Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Did I say he was a scientist? And by the way it wasn't my horse. Somebody else posted that. Honest. Now that we've had fun with each other, could we get back to a serious discussion of the thread topic? Either that or transfer this thread to the Mindfuck forum.

 

Do I start at the beginning, do I understand quantum nature of the universe? I don't understand the question professor of what? I did not say I was the same person as okiefreak. I support the notion that evolution is a valid scientific theory by definition. I do think that the statement is very relevant to the subject. If we start at the beginning, then we begin to discover factors that are fundamental to apprehending the nature of the process. For instance the aggregation of bodies. As organisms grow they eat, incorporate substances that influence the development of the organism, can influence behaviors, lead to novel interactions, species alien to each other, invade each other, helping to create new anti bodies. Just as communication has suffered from a case of mistaken identities, the study of evolution suffers from the same malady.

 

Sorry, no auto editor.

but this thread is dead, misnamed as it was.

Now, "Does evolution occur?" would have been a more proper thread.
Except, of course, it's so easy to demonstrate that it does.

I do have a question, though. Why does the matter of quantified existence scare you so?

 

1) What problems I may have is irrelevant to the fact that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution is not Scientifically Valid theory.
It is not anymore scientifically valid than ancient myths of creation.


2) Definition of word Theory

per MW dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

per wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

per quote from my posts in past (repeatedly reposted due to numerous Darwinists claims that I had zero comprehension of what Theory implies [post # 14, ths thread]:

All it takes to convince me that the theory is scientifically valid is some relevant evidence and plausible argument to support it.

Take Probability Theory, for instance.
That theory is a pure abstraction, calculated and represented by numbers.
However, there is a strong evidence for it (if you roll dice all day long and take a note of all combinations, the actual sequence of those random events will correspond well with statistical patterns that you can calculate using the mathematical formula).

Little more ambiguous is the Big Bang theory, and frankly I am somewhat sceptical of it , however it does work in terms of math (which ,if not directly representative of manifestations of matter still corresponds well with an actual knowledge about the behavior of same) and accounts for events up to the Plank epoch, beyond which all formulas collapse and stop producing meaningful numbers.
Despite it's shortcomings I consider Big Bang theory to be scientifically valid theory (it is far fetched theory but not entirely improbable or impossible, therefore I consider it to be scientifically valid theory).

It is not so with Darwin's theory about origins of species. The fallacy of it becomes evident the very first instant you examine it with critical mind. I have yet to see anyone who would venture to methodically prove it's scientific validity while addressing all the reasonable critisism aimed against it's fundamental premises.

 

You're missing an obvious point:
The foods and such that are incorporated into an organism is one of the environmental pressures that feed and compel evolution.
EVERYTHING an organism is subjected to is part of it's environment. Before humans came along, food sources would have been relatively consistent in content and availibility over a given period of time.
But now, with the advent of agriculture, that has changed, and humans are quickly evolving to be taller partly due to nutrition, partly due "natural" selection, and partly due to genetic dictates.

 

Lumbulli55,
I've already dismissed you.
You cannot be taught on your own terms.

 

Ok, seems to me that Proponents of Darwinism LOST the argument and seeing no other recourse decided to just destroy this thread by spamming it and burying any reasonable post under the weight of endlessly reposted nonsense and digression.

Well, I didn't expect anything better

 

To oakiefreak and thedope,
If you're not the same person, I'm sorry.
And if you are, I'm sorrier.

 

You don't make clear who you're addressing, but if it's me, quantified existence wouldn't scare me at all. I'd just like to see it done.

The topic of the thread was named to accommodate the wording of the poster for whom it was created. I was posting on another site having nothing to do with evolution, but I happened to mention the name "Darwin". The poster replied "Evolution is not a scientific theory". I said yes it is, and was told I had the burden of proving it. After numerous efforts to get back to the thread topic, I set this one up so that he could discuss the theory here rather than there. Admittedly, this is one of the weirder threads I've ever been on, but it has a certain surreal aesthetic. I prefer your phrasing of the topic, and I guess as OP I can accept it. You've made an assertion concerning it. So if it's easy to demonstrate, why don't you show us.

 

Not here.

Let this mess die.

On the other hand, I'm not going to write a long lecture. Nor am I going to catalog dogs and wolves and apes and chimps, ad nauseum.

As always, physics is the key.

Start a new thread.

 

So you would agree that a new species was created by polyploidy which proves macroevolution happens in plant species? It may not have used the RM+NS mechanism, but even your own source admits that a speciation happened and was observed. :toetap05:

 

Get out of this thread.

One less spammer if you keep your word.

:cheers2:

 

Stuff it, ignoramus.

 

Done! Check out : "Evolution is a valid scientific theory".

 

Now this is really getting childish!

Someone please pass the popcorn...

ZW

 

Yes, speciation is observed, only that it's not the type which would support that macroevolution is possible.

Not sure but I think I replied to this post like 10 pages ago, before this thread deteriorated with hundreds of spam and nonsens posts.

In any case, there is no evidence of macroevolution or possibility of the same.

I know that it takes more than simple assertion to explain why it isn't an evidence of macroevolution.
By the way, the quote I have copy-pasted gave an explanation of the observed phenomena and why it isn't an evidence in support of macroevolution.

If you wish to discuss this at length we can.

 

This guy is out.

Next !

:cheers2:

 

Just for the record, it is perfectly acceptable in debate to accuse your opponet of ignorance. You are, after all, questioning what he claims is knowledge.

However, it NOT permissible to call your opponet a Liar, as this questions his integrity and is purely inflamatory.

You cannot prove you honesty, whereas you can prove your knowledge.

Bye!

 

Liar


Next !