• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evolution answers

haibut said:
Your ideas got ripped to shreds. Tiny little bits. Chaff. I don't think a review of all 32 pages is worthwhile
Click to expand...

It is there for posterity. When you exhaust you current understanding of evolution you will find my Unified Theory of Evolution quite refreshing and intellectually stimulating.
 
justintime said:
Are you saying you don't get the science or the humor? It has got to be funny when bird predation of the peppered moths is used as an example of natural selection in text books and not a picture of a bird eating a peppered moth is shown.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming birds don't eat moths?
 
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Are you saying you don't get the science or the humor? It has got to be funny when bird predation of the peppered moths is used as an example of natural selection in text books and not a picture of a bird eating a peppered moth is shown.
Click to expand...
Robrob said:
Are you claiming birds don't eat moths?
Click to expand...

Please read the quote again. I said not a picture of a bird eating a peppered moth is shown in the textbooks that claim bird predation is the cause for population changes in the white and dark peppered moth numbers.
 
justintime said:
Here is another link to 22 pages of debate challenging evolution as prescribed in text books as well as multicellular evolution in 60 days in a lab.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...ulticellularity-in-lab-in-60-days-t29751.html
Click to expand...

Clicking on that link...

justintime said:
A robust debate on the OP Yeast evolves multicellularity in lab in 60 days. with links to original source, other sources. Any opinions on OP are welcomed.
Link to OP on SFN.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14660

I hope it is not a violation of rules to post links of other Skeptic forums to advance a topic in progress rather than re-litigate the issue from scratch.
Click to expand...

Wait... did you just post a link in this forum to a thread in a second forum where you post a link to a thread in a third forum where the topic you're referring to was originally discussed? I can only wonder how long until you post a link to this thread in yet another forum.

From your second post in that forum....
justintime said:
It seem like a pretty straight forward experiment. Several biologist cautioned it was too premature to accept their conclusions because the Saccharomyces cerevisia, which the experiment/Ratcliff thought was a singlecelled organism actually had a multicellular ancestry.

The experiment could have been a spectacular challenge to evolutionary theories that such single to multicellularity transition took millions of years to happen. It was achieved in just 60 days in the lab. Meaning these jumps(transitions) were not that difficult and did not take that much time.
Click to expand...

Could have been a challenge to evolutionary theories but wasn't for reasons you brought up in that thread before anyone else had a chance to respond to your OP.
 
Last edited:
Mounting rejection of evolutionary theories by Canadian scientists and other evolutionary biologist.

Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's 'rut'
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Click to expand...
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f0d3d638-ec38-4397-8015-96e92046e3a2

Another Evolutionary Biologist Finally Rejects The Bogus Theory of Evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2RZzyFTTXo
 
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Click to expand...
If a biologist claims that evolution theorizes that modern biology came about by chance, they immediately discredit themselves as a biologist.

justintime, are you willing to actually learn what evolution REALLY is? Or are you going to continue with the straw-man version?
 
justintime said:
A handful of Canadian scientists are speaking out against evolution as an explanation for all of life as we know it, saying the complexity of living things simply cannot be attributed to biological chance.
Click to expand...

That's like arguing that the Law of Gravity is debunked, because the ability for planets to orbit around stars cannot be attributed to astronomical chance.


Evolution is NOT about 'biological chance'.

Evolution is an algorithmic natural process. Those 'handful of Canadian scientists' got their information about the theory wrong.
 
justintime said:
Mounting rejection of evolutionary theories by Canadian scientists and other evolutionary biologist.

Canadian scientists want out of Darwin's 'rut'

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f0d3d638-ec38-4397-8015-96e92046e3a2

Another Evolutionary Biologist Finally Rejects The Bogus Theory of Evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2RZzyFTTXo
Click to expand...



Breaking news:

Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution".

The "Steve-o-meter" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list.[2] As of November 14, 2013, Project Steve has 1,288 signatories.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
 
Dinwar said:
If a biologist claims that evolution theorizes that modern biology came about by chance, they immediately discredit themselves as a biologist.

justintime, are you willing to actually learn what evolution REALLY is? Or are you going to continue with the straw-man version?
Click to expand...
Ooh, ooh, I know! I know! Pick me! Pick me!


:D
 
Dinwar said:
If a biologist claims that evolution theorizes that modern biology came about by chance, they immediately discredit themselves as a biologist.

justintime, are you willing to actually learn what evolution REALLY is? Or are you going to continue with the straw-man version?
Click to expand...

The video explains why it is difficult to change the mindset of evolutionists who have been taught there is only one plausible explanation and theory and that becomes the only religion they will accept/follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2RZzyFTTXo

Dean Kenyon a leading chemical evolutionist was confronted with challenges to biochemical understanding of evolution and origin of life. He was no ordinary scientist.

"The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity."
 
justintime said:
The video explains why it is difficult to change the mindset of evolutionists who have been taught there is only one plausible explanation and theory and that becomes the only religion they will accept/follow.
Click to expand...
Evolutionary theory isn't a religion. If you could show me data demonstrating that it's wrong, I'd accept that it was wrong. The issue is, you can't--all you can do is cite other people who say "Evolution is wrong".

Dean Kenyon a leading chemical evolutionist was confronted with challenges to biochemical understanding of evolution and origin of life. He was no ordinary scientist.
Click to expand...
I don't care. My first job as a profesional paleontologist was to tell the state paleontologist in the state I was working in that he was wrong. Credentials may impress someone like you, looking for straws to grasp in order to maintain an illusion of justification for your own rantings, but for someone who's actually seen the data they are irrelevant. I've shown bigger names than Dean Kenyon that they were wrong in the past, and I'll do it again. SHOW ME THE DATA. Or admit you can't, and go out and FIND the data. Anything else is a failur of scientific integrity and justification for dismissal of your entire argument. Not that I need it--you've quite clearly shown that you're a troll--but I'm bored and will play along for a bit.
 
Dinwar said:
Evolutionary theory isn't a religion. If you could show me data demonstrating that it's wrong, I'd accept that it was wrong. The issue is, you can't--all you can do is cite other people who say "Evolution is wrong".

I don't care. My first job as a profesional paleontologist was to tell the state paleontologist in the state I was working in that he was wrong. Credentials may impress someone like you, looking for straws to grasp in order to maintain an illusion of justification for your own rantings, but for someone who's actually seen the data they are irrelevant. I've shown bigger names than Dean Kenyon that they were wrong in the past, and I'll do it again. SHOW ME THE DATA. Or admit you can't, and go out and FIND the data. Anything else is a failur of scientific integrity and justification for dismissal of your entire argument. Not that I need it--you've quite clearly shown that you're a troll--but I'm bored and will play along for a bit.
Click to expand...

We all know Mendel, Darwin, Newton and Einstein all fudged data and even made Colossal Mistakes in their conclusions/theories. Are they big enough names that put science on a not so scientific footing?
Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein - Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists That Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/brilliant-blunders-mario-livio/1111944882?ean=9781439192375
 
justintime said:
We all know Mendel, Darwin, Newton and Einstein all fudged data and even made Colossal Mistakes in their conclusions/theories. Are they big enough names that put science on a not so scientific footing?
Brilliant Blunders: From Darwin to Einstein - Colossal Mistakes by Great Scientists That Changed Our Understanding of Life and the Universe
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/brilliant-blunders-mario-livio/1111944882?ean=9781439192375
Click to expand...

Yes, mistakes and correction of same are part of the scientific process.

There is no branch of science single-handedly created and dominated by a single person. It's a collaboration. That's why it's OK for a single person to make a mistake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom