Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

I'd like to know how much research has been made into this case. I've never heard of it before now, and I am surprised it is not more well-documented frankly. Maybe more research should be made into it? I'd be keen to see what comes of it.
Actually there is also a debate in itself, would it count as macro- or micro-evolution? Would these new hybrids, if proved to be so, be counted as a new animal species in its own right, or merely just another type of mouse? I would argue the latter personally, but what do you think?

 

The above posted wasn't my quote (you made it look like it was).

 

Indeed Munchausen would be proud of all Darwinists.

 

Jumbuli wins, as usual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=084h7Bx-tiQ

 

It takes a lot of effort to maintain the, "right position", in the face of emergent conditions. It brings great relief to discover that we had been mistaken.

 

The first link is giving me Cookie errors. "An error has occured (sic) because we were unable to send a cookie to your web browser."
I'm not also a fan of their misspelling of "occurred" either...

The other link, I will probably have to reread in the morning. I read over it and came up a blank as I am falling asleep and not concentrating (it is past 2am).
I will probably come back tomorrow and see at least two new pages worth of posts.

 

This is your first true statement as to your purposes for promoting this thread

 

I've been trying to find out more about it, but I can't find anything. I know observations have been made on the speciation of fruit flys and plants also.

It's considered macroevolution when the two animals are no longer the same species and this is determined by whether they can produce fertile offspring. For example, donkeys and horses are different species, because their offspring (mules) are infertile. Whereas dogs can still breed dispite big differences in breeds so they are still considered the same species.

 

Kay.

Here's another version of the link. Goodnight and good reading!

Edit: another link. Found the wiki for it. Quantum evolution (alternative).

 

I want to talk some hard science here.

 

It is the term, "hard", that turns it to a speculative venture.

 

In regards the characters of beasts, men, and Deities, children are delightful, cocks delight in strutting their stuff, men delight in practicing their profession, and Gods delight in giving it all away.

 

From the point of view of someone on a similar metaphysical worldview as you (although we probably have differing views on origins) I will give my belated 2 cents:

My encounters with anti-evolutionists have been varied. I've encountered young-earthers, old-earthers, evolutionary-creationists and every grey area in between. Although when I have entered into a conversation with anti-evolutionists, they say they will listen to evidence for evolution. what then occurs (no matter how dumbed down) is they will say they do not understand. That, or they wil ask for other transitionals in between the current transitions. Or they quote mine people like Stephen J. Gould. Or they use counter-evidence from the 50's or 70's. (Did you know plate-tectonic theory was only developed since the 60's. Ask anyone before then and earthquakes were not caused by slipping plates of crust on the mantle).

What I then found was no amount of polite conversation, debate, or heated arguing will move either side.

I guess what my point is not that discussion is futile, but that both side must remain truly open-minded. Or at the very least, cling fast to your own view, but investigate deeper when something intriguing challenges your worldview.

 

And I was making the point that their far outnumbered by those who do.

Not I. I was just suggesting that when they venture beyond the weather, they're not longer in their area of expertise. I tend to give more weight to the scientists who have specialized in relevant areas.

I conceded that early on. The leading figures gurus at the Creation Science Institute and the Discovery Institute are scientists of sorts. They have Ph.Ds in scientific disciplines, although they haven't done much science since getting their degrees and they don't publish in refereed journals. I'd argue that they are Evangelist Apologists first, scientist second.

 

I conceded that early on. The leading figures gurus at the Creation Science Institute and the Discovery Institute are scientists of sorts. They have Ph.Ds in scientific disciplines, although they haven't done much science since getting their degrees and they don't publish in refereed journals. I'd argue that they are Evangelist Apologists first, scientist second.[/QUOTE]

We might take care that the successful strategy of genetic diversity not be compromised by too much academic inbreeding.

 

In general, there are two separate definitions of theory.
Theory:
In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial, (note not overwhelming), number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.
Theory 2:
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The theory of evolution is a well established fact. The study of the gene pool has done that.
The theory of evolution by natural selection might be considered still open to debate.

 

Feynman: Take the world from another point of view

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsgBtOVzHKI

 

I like your friend. I note he talks about his self trans-formative processes. One discovering that his past lessons had taught him nothing. Another, the journey into the wilderness, and in the end he discovers what Newton had said, "I intended my mind".

 

I have my doubts of various tall tales told by Munchausen, Darwin, Okiefreak and alike and don't take those for scientifically valid facts or theories.
If that makes me anti-munchausenist , anti-darwinist or anti-evolutionist then so be it.

I don't know what this implies, so no comments there.

I never say I merely don't understand.
I always say from what I understand it's nothing but tall tales.
And I am always open to fresh ideas and explanations as long as those are reasonable, which is main difference between me and dogma worshiping Darwinist zealots.

That fossils prove nothing has already been proven beyond any doubt.
Darwinists themselves will at first claim that fossils prove the evolution is fact.

Once you challenge them to show how a fragmentary and scattered evidence such as the fossils of vastly different species prove that one has emerged from another or that two different species emerged from some imaginary third one by means of random chance and natural selection, guess what Darwinists respond with?

That there can't be any required transitionary fossil since fossils are too scare to begin with (then why bother to claim fossils prove anyting?)
And then that ANY fossil is by definition transitionary, since it represents some stage in development of organisms (Yeah right, then again, why bother with fossils? You could as well say any living creature is transitionary by definition. Either way you have baseless assertion and no proof whatsoever).

I don't do that. I did quote Spetner for a while but evolutionists are in the race of patching up the theory and bringing ever more excuses to justify the original tall tale as related by founding fraudster named Darwin.
So I gave up quoting Spetner.
I ask for a proof that the theory is scientifically valid, plain and simple as that.

You didn't talk to reasonable people then. Perhaps you talk about Darwinist dogma worshipers.
As to me, all it takes to convince me that theory is scientifically valid is:
1) Relevant to the theory evidence
2) Plausible argment,to clearly show reasoning behind inferences made and conjecture arrived.

That's right . Darwinist dogma worshipers must admit that their founding fraudster may have been mistaken and that there is possibility that they have no clue about how species evolved into what they are observed to be.

I totally approve of that statement !

 

It is as you describe and I understand the desire to shock the system from its' somni-facient trance, however, ignorance fades in the light of knowledge. A teachers jobs is to encourage the desire to learn. While ridicule may serve as a motivator to a sensitive few, it is more likely to inspire a defense to learning.