Evolution is a valid scientific theory

In the context of proponents not having argument as well, yes.
Which basically means there is no claim to begin with, whether I concede or not.

 

I already told you:

A) Judge is not an expert in biology
B) He relied on expert opinion
C) Just because "experts" say so doesn't mean it really is so.
For more than 2000 years "experts" believed Ptolemaic astronomy to be correct.
Didn't make it so.

You must first admit that you know even less than I do about what you set out to zealously defend.
Being less honest than I am about your own knowledge of subject doesn't add more credibility to you.

As to experts, see above.

I am not out of my mind, I have reasons to have reservations.
Even though I have not spent quarter of a lifetime on it to pose a serious academic challenge to the theory , I can still see inconsistencies and arbitrary conclusions drawn here and there, with doctored evidence shoehorned to fit preexisting picture in so called "experts" minds.

First of all it is nothing but Darwinism (I don't care who else calls it Darwinism. If Creationist do it won't dissuade me to do same, as long as definition is true).

All basic premises remain the same (No matter how much you tell me about Mendel who discovered genetics as a "vehicle" for Darwinian evolution or New Synthesis as new way of interpreting Darwinism).

If you keep saying that whole universe rotates around earth you are still adhering to Ptolemaic astronomy, no matter how many Hubble telescopes you send out , with doctored pictures aimed to serve the basic premise.

Same applies to New Synthesis - it's nothing but Darwinism in new clothes.

I DID NOT MISS THE POINT.

You engage in two types of arguments:

1) Ad Hominem to discredit those who are critical of you.

2) Inverse Ad Hominem Argument:

An inverse ad hominem argument praises a source in order to add support for that source's argument or claim.

Ad Hominem arguments do NOT make the point in the first place, so there is no way I could miss something that didn't exist.

Just because you lack understanding what Ad Hominem argument is doesn't mean it helps you make the point.

Facts are actually there for evidence being shoehorned to serve the purpose. That's not what I would call a scientific method.

I brought up some quotes , all I heard in responce "but this guy is Toothfairy believer, ergo Munchausen never claimed to have flown to Moon or in fact did so on cannonball".

Why don't you talk in detail about subject for which you demonstrate so much of a Blind Faith ?
All you keep telling me is "but this theory is correct because it IS correct and there is ________, _______, _______, _______ that must be considered as proof (fill in blanks with few googled up terms from so called New Synthesis). I rest my case now, because it is proven, because I said so."

Repeating same type of assertions is just that - repeating the same baseless assertion.
It doesn't validate any of the claims you make.

Read what I have said.

I already explained what it means for a member of Judicial Branch , who is by definition must be a Lawyer, to render a ruling on so complex subject as Biology. Simply put, it's not Judges job to determine validity of scientific claim, so he must rely on expert opinion.
He has no other choice. He has obligation to make a ruling. He can't tell parties "Now wait a minute, let me go to grad school and then do some research before I make a ruling. See ya in 20 years".


But you are not a judge, you are not obligated to make a ruling in a given frame of time.
You are one who makes a claim that Darwinism is Scientifically Valid Theory and I call your bluff. And what you do now? Resort to Inverse Ad Hominem arguments.
Ad Hominems won't get you far in this subject.

I responded to it earlier and will copy-paste so you can read it once again:


I agree with that (that "To be valid, a scientific theory doesn't have to be proven to be true, but it does have to be refutable, consistent with the available evidence, and supported beyond a reasonable doubt" - Okiefreak).

I repeatedly confirmed that it was never my intention to ask anybody for slow-motion videotaped evidence of evolutionary processes as they occured.
Just as I wouldn't expect Hawkins to travel 20 billion years back to videotape Big Bang to accept it as a scientifically valid theory.

If you keep repeating it ,as if I don't understand what theory is, then I must conclude that you either:

1) You do NOT comprehend what I write
2) You DO comprehend what I write but conveniently ignore parts where I repeatedly explain what the definition of scientifically valid theory is and what do I expect when asking for proof that Darwinism is a scientifically valid theory.

In fact it does have to be "consistent with the available evidence".
Just as Big Bang theory is (even though all the math collapses beyond Plank epoch, but at least until then it works!)

I already told you what Geckopelli is doing here.

No. What I also know is that neither one is scientifically valid (including Darwinism).

That's irrelevant. Besides I never disputed nor argued in it's favor.

I already addressed this above.

:cheers2:

 

To argue from (or appeal to) ignorance is to suggest that because there is no evidence against something it must be true, or because there is no evidence for it, it must not be true.

Such as
There is no evidence God is real, therefore he is not.
or
The is no evidence God is not real, therefore he is.

 

What is the difference of fundamental premises?

I understand lol

Authorities for a long time believed Ptolemaic astronomy to be correct. Did it actually turn out to be so?

I never said anything to make anyone think I had high hopes

But if anyone on this forum makes claim that Darwinism is Scientifically Valid Theory then they are obliged to prove that it is so.
Either that or they have no claim to begin with

 

And it is from the common voice that we find solution. We can posit many fantastic claims about the world. We may also make true statements.

 

Here's a piece of macroevolution evidence fwiw.

The Plantaris muscle is a long thin ligament like muscle in our foot and calf. It is often used by surgeons to be used in other parts of the body where muscle is needed and after being removed has no effect on movement or balance. In fact 9% of humans are born without a plantaris muscle.

In primates however, this muscle is critical in allowing their feet to grasp things.

This evidence becomes even more compelling with the recently discovered 'Ardi' ,the oldest homonid skeleton ever found. She had the ability to stand upright and *grasp with the feet* at the same time.

Why would we even have this muscle in the first place unless it's a relic from the past.

These aren't gas stoves and car parts Jumbuli. lol.

 

Stop trolling, Okiefreak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv2NrPZaiiE

 

I don't see how our having useless muscles (that are useful in other species) is a proof of Darwinian premise that most complex life is the result of random chance and natural selection, from single cell to homo sapiens.

I don't accept it as an "argument" in favor of such theory.

And if has to be accepted as such then please elaborate and explain why?

As far as I know 93% of monkey genome is similar to human. That's more than just some piece of useless muscle that you claim links monkeys to humans.

Now how is it an evidence of my great great great great ancestors splitting from the ape tree some millions of years ago by means of randome chance and natural selection of their their genom , that later was responsible for the 7% of difference ?


So, we have two trims of certain vehicle, let's say Toyota Camry.
One trim comes with foglights. Other trim doesn't. The one without foglights still has the plastic cover under the dashboard where the switch to turn on fog light would be.
10 million years from now extraterrestial aliens discover remnants of both cars. And what they say?
"Evrika ! Toyota SE has evolved from LE by means of random chance and natural selection and here is the proof : Both had space reserved for foglights and both had place for a switch under the dashboard but only one evolved to become SE and that evolution was possible by means of random chance and natural selection!"

 

If it was proof than evolution would be a law. It's simply a piece of the ever accumulating mosaic of evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

I'm not sure how I could explain it any clearer.

I've heard 4%.

:smilielol5:......

 

No, but how do you make the argument in favor of theory based on such an evidence?
You could as well, seriously, make an argument about vehicles evolving out of gas stoves and SE out of LE by means of random chance and natural selection

But you must or else there is no plausible explanation.

I got the exact number from one of the Darwinistic articles out there.
But I won't dispute it, that's not the point.

 

I could make an argument about vehicles evolving out of gas stoves if they

a. shared similar features
b. had the inherent ability to change over time
c. if they were separated by time
d. that the change they experienced provided an advantage for survival.

I explained in another thread the advantages that bipedalism gives humans. It gives even more explanation to why the plantaris is no longer needed. I'll try to dig that up.

:cheers2:

......O.K. here's one example from one of my earlier posts that explains how bipedalism (and other changes) helped humans survive. I realize there are many other reasons besides this.

"Ever wonder why humans have very little hair and relatively large sweat glands compared to other species? It turns out we have a distinct advantage when it comes to running down prey in heat. Give a marathon runner a small spear and throw him out into the grasslands of Africa and chances are he'll have dinner in a few hours. The bushman of southern Africa have a 90% kill rate using this same technique today. Combine that with other physical features such a large buttock, small toes, long tendons and it's easy to see humans were made for running."

 

The truth is actually that both evolution and religion are incomplete theories.
They are both right, and they are both wrong.
They are both equally ignorant.
They both do not truly know god.

God exists, and is whatever consciousness created our consciousness (and all of it for that matter)
This consciousness that was created is that force that causes structures in matter, and strings together even the smallest units of matter.
We experience this structure as what we call beauty, the golden ratio etc.
God is actually quite natural, it's whatever writes the laws of nature.

Darwin was absolutely correct, species do evolve around what would best suit that life form for survival. But more importantly they evolve according to their consciousness if you do not progress in your consciousness, the body gets no signal to evolve. Now,the body does adapt on its own but for true evolution the consciousness must tell the body what it must do. If the life form does not choose to evolve, or sufficient time is not given for these physical changes to take place then that species will die off.

So,the universal truth that all sides of the evolution vs religion debates hopefully will come to understand is you must evolve, or you are extinct.

The question after that is, when you look at the human race: are we evolving, and is it happening fast enough for us to survive or will we kill each other into extinction?

 

How do you know this?

 

600.000.000 AC
Extraterrestial aliens are here.

a. Toyota SE and LE share many similar features !
As to gas stove and vehicles, those too look awfully similar to the eyes of an extraterrestial alien, 600 million years from now

b. Those extraterrestial aliens don't really care to know if gas stove had ability to become a vehicle or if SE truly evolved out of LE by random chance and natural selection.
All they know is that there are remnants of some objects from remote past.
Our extraterrestial aliens don't believe in magic man in the skies and they can't fathom any other way the gas stove and car could become what they were.
ERGO they conclude that both must have had inherent ability to evolve over time and that the sole mechanism responsible for such occurence was random chance coupled with natural selection.

c. They actually find the Ford tractor to be 100 years older than Toyota Camry SE, thus Ford Tractor (almost an equivalent of dinosaur) is believed to be one of the earlier ancestors of Toyota.
Of course 100 years was enought time for all the atoms randomly rearrange themselves into the first Toyota Camry , which over years became Toyota LE, than subsequently evolved into SE.

d. Now you can not argue that the changes in the automobiles didn't provide great advantages for survival!
Better safety features, higher speed, more powerful engines !
As to Toyota LE and SE our extraterrestial aliens are particularly excited and print in papers "Foglights prove evolutionary theory is right!"
Of course, if Toyota had foglights so much better were it's chances to avoid accidents in foggy nights !

And I gave good reasons to guess why Ford tractor of early XXth century is no longer in production 100 years later , and what advantages a car with foglights has over one that doesn't have those lol
:cheers2:

Ever wonder why Bugatti Veyron has 8.0 L W16 quad-turbocharged engine with over 1000 horsepowers?
Guess what? It makes it move faster !

Who can dispute now that Bugatti Veyron was made for fast driving?

 

:smilielol5:

 

This example is getting closer but in order for it to be a true comparison you need to make the following changes

a. The cars must still be driving around when the aliens return.
b. The cars will need to mate with eachother and produce offspring.
c. Microevolution of the cars will need to be observed by the aliens.

Don't forget that most of the parts in the Ford tractor are used in the Camry as well. Of course, the Carmy is far more advanced and better adapted for the time it drove.

I would make electric or hydrogen running cars as the next species/make to branch off since the gas guzzlers will be losing their food supply and someday will become extinct.

The comparison's getting closer, but far from complete.:cheers2:

 

Haven't read past here yet, but I'll catch up.

I suspect that the general concept of Evolution as change-in-response-to-environment is the Theme (as it were) of the Universe. Judge for yourself:


Of the principles previously outlined, Thermo Dynamics is a Law, Uncertainty a Principle, Quantum Existence (NOT “theory’ -- I am NOT saying Quantum Theory is correct; like ALL theories, it’s an attempt to describe the nature of something. In this case, the Quantum Nature of the Universe. But they got a long way to go.) and the matter of the energy input and increasing complexity are facts. (Dropping a bomb, or heating individual atoms in a system is NOT adding energy to the system. It’s blowing holes in it.)

In addition, there are the four forces: Strong and Weak Nuclear, Electro-magnetic, and Gravitic. (I’ll drop it to three forces IF anyone proves the existence of a graviton. I won’t hold my breath. But that’s another story…)

So all of these things, Laws, Forces, whatever, are Parameters of Existence. I don’t think I’ll get any disagreement up to now.

However, there’s a caveat: the Laws of Thermo Dynamics are statistical in nature. Things heat up slowly. It is theoretically possible for and ice cube to grow colder in a hot room. But if I were to venture a guess at the odds against it, I’d guess some number to big for all the memory on this website to hold to 1. But it could happen.
If you think it though, of course, you’ll see that this springs organically from the Uncertainty Principle. In fact, you’ll see that ALL interactions involving Matter are statistical in nature.

Everything I’ve written so far is unimpeachable. I know details are lacking—but not because I’m not aware of them. This is, after all, a Philosophy, not Hard Science, forum. Beside, I hate math.

Back to the question—Where did life come from and why does it Exist as it does today?
The answer to the first part is obvious: Life began at the beginning.

“Before the Beginning” has no logical meaning. Nevertheless, lets examine it—

Nothing existed yet. So what is Nothing?
There is one thing we know about nothing, and it still applies. It’s all the same!
Nothing is Perfectly Symmetrical. It’s Agnostic Heaven—unknown and unknowable. Nothing cannot interact with Something in any possible way.
So what was before the beginning is a difference which makes no difference. Primordial Chaos.
Pretty much the definition of Uncertainty.

Before the beginning, there was chaos. Something Uncertain happened, and the beginning began.

Nothing breaks and the result is something. How? Damn!

0=1+(-1)

This is a principle that holds up in the lab. Particles can be formed, but only in positive and negative pairs. (This begs the question of why the universe didn’t instantly cancel itself out. There are a few possible reason, but again, another story.)

So Chaos breaks at a theoretical point, forming the Primordial Universe. That theoretical point contains everything there will ever be by virtue of E=MC2 and another physical Law: Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. So it was one hot MF. The Universe began to “expand” and cool. Entropy begins, allowing the Parameters previously discussed to assert themselves.

In other words: The Universe began when Nothing Evolved into a point of energy. That point Evolved into the Universe we know today because it was compelled to do so by the Parameters of Existence. The was no other possibility.

The Big bang was violent beyond comprehension, and Energy flowed “outward”. Because of Uncertainty and the emergent Forces, “backwaters” and “eddys” occurred in the flow and matter was formed—electrons and protons. Probably, the Four Forces are the results of the formation of matter, so I think of them as Secondary Parameters.

Quickly as possible: Gravity requires acceleration, which feeds entropy. As Entropy increases, the possibility of matter forming spontaneously, drops. The needed condition no longer exist. So our Protons and Electrons, very occasionally collide and form Neutrons. More often, they get close enough to become a Hydrogen atom. This all happens because it MUST. Electrons and protons react to the environment and evolve into H and Deuterium (Hydrogen with a Neutron added.)

The Parameters require Stars to form- Population II Stars that consist of the aforementioned materials. Deep it those, every other element is formed—because it must. Evolution- response to environment- demands it.
Super Nova’s happen (guess why) and the elements are spewed out, (Every atom in your body, with the possible exception of Hydrogen, was once in the belly of a star- now that’s cool!), re-gather with gravity’s help and Evolve into Population I stars and rocks—like the Sun and the Earth.

Jumping ahead a couple billion years, the Earth cools and the oceans from, a soup of raw chemicals. Because they must, those chemicals combine whenever the Environment is suitable. The Parameters require it.

Now I don’t want to teach chemistry, so if you doubt the next paragraph, you’ll have to look it up yourself.

Statistically, spontaneous (meaning “induced by a naturally occurring environment”) chemical reactions result in increased complexity in molecules most often. At one end of this scale is a single hydrogen atom. At the other-- the most complex molecule I know of is DNA.
At the low end, statistically, reactions resulting in formation of a more complex molecule are far, far, FAR more common than at the high end.
Confirmation of this comes through a telescope; even the dust clouds of space contain molecules as complex as simple amino acids. Evolution toward Life as far as possible under the Environmental conditions available.

The Universe is one big Evolutionary Journey to life. From Nothing to You. Who knows what’s coming next!
-------------------------

Now, anyone who wants to argue about bones and fossils and speciation or whatever:

If you can provide accurate and complete data on the day-to-day fluctuations of Environmental conditions (The Parameters) on earth beginning approximately 2.5 billion years ago, Bio-Evolutionary studies will enter the realm of MATH and you can have every little question about missing links and HOW answered.

Or, alternatively, explain why natural law doesn’t apply to life.

But until then, you can take my word for it—- the Universe and all its components Evolve.
Or better still, don’t take my word for it. Open you mind and Research the matter for yourself. But begin at the beginning, like life.

Remember, we’re all stars.

 

What about the Mule?
Horses and donkeys are similar, but nowhere near identical. However they can breed, so they probably have a common ancestor (convergent evolution? don't go there...), but they cannot produce viable offspring. Mules don't really qualify as a species-- they're sterile.

Except that one in 10,000 (it may be 1,000 or 100,000) mules can breed.
On the other hand, data is probably scant. I read this study a long time ago. Like before the internet long ago.

 

Actually, take out the meta-physical babble, and Hallz has restated my point.

 

Of course Darwin's theory is not 100% analogous to one I just made up for comparison (imagine, if it was it would make Darwinists sound like they were beating down on their chests and screaming loudly "I AM the Baron Munchausen!"), but as you noticed, it's close