Evolution is a valid scientific theory

Then you should have never started doing it!

However-Moths. England. Industrial Revolution. White to Black. Useful Genetic mutations. Reality. Dogs. Horses and Donkeys. Lions and Tigers. H1n1.

Evolution Theory explains them all.

 

Pshshshst! Go away troll!

 

I accept your admission of defeat.

 

My persona is irrelevant here.

How do you back up a Positive Assertion that darwinism is Scientifically valid theory?
That's the question.

You either produce the relevant evidence and plausible argument to back it up or else you have no assertion to begin with.

Simple as that.

 

I'll do my best.

Try refuting the observed gene duplication/mutation mechanism and we may all learn something.:cheers2:

...and if you can't it's okay to admit it. You know...it's the failures in life that teach us the most. Keep your head up kid.

 

Monkey boy, why you dodge questions i asked in previous posts that dealt directly with assumptions and conclusions reached , with nothing but "this is so because some researcher in China thinks so" to convince ?


I noted that researcher claimed at one point that "split had occured 4 million years ago" ,that he made some computations based on which he concluded so about the timeline. What exactly were those computations?

His claim that split happened 4 million years ago implies that at present moment all evidence he has is that of some kind of monkeys whose diet differs from that of other monkeys and who has certain gene helping them to digest the kind of food they are eating. That's all evidence there really is.

Now what was the calculation that made him think there was a split 4 million years ago , whereby these monkeys branched off with naturally selected gene RNASE1b that helps them digest the leaves? What premises were used to come up with formula to do the calculation? What mechanism (he says non-random) does he think was responsible and why does he think so? You never answered these questions.

There are basically 2 genomes in question, one found in general population of monkeys and this RNASE1b gene found in these other monkeys.
Even if one gene has more information than the other, how do you come about claiming what mechanism was responsible for it's emergence and out of which genome and how it evolved?

Why are you dodging these questions ? It's easy to say "Lift up your head, Jumbuli, you have your ears full of sand", but how do you address those questions that i am forced to repeat over and over again since you never answer them ?

 

Jumbulli,
I accept your acknowledgement of your admission of defeat.

 

I understand your frustration with inability to back up your own Positive Assertion.

:cheers2:

 

Enough already. OK. You admit you're afraid to address any of the issues, and that Evolution is, indeed, a valid theory.
I get it.
let's move on.

 

What's wrong with Chinese people?

The computations were based on the molecular or evolutionary clock which is determined studying the changes in the genomes of a particular species over a given time. The time is determined from fossil records.

There's also fossil evidence that the monkeys split from other monkeys around 10 million years ago.

I answered the mechanism question. Duplication/mutation.

The fossil evidence determined when they split from other monkeys. The addition of the gene can be explained by gene duplication which can be observed in experiments. Did you have a chance to look at the other link I posted?

Why don't you consider gene duplication?

 

Nothing wrong with being Chinese, but you didn't adress questions asked.

Let me see. They dig few fossils, one 2 billion years old, another 300 mil, next 15 mil and then they look around and see all living creatures.
At this point they make an ASSUMPTION that one specie evolved out of another and put pin points in an evolutionary tree that is product of their imagination.
So now, with these two monkeys found, they ask where in the tree we sould stick it to?
Is this the "calculation" you refer to?

No monkey boy, there is no such evidence!

There is evidence of two different monkeys in fossils.

It is the ASSUMPTION based on nothing but imaginary connection made between two that we are told there was a split at some earlier point. And then there may be yet another, older fossil found , to which they refer to as "common ancestor".

But HOW the conclusion is made as to the one being emergent from another?

Where the assumption comes from that one evolved into another by whatever means it is claimed it did ?(in the article you linked it's not even clear what the mechanism the scientist believes to be responsible. he says "not random" and leaves it at that).

No, you did not

Who needs to? Why don't you first clear answers regarding this particular link?
Or else you will keep posting more and more link never answering any question as to validity of claims made in any of those.

LOOK! I don't care either way. If it turns out that rudenoodle is in fact direct descendant of gas stoves I couldn't care less!

What matters is the validity of claim, the logic and scientific method applied in reaching the conclusion, the relevance of evidence presented to support the claim.

 

I agree with everything you're saying except the ages. They are actually more like 10 million, 8 million, 2million and now. All with slight changes. What's wrong with the assumption that they are related. Where else would they come from? Thin air? You're totally misrepresenting the evidence.....

It is the assumption based on many pieces of evidence not imagination. They probably will find an older fossil and we'll discover even more.

Yep. Actually I did. I thought you accepted fossils as evidence?

Here we go. You don't care that gene duplication/mutation has been observed? The very mechanism that can add information to genomes? I suggest you look. It's very interesting.

 

May be the biggest problem is that macroevolution can't be observed to occur, no matter how hard you try to induce it?

No, in fact i don't misrepresent evidence. Evidence is evidence and i see no need to misrepresent it.

The problem is not so much with assuming they are related (after all rudenoodle too is related to the gas stove, by virtue of both consisting of similar basic units on elementary level).

The problem is with assumption that since two have some recemblance of similairty it must be concluded that similarity itself represents mechanism responsible for development of each.


What i doubt is the conclusion reached, that the mechanism responsible for diversification is discovered based on some similarity found between all things in existence.
That's the point.

Again, evidence is evidence.

But the conclusion reached in case of darwinism is imaginary.

When you see the hard object that left impact on flat surface , you can actually measure the extent of the damage/deformity and knowing the laws of physics about velocity, mass and trajectory you can make a fairly accurate calculation where the object originated from, at what speed and angle it flew, how hard it hit the surface and etc.
It is not imaginary assumption, but one based on laws of physics and known properties of matter.

It is not so with this fossil circus and genomes.

Even though they differer to various degrees from each other, there is no proof or law of biological interaction established whereby you could say that the mechanism responsible for advancement of species is indeed what darwinists claim it to be.

The simple matter of the fact is that macroevolution has never been obseerved to occur. There is thus no established biological law of interaction of genes (*even non-random but consciously selected and forced generation upon generation of breedings do not produce macroevolutionary changes!) that would produce the macroevolutionary step. Such would make it reasonable to assume that in greater scale of time greater changes could occur.
But where is such observation, other than in imagination of evolutionists?

They look at microevolutionary process and say, "macroevolution is just an accumulation of many microevolutionary processes , so it took a single simple cell and 3 billion years of random interaction and natural selection to get all the species we have now. Problem solved!"

But that's like seeing a trutle walking 20 ft accross the room and saying "If you give it 20000 years it will probably reach the nearest galaxy, we just can't be around so long to show you how it happens".

I never rejected existence of fossils. You must be arguing with someone that exists only in your imagination if you keep saying this.
But darwinists are good in making things up, so no surprise there.

No, monkey boy, it has not been observed. The genom is there of a monkey that according to evolutionists contains more information.

But it has not been observed that it evolved out of the one with lesser information by means of random chance and natural selection.

Talk about misrepresentation of evidence!

Munchausen would be proud of you

:cheers2:

 

With so many prominent scientists claiming that evolution is indeed a valid theory it begs to question, if Jumbulli is correct and it is in fact imposable for a species to evolve into other forms over time does this mean that either,

A. All leading biologists are being duped and have failed to see the facts (?) that Jumbulli has presented showing that evolution is unvalid.

or

B. That most prominent scientists are participating in a large conspiracy to dupe the world into believing evolution is a valid theory?

 

I don't know answers to those questions.

What I know is that for nearly two millenias before Copernicus almost everyone conserned with astronomical observations thought that Earth was the center of the universe.

Just because too many scientists out there believe in accuracy of evolutionary theory doesn't mean it's indeed valid.

 

Whao some people are really really closed off to clear scientific evidence... Just think of birds scientists have found fossils that produce evidence that certain dinosaurs had wings and feathers. Modern science has proven by munipulating a certain gene in the unborn bird's fetus that it can cause a mutation (or rather de-evolution) that creates teeth and a slight loss of feathers. This now munipulated bird looks a fair amount like the dinosaur with feathers and wings. I dunno, I believe evolution is just so obvious...

 

Your post about "munipulated" bird is fun and dandy, only it doesn't prove any point.

 

YAWN!

I submit that we have witnessed Evolution at work in this very thread.

Speciation has occured-- Homo Sapient Learnus has supplanted Homo Sapient Jumbullis.

 

those folks who thought the Earth was the center of the universe were't really scientists. They were not going by a valid scientific theory, based on tested, refutable hypotheses. To say that because they thought the earth was the center of the universe and were wrong we can dismiss the judgments of thousands of modern scientists from a wide variety of disciplines, using the scientific method and publishing their results in peer reviewed journals is a nonsequitor.

 

You compare the study of two similar monkeys to studying Rudenoodle and a stove and that's not misrepresenting evidence? lol.

Where did your great grandmother come from? How do you know she was born from her mom? She could have been a visitor from Venus for all we know. How can you prove your great grand mother was even born at all? You never witnessed it.

We don't fully understand how tornados work therefore it could be God sneezing for all we know.

No one has observed the separation of South America and Africa, but even a 5 year old can tell you they look like puzzle pieces. I think you're getting lost in the details a bit.

The turtle is already in the other galaxy and it left a trail for us to study.

Actually, I was talking about the link that you refuse or don't care to look at not the monkey.