Evolution is a valid scientific theory

You said that believers in Darwinism (and implying evolution by your own arguments) were religious and unreasonable in their beliefs.

Now, I think i have argued fairly concretely that it is not, though i have also conceded that i fail in demonstrating evolution as scientificaly valid in only that i must admit that i can only do so through an appeal to authority.

Having said that, in light of your most recent posts, if you want to get the conversation truely back on track, in discussing that we are unable ourselves to prove evolution as scientifically valid, you must concede that we are not religious, unreasonable nor ignorant in our belief that the scientific community has got it right. Because that was your assertion.

If you really are genuine, the only satisfaction you will find is arguing with those authorities within the scientifc community who assert evolution as vald. There is no point in this, no one here is able to show that is valid, nor are you able to show that it is not, it is just fun rhetoric.

No proof of something does not mean it does not exist. No proof something does not exist, does not mean it does. We are achieving nothing here, so i would just like to make sure we are all still having fun

 

Monkey boy, did you see post # #246

 

Now, aside from what I said, can you show me how this is not an Inverse Ad Hominem argument in favor of evolutionism , to say it's valid only because someone else whom you praise or hold in high esteem says it is ?

And, how is this belief different from Medieval Religiosity where people didn't read or understand a word of Bible (since it was in Latin and most were illiterate anyway) but accepted it the same way you accept Darwinism?

I made no assertion to begin with. Darwinists did [and now they invent all kind of excuses not to back up their assertions].

When somebody makes an assertion without showing any relevant evidence or plausible argument to support it and then gets highly agitated, angry and calls you idiot and other unpleasant names for not accepting such an assertion as an absolute truth, what do you call it?

I will not start a whole new argument now about what such activity should be called , instead will leave you answer this question on your own.

I don't know if I am genuine or not. Sometimes I think I am but then it turns out I was joking. At other times I think I am joking but then am thinking what if I am not. So I have no idea about that.

Regardless, I see no reason why should I go to authorities and initiate a discussion about this subject.
Evidently they didn't make any positive assertion on hipforums nor participated in any threads calling me an idiot for doubting the theory, nor do I see any real evolutionary biologist arguing to back it up here.
And with me having no argument to begin with, why should I go now and start one with those who never even heard from me?
That doesn't make sense to me.

Besides, even if the circumstances brought up the situation where argument was on horizon, I would try to avoid it, mainly because it's very difficult to argue with real experts since they are usually more knowledgeable about their subject and also too clever in confusing those who aren't.
With odds set highly against me why should I try to argue with those guys?
What would I gain in the end by getting into an argument with an entire evolutionary biologist's establishment?
I would rather listen to their arguments in favor of theory , try to comprehend it as fully and clearly as I was capable of, and , where suitable, ask for more clarifications and who knows, they could even convince me in the end that the theory is in fact scientifically valid.

The point is no proof that something exists can't be used as proof of existence.

And yes, I too still have fun

:cheers2:

 

I got home late last night and totally missed this post.

Let's just look at the evidence.

What make these monkeys stand out from the rest is their ability to eat leaves which are very difficult to digest. Most monkeys eat fruit and insects. The RNASE1b gene is unique to this monkey and is not found in other primates. So why does this monkey have two RNASE genes and encode to different enzymes unless the RNASE gene duplicated? It's pretty straightforward imo.

Let's try to keep things simple and clear cut.

1. Does gene duplication happen? YES
2. Does gene mutation happen? YES

Therefore a duplicated gene that mutates = INCREASE IN INFORMATION!

It's that simple.

Here are some more examples of duplication and mutation that are actually observed happening. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

That's interesting. I'll have to study the Big Bang theory one of these days.

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure why he determined it was unrandom.

The new gene encodes an enzyme that works better at digesting leaves. I don't see how noticing this efficiency is a preconcieved notion.

I'm not disputing that there are many variables influencing evolution....many of which may yet to be discovered. My only goal presenting this evidence is to prove increases in information are possible with the duplication/mutation mechanism.

I tend to agree with this, but I'm also amazed by how much scientists are discovering everyday. Just think how much we know now complared to 100 years ago.

I think we can determine a general idea of how it happens without knowing all the details just yet.

 

That's OK

I understood that he found monkeys whose diet was different from those of other monkeys.

To be sure I don't know why this monkey has RNASE1b gene which is not found in other primates.
I mean we may observe that it has it and we may try to comprehend how it got to have it in the first place, but do we really know ?

Why did this monkey start eating different food to begin with?

What if it ate the leaves because it had the RNASE1b gene with ability to digest before it started eating it?

Just how the conclusion is arrived at either way?

How you deduce that first the monkey was forced to change diet and eat leaves and only then, consequently, some monkeys developed a gene that allowed them to do so?

Even if we allow for outer stimuli to cause change in gene encoding, how do you go about discovering the mechanism responsible for such changes?
Where do you get an idea how the change in gene encoding actually takes place?
How do you know that gene doesn't have capacity to rearrange in the first place?
And if so could you still maintain there was an increase of information?
That would be like saying i am smarter tomorrow when i help my kid do first grade math than i am today because i don't do the elementary math at the moment.


And didn't he claim it happened 4 million years ago? How did he get that number, where from?
The article says he made some computations in regards and i asked you what those computations were? Where is the formula applied? What the premises of formula are?

He also said it appears not to be random, what was it then? How did the process unfold per Dr Zhiang's suggestion?

To keep things as simple as possible you would need to answer questions above first.

See above.

I'll take a look at these later.

Do that. Physics is interesting and gives a strong impression of adherence to very strict guidelines of scientific method.
They don't invent properties of matter out of blue in physics, they observe it for what it is, whenever it is observable, and then they try to comprehend what they observed.
When they come up with theories they show clearly why they think it works and they also make it transparent when they fail to calculate how it works at some point.
Very often even the brightest physicists admit that they are way too dimwitted to really understand how Nature operates.
That shows you how bright they are, how far to the edge they reached to see the limitations of their own intelligence. You won't find such high caliber minds among evolutionists.

Indeed. Did you ask the same question when reading the article?

No, don't confuse things here.
That certain gene exists which encodes an enzyme that works better at digesting leaves is one thing.
How it became what it is or whether it evolved into itself out of other gene by means of random chance and natural selection is entirely different subject.

See my notes above.

I don't get great kick out of telling myself "Oh gosh, look how much i know today as opposed to when i was 2 years old. With this tempo i can invent a rocket to fly out of Milky Way some day very soon!"
That's naive and unrealistic way of looking at things.
You have to have a sense of proportions.

I don't think a general idea of how it happened exists or known as of now.

 

Hey Hypocrite,

the first time I demonstrated you to be a creationist you called me names.

So screw your double standard, horsepoop.

 

As I have explained in the past, you moron, that would make it a Scientific Law or Principle, NOT a Scientific Theory.

it is currently in the theory state. More than a Hypothesis, less than a law.
a THEORY.

I'm saving my big guns for last.

 

Ok. I've been in this same stupid debate with a fanatical creationist pretending to be something else-- right here in this very forum-- before.

Since jumbulli has begun resorting to reposting the same horse shit ad nauseum and is failing in his mandate to entertain me, I'll play a trump card that will nail him so hard that he will be afraid to even acknowledge it.
frankly, I'm surprised it hasn't long since been brought up.
------

In the early years of the industrialization of England, black soot was a major problem. it was everywhere, giving a black tinge to everything.

Now, in England, a little white moth existed. it suvived by means of it's ability to blend in with the white bark of a particular speicies of tree, thus becoming invisible to predators.

Among these white moths there existed a relatively common mutation- black instead of white.
Of Course, the black moths never lasted long; predators could easily see them against the white bark. so a black speicies never evolved.

And then all the trees got covered in black soot from the factories, and soon thereafter, things reversed.

The moths were black as a whole, with white being the fatal mutation.

Evolution. A fatal mutation adapting to environmentel change and becoming essential, and an essential genetic factor becoming fatal in response to enviromental change.

CHANGE IN RESPONSE TO ENVIROMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone with more time during the day, or less of a buzz at night, than I, is challenged to look up the details of what I say.

it's a clear, OBSERVED, instance of BIO-EVOLUTION IN RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL STIMULI.

Jumbulli is Humbullied.

 

When somebody says something that is evidently and very obviously untrue to call such person a liar is not the same thing as to call him names out of malice, anger or in attempt to discredit what he says by associating it to certain personal characteristic.

I didn't call you a liar to discredit what you posted on it's own merit.
You could be a big liar and say that 2 + 2 = 4. Your being a mere liar wouldn't make it equal anything other than 4.
And I didn't call you a liar out of malice or anger .
But I observed that you posted a lie and just called it what it is.
May be I should have said "this is a lie what you posted" instead of "you are a liar", but in the context it would make no essential difference.
However, for the sake of being fair and consistent from now on, if you post a lie (as you do most of the time) I will say what you post is a lie as opposed to calling you a liar


:cheers2:

 

What a waste of perfectly good air.

 

That's right, why don't you find something more useful to do and leave this board to people who have at least some intention to discuss the subject matter.

 

Normal monkeys without the RNASE1b gene still eat leaves, but they can't extract very much nutrient. So once the RNASE1b gene was developed the monkeys with this gene had an advantage.

The main thing is that this gene was developed and is unique.

We don't know why genes change. We just know that they do. Outside stimuli are the mechanism of natural selection. I'm not sure if it"s a cause for gene change. It acts on gene change.

This isn't rearranging or shuffling. This is a completely unique gene not found in other monkeys. So where did it come from? Gene duplication/mutation offers a simple probable explanation. (Occams Razor). There are many duplicated genes in genomes including our own. And it has been observed.

I think they apply gene mutation and duplication rates to the analysis along with know fossils dates, but I'm not sure. That would be an interesting thing to look into.

So in the Big Bang theory they observe what is happening and then extrapolate back in time...mhhmmmm...that sounds eerily familiar.

Yes. That jumped out at me. I'd love to know why he thought it was unrandom.

Once again. Gene duplication and mutation is are not rare events in evolutionary terms....and they have even been observed happening in tests with yeast and bacteria.

I thought it was a cannon ball?...

I get what you're saying.

 

No, the main thing is not whether it's a unique gene or not.
The main thing is how this gene came into existence in the first place.
What mechanism was responsible for emergence of such gene ?
That's the main question.

Read what you write, monkey boy, read well LOL

Hehe, you appear to be very confused and should concentrate before writing your thoughts lol

What is it?

Why don't you tell me?

Nothing has been observed, except the fact that different species have different gene encodings.
The rest is Tall Tales.
If you disagree, then please elaborate, in details!

I don't care what you think they do. Show me exactly what they do!

No, i didn't say that.
But in in Big Bang theory they do explain to you why they think it is the way Universe emerged in the first place. They explain it clearly. They also show the computations that work very well until you hit the Plank epoch beyond which all formulas collapse.

Any answers?

Empty words , baseless assertions and no answers to matter of factly asked questions....

Do you? I doubt it very much......

 

For some reason you are avoiding the mechanism I keep repeating. I wonder why.

 

The same reason he won't answer my post about a clear case of observed evolution.

There is no answer, and he's (pretty fucking obvious by now) a sore loser .

 

But where is that mechanism other than in the head of evolutionists?
I do not avoid, contrary to that if you read my last 2-3 responces I ask direct questions and in fact you are the one who avoids answering them.
Indeed one must wonder why.

 

Lift your head.

 

Monkey boy, why don't you help me "lift my head" if you beleive it to be the case?
Why don't you asnwer any of the questions I asked and instead demand that i accept the same arbitrary conclusion as you reached, based on non existent connection between evidence observed and wishful mechanism projected into it?
Are you sure your own head is not where you assume mine to be?

 

Monkey boy,

How did you get jumbulli's yearbook photo?

Jumbulli,
Cluck-cluck, er, I mean-- Moths. England. Industrial Revolution. White to Black. Useful Genetic mutations. Reality. Dogs. Horses and Donkeys. Lions and Tigers.
stop hiding behind incomplete fossils and face the world of today.
where'd H1N1 come from? Your dreams?
You poor fool-- ignorance is NOT bliss.
It just gets sand in your ears!

 

I don't see how resorting to Ad Hominem arguments proves the point that darwini's religious theory of evolution is the theory that has anything to do with the Science.