It is still not proof and the truth is that evolution cannot be *proven*.
Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence. All evidence points towards Evolution being correct. Evolution is one of the most solid scientific theories we have, as it's been under scrutiny for more than a hundred years.
My post merely pointed out your ignorance about scientific terminology.
Now all all of that assumed that science hasn't committed some significant chicanery on the way to developing the mutliple theories of evolution.
Chicanery has been attempted. Such as the Piltdown Man. But other scientists have exposed these frauds. Yes, other BIOLOGISTS. Not creationists, but actual scientists in the field.
Multiple theories?
Over and over again evidence is given where profs are pushed to margins when they question the blind orthodoxy of the established scientific mind-creche.
This is complete garbage. An unsubstationated assertion based on your own ignorance. Give me ONE specific example. Just one.
The more I read about Darwinism, I see another religion - one that is equally intolerance, blind dogma, and persecution of the 'herectical'.
What persecution? Again, give me ONE single specific example of "persecution" please (names, events, references, etc.). Otherwise we must conclude that you are lying through your teeth.
And you probably wonder why some people consider atheism a religion complete with zealots...
Because they are completely retarded and willfully ignorant?
Especially the idiots who think that science is somehow inherently atheistic. While science only deals with the natural world, it does not deal with the supernatural. And religion, by definition, requires something supernatural.
Evolution basically works due to a constant sequence of genocides.
No it doesn't.
To say that evolution's position is non-pacifist is an extreme understatement ?
Evolution has got nothing to do with pacifism. By your logic, anyone who eats cannot be a pacifist because eating means killing anoter life.
capitalism
What on earth does that have to do with Evolution?
environimentalism
Again, what on earth does this have to do with Evolution?
Unless conflicting positions don't bother you at all.
Your problem is that you are so brain-washed that you think everyone is exactly the same just because they accept facts and don't reject Evolution. Combined with your pathetic attempts at arguing from consequence, it is clear that you are not interested in truth or fact, but only to paint people who accept science as evil.
"In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."
Neanderthals weren't separate species, science is starting to include that today. It is being suggested that instead of us evolving from them, they were simply different and married their traits out of the gene pool to some extent.
Your point being? We know that we do not descend from Neanderthals. We have the DNA which shows this. But that's got nothing to do with the point I was making.
And for the ape chromosome, that can fall within the line of reason for the design of function the article I linked to talks about.
No it can't.
Not between separate species.
Yes, between separate species.
Claiming a common ancestor from similar structures is really reading into DNA from a biased point of view.
Um, no, because this evidence comes in addition to the massive amounts of evidence from other areas as well. The only way these fit perfectly together is through Evolution.
I'm not supporting anything
Comments like you "biased point of view" above indicates otherwise.
And of course the answer is, they aren't denying the facts, they are dismissing the opinion.
This is false. They ARE in fact denying the facts.
I'm not too familiar with Answers in Genesis, it was simply a site that poped up from a google search. But I wouldn't be too surprised if they do contribute something to the science.
They do not. They think everything was formed 6000 years ago, that there was a global flood, that the Grand Canyon was carved out by flowing water within a short period of time, etc.
So what that article was doing, was showing the inconsistencies within the science itself to some degree.
It did not. It is a dishonest hit piece.
You in your scientific prowl, have decided to write it off and anything it says because it doesn't agree with you
False. I write it off because it has a long history of dishonest, misleading, unscientific nonsense. AiG is a well known organization.
But your not even willing to look at anything they say because it might be different then what you think.
Oh, people have looked at what they say. And they have found that it is useless. It's like the flat earthers who keep insisting that earth is flat. They aren't being dismissed because "they think different", but because what they say is complete bullcrap.
Yes it is. For example, Tiktaalik was found because one predicted where such a fossil would be found based on Evolution. That you claim that Evolution does not make correct predictions shows your ignorance.
The natural selection baloney in this case is just an INTERPRETATION of the genetic data.
No, it has in fact been observed.
It shows that the writer of the genetic code also knows a lot about engineering and design in physics and chemistry.
Then why is his "design" so crappy. Because of incompetence or malice?
No other flies, let alone wasps, ants bees and other insects were ever made from all these experiments. That sort of thing just doesn't happen today, and it never happened in the past either.
This is a straw man of Evolution. Evolution does not say that existing species suddenly turn into existing species.
But we have observed speciation. Scientists have created groups of multi-cellular organisms that descend from the same ancestor, but that cannot interbreed. These groups are, therefore, different species. You also have Nylonase, which I talked about here.
Cars all have much in common. They have engines, wheels, windshields etc. Does that mean all cars descended from a common ancestor or does it simply mean they all follow certain design principles?
Cars to not get born with variation in their genetics, breed, compete for resources, and die. Your lack of knowledge about Evolution is appalling.
I can't muster that much faith in randomness
I am not surprised that you reject Evolution. You are completely ignorant about it, after all. Evolution is NOT a random process.
Evolution teaches that given enough time, a frog can turn into a prince.
Your lack of understanding of Evolution is quite amazing. Evolution does not deal with how one single entity changes. It deals with the changes to a group of entities over time. Your straw man is typical of creationists who lack an even basic understanding of evolution. The rest of your post confirms this lack of knowledge.
Science is about what we observe to be happening today, not what someone thinks may have happened over long periods of time, long ago.
Wrong again. Not only are you ignorant about Evolution, but about science in general!
I'll make one probably futile attempt at educating you:
Look up Nylonase. In the last few decades, we have seen the development of a new metabolic pathway, and a complex protein/enzyme. Proteins make up every piece and process of an organism. If there is no limit to the changes that are possible to the proteins themselves, there is no limit to how the organism itself can change!
You are not making sense. We are obviously talking about normal time. Hours, days, weeks, years, as we count them today. Gravity clock? I have no idea what on earth you are on about, and I don't care. The point here is that there has been ample time for Evolution to take place. The universe is billions of years old, but AiG thinks everything is 6000 "normal" years old.
Please point to the specific mechanism which creates a barrier which prevents small changes from resulting in major changes over time. No nonsense. Just answer the question.
What people have a hard time coming to terms with is that natural selection could lead to speciation.
Well, it does. It has been directly observed.
We haven't directly observed a bird giving birth to a lizzard (or the reverse) so it's hard to say for sure that it is basically what happens.
Nowhere does Evolution come even close to claiming that a bird can give birth to a lizzard. Not only is this a straw man because the change happens gradually and over time, but to think that Evolution has a goal is fallacious. For one already existing species to give birth to another already existing species, that is nearly impossible. But that is not what Evolution says.
Nobody can say for sure and no theory can pin it down.
Actually, Evolution is supported by every single piece of known fact. The more we learn, the more solid Evolution becomes.
I don't believe we have DNA evidence linking fossils of different animals to different animals do we?
We do. Such as the relation between the DNA in animals today. We also have samples preserved from thousands of years ago. Such as mitochondrial DNA from Neanderthals. You will also see that our chromosome #2 is a fusion between two primate chromosomes.
When I said common ancestor, I didn't mean you and your brother share a mom.
Nor did I think that you did. My point is that DNA shows common ancestry between animals alive today.
we have no direct DNA evidence linking any one species of animal to a species of another through an extinct common ancestor
Yes we do. We have found intact DNA from Neanderthals, for example. They are not our ancestors, but rather formed their own "branch on the tree".
like the frog I mentioned above, it has a lot of the same codon rearrangements as humans do yet no one is claiming a common ancestor in the mix
Of course one can claim that, since the DNA evidence shows that all life does have a common ancestor.
Here is an article talking a little about this.
Please don't link to a site by religious fundamentalists who lie and deceive and engange in pseudoscientific nonsense. These Young Earth Creationists are simply making up stuff as they go along.
I was only attempting to show the GP why there is a difference in opinion and where the rift is.
There is no real difference in opinion or rift among people who actually know anything about this. The only people who disagree are religious fundamentalists whose goal is to undermine science.
It could be that the connection is either by design or by ancestral connections.
No, it clearly shows common ancestry. Combined with all the other evidence out there, it is clear one must be either ignorant or dishonest to claim otherwise.
100 year from now, I am sure we will be looking back and thinking about all the early mistakes made and how close we actually were in some places. That's the beauty of science.
One thing's for sure, though. Groups like Answers in Genesis will never contribute anything what so ever to science. Their goal is to kill science or at least hold it back and cause confusion.
The other sense covers "origin of life". Sludge turned into slime which turned into fish which turned into whatever.
No, that's abiogenesis, not evolution. I am not surprised that a creationist is ignorant about what evolution actually is, though.
BUT, little-E evolution does not prove Big-E Evolution.
So what is the specific barrier which prevents small changes from accumulating into major changes over time? Unless you can point out this barrier and demonstrate that it exists, your argument holds no water.
Look up Nylonase. Nylon-eating bacteria. In just a few decades, we observed the development of a new metabolic pathway, and a complex enzyme/protein. Proteins make up every part of the organism. If there is no limit to the possible changes to the proteins themselves, there is no limit to how the organism itself can change. And we know that the enzyme is not just one that lay dormant and was activated all of a sudden because such things would be a huge disadvantage. They would take up energy for nothing, and thus lead to a lesser chance of survival. Also, other related bacteria have no such enzyme. So we did observe "Big E", and we see that there are no barriers which prevent small changes from accumulating into major changes over time.
the only disputed facts or whatever with evolution is the common ancestor theory
Only until we discovered DNA. If you reject DNA as evidence of common ancestry, you must also reject DNA evidence in the court room. Lots of really bad people would have to be set free...
Micro-evolution takes species A and produces a variation on species A, where the resulting animals can reproduce with each other to produce another of species A.
So what is the specific barrier which prevents small changes from accumulating into major changes over time? Unless you can point out this barrier and demonstrate that it exists, your argument holds no water.
Also a theory is only a theory until there is some evidence.
Actually, a scientific theory is a theory because it is supported by huge amounts of evidence. A theory in science is of the highest level. You are referring to a hypotesis, or a "guess".
Where is the non-dog that became a dog?
Just like there is no clear answer as to when a child turns into an adult, there is no clear "non-dog" which then produced a dog. You don't have to know exactly when a child turns into an adult. It's a gradual process. It's the same with "non-dog" to dog.
Or, as macro evolution is an ongoing process, a current known animal that has produces offspring of a different species?
You must have heard about the fruit fly experiments, surely? Populations that were separated, and eventually they stopped being able to interbreed? New species.
No, it shows that the genetic tree is correct, and therefore evolution is correct. It is not just an observation about genes being similar. It's how they fit into the evolutionary tree.
Has anyone ever been able to make a new, completely different life form by combining two or more existing ones
What is a "new, completely different life form"? How would it be "completely different"?
Name just ONE verifiable prediction that can be shown today
Tiktaalik was discovered only because they were able to predict its location based on how it evolved.
You do an experiment in the present.
Ah, such as domestic breeding of dogs? Or the yellow banana we know so well today which is a result of humans breeding it to be that way? The real "wild" banana is quite different.
Then you have to decide whose interpretation to BELIEVE.
No, because one interpretation has massive amounts of supporting facts in other areas.
Look up Nylonase, by the way. Nylon-eating bacteria. In just a few decades, we observed the development of a new metabolic pathway, and a complex enzyme/protein. Proteins make up every part of the organism. If there is no limit to the possible changes to the proteins themselves, there is no limit to how the organism itself can change. And we know that the enzyme is not just one that lay dormant and was activated all of a sudden because such things would be a huge disadvantage. They would take up energy for nothing, and thus lead to a lesser chance of survival. Also, other related bacteria have no such enzyme.
If your claim were true that many or most sites were built for IE though, than it would not matter how much compatibility FF got from Netscape.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. That Firefox got a lot of compatibility for free doesn't mean that it works on all sites. "A lot" != "all". Firefox has had a far easier time than other browsers because of its Netscape legacy.
So then how are you in any position to claim that there are "many sites which only work in IE?"
Because I've seen them myself, and also read many discussions in Firefox threads and forums like MozillaZine.
Did you consider that maybe they just aren't working on a tiny browser almost no one cares about?
Firefox is a tiny browser almost no one cares about?
Yet you don't complain that FF is killing the pay for browser market, just IE.
No one has complained about the pay for browser market being killed. Nice red herring, though.
Either you are trolling or you are ignorant. Opera and Opera Mini are in fact free of charge. And Opera's revenues from the desktop version has increased by more than 100% several quarters in a row.
If IE did decline and FF was the major browser out there, would you be crying foul? If not, you don't really have a point, you just want to hate MS.
This is a false dichotomy. "Either Microsoft has done no wrong, or Firefox has done the same as Microsoft." That's not how it works. Microsoft has abused its dominant position in the desktop market, while Firefox (Mozilla) has no such position to abuse.
I suggest that the uptake of FF is proof that the market is actually doing very well;
Again: "Just because it's obvious that Microsoft hasn't totally eradicated all competition, it doesn't mean that the market hasn't been harmed or that Opera hasn't had an undue burden placed upon it via illegal practices." At least read my comments before posting stuff I've already addressed. Further, are you really saying that if Firefox didn't compete with a bundled browser, it wouldn't have been much more widely used than it is today? That IE has had little or no benefit from being bundled?
its just that no one thinks they should have to pay for a web browser.
You don't have to pay for Opera for desktop (Opera's antitrust complaint is for the desktop market), so I really don't understand what on earth you are going on about. Trolling again?
What do you mean? I said "a lot of compatibility", not "complete compatibility".
Also, please name some major sites that only work in IE. I've yet to find any.
I mainly use Opera, and it's not like I keep track of sites that don't work in Firefox. When I've come across such sites I have just moved on. But you can feel free to search Bugzilla or MozillaZine. Unless you are claiming that Firefox is compatible with 100% of all sites out there of course:D
If there's not competition, than what prompted MS to start developing IE again?
To quote someone else in this discussion: "Just because it's obvious that Microsoft hasn't totally eradicated all competition, it doesn't mean that the market hasn't been harmed or that Opera hasn't had an undue burden placed upon it via illegal practices."
Did you actually read the article at Opera Watch? If you had, you would have noticed that it lists quotes from many different sources, and they explain the problem. It's sad to see that someone as emotionally involved as yourself refuse to educate yourself, and instead insist on being willfully ignorant.
And did you read the actual comments to that A List Apart article? Almost every single one of them rejected the proposal. In fact, both Opera, Mozilla, Apple and Google have rejected it. As well as most web developers who have spoken up.
If you would only educate yourself instead of spouting uneducated nonsense...
Slashdot Mirror
My post merely pointed out your ignorance about scientific terminology.
Chicanery has been attempted. Such as the Piltdown Man. But other scientists have exposed these frauds. Yes, other BIOLOGISTS. Not creationists, but actual scientists in the field.Multiple theories?
This is complete garbage. An unsubstationated assertion based on your own ignorance. Give me ONE specific example. Just one. What persecution? Again, give me ONE single specific example of "persecution" please (names, events, references, etc.). Otherwise we must conclude that you are lying through your teeth.You are the one jerking your knee. He merely pointed out something obvious (to rational people anyway).
Especially the idiots who think that science is somehow inherently atheistic. While science only deals with the natural world, it does not deal with the supernatural. And religion, by definition, requires something supernatural.
"In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be."
But we have observed speciation. Scientists have created groups of multi-cellular organisms that descend from the same ancestor, but that cannot interbreed. These groups are, therefore, different species. You also have Nylonase, which I talked about here.
Cars to not get born with variation in their genetics, breed, compete for resources, and die. Your lack of knowledge about Evolution is appalling. I am not surprised that you reject Evolution. You are completely ignorant about it, after all. Evolution is NOT a random process.I'll make one probably futile attempt at educating you:
Look up Nylonase. In the last few decades, we have seen the development of a new metabolic pathway, and a complex protein/enzyme. Proteins make up every piece and process of an organism. If there is no limit to the changes that are possible to the proteins themselves, there is no limit to how the organism itself can change!
You are not making sense. We are obviously talking about normal time. Hours, days, weeks, years, as we count them today. Gravity clock? I have no idea what on earth you are on about, and I don't care. The point here is that there has been ample time for Evolution to take place. The universe is billions of years old, but AiG thinks everything is 6000 "normal" years old.
Please point to the specific mechanism which creates a barrier which prevents small changes from resulting in major changes over time. No nonsense. Just answer the question.
Your comment is not a response to mine at all. You are quoting someone else and writing stuff that's irrelevant to what I wrote.
In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Look up Nylonase. Nylon-eating bacteria. In just a few decades, we observed the development of a new metabolic pathway, and a complex enzyme/protein. Proteins make up every part of the organism. If there is no limit to the possible changes to the proteins themselves, there is no limit to how the organism itself can change. And we know that the enzyme is not just one that lay dormant and was activated all of a sudden because such things would be a huge disadvantage. They would take up energy for nothing, and thus lead to a lesser chance of survival. Also, other related bacteria have no such enzyme. So we did observe "Big E", and we see that there are no barriers which prevent small changes from accumulating into major changes over time.
No, it shows that the genetic tree is correct, and therefore evolution is correct. It is not just an observation about genes being similar. It's how they fit into the evolutionary tree.
Look up Nylonase, by the way. Nylon-eating bacteria. In just a few decades, we observed the development of a new metabolic pathway, and a complex enzyme/protein. Proteins make up every part of the organism. If there is no limit to the possible changes to the proteins themselves, there is no limit to how the organism itself can change. And we know that the enzyme is not just one that lay dormant and was activated all of a sudden because such things would be a huge disadvantage. They would take up energy for nothing, and thus lead to a lesser chance of survival. Also, other related bacteria have no such enzyme.
Either you are trolling or you are ignorant. Opera and Opera Mini are in fact free of charge. And Opera's revenues from the desktop version has increased by more than 100% several quarters in a row.
This is a false dichotomy. "Either Microsoft has done no wrong, or Firefox has done the same as Microsoft." That's not how it works. Microsoft has abused its dominant position in the desktop market, while Firefox (Mozilla) has no such position to abuse. Again: "Just because it's obvious that Microsoft hasn't totally eradicated all competition, it doesn't mean that the market hasn't been harmed or that Opera hasn't had an undue burden placed upon it via illegal practices." At least read my comments before posting stuff I've already addressed. Further, are you really saying that if Firefox didn't compete with a bundled browser, it wouldn't have been much more widely used than it is today? That IE has had little or no benefit from being bundled? You don't have to pay for Opera for desktop (Opera's antitrust complaint is for the desktop market), so I really don't understand what on earth you are going on about. Trolling again?And did you read the actual comments to that A List Apart article? Almost every single one of them rejected the proposal. In fact, both Opera, Mozilla, Apple and Google have rejected it. As well as most web developers who have spoken up.
If you would only educate yourself instead of spouting uneducated nonsense...