Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

No,it doesn't tell that.
If theory is what you really believe it is then I have a theory as well, about UFO being rocketplane flying on horsepoop.
If what you call a "scientific theory" is as credible as poopy-UFO theory then I have no more objections to your claim that Darwinism is just as valid theory.

But to say theory is scientifically valid is more than that.

Take Big Bang theory. There is no idiot here who would argue that Stephen Hawkings must fly in time machine and film Big Bang in action to convince us it's scietific theory.

He has reasonable explanation, a scientifically valid theory, to make a supposition and here ,in nutshel, is why.

First, when objects/stars move away from us or towards us their spectral light, as observed by us ,changes.

This allows us to look at the stars and tell in what direction things are moving in Universe. Thus it was Empirically observed and concluded that stars and galaxies are moving away from each other and the logical conclusion was made then that Universe is in the process of expansion.

Again, it is logical to assume that if Universe is expanding as Time goes forward, it would be shrinking if Time was revesred.

Thus the proponents of Big Bang theory assume that Universe was in constant expansion since the moment of it's existence.

They then ask how would the process unfold backwards and using the known Laws of Physics and Termodynamics show the process in reverse.

They are able to show clearly and convincingly the condition of matter and of whole Universe up to the Plank epoch (beyond which all forumals and numbers collapse) by means of relying on known Laws of Physics and Empirically observed fact of Universal expansion at the moment.

Even thogh I don't think well explained by Stephen Hawking's theory will withstand the test of time (nor anybody, including Hawking, claims Big Bang to be observable fact), still I find it to be scientifically valid and sufficiently well reasoned theory.

Now what do Darwinists have in support of their theory?
A few monkeys here and there with difefrent genome codes, some fossils found in Himalai of species removed by tens of millions of years from each other and few dogs bred in Darwin's backyard that are still dogs, but somehow made Darwin think that if someone kept doing to apes few million years ago what he did to dogs, then Homo Sapience would ultimately emerge as consequence. And he reasoned that Apes did it themselves, by randomly mating with more advanced apes and eventually branching off to become Humans.
There is NOTHING but pure assumption behind the theory and lately more critical analysis has shown how absurdly invalid those claims turn to be, whenever you set out to test those Tall tales by logic.
Where is the basic calculation , quantitative analysis that would validate the theory by showing the probability of events happening by chance as described and in timeline given?
Where are the answers to numerous questions that are being handwaved by "this is to obvious to argue or show you how it actually is"?
Where is the evidence to support it other than usual "there is a mountain of evidence so huge that no one needs to show you" mantra?
Where are the plausible arguments that would show the reasoning behind arriving to such outrageously arbitrary conclusions?

Now I don't care how many times you repeat saying that you are too smart to prove that something is valid by virtue of you saying it is so, but the matter of fact is that unless you back up your own assertion and address the criticism and questions I posed to Monkey Boy and others before, you have no assertion to begin with.

You can attempt to spin it all day long, claiming I am to ignorant to know difference between Theory and observed Empirical event, but the fact of the matter is that it is not so.
And you can't make it into something it is not just by repeating or typing what you do.

Simple as that.

 

Ok, fool.
you're UFO baloney is NOT a Theory. it's a hypothesis.
A theory requires some emp[irical evidence to back it up-- such as the existence of UFO's in your stupid belief. However, you have no evidence that UFO's exit AT ALL.

But look around you-- even through the sand you can see that the diversity of life is a FACT. Evolution is a THEORY woking to cover that FACT.

Your hoseshit nonsense is an attempt to equate your small modicum of intelligence, with may lifes work of many highly educated people.

"Take Big Bang theory. There is no idiot here who would argue that Stephen Hawkings got it right because he didn't flyin action."
What?

"First, when objects/stars move away from us or towards us their spectral light, as observed by us ,changes.

This allows us to look at the stars and tell in what direction things are moving in Universe. Thus it was Empirically observed that stars and gaxies are moving away from each other and the logical conclusion was then made that entire Universe is in the process of expansion.

Again, it is logical to assume that if Universe is expanding as Time goes forward, it would be shrinking if Time was revesred.

Thus the proponents of Big Bang theory assume that Universe was in constant expansion since the moment of it's existence.

They then ask how would the process unfold backwards and using the known Laws of Physics and Termodynamics show the process in reverse.

They are able to show clearly and convincingly the condition of matter and of whole Universe up to the Plank epoch (beyond which all forumals and numbers collapse) by means of relying on known Laws of Physics and Empirically observed fact of Universal expansion at the moment"

So what's your point? Apply this to Biology- same thing.

I've backed up every assertion I've made. YOU have failed to address A SINGLE ONE.

Your constant repeating that you don't beleive it just shows you're own ignorance. Do you know what the relationship between Plank's constant and Uncertainty is?

You demand-- PROVE. the question is wrong, but the vaslidity of the THEORY has been clearly demonstrated by many.
But you fear to ask a specific question, almost as much as you fear to answer one.

By the way-- space is expanding, but that's not the same as saying the stars are moving away from us

 

Is there anyone who still maintains assertion that Darwinism is Scientifically Valid theory? Trolls need not reply

 

can't even accept when his demands are met...

 

Why don't you post a link or post where you OR anyone has actually proved the point in question ,other than repeating "this is so because so and so said so" or "this is so because there is a mountain of evidence so tall that noone even needs to show you" mantra?

 

Once I saw behind the stair
a little man who wasn't there...

 

If you consider this a proof of validity of what you call a scientific theory , then no more questions to you.

Next!

 

did somebody say something?

 

Next!

 

Selective breeding of cannabis plants proves that new species can be created through sexual reproduction, and the CCR5 delta 32 mutation is passed along that provides some resistance against hiv and smallpox. (See also this), thus proving that beneficial as well as detrimental mutations (as well as genetic traits) can be passed to offspring to either heighten chances of survival or lower chances of survival, contributing to Darwin's theory.

Resistant bacteria
see secition 5.1, additional sources are found in citations
More resistant bacteria stuff with references

This clears some things up
Pesticide resistance
More resistance and other good stuff

Flu stuff
(Find the phrase: Influenza viruses continually change over time ; under 'causes of the flu', second paragraph)
-evidence that the virus must evolve to survive, as it would die if it ran out of hosts
as evidenced here and here; the second illness could not evolve, and was eliminated when it ran out of hosts

After a new species was introduced, it's behaviors have and will dominate those of other species in specific regions, leading to the replacement of species in that region. (Darwin's theory would imply that different species will preside in and dominate different areas with different geographies and climates, with stronger inhabitants dominating the weaker ones of that area; this is evidence towards that notion)

I can go on if you wish, or find other evidence.

 

Please browse back to page 1 and look through the next 20 pages, at least, so that you wouldn't be repeating what has already been refuted at least 100 times in this and some other threads.

 

Well not one thing has actually been refuted by you, only denied.

 

To be accurate not one assertion of darwinists was backed up without being debunked , on this or few other trheads.

 

You threw a lot of bunk but the evidence and impetus of real science remains.

 

That's right.

The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on:
Nor all your piety no wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it.

--Omar Khayyam

 

How would we "prove" to a determined Flat Earther that the earth is round? I believe it because I believe the sources in which I've read it. I believe Walter Cronkite. I believe that the photos of the round earth were actually taken from outer space, and that the videos of astronauts landing on the moon were of real events rather than happenings staged in a backlot of Universal Studios. And I've been to China via California, and I believe that if I kept going east I'd end up on the east coast of the United States. And I believe that in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue and if he'd have kept going he actually would have arrived in the East Indies instead of the West Indies. But the bottom line is I believe these things because I've read them or been told them by sources I consider to be credible. Yes, Jumbuli, there are mountains of evidence confirming the New Synthesis in evolution, and the fact that such leading lights of ID as Michael Behe and Lee Spetner accept most of the "Neo-Darwinist" argument is, in my opinion, confirmation enough. We don't cite all of the evidence for you for the same reason we don't cite all of the evidence for a round earth--it's too massive to make doing so practicable, and it's so obvious that doing so would waste our time. I have no problem at all leaving it at that.

 

If all else failed, by showing the picture of Earth from the space.

You are an imbecile.

I do not doubt the evidence presented. I don't say that fossils do not exist or that various species do not have certain similarities.

What I question is the conclusion reached based on such evidence.

You can't conclude the Earth is square or anything other than round when looking at picture of it from space.
Even before that, the fact that people were getting back to point they left if they kept going in same direction, was good enough evidence to conclude that Earth, if anything, wasn't flat. But now we have direct photoimage of it proving it's round.
There is no way that, based on totality of available evidence, you could still doubt that it's round.

It is not so with fossils. Nothing in fossils tell you how each organism preserved in it came to be what it is. You simply have a record of certain organisms existing at certain points in past.
That is evidence of itself, but not an evidence of mechanism responsible for it's occurence.

Why you keep saying it without ever showing? What other than the debunked already arguments do you have to support your idea?

Mere evidence of something in existence is not an evidence of mechanism responsible for it's emergence.

I don't know Behe, but I know Spetner doesn't.

He explicitly says in his book what he considers to be driving mechanism of "Neo darwinism" (random chance and natural selection) and just as explicitly declares "Not by chance" in the title of the book.
If you call this "accepts most of "Neo-Darwinist" argument, then I have Copernicus accepting most of Ptolemean astronomy.

You didn't site ANY evidence supporting conclusion that you chose to believe.

You are free to worship religious dogma of darwin, who am I to tell you otherwise?
But you need more than "this is so because i believe so" mantra to convince that it is indeed scientifically valid theory.

 

Drop the flat earth analogy. it doesn't hold water.
The earth they knew WAS more-or-less flat. It was a belief of ignorant jumbul-- land locked peasants. it was not commonly held anytime in recorded history by anyone with the slightest education.
That belief was akin to jumbulli's insistence on solipsism.

 

Earth is round and can be observed to be so from the space.
But Earth being round is NOT an evidence of mechanism responsible for it's being round.

The fossils do exist and are evidence of various organisms that have existed at certain time in past.
They are not an evidence of mechanism responsible for their emergence.

It takes above single digit IQ score to comprehend simple concepts like that. Obviously such do not exist among darwinist dogma worshippers.

 

enough rope...

The Spherical Shape of the Earth IS evidence of the mechannism-- Gravity!!!!

Now can you see the flaw in your reasoning? or, by your analogy, do you deny the existence of Gravity?

Which is it? No gravity or no basis for your argument?