciation for a particular population. There are other factors to consider, such as gene flow, environmental changes, mass extinction...etc.

"In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations. This is determined by variation in the units of heredity ("shifts in the allele frequency of genes") and the reproductive success of any variation. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus responsible for the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record." -- Evolution from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

yes there are other factors. it's just best to think about all possible factors instead of excluding some because they are deemed to be unknowable. I'm not purely creationist and i'm not purely evolutionist. I see merit to both arguements and acknowledge the fact that neither side is perfect.


Surprise, surprise, Einstein's Theories of General Relativity and Special Relativity have replaced Newton's laws.
Relativity has not replaced Newton's laws but enhanced our understanding of motion.

Is this really an issue? I havent met a single person yet that has questioned the evolution, its considered to be as true as 1+1=2.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1161445934174.t.jpg

If only creationists would read the articles posted.

if only creationists were capable of comprehension should they ever accidentally read one of them in the first place.

I don't think evolution is viable. Of course, the creation(or start, if you prefer) of the universe, life are outside the realms of science. I find Intell design does have evidence to prove it. Evolution just doesn't pass the test I'd like it to.

Why do miscreant trolls insist upon polluting our forum over and over again with the same know-nothing rehash of graffiti and garbage?

I don't think evolution is viable. Of course, the creation(or start, if you prefer) of the universe, life are outside the realms of science. I find Intell design does have evidence to prove it. Evolution just doesn't pass the test I'd like it to.

There's medication for this. :)

Evolution is just as much a psuedoscience as ID and Creationism, which has much more evidence to their names.

Why do miscreant trolls insist upon polluting our forum over and over again with the same know-nothing rehash of graffiti and garbage?

Because that's how trolling works. :p

I've done enough of it in my day to know that nothing gets people going than using the same tired arguments over and over again...it's copypasta for regular forums.

if only creationists were capable of comprehension should they ever accidentally read one of them in the first place.

This is poor arguement. You should attack the issue, not the people.

Further making your point: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

I love talkorigins now...
Good article... I do believe that evolution does happen i'm just unsure on the how and why it happens part.

Vetalia~ the old naming system still works because of the link someone posted earlier (sorry i forgot who). A law explains a specific set of actions often through the use of a mathmatical equation. A theory is a compilation of proven hypothesis to explain a series of observations. Theories encompass more than laws. I've said that i've been corrected on the point i made earlier about evolution being just a theory.

There's medication for this. :)

I hope that was a joke.

There's medication for this. :)

though the d.i.y. hammer-to-head method is cheaper

if only creationists were capable of comprehension should they ever accidentally read one of them in the first place.

This is very poor. Attack the issue, not the people.

Evolution is just as much a psuedoscience as ID and Creationism, which has much more evidence to their names.

Does reality look pretty from where you are?

GOD!!! (much offense to atheists) you evolutionists are STUPID :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

what, no gun smileys?

Very poor, attack the issue, not the people.

Is this really an issue? I havent met a single person yet that has questioned the evolution, its considered to be as true as 1+1=2.

Sadly, in America, this isn't generally the case. It's more around 50-50 (people who accept evolution as fact versus those who don't).

Is it really up to biology and evolution to proove how the universe was created or is it a question physicians should answer? Evolution only explain how species adapt to new environments and how they mutate to survive and so on.

GOD!!! (much offense to atheists) you evolutionists are STUPID :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


Computer-cat has a request for you:

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1160262190890.jpg

Sadly, in America, this isn't generally the case. It's more around 50-50 (people who accept evolution as fact versus those who don't).

Sadly?! Are you kidding me?! We should always question "Fact", Wasn't the earth flat once? Man, I am glad someone disagreed.

Very poor, attack the issue, not the people.

there is no issue. the debate is over. you lost. over 100 years ago.

anyone who thinks the issue is still live is either ignorant, delusional, stupid, or selling something. ...and there have been enough things posted in this thread alone to rule out innocent ignorance.

Is it really up to biology and evolution to proove how the universe was created or is it a question physicians should answer? Evolution only explain how species adapt to new environments and how they mutate to survive and so on.

Again...there is much ignorance amongst people about science. It wouldn't be much of an issue if people weren't trying to change the law to incorporate Intelligent Design, but that's unfortunately the case.

there is no issue. the debate is over. you lost. over 100 years ago.

anyone who thinks the issue is still live is either ignorant, delusional, stupid, or selling something. there have been enough things posted in this thread alone to rule out innocent ignorance.

Can you only insult me? The issue-which is still very much alive is at the center of this debate.

Sadly?! Are you kidding me?! We should always question "Fact", Wasn't the earth flat once? Man, I am glad someone disagreed.

Questioning evolution because it conflicts with your philosophical standpoint (religion) is not a good reason to question it. Present a valid scientific case against evolution, account for the all the instances in which real world events corresponded with the current theory (again, this must be scientifically feasible), and then you can discount evolution. Until then, we'll continue to conduct research, perform experiments, and modify the theory as new evidence arises.

Sadly?! Are you kidding me?! We should always question "Fact", Wasn't the earth flat once? Man, I am glad someone disagreed.
Erm, no. Was it ever believed to be flat? Possibly. By a minority of people. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round, and they almost certainly weren't the first to come to this conclusion.

Free soviets, do you always call people who don't agree with you dillusional?
And yes, there is an issue. I don't believe Evolution because of its lack of evidence. So, convince me.

Sadly?! Are you kidding me?! We should always question "Fact", Wasn't the earth flat once? Man, I am glad someone disagreed.

of course, the flat earthers were the equivalent of the anti-science types. those with even moderate levels of education have known the earth to be roundish for several thousand years.

Erm, no. Was it ever believed to be flat? Possibly. By a minority of people. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round, and they almost certainly weren't the first to come to this conclusion.

the biblical framework holds the earth to be flat, like most of the religions of the region that it evolved out of.

Lol, this is making me laugh, now I am being called anti-science among others because I don't believe their theory. I must admit, I have a bias against evoultion, but do you also have a bias? The answer is yes. You don't want to believe creationism for whatever reason.

Sadly?! Are you kidding me?! We should always question "Fact", Wasn't the earth flat once? Man, I am glad someone disagreed.

Well, fortunately we have better techniques today too proove things before we call them a fact so before we say "the sun is hot" or "saturn has rings" we can actually be sure that it is correct.

Lol, this is making me laugh, now I am being called anti-science among others because I don't believe their theory. I must admit, I have a bias against evoultion, but do you also have a bias? The answer is yes. You don't want to believe creationism for whatever reason.

Because it's not scientifically viable?

Sadly?! Are you kidding me?! We should always question "Fact", Wasn't the earth flat once? Man, I am glad someone disagreed.

I don't believe evolution is a "fact". I believe it is the best explanation we have for the evidence we have discovered, and that it is the only scientific explanation that works with the data we have.

I also know that it's entirely possible that we may ultimately find a new theory that is totally different or that the theory will change to accommodate new data. In fact, I hope scientists work to find problems with evolution, because that will make our explanations stronger and enhance our knowledge...using our powers of observation to explain things is the backbone of science.

Lol, this is making me laugh, now I am being called anti-science among others because I don't believe their theory. I must admit, I have a bias against evoultion, but do you also have a bias? The answer is yes. You don't want to believe creationism for whatever reason.
Yep. My reason is that evolution seems more likely and has better evidence to back it up.

Free soviets, do you always call people who don't agree with you dillusional?
And yes, there is an issue. I don't believe Evolution because of its lack of evidence. So, convince me.

Ok. Why don't you show us how it's wrong?

Lol, this is making me laugh, now I am being called anti-science among others because I don't believe their theory. I must admit, I have a bias against evoultion, but do you also have a bias? The answer is yes. You don't want to believe creationism for whatever reason.

I am a creationist.

I believe it is highly likely, in fact most likely, that this universe and its physical properties were created by God and left to develop with the intent of producing intelligent life capable of having a soul and consciousness that could understand God.

do you also have a bias? The answer is yes. You don't want to believe creationism for whatever reason.

yes, it's true. you've caught me. i have a pro-reality bias.

*settles in with a big batch of cookies (sorry, I don't like popcorn)*

Anyone want some?

Because it's not scientifically viable?

No, because many people are breaking logic rules. Yours, and many others are illogical.

*settles in with a big batch of cookies (sorry, I don't like popcorn)*

Anyone want some?
Choclolate chip?

No, because many people are breaking logic rules. Yours, and many others are illogical.

Ok again back that statement up. What "logic" rules are being broken?

yes, it's true. you've caught me. i have a pro-reality bias.

*Shakes head

I am a creationist.

I believe it is highly likely, in fact most likely, that this universe and its physical properties were created by God and left to develop with the intent of producing intelligent life capable of having a soul and consciousness that could understand God.

The clockmaker idea?

Are those damn Intelligent Design Proponetists still arguing that their nonsense is science?

For random-fluctuations-in-the-time/space-continuum sake why!?

The clockmaker idea?

Pretty much. I do believe that God is capable of intervening in the universe, but only when it suits whatever goals it has set for its development; God can be personal, transpersonal, or simply allow things to develop on their own.

Free soviets, do you always call people who don't agree with you dillusional?
...
I don't believe Evolution because of its lack of evidence.

only when it's one of the only possible explanations for their behavior. your second quoted sentence is not just false, but ridiculous. the only possible explanations for writing it are:

1) you are unaware of the evidence - but since there have been multiple links on this very thread to huge collections of evidence this is not a feasible option
2) you are incapable of understanding that the evidence is evidence for some reason
or
3) you know it to be wrong and wrote it anyways for some other reason

I am a creationist.

I believe it is highly likely, in fact most likely, that this universe and its physical properties were created by God and left to develop with the intent of producing intelligent life capable of having a soul and consciousness that could understand God.

Really?

I'd give it a fifty-fifty chance..

What about you?

Actually humans are proof of evolution, we act and look alot alike the only difference is we're more intelligent and MOST of us lack all the extra hair.

there is no issue. the debate is over. you lost. over 100 years ago.

anyone who thinks the issue is still live is either ignorant, delusional, stupid, or selling something. ...and there have been enough things posted in this thread alone to rule out innocent ignorance.

What he is saying is I am ignorant because I believe what he doesnt. This is illogical.

Trilby63;12065429']Really?

I'd give it a fifty-fifty chance..

What about you?

I'd give it a 66% chance.

Our DNA is lika 98 or 99% the same as a monkeys. Its even 50% the same as a bananas. This should at least tell you that there is a connection between all living species.

Choclolate chip?
Yep. *passes cookies to Greater Jordania*

I'd give it a 66% chance.

Fair enough..

I'm a fence sitter.

I sit on fences.

Free soviets, do you always call people who don't agree with you dillusional?
And yes, there is an issue. I don't believe Evolution because of its lack of evidence. So, convince me.

Which lack of evidence? What do you need to know? In this thread alone we've posted a shitload of links. Did you ignore them? Of course you did.

But in case you missed it:

Introduction to Evolution (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)
Evidence of Evolution (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution)
29+ Evidences (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
Supporting Article to 29+ Evidences (Refutes creationist rebuttal) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html)
Evidence for Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html)

Refuting creationists claims:

Irreducible complexity:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html

Violates second law of thermodynamics:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

Not probable (not part of evolutionary theory, but abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Explain the Cambrian explosion:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

No transitional fossils/rarity of fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils#Rarity_of_fossils

Speciation has never happened:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

In conclusion there is:

genetic evidence
geological evidence
morphological evidence
fossil evidence
observed evidence [of speciation occurring]

that evolution has occurred.

What he is saying is I am ignorant because I believe what he doesnt. This is illogical.

there's things that imply ignorance in their disbelief. It is not illogical to call one ignorant if he believes the sky to be purple. It is not illogical to call one ignorant if he believes that a cat is a dog. It is not illogical to call one ignorant if he believes that New York is in Zimbabwe not America. It is not illogical to point out the ignorance in one if that ignorance manifests itself through a direct refusal to admit to reality.

You don't get to take the high ground when someone calls you ignorant for refusing to see the nose in front of your face. You don't get to play the poor persecuted intellectual who is mocked and lambasted because you refuse to buy into the ideas of "the man" when he falsly proclaims 2+2=4

What he is saying is I am ignorant because I believe what he doesnt. This is illogical.

actually i said you couldn't be innocently ignorant. but even if i had called you ignorant, there is nothing illogical about saying so about someone who believes factually untrue statements. it's what the word means.

How did humans' self-awareness evolve? No other living creature has that? Also, wouldn't evolution make racism justifiable? We could easily say that the Aborigines of Australia were a less evolved life form than the invading British, therefore they could be treated just like any other animal. Hitler thought the same way.

Evolution has been observed both directly and indirectly. That's good enough for me.

The creationist argument always relies on precieved holes in the Theory of Evolution. Of course as no doubt has been pointed out repeatedly, most of these supposed holes aren't holes at all.

BUT-even if there are things that evolution misses, even if there are things that evolution or 'related' theories (theories that are only related by creationists, but that's another story...) can't explain (yet), here's the thing-

Since the development of science there has been a lot of things that couldn't be explained, and even some theories that turned out to be wrong, but not once, not once, has the answer eventually turned out to be 'magic.' So, unless for some reason you think magic is 'due' in the same way that guy at the casino bets the last of his money on 9 at roulette, 'magic' is not the default position if the current theory is wrong. Cause, like our gambler friend, you're gonna go home empty handed. (because in reality, it'd be like him betting on the ball landing on no number at all)

How did humans' self-awareness evolve? No other living creature has that? Also, wouldn't evolution make racism justifiable? We could easily say that the Aborigines of Australia were a less evolved life form than the invading British, therefore they could be treated just like any other animal. Hitler thought the same way.

They just discovered that elephants were self-aware. Did you miss that?

And er... Godwin!!!!

Ya! What do I win?

How did humans' self-awareness evolve?

Because of a genetic mutation which was favored by the enviornment, duh.

No other living creature has that?

Well it's certainly debatable that animals are not self aware, though they lack higher awareness, but I'm going to assume your statement to be true and say a resounding "so the fuck what?"

Also, wouldn't evolution make racism justifiable? We could easily say that the Aborigines of Australia were a less evolved life form than the invading British, therefore they could be treated just like any other animal.

We can easily say it, it doesn't mean we can easily prove it. More over you miss the fundamental tenant of evolution. There's no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved". Enviornmental pressures sometimes result in mutations being favored which causes adaptiation. There's no measuring stick of "less to more", you can't say a human is "more evolved" than a bear, or even a bacteria. At best "differently evovled"

Hitler thought the same way.

Godwinning a thread doesn't disprove the theory.

How did humans' self-awareness evolve? No other living creature has that?

except, you know, chimps and orangutans and elephants and dolphins and such.

and it looks like a byproduct of complex brains evolved for dealing with high levels of complex social and environmental information.

Also, wouldn't evolution make racism justifiable?

no

Trilby63;12065444']Fair enough..

I'm a fence sitter.

I sit on fences.

So am I, but I'm leaning a little.

Yep. *passes cookies to Greater Jordania*
*Takes one as he walks out.

Thank you very much. They are very rich.

And as to the fellow that posted the lots of links,

I have read over wikipedia's article on evolution, and again don't believe it to be true.

As Arthais(Sp?), is evolution like that(Sky metaphor)? I think it is as clear as mud. So, I'm sure it is illogical.

Now, I have pressing business elsewhere.

So am I, but I'm leaning a little.

Oh okay.. make sure you don't fall. They are some idiots on both sides of the fence.

*Takes one as he walks out.

Thank you very much. They are very rich.

And as to the fellow that posted the lots of links,

I have read over wikipedia's article on evolution, and again don't believe it to be true.

As Arthais(Sp?), is evolution like that(Sky metaphor)? I think it is as clear as mud. So, I'm sure it is illogical.

Now, I have pressing business elsewhere.

Why don't you believe it? Why didn't you read the other links (or do you at least plan on doing so when you have more time)? What do you require for evidence? Can you refute any of it?

I have read over wikipedia's article on evolution, and again don't believe it to be true...

"for reasons i will leave mysterious, as if i actually wrote them out their sheer lunacy would be apparent to all"

*Takes one as he walks out.

Thank you very much. They are very rich.

And as to the fellow that posted the lots of links,

I have read over wikipedia's article on evolution, and again don't believe it to be true.

As Arthais(Sp?), is evolution like that(Sky metaphor)? I think it is as clear as mud. So, I'm sure it is illogical.

Now, I have pressing business elsewhere.

In other words. You have absolutely nothing that can proove evolution to be wrong or your "theory" right so youre going to leave this disscussion knowing you got owned.

"for reasons i will leave mysterious, as if i actually wrote them out, their sheer lunacy would be apparent to all"

The answer is obvious: because it conflicts with my grounded belief in creationism; I cannot believe evolutionary theory to be accurate, even though evolution does not negate the existence of a Creator.

On a side note: has anyone considered trying to put together an evolution super-thread where we can refute all [common] creationists arguments before they can post them? I wonder how many would be re-posted in such a thread.

Because of a genetic mutation which was favored by the enviornment, duh.



Well it's certainly debatable that animals are not self aware, though they lack higher awareness, but I'm going to assume your statement to be true and say a resounding "so the fuck what?"



We can easily say it, it doesn't mean we can easily prove it. More over you miss the fundamental tenant of evolution. There's no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved". Enviornmental pressures sometimes result in mutations being favored which causes adaptiation. There's no measuring stick of "less to more", you can't say a human is "more evolved" than a bear, or even a bacteria. At best "differently evovled"



Godwinning a thread doesn't disprove the theory.

The basis of evolution is that a species will change its genetic traits in order to improve the species' ability to survive. In survival of the fittest, obviously some creatures must be more fit than others, otherwise you can't really have a fittest. So therefore, you can say, if evolution be true, that some creatures are more evolved than others. And while Godwinning a thread doesn't disprove anything, it does prove that the implications of the theory are not in the best interest of mankind.

therefore they could be treated just like any other animal

ignoring your conceptually confused setup to this for the moment, i have a question. what exactly do you think evolution tells us about our ethical obligations to other animals? and why?

The basis of evolution is that a species will change its genetic traits in order to improve the species' ability to survive. In survival of the fittest, obviously some creatures must be more fit than others, otherwise you can't really have a fittest. So therefore, you can say, if evolution be true, that some creatures are more evolved than others. And while Godwinning a thread doesn't disprove anything, it does prove that the implications of the theory are not in the best interest of mankind.

Do you know what an ecological niche is?

Do you realize that humans are one species, as well? And would you reject the theory of universal gravitation if I twisted it into some type of Nazi propaganda because of "the implications...are not in the best interest of mankind"?

*Takes one as he walks out.

Thank you very much. They are very rich.

And as to the fellow that posted the lots of links,

I have read over wikipedia's article on evolution, and again don't believe it to be true.

As Arthais(Sp?), is evolution like that(Sky metaphor)? I think it is as clear as mud. So, I'm sure it is illogical.

Now, I have pressing business elsewhere.

So you didn't read them, refuse to acknowledge that they probably undermine you, and will continue to ignore them because they show that you don't understand the subject at all. Moreover, you dismiss evolution, clearly not understanding it (since you haven't done your research).

Yessirree.. We call this willfull ignorance. People like you are the reason that anyone takes ID seriously at all...

Can you only insult me? The issue-which is still very much alive is at the center of this debate.
It's only alive because there are idiots who think that "goddidit".

ignoring your conceptually confused setup to this for the moment, i have a question. what exactly do you think evolution tells us about our ethical obligations to other animals? and why?

The theory of evolution has no ethical implications or basis, but most scientists believe that animal experimentation is necessary because it serves mankind, well if humans are just evolved animals, than why can't we set up concentration camps and perform medical experiments on those biologically inferior Jews?

I am a creationist.

I believe it is highly likely, in fact most likely, that this universe and its physical properties were created by God and left to develop with the intent of producing intelligent life capable of having a soul and consciousness that could understand God.
Now you've run into the problem of parsimony. And of ontological speciousness.

The theory of evolution has no ethical implications or basis, but most scientists believe that animal experimentation is necessary because it serves mankind, well if humans are just evolved animals, than why can't we set up concentration camps and perform medical experiments on those biologically inferior Jews?

Biologically inferior how?

Do you know what an ecological niche is?

Do you realize that humans are one species, as well? And would you reject the theory of universal gravitation if I twisted it into some type of Nazi propaganda because of "the implications...are not in the best interest of mankind"?

Okay then, turn gravity into Nazi propaganda.

How did humans' self-awareness evolve?
Emergent property.


Also, wouldn't evolution make racism justifiable?
No.

The theory of evolution has no ethical implications or basis, but most scientists believe that animal experimentation is necessary because it serves mankind, well if humans are just evolved animals, than why can't we set up concentration camps and perform medical experiments on those biologically inferior Jews?

1) demonstrate biological inferiority (difficult as there's nothing inherently biological about being jewish)
2) demonstrate that this biological inferiority to this limited extent justifies it.

"for reasons i will leave mysterious, as if i actually wrote them out their sheer lunacy would be apparent to all"
I should think that the margin of the paper is too small to contain the reasons.

Note: only those who have an interest in math will get that.

Okay then, turn gravity into Nazi propaganda.

Well it goes like this.. Gravity is Aryan because it is and jews have frizzy, gravity defying hair which is why we have to pre-heat the ovens.

Yes. That makes sense.

Biologically inferior how?

How? That's for the strongest to say. If we are just products of a survival-of-the-fittest struggle, then right is with the might.

Okay then, turn gravity into Nazi propaganda.

You didn't answer the question. If gravity could be turned into Nazi propaganda would you reject it?

The theory of evolution has no ethical implications or basis, but most scientists believe that animal experimentation is necessary because it serves mankind, well if humans are just evolved animals, than why can't we set up concentration camps and perform medical experiments on those biologically inferior Jews?

because it's wrong?

How? That's for the strongest to say. If we are just products of a survival-of-the-fittest struggle, then right is with the might.
Only if you're just ignorant, trolling, or an ignorant troll.

How? That's for the strongest to say. If we are just products of a survival-of-the-fittest struggle, then right is with the might.

that's not what the concept means

1) demonstrate biological inferiority (difficult as there's nothing inherently biological about being jewish)
2) demonstrate that this biological inferiority to this limited extent justifies it.

There are religious Jews with no inherent biological distinctions, and then there are the ethnic Jews, who are a race.

How? That's for the strongest to say. If we are just products of a survival-of-the-fittest struggle, then right is with the might.

Success in evolution is defined by the passing on of genes to one's offspring. Not by who's the "strongest." Certain phenotypical traits may prove to be beneficial in certain environment to allow a population of a species in a certain environment to survive.

take sickle cell anemia as an example. in areas where malaria is rampant, a heterozygous sickle anemia gene would prove to be beneficial because (iirc) the slightly deformed shape of the red blood cells make it more difficult for the malaria bacteria to attach themselves, and whatnot.

in regions without malaria problems, sickle cell anemia would provide no advantage.

there is no "more evolved" or "less evolved." there is better adapted to one's environment such that they can reproduce more offspring, and less adapted to one's environment such that they cannot reproduce as much offspring.

because it's wrong?

Who says it's wrong. If humans are the result of natural processes, then we have no ethical basis. Of course, right and wrong could be based on what is for the common good, but what is in the best interest for the common good is different for the Nazis than it is for the Jews.

There are religious Jews with no inherent biological distinctions, and then there are the ethnic Jews, who are a race.

ah, the biological definition of a race. how are ethnic Jews genetically different from the rest of the human species? that is, ethnic Jews all around the globe, not confined to a singular environment. because I'm sure you'll find genetic differences from one "ethnic Jew" in America, compared to one that has lived in Israel several generations simply due to genetic drift.

There are religious Jews with no inherent biological distinctions, and then there are the ethnic Jews, who are a race.

What basis allows you to separate ethnic Jews from the rest of humanity as a race? Physical characteristics? Genetic differences?

ah, the biological definition of a race. how are ethnic Jews genetically different from the rest of the human species? that is, ethnic Jews all around the globe, not confined to a singular environment. because I'm sure you'll find genetic differences from one "ethnic Jew" in America, compared to one that has lived in Israel several generations simply due to genetic drift.

The question is, how can you be an ethnic jew or any other religion for that matter?

What basis allows you to separate ethnic Jews from the rest of humanity as a race? Physical characteristics? Genetic differences?

I would like to know as well. perhaps one allele of melanin is more frequent in one population than another?

First of all, even if you were right in saying that there is no room for morality if evolution is true, you are using the fallacy of equating what ought to be true, what truth is desirable, to what is true.
For example, it would be desirable for it to be true that nobody ever starves to death or gets sick. That does not make it true.

Anyway, where do you think our morality comes from now, religion?

The question is, how can you be an ethnic jew or any other religion for that matter?

Many people who call themselves "Jews" are secular. There are now 2 definitions for the word "Jew". There are black and asian religious Jews, and then there are you white, big-nosed, curly-haired atheist ethnic Jews.

Apparently the distinction between an ethnic Jew and a religious Jew is too much for some people to comprehend, so instead let's replace the word "Jew" in my scenario with the word "Slav". Is that better. The Nazis killed many Slavs too.

Apparently the distinction between an ethnic Jew and a religious Jew is too much for some people to comprehend, so instead let's replace the word "Jew" in my scenario with the word "Slav". Is that better. The Nazis killed many Slavs too.

What is a biological Jew? Somebody of Jewish descent, that is no longer religiously Jewish? Please, explain it to us. Again, define race biologically, and if it is even a meaningful term to use as classification.

Many people who call themselves "Jews" are secular. There are now 2 definitions for the word "Jew". There are black and asian religious Jews, and then there are you white, big-nosed, curly-haired atheist ethnic Jews.

Arbitrary distinctions based on physical appearance do not translate into biological superiority or inferiority. Especially since none of those characteristics you mentioned have anything whatsoever to do with reproductive success or survival.

What is a biological Jew? Somebody of Jewish descent, that is no longer religiously Jewish? Please, explain it to us. Again, define race biologically, and if it is even a meaningful term to use as classification.

The Nazis classified ethnic Jews on physical characteristics, but you are missing the point entirely. This could be about any strong race overpowering any weak race.

There are religious Jews with no inherent biological distinctions, and then there are the ethnic Jews, who are a race.

I'm well aware, as was Hitler, and he didn't draw any distinction between the two.

The Nazis classified ethnic Jews on physical characteristics, but you are missing the point entirely. This could be about any strong race overpowering any weak race.

the nazis were also batfuck insane. which race is stronger than another, is what I'd like to know.

Many people who call themselves "Jews" are secular. There are now 2 definitions for the word "Jew". There are black and asian religious Jews, and then there are you white, big-nosed, curly-haired atheist ethnic Jews.

Silly me, I thought judaism was a religion, not an ethnicity. So how would you describe an ethnic catholic?

The Nazis classified ethnic Jews on physical characteristics, but you are missing the point entirely. This could be about any strong race overpowering any weak race.

Are there any strong races?

Are you saying that we should abandon all research because some people are racist? If not, then what's your point?

Trilby63;12065691']Are there any strong races?

Are you saying that we should abandon all research because some people are racist? If not, then what's your point?

I believe the point is: red herring.

Who says it's wrong.

me

If humans are the result of natural processes, then we have no ethical basis.

demonstrate this

the fact new animals are appearing in odd places is pretty much proof. creationism is retarded. anyone who believes it should locked away, it not a belief its a disease of mass retardation of biblical proportions.

new animals appearing in the past five years.
example ireland.
a new breed of bat has evolved from the irish bat.
new mosquitoes only founf in ireland in the past year. yes thats right for any shocked irish people reading this, we now have mosquitoes.
a new breed of lizards found in wicklow, again shock/horror. not only that but snakes found in galway, but thats not new.

the fact we learn things and invent things is proof. language evolves. experiments on animals shows evolution.

last point, dinosaurs! in honour of our lord, the hicks.
"as jesus caried his cross up to the cross, he was stoped by a heard of brontosauruses. i'm going sure as hell mentioning this in my book said luke, i'm going sure as hell mentioning this in my book said john."

So how would you describe an ethnic catholic?

in ireland its a person who comes from a catholic background but does believe in god.

The Nazis classified ethnic Jews on physical characteristics, but you are missing the point entirely. This could be about any strong race overpowering any weak race.

actually, hitlers states in his book 'the reckoning', that the jews were the only race close enough to the aryan one. like an evil version.

Silly me, I thought judaism was a religion, not an ethnicity. So how would you describe an ethnic catholic?

There are no ethnic catholics. Only Jews get that special status. In the current state of Israel, most of the so-called "Jews" are either atheist or agnostic. Stop missing the point! I could have used any race for my example like the Slavs.

Silly me, I thought judaism was a religion, not an ethnicity. So how would you describe an ethnic catholic?

It is an ethnicity. Since ancient times anyone born to a Jewish mother is considered a Jew. Anyone who converts to Judaism is considered a Jew.

Just because a person forsakes all his traditions doesn't make him no longer a Jew (according to Jewish tradition).

There are no ethnic catholics. Only Jews get that special status. In the current state of Israel, most of the so-called "Jews" are either atheist or agnostic. Stop missing the point! I could have used any race for my example like the Slavs.

read previous post.
in the town my granny is from, her local shop keeper could tell if someone was catholic or protestant by looking at them.

It is an ethnicity. Since ancient times anyone born to a Jewish mother is considered a Jew. Anyone who converts to Judaism is considered a Jew.

Just because a person forsakes all his traditions doesn't make him no longer a Jew (according to Jewish tradition).

but how does this correlate to biological inferiority or superiority? furthermore, what characteristics does judaism confer to somebody? is it any different than other Semitic peoples living in the region?

And Kohlstein, demonstrate your point, as you still haven't.

Anyway, one could say similar things about Creationism. "God created us to dominate all others! Let's go kill all heathens in God's name!"

read previous post.
in the town my granny is from, her local shop keeper could tell if someone was catholic or protestant by looking at them.

Gaydar?

It doesn't matter which status only jews get or when or when not you're considered a jew according to traditions, they will still adapt to the environment where they live. Therefore you can't say that a religious group is weaker than another and base it on evolution.

Why does everyone claim that evolution has been scientifically proven, it hasn't.

If you get two things which are similar, that in no way is proof that they evolved from each other or share a commen ancestor. There is absolutely no way you can test or show macro-evolution happening, the only thing they can show is how animals can adapt within their species to suit their environment. Even so, that prooves nothing about where we came from? It assumes and concludes that because a and b are c, D must of happened. There is no pure proof of this backing, it is just assumption.

Why do so many evolutionists pride themselves on criticizing ID on the basis that it is just an assumption, that there is no way that you can logically conclude one statement (animals were designed) based on another statement (animals are irreducibally complex) even though evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing.

/end of rant :sniper:actually macro evolution has been proven you just don't want to hear of it, if someone where to explain it you would probably cover your ears.

evolution is easier to believe as there is evidence for it-religion absolutely no evidence only faith....

The theory of evolution has no ethical implications or basis, but most scientists believe that animal experimentation is necessary because it serves mankind, well if humans are just evolved animals, than why can't we set up concentration camps and perform medical experiments on those biologically inferior Jews?

because jews arent biologically inferior. one can only decide that based on nonscientific, non evolutionary critera.

you cant blame racism on evolution.

There are no ethnic catholics. Only Jews get that special status. In the current state of Israel, most of the so-called "Jews" are either atheist or agnostic. Stop missing the point! I could have used any race for my example like the Slavs.

So, why don't you start by showing how the jews are a race? And showing that there's scientific consensus behind that idea? Then do the same for the slavs.

Better yet, could you please show the scientific consensus behind the idea of different human races within the field of biology? I doubt you'll find any, as there are a lot of voices out there claiming that race is simply a social construct.

Now, this has to be posted here:
http://memepedia.info/images/0/00/Sciencecat.jpg

And Kohlstein, demonstrate your point, as you still haven't.

he self-identifies as a fascist - so i assume the point is random trolling

Go educate yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

Go educate yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

It's not worth it anymore, man. I compiled around 15+ links in one succinct post, and it was ignored completely.

It's not worth it anymore, man. I compiled around 15+ links in one succinct post, and it was ignored completely.

I have looked at the links and they do not answer my question, they are too long to post something about them but they still havn't proved anything. Anyone I am bored with this thread as it is just going round in circles.

I have looked at the links and they do not answer my question, they are too long to post something about them but they still havn't proved anything. Anyone I am bored with this thread as it is just going round in circles.

What do you want proved? Because they certainly have plenty of evidence. To say they haven't proved anything really shows that you're just putting your hands in your ears and ignoring the vast amounts of evidence.

I have looked at the links and they do not answer my question, they are too long to post something about them but they still havn't proved anything. Anyone I am bored with this thread as it is just going round in circles.

You really can't stand argument/debate can you? Just stay with one thread and try and prove something to anybody using source-material, concise language and informed socio-political rhetoric, rather than posting thread after thread in which you fail to say...anything....

This thread is rather impressive. It's not often that one sees a thread on here whose title alone is enough to make one want to beat one's head against a wall. *sigh*

I should think that the margin of the paper is too small to contain the reasons.

Tee hee. :)

I hope that was a joke.

Considering who I am, I would say there's a 50-50 chance that I was making a joke.

...

Okay, 70-30. :p

But there IS medication for this. :)

GOD!!! (much offense to atheists) you evolutionists are STUPID :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Says s/he who must post in large type with smileys? Why am I not taking this seriously?