Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
+12
Holt
MrBigfoot
Woodwose
Blondie1
DPinkerton
Mr.Lee
*****
Sweetsusiq
CMcMillan
StankApe
Tzieth
Got Yeti Yet?
16 posters
Page 9 of 14
Page 9 of 14 • 1 ... 6 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 14
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
DPinkerton wrote:Ah OK I finally get it. Thanks for clarifying it. It only took 4 pages of post to realize that all this time "we" have been talking about Evolution while Wood has been talking about the Theory of Evolution. ((But I am pretty sure that when we have used the word "evolution" we were referring to the "theory of evolution.))
Call me ignorant I guess...I for one thought that Evolution was a theory...but I guess not. Only the Theory of Evolution is a theory while Evolution is a fact. It is starting to make sense now! Thank you for your patience and understanding while the rest of have been trying to figure this out.
That being said...maybe I will come back to this thread when everyone is talking about the same thing.
You really think that will happen DP? Do you think it's possible?????
Blondie1- Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 28
Circumlocution
Talking in circles = circumlutioncircumlocution - definition of circumlocution by the Free Online ...
cir·cum·lo·cu·tion (sûr k m-l -ky sh n). n. 1. The use of unnecessarily wordy and
indirect language.
circumlocution
noun indirectness, redundancy, euphemism, beating about the bush (informal), wordiness, diffuseness, prolixity, discursiveness He is long-winded and prone to circumlocution in his public speeches.
Syn-verboseness, verbosity - an expressive style that uses excessive or empty words
equivocation, evasion - a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth
cir·cum·lo·cu·tion (sûr k m-l -ky sh n). n. 1. The use of unnecessarily wordy and
indirect language.
circumlocution
noun indirectness, redundancy, euphemism, beating about the bush (informal), wordiness, diffuseness, prolixity, discursiveness He is long-winded and prone to circumlocution in his public speeches.
Syn-verboseness, verbosity - an expressive style that uses excessive or empty words
equivocation, evasion - a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth
Blondie1- Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 28
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
CMcMillan wrote:Nothing I said was Factually correct
ITS From Scientific Websites SO then YOU show ME what is correct.
Stop playing the stupid word game and post freaking links!
There was nothing wrong with your references. The problem is your interpretation.
Nothing you posted represented a problem for the TOE. Your claims regarding ID are fallacious and your definition of evolution and the TOE was incorrect, as was your usage of 'falsification'.
I could spell out where you went wrong, but I would be repeating myself again.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
Well
DP, TZ, SQ, and I seem to be talking about the same thing.
Just seems to be Wood who keeps changing the Word.
Wood..
I want you to spell out what the difference is between Evolution and TOE . I want to see Scientific websites Several showing what you mean. I am tired of your Word games.
You are playing the Straw-Man now when you fail to site and explain instead you just say we are wrong and we are stupid.
Sick of your stupid Word game.
I don't want the Wiki explanation either.
Ahhh so you think my Interpetation is wrong...
Maybe yours Is wrong.
The fact that you are 1 who says we are reading it wrong against 3 others who read it the other way. Think the odds of you reading it wrong is higher.
DP, TZ, SQ, and I seem to be talking about the same thing.
Just seems to be Wood who keeps changing the Word.
Wood..
I want you to spell out what the difference is between Evolution and TOE . I want to see Scientific websites Several showing what you mean. I am tired of your Word games.
You are playing the Straw-Man now when you fail to site and explain instead you just say we are wrong and we are stupid.
Sick of your stupid Word game.
I don't want the Wiki explanation either.
Ahhh so you think my Interpetation is wrong...
Maybe yours Is wrong.
The fact that you are 1 who says we are reading it wrong against 3 others who read it the other way. Think the odds of you reading it wrong is higher.
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
Nothing you posted represented a problem for the TOE. Your claims regarding ID are fallacious and your definition of evolution and the TOE was incorrect, as was your usage of 'falsification'.
I could spell out where you went wrong, but I would be repeating myself again.
Show me your Proper Definition of Falsification
seriously show it or shut up. Cause it isn't incorrect you just don't like that ID can be considered a Theory based of your Definition of Falsification so you keep changing it.
So SHOW US the correct Definition of Falsification and how it is used. I want Source LInks
I could spell out where you went wrong, but I would be repeating myself again.
Show me your Proper Definition of Falsification
seriously show it or shut up. Cause it isn't incorrect you just don't like that ID can be considered a Theory based of your Definition of Falsification so you keep changing it.
So SHOW US the correct Definition of Falsification and how it is used. I want Source LInks
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
CMcMillan wrote:Well
DP, TZ, SQ, and I seem to be talking about the same thing.
Just seems to be Wood who keeps changing the Word.
Not once have I changed my usage of evolution and the TOE. I've spelled it out numerous times, so why will things be any different this time around?
I don't want the Wiki explanation either.
Why not?
Maybe yours Is wrong.
The references you provided earlier were explicitly clear and repeated what I have been saying all along.
The fact that you are 1 who says we are reading it wrong against 3 others who read it the other way. Think the odds of you reading it wrong is higher.
Many people are ill informed about the TOE and science in general. I'm betting that if the situation were reversed and everyone backed me up, you would still insist that you cannot be mistaken.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
Blondie1 wrote:Talking in circles = circumlutioncircumlocution - definition of circumlocution by the Free Online ...
cir·cum·lo·cu·tion (sûr k m-l -ky sh n). n. 1. The use of unnecessarily wordy and
indirect language.
circumlocution
noun indirectness, redundancy, euphemism, beating about the bush (informal), wordiness, diffuseness, prolixity, discursiveness He is long-winded and prone to circumlocution in his public speeches.
Syn-verboseness, verbosity - an expressive style that uses excessive or empty words
equivocation, evasion - a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth
Blondie1- Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 28
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
I continue to get more and more confused....
Quotes from Wood:
Please show me verified test that confirm that a one species has evolved into another. I want to see the test results please as well as the method used in testing and peer review.
Again you say that the Theory of Evolution has been verified and tested. See above.
When asked for this proof...you responded with this statement.
Has not science claimed that life evolved from single cell organisms? From these organisms all life on Earth derived. Again...verification and test results please.
We have asked over and over for proof of the Theory of Evolution....you go back and forth between saying science makes no such claim and that theories are fact and verifiable. Which is it? Is the Theory of Evolution fact? If it is...and it is really a Theory as you define it...where is the verification and testing that PROVE single cells evolved into complex organisms, where is the verifiable evidence that one species has evolved into another?
Now wait? First you say that science "concept that has been verified, tested and holds it's weight." Now your saying that it involves falsifying the hypotheses? Which is it? Verifying or falsifying? Two completely different things.
So after we have tested an verified something we are left with only a working hypotheses or we don't know?? How can that be if we have tested and repeated something? See...And you question why I might be getting confused.
Huh? Didn't you say that "Science works because it is testable, repeatable"?
You keep correcting our misleading caricature of science by contradicting yourself!
Huh? Wait so science doesn't deal in facts, but science is based of things that are verifiable? If something is verified and repeated...wouldn't that be a fact?
But earlier you said this...
So is the Theory of Evolution "attempting" to explain or has it already been tested and verified?
I wonder how that could be possible!??
By the way...I stopped quoting at page 6...there are 2 more pages of examples!
Quotes from Wood:
In science 'theory' refers to a concept that has been verified, tested and holds it's weight.
Please show me verified test that confirm that a one species has evolved into another. I want to see the test results please as well as the method used in testing and peer review.
1. I did not say that science does not use hypotheses. I was making a distinction between the common usage of 'theory' and that used by science. The TEO is not an hypothesis.
Again you say that the Theory of Evolution has been verified and tested. See above.
When asked for this proof...you responded with this statement.
I can't supply facts that back up claims that science has not made.
Has not science claimed that life evolved from single cell organisms? From these organisms all life on Earth derived. Again...verification and test results please.
Asking for proof to back up claims science has not made is a Straw Man argument - fact!
We have asked over and over for proof of the Theory of Evolution....you go back and forth between saying science makes no such claim and that theories are fact and verifiable. Which is it? Is the Theory of Evolution fact? If it is...and it is really a Theory as you define it...where is the verification and testing that PROVE single cells evolved into complex organisms, where is the verifiable evidence that one species has evolved into another?
Science works because it is testable, repeatable and useful.
Then you clearly don't understand the scientific method or the process of peer review. Science involves falsifying hypotheses and as such scientists are constantly trying to prove themselves wrong.
Now wait? First you say that science "concept that has been verified, tested and holds it's weight." Now your saying that it involves falsifying the hypotheses? Which is it? Verifying or falsifying? Two completely different things.
Science only ends with a working hypothesis or 'we do not know yet'.
So after we have tested an verified something we are left with only a working hypotheses or we don't know?? How can that be if we have tested and repeated something? See...And you question why I might be getting confused.
Wrong. I have said no such thing - quite the opposite in fact. I have clearly stated that science is based on falsifying ideas and constantly questioning data and conclusions.
Huh? Didn't you say that "Science works because it is testable, repeatable"?
Having to constantly correct your misleading caricature of science doesn't really constitute a debate.
You keep correcting our misleading caricature of science by contradicting yourself!
Which is the same thing within the world of science. Science doesn't deal in fixed hard facts, but rather explanations and theories that best fit the current evidence. Science doesn't del in immutable facts.
Huh? Wait so science doesn't deal in facts, but science is based of things that are verifiable? If something is verified and repeated...wouldn't that be a fact?
You are confusing evolution with the theory of evolution. Evolution is the term used to describe mutation/speciation which is clearly observable. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the mechanisms behind speciation.
But earlier you said this...
In science 'theory' refers to a concept that has been verified, tested and holds it's weight.
So is the Theory of Evolution "attempting" to explain or has it already been tested and verified?
It amazes me that you fail to grasp pretty much everything I write and then distort it into something that in no way resembles what I have posted.
I wonder how that could be possible!??
By the way...I stopped quoting at page 6...there are 2 more pages of examples!
DPinkerton- Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
ROFLOL~~~~~~~~~~~
Plus/Plus/Plus Evolution DP!!!
Plus/Plus/Plus Evolution DP!!!
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Loquaciousness
Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness-Loquaciousness:
A predilection by the intelligentsia to engage in the manifestation of prolix exposition through a buzzword disposition form of communication notwithstanding the availability of more comprehensible, punctiliously applicable, diminutive alternatives.
Also known as "gross verbosity". Related to this is the use of inkhorn terms, loanwords that have a foreign origin, like Latin or French, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon words, which are inherently superior for English speakers to comprehend.
In brief: "smart" characters using long words when short ones would be better. Characters afflicted with this trait often seem to go out of their way to over-complicate their speech, probably because writers think that this is the only way to show that someone is more intelligent than the average writer.
This could also be the trait of a particularly anal-retentive character who always has to be right, the trait extending so far that the character always has to use exactly the right word — never using "blue" when "azure" would be more accurate, for example.
Occasionally such characters may drop the long words if things get particularly dire, to emphasize just how bad things are (in the same way as a Sarcasm Failure).
Alternatively, they may get even more wordy as they get more emotional, leading to increasingly detailed but ultimately incoherent ranting that falls too easily into wangst. Frequently another character will respond with something like "Wouldn't it be easier to just [whatever the brainy person said, in layman's terms]?" or "And [layman's terms version], too!"
A predilection by the intelligentsia to engage in the manifestation of prolix exposition through a buzzword disposition form of communication notwithstanding the availability of more comprehensible, punctiliously applicable, diminutive alternatives.
Also known as "gross verbosity". Related to this is the use of inkhorn terms, loanwords that have a foreign origin, like Latin or French, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon words, which are inherently superior for English speakers to comprehend.
In brief: "smart" characters using long words when short ones would be better. Characters afflicted with this trait often seem to go out of their way to over-complicate their speech, probably because writers think that this is the only way to show that someone is more intelligent than the average writer.
This could also be the trait of a particularly anal-retentive character who always has to be right, the trait extending so far that the character always has to use exactly the right word — never using "blue" when "azure" would be more accurate, for example.
Occasionally such characters may drop the long words if things get particularly dire, to emphasize just how bad things are (in the same way as a Sarcasm Failure).
Alternatively, they may get even more wordy as they get more emotional, leading to increasingly detailed but ultimately incoherent ranting that falls too easily into wangst. Frequently another character will respond with something like "Wouldn't it be easier to just [whatever the brainy person said, in layman's terms]?" or "And [layman's terms version], too!"
Last edited by Blondie1 on Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:32 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : spelling)
Blondie1- Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 28
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
Yea DP I was gonna post them all but decided it would be a waste of time. You however, get + 1111111111111.
Blondie1- Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 28
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
Actually people with Aspberger's often do this trying to be as precise as possible but usually end up making themselves "too pleonastic to be assimilated" It's very frustrating and sad if it's not on purpose.
But here guys I suspect it's for manipulation and attention.
But here guys I suspect it's for manipulation and attention.
Last edited by Blondie1 on Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:49 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : one more thing)
Blondie1- Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 28
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
none of you seem to understand evolution.....(except for Wood) species don't evolve into other species.... you don't one day have a large land mammal and then it gives birth to a whale.... species diverge due to their environment. It happens very very slowly (though at times there are sprints such as the peppered moth in Birmingham during the industrial revolution) .
The genetic makeup of offspring are based on not just the dominant genes of the parents , but also the recessive genes. So if two type of finches who both may have short stubby beaks (and hence couldn't feed on a particular type of fruit say) but both carry the recessive gene for longer beaks have offspring, those offspring could have longer beaks than their parents. Sometimes this longer beak could mean an advantage due to creating a new resource the short beaked birds had no access to. (and the reverse is also true, the long beaked birds could never reproduce due to being at a disadvantage) If said long beaked birds are healthier they will breed more often increasing the amount of long beaked genes in the pool. Eventually they will diverge so much that say a few thousand years later there would now be 2 species of finches living where there once was only one (or perhaps the long beaked variety could end up dominating resources so much the short beaks either leave or go extinct).
This has been seen in Darwin's Finches on the various islands of the Galapagos. The various types have all evolved different beaks to match their environment. This is called "selection". Survival of the fittest if you will.
the evidence for evolution is that it's going on all the time, it never stops. ALL FOSSILS ARE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. all life is transitional. even the old adage about crocodilians and sharks "they haven't changed in 65 million years" isn't really true, they have changed, just not in their basic structure because it's sound. It fits it's environment rather well.
There is no evidence for an animal evolving into another animal because that isn't how it works. Neanderthal and homo sapien existing side by side should show you that. Eventually neanderthal couldn't cope and they went extinct, but Sapien survived, because it was more fit. (and there was interbreeding as well, which also is further evidence of human evolution)
I really think that the massive time scales involved help in clouding the issue. Humans aren't really set up to deal with geologic time frames. a Million years to us seems reasonable, until you think about that your lifespan (say 80 years) would have to be repeated 12,500 consecutive times to match it!!!
The genetic makeup of offspring are based on not just the dominant genes of the parents , but also the recessive genes. So if two type of finches who both may have short stubby beaks (and hence couldn't feed on a particular type of fruit say) but both carry the recessive gene for longer beaks have offspring, those offspring could have longer beaks than their parents. Sometimes this longer beak could mean an advantage due to creating a new resource the short beaked birds had no access to. (and the reverse is also true, the long beaked birds could never reproduce due to being at a disadvantage) If said long beaked birds are healthier they will breed more often increasing the amount of long beaked genes in the pool. Eventually they will diverge so much that say a few thousand years later there would now be 2 species of finches living where there once was only one (or perhaps the long beaked variety could end up dominating resources so much the short beaks either leave or go extinct).
This has been seen in Darwin's Finches on the various islands of the Galapagos. The various types have all evolved different beaks to match their environment. This is called "selection". Survival of the fittest if you will.
the evidence for evolution is that it's going on all the time, it never stops. ALL FOSSILS ARE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS. all life is transitional. even the old adage about crocodilians and sharks "they haven't changed in 65 million years" isn't really true, they have changed, just not in their basic structure because it's sound. It fits it's environment rather well.
There is no evidence for an animal evolving into another animal because that isn't how it works. Neanderthal and homo sapien existing side by side should show you that. Eventually neanderthal couldn't cope and they went extinct, but Sapien survived, because it was more fit. (and there was interbreeding as well, which also is further evidence of human evolution)
I really think that the massive time scales involved help in clouding the issue. Humans aren't really set up to deal with geologic time frames. a Million years to us seems reasonable, until you think about that your lifespan (say 80 years) would have to be repeated 12,500 consecutive times to match it!!!
MrBigfoot- Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-09-07
Thanks MrBigfoot
Finally clarity. I'm not in this evolution debate but do appreciate your post.
Blondie1- Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 28
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
DPinkerton,
Taking my comments out of context and tying together unrelated statements as you have done, I can see why you might be confused.
Your questions deserve a proper response and I will try and clear things up for you tomorrow.
To tide you over, things might make more sense if you appreciate that falsification refers to the part of the scientific method that is required in order to test a theory (falsifiable = can it be proven wrong?). If a theory survives falsification, then it has been verified and confirmed as proven.
Also, my 'we don't know yet' comment was dealing with what science has to say when it cannot yet answer a question.
I hope that helps for the time being.
Taking my comments out of context and tying together unrelated statements as you have done, I can see why you might be confused.
Your questions deserve a proper response and I will try and clear things up for you tomorrow.
To tide you over, things might make more sense if you appreciate that falsification refers to the part of the scientific method that is required in order to test a theory (falsifiable = can it be proven wrong?). If a theory survives falsification, then it has been verified and confirmed as proven.
Also, my 'we don't know yet' comment was dealing with what science has to say when it cannot yet answer a question.
I hope that helps for the time being.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
To tide you over, things might make more sense if you appreciate that falsification refers to the part of the scientific method that is required in order to test a theory (falsifiable = can it be proven wrong?). If a theory survives falsification, then it has been verified and confirmed as proven.
So explain to me how my examples of ID are not Falsifiable. I showed how they can be Proven Wrong. So their for it is Verfied and is a Theory. Seriously you keep contradicting your self.
This was from a scientist:
See if you can do that then ID is proven Wrong!It is very easy to falsify ID. If someone produces flagellum in labs through an undirected process they would've effectively falsified ID. Since they would've shown that flagellum is best explained by an undirected process rather than an intelligent cause.
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect--finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.
Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage. Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses. However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.
Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It's clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.
Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.
If you do any of the above or we descover any of the above ID is proven wrong.
your Definition ID fits the criteria
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
I think that scientists description is incorrect. If a scientist made life in a lab (and they have already made amino acids and other building blocks in a lab) then the ID people could dismiss it as not being the life that god created (or any number of ways) .
The fundamental backbone of ID is existence of god. That is unverifiable and can't be proven false either....
however, I do give creationists credit, when their house of pure creationism started to burn down, they DID come up with a creative way to jump on the evolution bandwagon without admitting they were wrong.
The fundamental backbone of ID is existence of god. That is unverifiable and can't be proven false either....
however, I do give creationists credit, when their house of pure creationism started to burn down, they DID come up with a creative way to jump on the evolution bandwagon without admitting they were wrong.
MrBigfoot- Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-09-07
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
The flagellum example doesn't work as it is built on the notion of irreducible complexity, which is an unfalsifiable concept.
The second example doesn't work because it is a hypothetical test.
The biggest problem with ID is that any alternative to the TOE must propose a falsifiable alternative mechanism by which the 'designer' instigates changes in organisms. No ID proponent has come up with such a mechanism.
The second example doesn't work because it is a hypothetical test.
The biggest problem with ID is that any alternative to the TOE must propose a falsifiable alternative mechanism by which the 'designer' instigates changes in organisms. No ID proponent has come up with such a mechanism.
Woodwose- Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
Woodwose wrote:The flagellum example doesn't work as it is built on the notion of irreducible complexity, which is an unfalsifiable concept.
The second example doesn't work because it is a hypothetical test.
The biggest problem with ID is that any alternative to the TOE must propose a falsifiable alternative mechanism by which the 'designer' instigates changes in organisms. No ID proponent has come up with such a mechanism.
Where is the link for that info? Please
Blondie1- Posts : 344
Join date : 2012-08-05
Age : 28
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
I have long suspected that it is not. I was listening to another Unbelievable? podcast the other day which featured a debate between ID proponent Michael Behe and ID opponent Keith Fox – both are biochemists. During the discussion Behe talked about the longest running lab experiment to test the effects of Darwinian evolution on E. coli. Professor Richard Lenski has been growing trillions of E. coli over more than a decade and he has produced tens of thousands of generations.
According to Behe, the net effect of natural selection and random mutation on the E. coli has been mostly to break biological systems that were already in place. No new complex systems have been formed by Darwinian evolution in the experiment.
Keith Fox agreed with Behe’s assessment of the experiment, but claimed that it did not prove anything about the limits of Darwinian evolution to produce complex new biological systems (which is a central claim of Darwinists). Behe asked Fox, “If this experiment doesn’t prove anything about Darwinian evolution, then what kind of lab experiment could falsify Darwinian evolution?” Fox’s answer: none.
According to Fox, lab experiments can never replicate the natural selection pressures that E. coli or any other organism face in the natural world. These pressures can not be simulated in a lab. It seems that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection must be assumed – they cannot be falsified by experimental biology.
What we have here is an unfalsifiable theory. No matter what experiments are run to test Darwinian evolution, the results can never, according to Fox, disprove its ability to generate new biological systems. Aren’t scientific theories supposed to be falsifiable? Am I missing something?
You sir are incorrect
Since they are the same criteria as TOE is to be falsefied in.
Charles Darwin himself proposed a rather strong test of evolution: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [Darwin1859, pg. 175]. This is the basis of claims by various intelligent design writers that various biological structures, such as the vertebrate immune system or the bacterial flagellum, are "irreducibly complex" -- they consist of multiple components that could not develop in the absence of the others. However, these structures have been exhaustively studied in the scientific literature, and scientists have demonstrated entirely plausible evolutionary pathways. See Complexity.
Famed biologist J. B. S. Haldane, when asked what evidence could disprove evolution, mentioned "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era" [Ridley2004, pg. 66]. This is because mammals, according to current scientific analysis, did not emerge until approximately 40 million years ago, whereas the Precambrian era is prior to approximately 570 million years, when only the most primitive organisms existed on earth.
Biologists had long conjectured that human chromosome number two was the result of a fusion of two corresponding chromosomes in most other primates. If DNA analysis of these chromosomes had shown that this was not the case, then modern evolutionary theory would indeed be drawn into question. This "fusion hypothesis" was indeed confirmed, rather dramatically, in 1993 (and further in 2005), by the identification of the exact point of fusion. For additional details see DNA.
YOU WOOD are now throwing the STRAW MAN because you keep changing your answer and criteria. You are Intellectually Dishonest. Since you keep change the Goal Post.
The fact that Leading Biologists are still arguing over ID and TOE.
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
Blondie1 wrote:Woodwose wrote:The flagellum example doesn't work as it is built on the notion of irreducible complexity, which is an unfalsifiable concept.
The second example doesn't work because it is a hypothetical test.
The biggest problem with ID is that any alternative to the TOE must propose a falsifiable alternative mechanism by which the 'designer' instigates changes in organisms. No ID proponent has come up with such a mechanism.
Where is the link for that info? Please
Sorry The own work with the Fruit FLY says that ID is true,same with cloning or the work with bacteria. We are setting things up and creating the situation.
We don't see new creatures poping out from the ground do we?
With TOE we would be seeing more drastic changes over the corse of a Fruit fly or some other bacterium.
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
evidence for the old saying about "a little bit of knowledge......"
popping out of the ground? you A) didn't read my explanation or B) didn't understand it
popping out of the ground? you A) didn't read my explanation or B) didn't understand it
MrBigfoot- Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-09-07
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
Holy crap! I think some of my brain just leaked out of my ear hole after reading that. Have you ever zoned out while driving down the road & forgot the last few miles that went by.
Mr.Lee- Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-08-23
Location : California unfortunately
Re: Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop
LOL
I can Imagine
I love this remind me to do it with Stank
I can Imagine
I love this remind me to do it with Stank
This post was made by MrBigfoot who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.
CMcMillan- Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT
Agreed
Mr.Lee wrote:Holy crap! I think some of my brain just leaked out of my ear hole after reading that. Have you ever zoned out while driving down the road & forgot the last few miles that went by.
LOL sir, I must agree only this whole thread seems to be that way.
Holt- Posts : 19
Join date : 2012-09-10
Age : 65
Page 9 of 14 • 1 ... 6 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 14
Similar topics
» Let's discuss
» Has anyone here seen a bigfoot at close range? ( 50ft or less )
» Everything 'known' about bigfoot
» They are all "Bigfoot"
» SKINNED SASQUATCH ???
» Has anyone here seen a bigfoot at close range? ( 50ft or less )
» Everything 'known' about bigfoot
» They are all "Bigfoot"
» SKINNED SASQUATCH ???
Page 9 of 14
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum