Evolution is a valid scientific theory

I would agree to your four points of increased information, but I would not omit feedback loop information such as provided by isolation from existing populations and new primary habitats presented by this isolation.
I would question the concept of main mechanism in an indelibly symbiotic system. it seems we should not be looking for discrete initiators but redundant processes.

 

What do you mean by feedback loop information? Isn't it just gene shuffling or variation within a particular genome?

 

I mean perhaps if differing ph levels play a role inside might not ambient environmental ph also play a factor. A kind of back pressure or environmental reinforcement.

 

Oh yeah, that would be the pressure of natural selection. The monkeys with the new gene would have a better chance of survival.

One more thing to note in the article I presented was it stated that the change in the new gene was not random. I thought that was interesting.

 

I always seem to end up following first premises to the conclusion of the inherent viability of all substance. Certainty does seem to preclude randomness.

 

Monkeyboy, sorry i was busy and didn't get a chance to read the article until now, but did you notice the part i quote below?

The same old story. Scientists found a gas stove and some remnants of rudenoodle and there they go with conclusions about split happening 20 billion years ago during Big Bang,with rudenoodle as the remote cousin of the gas stove and ERGO darwinism is scientifically valid theory

I ask what were those series of computations employed that show plausibility of analysis? I don't believe it is valid analysis just because some "scientists" in China says so.

I have yet to see any other science subject where people would take an innuendo such as "scientists researched and concluded so" for a fact, without actually knowing who, where, when and how?

In physics they DO show computations up to the Plank epoch when explaining Big Bang theory , and they show clearly how and why formulas collapse beyond.

They don't say Big Bang theory is valid because some mythical scientists in Australia made some computations which no one needs to show you and ergo you must accept that Big Bang is a valid theory.

If they weren't random then what were they? What it caused as a consequence is stated right after saying "changes weren't random" without elaborating what has caused changes. Or may be I didn't read entire article with concentrated, focused attention and took the quote out of the context, if so please correct me and I'll review it later.

If Zhang was an economist I would say he does a good job explaining the Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
It is true and works in economics, that's an observable fact.
But how does it relate to biological process of evolution of organisms?

It seems to me Zhiang has preconcieved idea based on his knowledge of some observable social phenomena which he then projects into the evidence observed in nature under different set of circumstances and uses it to connect dots saying that nature has the same or similar mechanisms involved when it comes to evolving organisms or genoms.

But I disagree. I think on each level of complexity or surrounding circumstances, various mechanisms may come into play.

Physics is a good example of empirically observed phenomenas that differ so greatly on Classic vs Micro-Scale.

Same Nature, but different totality of circumstances and forces which in turn generate different observable phenomenas quided, evidently, by different mechanics.

Nature is befuddlingly complicated (or may be too simple beyond our recognition?) , and no concept of Creationism, Religion or Evolutionary theory comes anywhere close to even remotely hint at understanding of what driving force is at the core of it all.

We may attempt to better understand the mechanism involved in evolutionary processes, we may even one day discover what it is , but until we really know we can't say this is how it happened , just because we can't think of any other way to explain how it could.

 

Your ridicules and ignorant "aliens discovering my remains in the distant future and being unable to differentiate between metal and fossilized bone" is still the best argument you can muster to discredit evolution?

You have a long way to go chum! :rofl:

 

Why don't you muster some irrefutable argument in support of it, since it's your obligation to back up your positive assertion anyway?

Btw, what is ignorant about drawing the parralells?
Aren't the first organic organism and non-organic bodies around it a direct siblings at some point of evolutionary tree , when the first living organism splits fron non-organic and comes into existence as a specie? I guess I made an error removing a split back to Big Bang when I should have said only 3 billion years ago.
Other than that, how the gas stove in the kitchen isn't your remote cousin now?
Applying the logic of darwinism why can't we suggest that it is only by random chance and natural selection that you are not a gas stove in kitchen as opposed to being a rudenoodle now?

 

Have you ever re-read one of your posts? :beatdeadhorse5:

 

I have enough fun reading yours

 

Quote jumbuli;

We may attempt to better understand the mechanism involved in evolutionary processes, we may even one day discover what it is , but until we really know we can't say this is how it happened , just because we can't think of any other way to explain how it could"

I agree with you here. However nothing prohibits us from speculating or theorizing on ways and means.
Sifting bones in my view is far less likely to provide ultimate understanding than investigating the qualities of present and prescient nature.

 

And I never said anyone prohibits you or anyone from speculating or theorizing.

Only that the theory or speculation is not scientifically valid until clearly demonstrated to be so.

 

This is what dogma worshipping darwinists and their collaborators say to each other about me behind my back.

Of course with no evidence and plausible argument to prove the scientific validity of dogma they worship with fanaticism of zealots why not bash the guy who doubts it instead?

Talk about open mind and scientific evaluation

 

The truth is that by definition, theory or speculation are not in the same category as definitive knowledge. Their natures are irreconcilable. One has one application specific to circumstance. The other exists without rhetorical purpose.

 

I never argued against it either

 

But you are requesting that the irreconcilable be reconciled by requesting proof of theory.

 

If you read what I write (and not arbitrarily assume) you will see that
I request anyone who makes assertion that theory is scientifically valid to prove such assertion and show that the theory in question is in fact scientifically valid.

I gave an example of Big Bang theory where I don't need Stephen Hawkings to board a time machine and produce a DVD record of the Big Bang in action to accept Big Bang theory as scientifically valid.

I merely ask for some relevant evidence and plausible argument to support it.

This subject was raised dozens of times already (first by lithium back in 2008 and every other week ,and repeatedly, by many trolls or new posters ever since , all insinuating as if I knew no difference between scientifically valid theory and phenomena it tried to explain) and I answered and made clear as many times that it was not so.

I assume this will be raised a page or two later or may be on this same page again, so I am in the process of accumulating the relevant quotes where I already addressed such objections.

 

you are requesting that the irreconcilable be reconciled by requesting proof of theory and I request anyone who makes assertion that theory is scientifically valid to prove such assertion and show that the theory in question is in fact scientifically valid, are synonymous statements.

Purely for the sake of argument Then?

 

No, thedope, it's not about semantics as you wish to make it appear by repeating questions that have already been clearly and accurately answered by me.

The way you construct your questions is one of the reasons I initially assumed you were alter ID of Okiefreak, who in his dimwitted mind may have created you to attack me "from opposite side" as it would appear to him, since he was always assuming that my criticism of his arguments in favor of New Synthesis were pure semantics, wordplay and manipulation of word definitions rather than reasonable questioning of logic applied in reaching an arbitrary conclusion.

Even if you are not Okiefreak, I must say your IQ level is close to if not equal to that of Okiefreak and must be measured in single digits, because you ,just as Okiefreak,fail to distinguish and discriminate between reasonable questioning of logic applied in reaching an arbitrary conclusion vs semantics, word play and word manipulation used to invalidate otherwise logically consistent and plausible conclusion.

Since you are a troll, I am not answering your posts for the sake of educating you (as a troll, you have no interest in knowing the subject only posting to disrupt and diverge attention), but I have to reply to your nonsense posts from time to time to make it clear for other readers that you are a mere troll who has no argument to begin with and no amount of nonsense you post will make the original assertion of the grandest Troll Baron Tall Tales Okiefreak Munchausen's that darwinism is scientifically valid theory

Simple as that

 

:toetap05: Take all the time you need. No rush.

Btw: My message to Rudenoodle wasn't meant to be a bash. I just question your motives at times. It's all in good fun....and a good way to learn..:cheers2: