Evolution is a valid scientific theory

Are not matter and energy synonymous? I went from real-not real to not real does not exist to condition of reality. The quantum leap you take from nothing to something. I simply left out the qualifier near in relation to absolute 0. No food source = inability to metabolize, it doesn't matter the size of the mutation. Cosmic impacts alter ambient chemical distributions. As for an alcoholic species my conclusions would be influenced as to whether I considered alcoholism a superior or inferior condition or I considered any mutation to be adequate. Evolution, I don't think cares about its' reputation.

 

Who knows, shaman sun.
If any brilliant mind came with an idea and way of explaining the process of evolution I would certainly be interested in hearing it.

As far as this thread concerned, it is called "Evolution is a valid scientific theory", implying that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution has anything to do with the Science.
I have yet to see any of them prove that point.

 

As longtime participants in this forum may remember, 5 years ago I was hit by a car. A few months later, I lay on my deathbed-- "The Prognosis is not good." A chilling thing to hear when your name is attached. But even then, I never lost my sense of humor.

I figured, go in peace? hell-- Life is a joke and I'm going out laughing!

And then the biggest joke of all-- I lived!?!?

So peace to you my friend. Personally, I find comfort in the thought that my essence, Energy, will last untill the End Of Time, and participate in many wondorous things along the way.

 

I propose a conditional peace-- you start acting like an adult, and stop double posting, and I won't psycho-anaylize you and push you're buttons for the entertainment value anymore.

Open your mind to thinking instead of parrotting.

YOU tell me, in you're OWN words, why the general tendency in the Universe for the simple to Evolve into the Complex does not apply to Life.

 

No one can prove the point (Which is the title of this thread).
All we see is an agonising anger of flaming neanderthal zealots ready to cut you in half with an ax rather than use the brain to think why they made a baseless assertion in the first place.

Wasn't I correct when said that overwhelming majority of human species are egregios imbeciles? Alas, I was 100% correct

 

The alcohol analogy was for simplicity. That a gene that controls metabolism exist and may not be evenly spread among the members of a given spicies is the point.

In a discussion of Bio-Evolution, "Superior" and "inferior" are seperated by a sharp line: Survival.
it's Nature's Judgement, not Man's.

 

So you surrender to a petty insult against everybody in the world who fails to agree with you.

You, youngster, lack Courage In Your Convictions.

 

Darwinists surrendered this argument by their own failure to prove the point (Which is the title of this thread).
It doesn't take courage, it takes brains to prove the point of scientific validity of the theory (something Darwinists undisputably lack or else why make assertion you can't back up).

Name calling and all the horsepoop unloaded by certain posters on this thread are mere digressions and prove no point at all.

 

Well, anyway, for the Resonable participants in this thread, I propose:

1) The general tendency in the Universe overall for complexity to increase be accepted as having a solid foundation in Physics, Chemistry, Quantum Therory, Cosmology, and any other of the Rigorous Sciences. (Braches of study subject to Matehmatical Analysis).

This gives us a bases for rational discussion of the subject.

Let's face it, Bio-Evolution through Natural Selection is indeed a legit Science Theory. To question that is ignorant.
The proper question is: How accurate is it? Does it really describe something that is Real? which leads to

2) a specific Bio-Evolution problem which we can attempt to apply this Knowledge to.

I'd suggest the question of Dogs and Wolves, but I don't want anyone to think I'm setting up things up my way.

Well- acceptance? rejection? Better Idea?

 

I am very near to life as well, thank you.

 

They are not separated at all if natures judgment is I want more instead of I need to protect what I've got. I don't think chemicals and joules are prone to self doubt. We are discussing multiplication, not division.

 

Ah-- but we are discussing division.
New spicies break off from old. Except that one time (that's all that's required) when a molecule reached a level of complexity that required a Quantum Leap and it became self-replicating, and worked it's way to -- well, me and you.

The Great Apes all have a common ancestor. As the primal apes spread into different envonirments, they divided into subdivisions, and eventually, they adapted to the different enviroments. Throw random mutation and time into the mix, and Viola-- New Species.

Bio-Evolution is not about mutiplying. It's about dividing.

 

Yet your siren wail is we cannot learn anything if we get caught up in our old associations. First order in trying to solve a complicated problem, find lowest common denominator, throw out the narrow sampling. To the culturally im-masculineated, complexity appears very sexy.

 

Or one will do, the more the merrier, random is not focused.

 

Look, troll, you have no claim to begin with.
That's as far as the title of thread is concerned (and that's all that matters for purposes of this discussion).

Next, I do have an open mind, I do accept reasonable ideas.
Once in parallel thread I did concede to Skizm that Spetner got wrong his calculations (I figured Spetner didn't take into account in his calculations what New Synthesis biologists came up with later).

Just because I am open minded and accept reasonable ideas doesn't mean I will change my opinion when it's not warranted and unreasonable to do so.

I don't think of sex when doing math or science.

 

It's the no balls thing.

 

Balls or no balls, irrelevant here (what are you , a soccer player?)

Point is: no Darwinist was able to succesfully argue in favor of the theory of evolution.
That's all I see.

 

You see only the past and dream of future glory.

 

I said "closer, but far from complete"

Difficult, but not impossible. Should we just throw in the towel, because the task is big?

Agree, he did the best with what he had to work with.

You're right. We now know that there are many mechanisms besides RM+NS that influence evolution. There may be even more that we haven't discovered yet.

You mean Evolutionists?

I'm sure there are intuitions, expectations, and assumptions made by scientists and skeptism is a good thing when it comes to any scientific theory. One of the discovereies they made with the recent "Ardi" find is that chimpanzees have actually evolved more when it comes to physical evolution. So my sig pic is actually false. So our understanding is always changing when it comes to the details anyway.

I agree, but that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence. In fact there's tons of it. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I agree. The complexity is breathtaking, but I'm still curious to know more.

Do you have evidence for this assumption?

Once again appearance is not evidence. It's intuition and feeling. The evidence should speak for itself whether for or against evolution. One piece of evidence could prove it wrong at any time.

 

You see none of what I see nor have any idea what I dream of.

Now, digressions aside, does anyone have argument in favor of Darwinism?
If so, would anyone proceed with their argument