Evolution: the Facts.

[Olowkow]

The usage is [sic], sometimes (sic). Never capitalized. Now, what are the facts of evolution?

We all make mistakes, even me.

 

[Simon39759]

"...ignorance outweight knowledge."

Go from the presence of a foolish man... - Proverbs 14:7

Paulhoff, welcome to my Ignore List.

Ok... He was right, though, bacteria in the gut DO out-numbers the number of eukaryotic cells in our bodies, by about a factor of ten...

It is also irrelevant, as I pointed to you several times, Dawkins was indeed referring to the endosymbiotic theory, as I guessed the very first time you brought that quote.


You do deny being a creationist, yet bring the Bible at every turn. If you really are not creationist, this is an irrelevant and confusing distraction.

 

[RossFW]

"...ignorance outweight knowledge."

Go from the presence of a foolish man... - Proverbs 14:7

Paulhoff, welcome to my Ignore List.

Johnathon,

Why would you put him on ignore for this?

What he has stated is irrefutable fact.

Would you consider the bacteria in your gut, which live completely separate to your bodily systems, and could seamlessly be transfered to anybody ELSE'S gut, part of you?

The simple fact is that you survive through a symbiotic relationship with single cell entities that are entirely separate to you.

Your statement that a colony of bacteria living in your body is (necessarily) an infection is simply wrong.

Are you able to recognize error on your own part?

 

[Dancing David]

You do deny being a creationist, yet bring the Bible at every turn. If you really are not creationist, this is an irrelevant and confusing distraction.

He put me on IGNORE for being reasonable.

 

[Simon39759]

He put me on IGNORE for being reasonable.

My impression is that he put you on ignore because he could not answer your critics and rather choose to hide from them.

 

[Paulhoff]

"...ignorance outweight knowledge."

Go from the presence of a foolish man... - Proverbs 14:7

Paulhoff, welcome to my Ignore List.

Why do you quote a very outdated book.

Everyone is ignorant of something, only a fool thinks that they are different.

So what if I'm on his Ignore list, one out of 6.5 billion means so little.

I have James Randi has a friend, I'll live.

Paul

 

[Dinwar]

Dinwar, please explain to all your fellow Darwinists here, (many of whom are tragically ignorant of how widespread the very WORD "Darwinist" is, and how many Darwinists, including the Infinitely Darwinian Richard Dawkins, employ the term) where you found written in any physics, or chemistry, or other science book that one must have an alternative "theory" before asking questions or challenging any tenets of the existing one? Where exactly do you find such stuff? Until you can do that, you have absolutely NO RIGHT to repeatedly, insistently, laboriously demand, and demand, and demand an *alternative* theory.

It's actually in a philosophy of science book. I don't have the name on me (I think it's something like "Philosophy of Science" or "Introduction to Philosophy of Science", but I may be mistaken). Basically, for all practical purposes before a well-established theory (and the theory of evolution is about as well established as the theory of gravity or the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun) can be toppled a new paradigm, a new theory to explain the data, must be errected. In fact, many science textbooks argue for this precise line of reasoning--"It's not enough to point out flaws in a theory, one must offer a theory that explains the data better than the present one", or words to that effect, were a common inclusion in all of my introductory science textbooks after I graduated highschool. As for the rest, they assume you understand at least the basics of how scieince works--you'll note that biology, geology, and paleontology textbooks at higher levels (the sciences that are actually relevant to this discussion) don't talk at length about the idea of testable hypotheses, or debate whether or not historical sciences are actually scientific. Such arguments are left where they belong--at the introductory level. Meaning, if you don't understand them you have no business continuing on.

At any rate, I'll play your game--you still can't win, so go ahead and make new rules when you want.

JonathanQuick: Please point out where the science of paleontology, which is the study of the history of life on Earth, shows any flaws in the theory of evolution. No running off to biochemistry, no citing single examples of ideas that you don't understand and which therefore must be wrong (which is what this argument amounts to). Please demonstrate, using the fossil record, that evolution is a flawed theory.

Each cell in an elephant is NOT "a colony of bacteria."

You mean you didn't know that?

A colony of bacteria inside a living cell is called an "infection."
A quadrillion infected cells would of course be fatal.

You are clearly unfamiliar with the endosybmiotic theory for the aquisition of mitochondria and chloroplast. Please explain to me why we should take the opinions of someone with such demonstrable ignorance of the history of life seriously in regard to evolutionary theory.

 

[JonathanQuick]

It's actually in a philosophy of science book. I don't have the name on me (I think it's something like "Philosophy of Science" or "Introduction to Philosophy of Science", but I may be mistaken).

I talk "science" and ask for SPECIFICS.

You talk "PHILOSOPHY of science" and him and haw.
BUT YOU "may be mistaken".

You??

"Mistaken"?

Noooooooo.

At any rate, I'll play your game--you still can't win, so go ahead and make new rules when you want.

I made NO "rules." I merely asked where, on earth, you got the bizarre notion that science forbids questions UNLESS you have a displacing "theory".

And you came back with the expected... nothing.

So now my Ignore List has grown by one, viz. you.

I gave you chance after chance to posit something besides ignorance, and that was clearly too much to ask of you.[/QUOTE]


ciao

It's been unreal.

Ignore List

* Dancing David
* Dinwar
* excaza
* John Jones
* majamin
* Marduk
* Paulhoff
* RecoveringYuppy
* Sledge
* Travis
* Tubbythin
* uruk
* wollery
* simon39759

 

[JonathanQuick]

Ok... He was right, though, bacteria in the gut DO out-numbers (SIC)the number of eukaryotic cells in our bodies, by about a factor of ten...

No, he was DEAD WRONG. Your gut is outside the peritoneal cavity. Digesting food has not blood supply, does it. This isn't hard.
You're just being as obstreperous as possible.

It is also irrelevant, as I pointed to you several times, Dawkins was indeed referring to the endosymbiotic theory, as I guessed the very first time you brought that quote.

That's not what he said, nor was it what he implied. He very clearly said IS a colony of bacteria. You validated the quote for yourself, and now you wish to spin it. How disingenuous and unscientific of you.
tsk, tsk.

You do deny being a creationist, yet bring the Bible at every turn. If you really are not creationist, this is an irrelevant and confusing distraction.

"Every turn"?

Provide five links where I have brought "in the Bible."
Just five.

You try to confuse by excusing Dawkins ignorance and errors.

The man couldn't even properly label a prism!

 

[JonathanQuick]

My impression is that he put you on ignore because he could not answer your critics (SIC) and rather choose (SIC) to hide from them.

Simon, you clearly meant to say "criticisms" but you screwed that up royally.

Then you clearly meant to say "chose" but you screwed that up as well.

I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered reading all the nonsense you write.

Plumjam described you and many others brilliantly.

Read his post at the bottom. Read it with an ounce of willingness to learn and change, if that is even possible.

 

[Simon39759]

Simon, you clearly meant to say "criticisms" but you screwed that up royally.

Yep, sorry, my brain failed me... It is the same word in my native language...

Then you clearly meant to say "chose" but you screwed that up as well.

[url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choose]choose[/url]

I'm sorry, but I can't be bothered reading all the nonsense you write.

Plumjam described you and many others brilliantly.

Read his post at the bottom. Read it with an ounce of willingness to learn and change, if that is even possible.

That's not what he said, nor was it what he implied. He very clearly said IS a colony of bacteria. You validated the quote for yourself, and now you wish to spin it. How disingenuous and unscientific of you.
tsk, tsk.

I did provide you with a link to the passage in question, the paragraph you incriminate was preceded by a freaking description of the endosymbiotic theory...
You are lying through your teeth.


Now you are going to put me on ignore, because you can't force yourself to admit you are wrong... So you make an insulting post and bury your head in the sand... That's just sad.

 

[Simon39759]

"Every turn"?

Provide five links where I have brought "in the Bible."
Just five.
!

You are right, I looked around and could not find others...
I guess I must have confused you with another evolution denialist...

Certainly, your fixation with atheists, almost equal to the one you have over "leftist" suggest that one of the chimps on your shoulder is a religious one, but I certainly, clearly, was wrong about the Bible quotes...

 

[John Jones]

I talk "science" and ask for SPECIFICS.

You talk "PHILOSOPHY of science" and him and haw.
BUT YOU "may be mistaken".

You??

"Mistaken"?

Noooooooo.





I made NO "rules." I merely asked where, on earth, you got the bizarre notion that science forbids questions UNLESS you have a displacing "theory".

And you came back with the expected... nothing.

So now my Ignore List has grown by one, viz. you.

I gave you chance after chance to posit something besides ignorance, and that was clearly too much to ask of you.

ciao

It's been unreal.

Ignore List

* Dancing David
* Dinwar
* excaza
* John Jones
* majamin
* Marduk
* Paulhoff
* RecoveringYuppy
* Sledge
* Travis
* Tubbythin
* uruk
* wollery
* simon39759[/QUOTE]

I made a list on the JREF forum! Yea for me!

 

[John Jones]

I talk "science" and ask for SPECIFICS.

You talk "PHILOSOPHY of science" and him [SIC] and haw.

You misspelled "hem and haw".

 

[JonathanQuick]

Johnathon,

Why would you put him on ignore for this?

What he has stated is irrefutable fact.

"Ignorance outweight (sic) knowledge" is an "irrefutable fact"?

You keep reading such stuff. I want no more of it.

Now I will point out your oversights and ignorance.

Would you consider the bacteria in your gut, which live completely separate to your bodily systems, and could seamlessly be transfered (SIC) to anybody ELSE'S gut, part of you?

The simple fact is that you survive through a symbiotic relationship with single cell entities that are entirely separate to (SIC) you.

Would you mind, terribly, if the contents of my stomach, were "seamlessly transferred from my stomach to your own"? WHY on earth would anyone undertake such nonsense? What earthly point do you have to make?
Precisely this: Nothing.

On we go.

Your statement that a colony of bacteria living in your body is (necessarily) an infection is simply wrong.

Your MISSTATEMENT "is simply wrong."

Dawkins SAID, and I QUOTED: "...each one of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.”

Each CELL of an ELEPHANT, that is.
YOU said "YOUR BODY." Dawkins said "EACH ONE OF THOSE CELLS."

This isn't difficult. You and scores of others with your same condescending mindset simply continue to spin and twist to suit your agenda, which is anything BUT "friendly and lively."

Next:

Are you able to recognize error on your own part?

"Body", "cell." "Irrefutable fact."

RossFW, join the others on Ignore.

 

[JonathanQuick]

Simon39759: You do deny being a creationist, yet bring the Bible at every turn. If you really are not creationist, this is an irrelevant and confusing distraction.

There have been many, many "turns" here. To claim that I have brought "the Bible in AT EVERY TURN" is mendacious to say the least.

It is mendacious for at LEAST two reasons:

1. I have cited some interesting and I would contend incontestably correct proverbs or concepts which are consistent and compatible with the scientific method. I did so primarily for one reason - to generate the gnashing of as many Darwinists' teeth as possible. I know, I know, not one of you gnashed any of your teeth. Sure :::: wink, nudge ::::.

2. See below. One Simon pal after another brought "in the Bible" and not once, NOT ONCE did Simon say to ANY of them, "this is an irrelevant and confusing distraction".

Sideroxylon: Post #773: You young earth creationists* can only go on the attack because

Cainkain1: Post #768: The creationist aka ID crowd loathes science and reason and logic.

Nvidiot: Post #726 Goddidit.

See? It's so easy to become a Phd in creation science!

six7s: Post #695:

>>>Originally Posted by refamat
Zebras have three different chromosome counts...

bye yall, have fun with your enlightened discussions <<<
six7s responded: gOD HATES NAGS!!11!!

Simon only FEIGNED "confusion" when in fact it was something very different. It was condescension and hypocrisy.

Must I explain EVERYTHING to you people? If so, it would certainly take a very long time, and I have neither the time nor the interest in doing so when people like Simon display such profound contempt, and condescension, and unfriendliness and disinterest in listening, really listening, and trying to respond honestly and fairly. It never happens in any discussion with Darwinists. Never.
What a black mark against all of you, who take your cues from Richard Dawkins, the Hater In Chief.

"The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist..." - Michael Ruse

 

[Paulhoff]

It is funny how some people love to talk about how their religion teaches love, and in the next breath show how little they have learned from it.

Paul



And it doesn't speak well for their backwards idea of god too.

 

[Dinwar]

I was put on an ignore list because I brought up a philosophy of science textbook? The book's purpose was to analyze how science actually goes about correcting current paradigms--which is basically what this conversation is about (the current Modern Synthesis is a paradigm in evolutionary studies). Yet I'm not allowed to bring it up?

And my hemming and hawing was about the specific title of a book I read a few years ago, hardly something critical to the topic....

I guess it's something of a mark in my favor to be his ignore list. I mean, he ignored everything I said that pertained to the topic at hand anyway (he never actually demonstrated that the fossil record illustrates any violations of the theory of evolution).

 

[jimbob]

I think this subthread should be split from the parent thread:

The Atheist's OP:


This seems to have degenerated into

" the stuff dr Adequate and others were recently posting in one troll or another's thread"

maybe the title could be "Why do you (dis)believe in evolution part N"

PLEASE: Read the OP first.

It occurs to me, seeing yet more fundies explaining why evolution is bunkum, that they come from the same pod as "No plane" CTists - lacking facts, behaving irrationally and refusing to accept evidence.

Now, there are lots of places where scientific evolutionary theory is available on the net, but I wondered if maybe a few of the excellent scientists involved in JREF could make up a thread containing factual analysis of evolution from several different angles - much as Gravy has with his outstanding series on 9/11 and WTC.

If there's support for the idea, let's kick it off and have the thread as a lasting monument to science's triumph over BS/ID and any other stupid acronym you like. If good enough, we could get it put in spotlight so it doesn't get lost in the dross. I won't be posting any data since I'm not a scientist, but I envisage lots of data such as the stuff dr Adequate and others were recently posting in one troll or another's thread. I'll just keep things on topic, then take all the credit for everyone else's brains! (In business, we call that management.)

These are the type of issues:

Age of the earth - how can we be sure it's not 6011 years old?

How did life arise? What were conditions really like at the dawn of life?

How do species evolve? When does one species "break away" from the other?

What are some examples of intermediate species?

Any algorithms and their connection to methods of proof.

Debunking popular ID myths. Questions to ask IDiots.

I find the best place to start is at the start, so let's have the data about age of the earth. Just copy it from elsewhere if it's handy already as i know lots of age-related posts were made in rittjc's thread.

Any takers? If there's support, I'll see if we can get it stickied.

 

[joobz]

"Here we report that a 32-residue peptide replicator, designed according to our earlier principles17, 18, 19, 20, is capable of efficiently amplifying homochiral products from a racemic mixture of peptide fragments through a chiroselective autocatalytic cycle. "

Their "32-residue peptide replicator" hardly constitutes emergence FROM non-living systems.

Biochemists doing refined experiments in modern labs are like the primordial ooze.... how, again?

The approaches listed in those articles are not unique to just those exact replicators but to the general methods they represent.
You claimed chirality couldn't occur from basic chemistry. I demonstrated that your statement was false. You are welcome to amend your argument in light of the evidence, but note that the original point is not valid.