Evolution is a valid scientific theory

If a species changed to the point it could no longer produce fertile offspring with it's parent species would you consider this speciation and therefore macroevolution? Just trying to make sure we're on the same page. What type of evidence would you consider supporting macroevolution?

 

Read one of my replies where I addressed this question ( I did & more than once).

Well... I can argue better than you or almost any of you on this site did in defence of New Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology, since (evidentlY) I know more about it than any of you who argued in it's defence do.

Similarly, I could go on and argue endlessly to discredit it as I found more holes in it than you can think of.

But I am not going to proceed because I don't get paid to do it and I find it to be stupendous waste of time to argue for no practical reason.

Are we on the same page?

:cheers2:

 

I am, but by no means does that mean i want any one else to stop arguing

On a side note, I do not understand physics, i would be at a loss to prove our (human) understanding of the subject, yet i'll be darned, my microwave does work

 

Almost everyone who "argued" in favor of evolutionary theory was in fact trolling the minute serious questions were posed (exception was skizm and may be monkey boy.
You were funny troll, so I will count you as half troll, with Baron Okiefreak Munchausen being the most notorious of all trolls as he is trolling while pretending with a straight face to be critical of trolls).

In short, they make improbable assertion (something like UFO is a rocketplane flying on horsepoop) claim there is a mountain of wishful fantasy which they count as an evidence to prove it [which they also conveniently refuse to present in any of their arguments] and then they say it's a vald assertion until you go ahead and disprove it.

At some point it gets tiresome and I won't continue arguing against it with no practicaly useful outcome to justify it.

At least you know if you put popcorn in it it will puff.
Can you say the same about ape becoming a man?

 

Out of curiosity what is it that you have done in favor of discrediting evolution?

You have submitted what seems to be hundreds of posts but have failed to convince anyone as to your crack pot statement that you refuse to back up.

And what is your fascination with Münchhausen, have you no other analogies?

 

Well thats my point, there isn't much evidence we lay people (and when it comes to science I am a lay person) can use to support evolution. At the same time, there isn't much (lay) evidence you can use to disprove it.

You see no evidence something doesn't exist, doesn't prove it does. At the same time however no evidence it does exist, doesn't prove it doesn't.

I think most of us will have to accept that the opinions of experts is sufficient evidence to accept the theory, it's more evidence than we have against believing it.

But again, if you want to aruge science, argue with scientists.

 

The solution is plain. Since he is the only one playing, he is playing with himself.
Ergo, mental masturbation.

 

He's afraid to expound on his dream theory because he knows it's unmitigated baloney.
But it is interesting to observe his self-delusion and meglomania.

 

Did you read post # 12 ?

:cheers2:

 

I know you have read this, but will copy-paste anyway


[posted 10-19-2009, 12:56 PM , Post # 150]

I lack belief in it.
You assert it is valid theory.
Ergo YOU has obligation to prove it is valid.
I am not obliged to prove it isn't.



"You are making a statement that something is true.

To make that assertrion logically valid, you have to support it with valid premises and conclusions.

Example: I assert Muchausen farted.

Premise: All human beings fart - excrete gaseously.

Premise: Munchausen was a human.

Conclusion: Munchausen farted.

Status - valid positive assertion.


Lack of belief is not a negative assertion

Example: Baron Munchausen flew to the Moon on cannonball.

Response: Prove that to me please.

The respondent is NOT saying Munchausen didn't fly to Moon on cannonball, merely not willing to accept he did.

The burden of proof then is on the one claiming he did fly to Moon on cannonball, as that is making a (positive) assertion."

Calling me a crackpot is not adding any credibility to your earlier baseless claim but further discredits you as someone who gets upset with his or her inability to back up their own silly Positive Assertion and resorts to Ad Hominem argument instead.

Since Munchausen is the most accurate analogy I need not another.

 

Evolution is how things happened it's just the only true logical explanation for life. It's been proven by man reasons but my favorite is the ape skulls that scientests have found. So you're thinking... So what skulls from dead apes? My point is that by the position of the hole on the head (which is where you're spinal cord connects to your brain) is almost directly on the bottom of the back of the skull similar to human beings skulls. This position shows that these 'apes' were walking up-right on two legs like humans do today. HOWEVER the shape of the skull is more-like an ape skull then a human skull but is the same size and was close enough to a human skull in shape and size just not so much actual nose and mouth structure which make it look so much like an ape.

Anyways that's my reason why I beleive in evolution. Peace

 

Yeah, I understand all that.

Now, Toyota SE has similar features to Toyota LE.
But there are some minor differences.
One of those is fog lights.

So, suppose extra terrestial aliens come here 600 million years from now and dig out remnants of both Toyotas.

And imagine one extraterrestial telling to another :" You know, this SE model is so similar to LE but among few differnces that I notice are fog lights! I also notice that there is a place under dashboard in LE where the fog light switch should be , but the switch is absent and so is any trace of fog light !
Now guess what? This is good enough reason for me now to believe that SE evolved out of LE by means of random chance and natural selection! The atoms comprising LE just randomly rearranged themselves in a few years time period and thus produced those fog lights. And SE had better survival chance since it could better avoid accidents on those foggy night! "


You people are so funny

:cheers2:

 

Only an idiot or an ignorant savage would come to those conclsions from examining an object that was clearly not the result of a biological process.

Missedit,

Check out this thread
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=382127&f=85

For an interesting question concerning Human Evolution

 

I don't understand... How is finding a skull not result of a biological process? And if you're so right about creation then explain to me how some random being (the only one ever in exsistance) could create the world and tell me what would the point me of just planting dinosaur bones in the earth OH and what about the beliefs of different gods OH and what about the many people dying everyday in third world countries OH and if Jesus was real why would god let his only son die. OH and if god created us in his image then why the fuck do we have disabilities, hate so much and have homosexuals? Was god a homosexual? Do you notice the resemblence that humans have to some primates? Honestly if god was real which means creation would be true, I hope he strike me down right now and if he does you'll be right. So don't call me an idiot, just because we don't share the same belief system doesn't mean you need to be rude.
Thanks

 

What a miraculous piece of intelligence you've got inside your own skull

I am NOT a Creationist!
I never said Jesus planted Dinosaur bones!

The OP made the claim that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution is "scientifically valid". You got that?

It's now HIS obligation to prove his Positive Assertion.

Had I said Jesus planted dinosaur bones and that it is scientifically valid proposition, you bet I would be obliged to prove it.
But I never said anything like that.

Munchausen would be proud of these hoax perpetrating Darwinists

 

Hey, it's not my obligation to do squat. I just posed a question others can answer if they want. Besides, I did prove the claim.

 

The power of selection.

​

 

Extreme morphs do have something to tell don't they.

 

Change is the only unchanging thing.
(Or something like that.)

That means we're slowly educating jumbulli, wheather he admits it or not.

Kudos to us all!

 

Didn't doubt it for one moment.