Irrefutable Proof of Evolution

[Missileman]

Those are YOUR WORDS: not mine, n' the bold doesn't change that fact.



I deny that "natural selection" was the specific mechanism in my statement: clown.

Then perhaps you might supply some other mechanism of evolution that was proposed by Darwin.

[OldMercsRule]

Your debate style is to pull wiki quotes et al and try to fine tune semantics about yer religion. Science is not as politicaly correct as you discribe.

Most theories start where the hypothesis attempts to describe observation. The Greeks, Chinese and Persans obsevered similarities in life and theorized that life evolved from organism to organism.

That particular part of the theory still has merrit.

As mankind learned from observation the theory obviously didn't explain the source, (the fundamental flaw from the onset), and also lacked a cohesive verifiable mechanism to develope new organisms from earlier ones, (the second major flaw).

Darwin proposed a mechanism for how things changed from a single ancestor through one at a time random changes where beneficial changes resulted in better chance of survival.

Science disproved that mechanism due to complexity of components, (complex organs), and the complexity of all life that Darwin could not have known about.

The origin of life. (By design or random occurance), is fundamental to the success or failure of both very old competing theories no matter how you and Missile dance with the written quotes in wiki and elsewhere of fellow believers.

The mechanism of change is the second profound weakness that SCIENCE, (advances in cellular technology has shown). Modificantions of Darwin still don't fit all observations or explain where life came from. Evolution is not a fact it is a theory in flux.



Look in the mirror yer a true believer.

Read the above post that seems to have twisted yer panties into a big bunch, pay attention to the red part

[Missileman]

Read the above post that seems to have twisted yer panties into a big bunch, pay attention to the red part

That's part of the mechanism commonly known as natural selection...ta hell with the color...pay attention to the words.

[OldMercsRule]

That's part of the mechanism commonly known as

Only "commonly known" by true believers who are dumbers n' can't read plain English.

natural selection

Yer words not mine.

...ta hell with the color...pay attention to the words.

Good advice: clown.

[Missileman]

Only "commonly known" by true believers who are dumbers n' can't read plain English.



Yer words not mine.

No fuckhead...Darwin's words.

[OldMercsRule]

No fuckhead...Darwin's words.

I didn't use Darwin's words in my claim you did: clown.



Yer brain is stuck eh?



Crawl outa kindergarten take yer thumb outa yer mouth n' hit the books.



honk honk



Pffffffffffft

[Little Dragon]

Natural selection is part of current evolution theory. They found other mechanisms which aid evolution. This is all part of a single theory. More than just one factor. This being said, natural selection has not been disproven. Evolution theory has just had some things added to it. Does this clear anything up?

Oh and by the way, Merc, you're spelling but wrong. Butt refers to one's rear. Thought you'd like to know

[Missileman]

I didn't use Darwin's words in my claim you did: clown.

You referenced Darwin's theory, which is evolution through natural selection. Is your refusal to stand by your own statement an indication that you think Darwin's theory is as scientifically valid today as when he proposed it?

[OldMercsRule]

Natural selection is part of current evolution theory.

Ya think????

They found other mechanisms which aid evolution.

Nawh the true belivers jus' made up more chit to fit their pre cornceived notions. (I know I miss-spelled chit, n' I like corn toooooo, [from time to time]) As the observational theory/religion of evolution was a failing to fit observations after few thousand years or soooo. The religion of evolution is a big success as dumbers like Missile clearly demonstrate. Are you a true believer toooooo?

This is all part of a single theory.

Nope it is much more then jus' a theory it is a religion. Takes far more faith then most religions do, BTW.

More than just one factor.

Ya think??????

This being said, natural selection has not been disproven.

Never said it was. Missile tries ta put those werds in me mouth.

Evolution theory has just had some things added to it.

Yup the religion needs ta add things since it is a observational based theory that doesn't fit observations.

Does this clear anything up?

Nope...... butt thanks fer the post, n' welcome to Debate Policy!!!

Oh and by the way, Merc, you're spelling but wrong. Butt refers to one's rear.

Ya mean me arse????? Thanks n' you can call me Murky.

Thought you'd like to know

I like ta know a few things so people don't think I'm a real dumber stuck on stooooooooooopid, like me bud: Missile.

[OldMercsRule]

You referenced Darwin's theory, which is evolution through natural selection. Is your refusal to stand by your own statement an indication that you think Darwin's theory is as scientifically valid today as when he proposed it?

I stand by me own statements: clown.

I jus' don't stand by yers!!!

[HappyCamperKitteh]

That was an interesting video. The theory of evolution is getting closer and closer to being fact, I'd say. I don't know if this particular video does just that, but it's still a nice bit of info. I kind of like to view the theory of evolution like the evolution of technology -- new and progressive inventions coming up based on older inventions.

Computers, Internet, network virtualization, refrigeration, thermostat heating and so on... It all stems from somewhere.

[OldMercsRule]

That was an interesting video.

Yes it was.

The theory of evolution is getting closer and closer to being fact, I'd say.

Nawh it is still a theory that needs periodic revision, (as many theories do). The religious nature of this particular theory, as demonstrated by the video and some who have posted on this thread is the real objectivity problem faced by science (and those who get grants to further work) with regard to evolution.

I don't know if this particular video does just that, but it's still a nice bit of info. I kind of like to view the theory of evolution like the evolution of technology -- new and progressive inventions coming up based on older inventions.

Computers, Internet, network virtualization, refrigeration, thermostat heating and so on... It all stems from somewhere.

You seem to have a healthy attitude about evolution.

BTW, welcome to Debate Policy

[Little Dragon]

See Murky, part of the problem is that many people don't understand what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is different than the common use meaning of theory. What you are referring to is a hypothesis. In the sciences, a theory is the highest achievement, something that only happens when a hypothesis is validated. Theories are how science explains facts. Details of how evolution occur may change with new evidence. And some details may be disputed like whether a fossil is more one thing than another, however the fact that evolution occurs is indisputable. The only reason to avoid accepting it is a desperate clinging to a literal interpretation of the Bible's creation story.

Why is it so important to cling to a literal interpretation of the creation story? Couldn't it be metaphorical? Why must belief about god be so narrow?

[OldMercsRule]

See Murky, part of the problem is that many people don't understand what a scientific theory is.

I may only have one functional brain cell, butt: I fully understand the use of semantics to elevate one's argument in debate.

A scientific theory is different than the common use meaning of theory.

Only when true believers need semantics to defend a hypothisis based observational theory that doesn't fit unfolding observations and needs constant adjustment over thousands of years.

What you are referring to is a hypothesis.

Most theories start with a hypothesis Little Dragon.

In the sciences, a theory is the highest achievement, something that only happens when a hypothesis is validated.

Nope, a theory can start with a hypothesis if the hypothesis fits all observations over time it can become a valid theory, and remain so until observations disprove said theory requiring a modification of the underlying hypothesis.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

the·o·ry   /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun,plural-ries.
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.contemplation or speculation.
7.guess or conjecture.

Science Dictionary
theory (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) Pronunciation Key
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Theories are how science explains facts.

Nope. Theories based on observations, (which can misslead from time to time and are subject to change with advances in observational techniques), explain OBSERVATIONS not FACTS. Yer lettin' the dominant religion of the theory of evolution cloud yer arguments here: Little Dragon.

Details of how evolution occur may change with new evidence. And some details may be disputed like whether a fossil is more one thing than another, however the fact that evolution occurs is indisputable.

I dissagree.

Evolution is likely IMHO, and does fit many observations, (especially intra species range of variation in dogs horses and bacteria), ta name a few instances. Inter species jumps, (where bacteria become horses or some such), is and has been the major challange that the video shows interesting recent observations in sequencing which may help validate some sort of yet unspecified mechanism for evolution.

The mechanism of evolution is not yet understood and is subject to frequent change.

Without a valid proven mechanism evolution is a very fragile theory.

ID is one possible mechanism (that I happen to have unscientific personal faith in), and ID does IN FACT fit all observations up to the present point in time of the existance of life, and the existance of the universe.

I am not debating the nature of God here.

The only reason to avoid accepting it is a desperate clinging to a literal interpretation of the Bible's creation story.

Where did I cling "to a literal interpretation of the Bible's creation story"? You can't read my mind, just my words which I try to choose carefully when I debate. Since I only have one functional brain cell I would give up mind reading: period.

ID is a valid theory that has fit thousands of years of observations.

Why is it so important to cling to a literal interpretation of the creation story? Couldn't it be metaphorical? Why must belief about god be so narrow?

That is the second time you said that.

Please produce a post where I said that.

I feel my particular belief in Christ, (same God as the God of Abraham), is in fact broad. I don't believe in Allah, Buddha, Brahms, Vishnu, or Shiva.

[Missileman]

ID is a valid theory that has fit thousands of years of observations.
[/COLOR]

ID is at best a religious hypothesis...it sure as hell isn't a valid scientific theory. It hasn't a single shred of scientific evidence to support it's conclusion. It is nothing more than a declaration that an observation of complexity is proof that it was designed...more specifically, designed by the Christian god. It offers no proof of the existence of this designer, nor any proof that these structures can't occur naturally. Not a single serial number, or model number, no blueprints or schematics, no eyeball machine, not a single indication has been discovered that a designer was involved at all.