Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Thedope,
Sorry, slopist is an inside joke.
It's Solipsist, as in Solipsism.

Jumbulli, I understand that your ego has really suffered a blow, so I'll fogive your childishness. But really, you're embarassing yourself.

 

Why don't you keep your own word and stop spamming this thread?

There could be honest , not trolling posters who might be interested in discudding this subject.

Leave at once !

 

I get where you are coming from that's why I specified "plant species". It's estimated that as many as 50% of extant flowering plant species have evolved via hybridization and polyploidy. So it's not evidence for macroevoluion for all species, but for flowering plant species I would argue it is.

 

It's not all about you child.
thedope asked me a question.
Now go to you're room!

Quite refering to me, and I will be happy to watch you wallow in you your egotistical crapulence without comment. until you start mirepresenting Science, that is.

 

I get where you are coming from as well and didn't just by accident mention that it takes more than simple assertion to explain why it isn't an evidence of macroevolution.

I knew of plants' hybridization as early as when I was 3 to 5 years old.
People who had gardens would always show some trees and explain that those were product of hybridization.

Plant speciation is not an indicator for possibility of macroevolution and since I am not 5 years old I understand it takes more than assertion to explain this.

I can get into the relevant details later.

 

Wait a minute. I always thought that in a debate the affirmative carried the burden of proof. The topic is : "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory". So the affirmative side consists of people agreeing with that, which would be Jumbuli and Honey. The wording came from a verbatim statement by Jumbuli on another thread. That statement was made not in response to an assertion about the theory, but simply mention of Darwin in a context that could be construed as favorable, but by no means an assertion of anything. Given the fact that Jumbuli didn't even make an effort to support the assertion with evidence and arguments, and indeed claimed he didn't need to, the case against evolution fell to Honey. She gave it her best shot, and landed a few blows, but I think it's safe to say her efforts came short of proof of such a controversial topic. So I guess evolution might be a valid scientific theory after all. Please join me on a new thread to find out. This time the topic is: " Evolution is a valid scientific theory."

 

No, this is not so and you know why because we have been over it and probably more than once.

The doubt of positive assertion is not an equivalent of positive assertion.
It is one who makes positive assertion who also has burden of proof.
One who doubts it is not equally situated.
I am not obliged to prove non-existence.
You are obliged to prove existence.

If I say UFO is a rocket which flies on a horsepoop and call it a scientifically valid theory and if you say "this is NOT a scientific theory!", the burden of proof is with me to prove that it is indeed a scientific theory and best explanation for UFO phenomena.

I can't say that UFO is a rocket which flies on a horsepoop and call it a scientifically valid theory and then shift the burden upon you to disprove it.

Or are you saying I can?
And if you fail to disprove, under your own standards of equal burden of proof, are you then going to accept as well my "theory" about UFO's flying on horsepoop to have scientific validity , just as you claim one you defend has?

So, what you say now?

 

I just came across the "stabilization process". I'm not sure how valid it is, but since it can produce rapid change I thought it looked interesting. http://www.macroevolution.net/stabilization-processes.html

Edit: Nevermind. It's just another mechanism of evolution.

 

That's a piece of the puzzle, monkeyboy.
It certainly supports the idea that Evolution is inevitable.
However, there was one mistake. the author should have elucidated on the difference between, mutations, suvivable mutations, and beneficila mutations in the opening.

Ther is no single evolutionary mechanism. evolution is the way of existence.

 

Of course you realize, this is not a competing theory, but merely (yet) another mechanism of the inevitable.

 

Yeah, I realised that and edited my post.

 

Anyone who studies the subject, as opposed to clinging to some bone in the leg of an extinct animal, will see that the principle of Evolution- change in response to enviromental pressures-- runs thoroughout Science.
As for evolutionary mechanism, what isn't one?

 

You are right in that who ever makes a claim has the burden to prove that there is sufficiant reason to believe that claim is a useful one. However you are sadly mistaken if you think that it is anybodies responsibility to prove to you beyond any shadow of a doubt.

First of all, if you are a reasonable person you must accept that there is a phenomenon to explain (life itself). So a null hypthosis is not acceptable in this debate. Second if you don't agree with the evolution claim (that the burden is on the proposers to prove), you are wasting your time if you don't activley dispute the claim.

You see evolutionists win this debate by merely proposing a claim, if you cannot come up with an alternative hypotheses then their claim stands on firmer grounds then your lack of alternative.

You see a null hypothesis (that is the position that there is nothing to explain) does not work here, there clearly is a phenomenon here (life itself). So taking no position leaves your argument against evolution in hole. It is much more reasonable to assert that evolution is the mechanism for life then "it just is".

Now, I'm not saying you have to prove an alternative hypothesis, what i am saying, is you need to show how an alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true then the evolutionist claim.

The reason being from a lay point of view, an appeal to authority provides the evolutionist with more then enough reason to accept the claim. In a scientific point of view, there is mountains of evidence, the claim can be used to make predictions, it doesn't assume any mechanisms it cannot explain. It is testable and finally the claim is conservative in that it does not run contrary to the body of scientific knowledge we have.

It is very straight forward to show that the evolution claim is the most reasonable claim we have at the moment and as such is an acceptable one. Now, if you want to dispute the claim that has so much going for it, at this point you'd better have an alternative hypothesis.

*I am using the terms "hypothesis" and "claim" interchangably

 

What he said!

 

If anybody claims that the modern theory of evolution is scientifically valid one they also have burden of proof.

If they don't prove it or if no one makes such a claim then there is nothing to disagree with.

Let all those who ever claimed Darwinism to be scientifically valid theory publicly declare their capitulation (that they have no claim to begin with) and I promise not to raise this subject once again

I disagree. There is a phenomena called UFO. Other than few , shall we say, extra enthusiastic theory makers , noone dares to propose a serious theory let alone call it scientifically valid when it comes to explaining such a phenomena.

If there is no comprehension of phenomena, a null hypothesis actually becomes the only reasonable one, unless you come to the point where you can make any reasonable suggestion as to what it is.

Let me say that UFO is a rocket and it flies on horsepoop.
How are you going to actively argue to disprove it?
Can you really disprove it?

I addressed this tens of times in past , including above.

UFO is UFO.
Species are Species.
I don't know what first is and I don't know what mechanism brought into existence the second.

See above

Prove it.

See above

 

So now you claim ignorance is superior to Knowledge!?!?!?
Did you take your meds yet?

 

Dogma worshiper is getting nervous, sure sign we are on right track

 

Pitty people have already shown you it is the most reasonable explanation to explain the evidence abundant on earth.

Actually I came up with quite a reasonable hypothesis to explain this phenomenon (which obviously exists). And my hypothesis is as follows "Human beings believe in imaginary beings to fufill a psychological need". Now clearly I can't convince you that people believing in aliens is a phenomenon because you don't even believe our existance is, you are unreasonable.

See above, you do not seem to understand what a phenomenon is. And yes a null hypothesis is the most reasonable if there is nothing to explain, but to say our existance is nothing to explain, is unreasonable.

Well that's a terrible example because of the term UFO is merely the definition of a flying object that is unidentified, but i will take your example with the spirit i believe you intended it.

It is impossible to prove something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist. It can't be done, but you can show that it is unreasonable, either through null hypothesis (when there is no phenomenon, which in this case there most definatley is one), or through a more reasonable hypothesis.

And you probably got it wrong, which is why i had to explain to you again why your position is weak? I don't know what is your theory on why you have such trouble understanding things?

And thats your excuse for believing that the null hypothesis is applicable?

Can't be fucked cutting and pasting countless pieces of evidence, I have no interest in debating evolutionism with you. I merely get a kick out of showing how messed up your understanding of logic and argument is.

In fact, you've shown you wont even reasonably accept that our existance is a phenomenon that is explainable, with such a position im surprised you think it is possible to prove or disprove evolution, although i shouldn't be surprised.

 

Yeah!