I can postulate that mass causes a force, and, in a controlled environment, introduce a mass and witness the simultaneous introduction of a force. I can do this multiple times controlling for other variables, with a consistent result each time.

please show me similar experiments demonstrating macro evolution with speciation. like i said, i understand that its not nice to attack someone's faith - but this isn't an attack, its just good science.

12/23/2005 4:06:48 PM

Quote :

"The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anato my, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases."

The shared genome, the shared features ect are evidence enough. You dont need a video of tape of something happening to know it happened.

You cant accelerate time. You can evolve fruit flys and moths so that they can no longer mate with each other, that takes years. You could probably evolve new species, sure. It would take centuries.

12/23/2005 4:09:17 PM

Those bones were implanted with fake dna

12/23/2005 4:10:31 PM

yea so quit trying to compare the theories. until macro evolution with speciation has been demonstrated in an experiment, it is a weaker theory.

12/23/2005 4:10:47 PM

^ They may seem weak to someone who doesnt understand the physical sciences like those in the field do.

You dont need to observe something with a camera to know it happened.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:12 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 4:11:43 PM

sarcasm people, sarcasm

12/23/2005 4:11:45 PM

Quote :

"The shared genome, the shared features ect are evidence enough. You dont need a video of tape of something happening to know it happened."

that sounds a lot like what Campus Crusade tried to tell me about the holy spirit, my friend.

look, i don't doubt evolution. i can just admit that its not been scientifically proven. why can't you? because its your fucking religion. its ok. most people need a crutch.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:13 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 4:13:13 PM

also, scientific thoeries cannot be based on non-testable ideas like the need to observe speciation

if your idea for a theory depends on a non-testable assumption, it couldnt be a thoery in the first place.

12/23/2005 4:14:51 PM

Quote :

"scientific thoeries cannot be based on non-testable ideas like the need to observe speciation "

oh that's interesting because last i heard, the theory of evolution explained speciation.

i guess you're saying that its not a scientific theory? or are you saying that evolution doesn't explain speciation?

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:17 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 4:17:18 PM

Quote :

"Lucy Homo Habilis Homo Erectus Neandertals Homo Afarensis the dozen of other bipedal homonid species that have a mixture of ape or human features."

PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF SIMILAR "LOOKING" SPECIES IS NOT PROOF OF A RELATION. get that through your fucking head, asswipe.

Quote :

"and aaronburro, ID is not the story in genesis"

I know that. never said ID was the story in genesis. I mention genesis in reference to someone saying "how does evolution endorse a religion?"

Quote :

"Can you please show me a photograph of an atom so I know it exists?"

actually yes, yes I can.

Quote :

"good thing all the textbooks call it the theory of evolution"

yeah, and that none of these textbooks call it a "fact," either. oh wait, mine did in high school. hmmm...

Quote :

"I only need to see that all of the universe is expanding and the background radiation which points to a huge explosition."

NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T! you are assuming that the universe has always been expanding. you are assuming that the universe expanded from one singular point of mass long long ago and has been doing so ever since. I'm sorry, but there is NO FUCKING PROOF FOR THAT. once again, you are fitting the evidence to support your already decided upon conclusion. All the expansion of the universe can tell us is that the universe is currently expanding. THATS IT!

Quote :

"I see dozens of intermediate species leading from ape to human and a well studied genetic mechanism that does this."

I don't need to see a corvette morph from the 1967 vette to the 1968 vette to know that the 1968 vette is actually the child of the 1967 vette. I have pictures of the 67 and pictures of the 68. both say "corvette," and both look similar. Therefor, the 67 corvette is clearly the biological parent of the 68 corvette.

Quote :

"That is the standard youre asking for?"

before you'll tell my child in a government run school that a literal interpretation of Christianity is wrong? HELL FUCKING YES! but of course, you don't understand THAT portion of the argument. You are still stuck on arguing "ID didn't actually happen. therefor we won't teach it in schools. oh, and science is always 100% right."

Quote :

"Again, you dont understand science. Most people outside the physical sciences do not."

clearly you don't understand science either if you think evolution is a fact.

Quote :

"Summary of your argument:"

get ready for it, folks...

Quote :

"I dont understand science."

[image]http://www.kidsdomain.com/holiday/fall/clip/scarecrow.gif[/quote]
THERE HE IS!!!

Quote :

"Definition of scientific fact: OUR BEST EXPLANATION FOR OUR OBSERVATIONS"

wait. allow me to finish laughing before I address that statement. please.

Quote :

"These are called homonids...all are extinct...they have larger brains then apes...teeth like humans...varying brain sizes...and they walk on two feet How does one explain all these transitionary species? "

[image]http://www.edugraphics.net/gt1-vehicles/posters/gt110-vt.jpg[/image]



these are called "corvettes." they have similar body styles and the "older ones" are no longer being born or created. look how similar they are.

clearly, these pictures show a series of biological descendents. Clearly, each corvette "model" gave physical and biological birth to the next depicted "model." Clearly, the corvette is alive.
How else do you explain it? Some dudes in detroit built a bunch of them? naaaaaaah. that contradicts the obvious evidence we have right here! there's no way that we will find other evidence to suggest that something else happened. nope, that'll never happen. LONG LIVE THE LIVING BREATHING CORVETTE!

Quote :

"exept that my beliefs are based on physical evidence."

and that differs from a religious belief how? I mean, both are based on assumptions. or did you ignore that part of my post as well?

Quote :

"How about testing ape and human DNA?"

so you mean to tell me that some creator being absolutely has to give everything he created 100% different DNA and not "reuse" anything? hmmm... just a little hint here, I don't even do that kind of a thing with the simple computer programs I write.

Quote :

"you are asking me to accelerate time or build a time machine."

no he's not. If evolution can occur, then it should be able to occur at different speeds. We should be able to accelerate the rate at which evolution occurs. So, speed up evolution for us, ok? of course, if you want to say "well, evolution takes a looooooooong time to occur" then I've got to say that you are just bullshitting or pulling a cop-out. I mean, certainly the almighty science can do something about this little inconvenience, right?

Quote :

"Evolution is the best explanation, and the one held by the entire sceintfiic community. "

wrong.

Quote :

"There isnt really proof that mass causes a force"

the fuck there isn't. remove all other forces in a system and see if mass doesn't exert a force. oh yeah, its been done. ITS CALLED THE FUCKING SOLAR SYSTEM!

Quote :

"All you can do is see the effects of it. Which youve been saying as with evolution, is not proof of anything. "

wrong, yet again. if you can repeatedly show that the presence of one thing yields to exhibited effects which are absent when said thing is also absent, then you've got damned good proof of the existence of that thing.

Quote :

"You cant accelerate time."

you don't have to. you have to accelerate evolution.

Quote :

"The shared genome, the shared features ect are evidence enough."

wow. reusable code. what a crazy fucking idea for a creator to implement.

Quote :

"also, scientific thoeries cannot be based on non-testable ideas like the need to observe speciation"

actually, the fact that the idea is "non-testable" is what MAKES IT A FUCKING THEORY!!!

12/23/2005 4:18:03 PM

^^no, it IS based on the testable idea of comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases

Quote :

"ITS CALLED THE FUCKING SOLAR SYSTEM!"

Dude, prove to me that God isnt up there just pushing these planets around. I need you to build a controlled experiment that has something orbitting something else in a labratory.

Quote :

"these are called "corvettes." "

I stopped reading there.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:23 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 4:18:40 PM

yes, and certainly NONE of those things have anything untestable in them, do they? molecular biology? wait a minute, whats a molecule but a bunch of atoms. wait a minute, I don't have a picture of an atom, do i? hmmm...

oh, and again, those things you listed prove one thing and one thing alone: that those things are each verifiable on their own and that those things are "quite right." thats it, though.

12/23/2005 4:19:46 PM

you just dodged.

Quote :

"scientific thoeries cannot be based on non-testable ideas like the need to observe speciation"

are you saying that evolution is not a scientific theory? or are you saying that evolution doesn't explain speciation?

12/23/2005 4:21:15 PM

thats OK, excoriator. I just blocked his path for dodging as well.

12/23/2005 4:22:02 PM

yes, i expect him to very soon begin ignoring me and focusing his arguments on you, since you're clearly over your head here.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:23 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 4:22:55 PM

scientific thoeries cannot be based on non-testable ideas like the need to observe speciation

Quote :

"PROOF OF EXISTENCE OF SIMILAR "LOOKING" SPECIES IS NOT PROOF OF A RELATION"

Things that look alike are genetically related. Its a fact. Im sorry.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:26 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 4:23:40 PM

since evolution is your religion, you don't have the need to test its assertion that speciation occurs through mutation.

as an atheist, I do have the need to test that assertion - and until it is demonstrated, I will always view evolution as a very good theory, but an untested and ultimately unproven theory.

12/23/2005 4:26:09 PM

no, not really, excoriator. the vast majority of my points he has ignored. He's ignoring the corvettes. He's ignoring the religious ramifications of evolution. I've stopped re-iterating some things because he just keeps saying the same thing over and over again, now matter how many times I make a valid rebuttal.

I think he is subscribing to dubya's theory on propaganda. you know the quote I'm talking about.

anywho, imma troll for a little bit now, OK?





these are called "corvettes." they have similar body styles and the "older ones" are no longer being born or created. look how similar they are.

clearly, these pictures show a series of biological descendents. Clearly, each corvette "model" gave physical and biological birth to the next depicted "model." Clearly, the corvette is alive.
How else do you explain it? Some dudes in detroit built a bunch of them? naaaaaaah. that contradicts the obvious evidence we have right here! there's no way that we will find other evidence to suggest that something else happened. nope, that'll never happen. LONG LIVE THE LIVING BREATHING CORVETTE!

12/23/2005 4:26:37 PM

Quote :

"you don't have the need to test its assertion that speciation occurs through mutation."

Quote :

" genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases.""

My knowledge of these three fields fullfill my need to test that assertion. From what I know of genetics, I am certain that the mechanism exists to create new features, very slowly, over long periods of time.

Things that look alike are genetically related.

Pick up a genetics book.

Look at your parents.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:31 PM. Reason : - ]

12/23/2005 4:28:11 PM

Quote :

"From what I know of genetics, I am certain that the mechanism exists to create new features, very slowly, over long periods of time."

again, that's a great standard for a religion. but your certainty of the mechanism's existence is no substitute for laboratory experiment.

12/23/2005 4:30:53 PM

^its a substitute when you ask for the impossible

12/23/2005 4:31:40 PM

excoriator, you are totally right about this "religion" thing with respect to Josh. Look at what he is saying. He gives a set of reasons for why his belief is right. When you use his set of reasons to evaluate his beliefs, he tries to refute them, but he ultimately resorts to one big cop-out. The whole point of the cop-out is to deflect the hard questions and make them "unanswerable."

Christianity's cop-out is the supernatural entity and "God's will." Josh's cop-out is "well, it takes a looooooooooong time."

good work Josh.

Quote :

"Josh8315: Things that look alike are genetically related"

these are called "corvettes." they have similar body styles and the "older ones" are no longer being born or created. look how similar they are.

clearly, these pictures show a series of biological descendents. Clearly, each corvette "model" gave physical and biological birth to the next depicted "model." Clearly, the corvette is alive.
How else do you explain it? Some dudes in detroit built a bunch of them? naaaaaaah. that contradicts the obvious evidence we have right here! there's no way that we will find other evidence to suggest that something else happened. nope, that'll never happen. LONG LIVE THE LIVING BREATHING CORVETTE!

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:33 PM. Reason : you done fucked up, now]

12/23/2005 4:31:53 PM

Quote :

"its a substitute when you ask for the impossible"

then admit that fully proving macro evolution with speciation is impossible and move on. its no skin off anyone's back. evolution will still remain the best explanation. you will have only shed the crutch of religion by doing so.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:33 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 4:32:37 PM

My beliefs are based on sceintific research that has taken decades to compile.

Yours are based a photo of some cars you just googled.

Quote :

"then admit that fully proving macro evolution with speciation is impossible and move on."

I will admit that showing speciation in a lab isnt going to happen for several hundred years/

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:34 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 4:32:54 PM

Quote :

"its a substitute when you ask for the impossible"

then admit that fully proving macro evolution with speciation is impossible and move on. its no skin off anyone's back. evolution will still remain the best explanation. you will have only shed the crutch of religion by doing so.

12/23/2005 4:33:39 PM

of course i admit that its not possible to actually cause speciation in a lab right now. just becuase i didnt videotape a certain historical event, like the revolutionary war, doesnt mean it didnt happen.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:35 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 4:34:50 PM

oh man you're almost there. you're right - evolution is much better compared to history than to theories of gravity and thermodynamics.

12/23/2005 4:35:50 PM

history has been documented by books and artifacts...evolution has been documented by the fossils

12/23/2005 4:36:38 PM

come now, josh. SURELY the almighty facts of evolution don't allow it to be impossible to prove. i mean, evolution is a fact, right?

and its funny that you mention me googling photos, especially since you keep showing photos as evidence. Are photos now not legitimate evidence? Do I have to physically bring you all the corvette models for you to believe them to exist? If so, then you have to physically bring me all of the fossils for me to believe they exist, and you will have to physically show me how all of the genetics, biology, anatomy and viral research fields are all 100% correct as well. Sorry, thats my burden of proof if you don't accept photographs.

until then...

Quote :

"Josh8315: Things that look alike are genetically related"

these are called "corvettes." they have similar body styles and the "older ones" are no longer being born or created. look how similar they are.

clearly, these pictures show a series of biological descendents. Clearly, each corvette "model" gave physical and biological birth to the next depicted "model." Clearly, the corvette is alive.
How else do you explain it? Some dudes in detroit built a bunch of them? naaaaaaah. that contradicts the obvious evidence we have right here! there's no way that we will find other evidence to suggest that something else happened. nope, that'll never happen. LONG LIVE THE LIVING BREATHING CORVETTE!

12/23/2005 4:37:01 PM

Quote :

"history has been documented by books and artifacts...evolution has been documented by the fossils"

good. and neither can be demonstrated with a controlled experiment in the lab.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:37 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 4:37:11 PM

Quote :

""Josh8315: Things that look alike are genetically related""

I think it was obvious I was talking about LIVING things.

Cars dont have anything to do with evolution.

Quote :

"clearly, these pictures show a series of biological descendents."

Try and use living things (or dead things) as examples, champ.




[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:40 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 4:38:59 PM

wait, when did we decide that these fossils represented something that was once living?

Quote :

"Josh8315: Things that look alike are genetically related"

these are called "corvettes." they have similar body styles and the "older ones" are no longer being born or created. look how similar they are.

clearly, these pictures show a series of biological descendents. Clearly, each corvette "model" gave physical and biological birth to the next depicted "model." Clearly, the corvette is alive.
How else do you explain it? Some dudes in detroit built a bunch of them? naaaaaaah. that contradicts the obvious evidence we have right here! there's no way that we will find other evidence to suggest that something else happened. nope, that'll never happen. LONG LIVE THE LIVING BREATHING CORVETTE!

12/23/2005 4:41:26 PM

alright - have fun with aaronburro and please don't ever again say that the theory of evolution is scientifically equivalent to the theories of gravity and thermodynamics

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:42 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 4:41:49 PM

cya later, dude. it was fun having you on "my side" for once, even if our sides weren't really the same

12/23/2005 4:42:12 PM

Quote :

"wait, when did we decide that these fossils represented something that was once living?"

When did we decide the bones are those of something that was once a living creature?

Quote :

"Main Entry: 2fossil Function: noun 1 : a remnant, impression, or trace of an organism of past geologic ages that has been preserved in the earth's crust -- compare LIVING FOSSIL 2 a : one whose views are outmoded : FOGY b : something (as a theory) that has become rigidly fixed 3 : an old word or word element preserved only by idiom (as fro in to and fro)"

ask webster.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 4:45 PM. Reason : - ]

12/23/2005 4:42:57 PM

wait, so now a dictionary is conclusive proof that that rock you dug up actually belonged to something that was once alive? Do you have any actual photographic proof of this? oh wait, photos don't count. OK, do you have any experiments that can show that it was alive? Remember, showing me carbon-14 doesn't prove it was alive. it just proves it has carbon-14. or, do you have any video footage showing it being alive? what about witnesses? and who is this webster guy? I think he has a hidden agenda or something...

Quote :

"Josh8315: Things that look alike are genetically related"

these are called "corvettes." they have similar body styles and the "older ones" are no longer being born or created. look how similar they are.

clearly, these pictures show a series of biological descendents. Clearly, each corvette "model" gave physical and biological birth to the next depicted "model." Clearly, the corvette is alive.
How else do you explain it? Some dudes in detroit built a bunch of them? naaaaaaah. that contradicts the obvious evidence we have right here! there's no way that we will find other evidence to suggest that something else happened. nope, that'll never happen. LONG LIVE THE LIVING BREATHING CORVETTE!

12/23/2005 4:45:50 PM

Sorry, if you dont believe that fossils are the bones of once living creatures you do meet the criteria of those qualified to argue with me.

12/23/2005 4:48:00 PM

i'm sorry, but if you don't believe that God created everything then you aren't qualified to argue with me.

Quote :

"Josh8315: Things that look alike are genetically related"

these are called "corvettes." they have similar body styles and the "older ones" are no longer being born or created. look how similar they are.

clearly, these pictures show a series of biological descendents. Clearly, each corvette "model" gave physical and biological birth to the next depicted "model." Clearly, the corvette is alive.
How else do you explain it? Some dudes in detroit built a bunch of them? naaaaaaah. that contradicts the obvious evidence we have right here! there's no way that we will find other evidence to suggest that something else happened. nope, that'll never happen. LONG LIVE THE LIVING BREATHING CORVETTE!

12/23/2005 4:48:44 PM

Sorry, if you dont believe that fossils are the bones of once living creatures you do meet the criteria of those qualified to argue with me.

12/23/2005 4:50:25 PM

OK NOW YOU PEOPLE ARE JUST PIC SPAMMING

12/23/2005 4:50:57 PM

12/23/2005 4:53:17 PM

SO DO WE NEED TO START CALLING IT "EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER FUEL"?

12/23/2005 5:07:24 PM

LET'S HOPE THEY DON'T RAISE THE PRICE OF SAID "EVIDENCE OF AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER FUEL"

12/23/2005 5:10:07 PM

EID Fuel

i bet you could actually get some hippies to embrace this radical new alternative fuel. EID Fuel - for a healthier planet.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 5:13 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 5:12:07 PM

Quote :

"until macro evolution with speciation has been demonstrated in an experiment, it is a weaker theory."

Uh, it has been demonstrated.

The biological definition of "speciation" is producing a new group which is no longer biologically capable of mating with its predecessors--this has already been seen in the lab with fruit flies.

Quote :

"Things that look alike are genetically related. Pick up a genetics book."

No, no, no. If you believe that statement, you really need to pick up a genetics book yourself.

Similar features can come from completely different developmental processes. The classical example is the panda's "thumb"--it looks like a human thumb, so it must be related to ours, right? No.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 5:21 PM. Reason : ]

12/23/2005 5:17:50 PM

Quote :

"Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists."

12/23/2005 5:21:56 PM

Whether it's being argued depends on how you look at it.

I mean, people still argue over whether fire is a life-form, too.

12/23/2005 5:24:47 PM

here we go with fucked up comparisons again. debate among the scientific community of biologists being compared to some nutcases claiming that fire is a life form

haha i just re-read your post... quoting it for posterity:

Quote :

"Whether it's being argued depends on how you look at it. I mean, people still argue over whether fire is a life-form, too."

ahahaha nice. you're either trolling me or tacitly admitting defeat.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 5:31 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 5:26:27 PM

They both deal with the exact same issue--a definition.

Why do some people argue whether speciation occurred in the experiments in question? Because they can't agree on a particular definition of speciation.

Why do some people argue that fire is life? Because they don't agree with a particular definition of life (the central dogma, in this case).

Basically, the thing you have to keep in mind when discussing any topic in the biological sciences is that a large portion of the "scientific community of biologists" really doesn't know all that much about biology. People with biology degrees routinely make stupefyingly ignorant statements about their field, particular in the areas of genetics and evolutionary theory.

12/23/2005 5:36:25 PM

i'm feeling charitable... Would you like a free opportunity to retract your "fire could be life" example? i'd rather spare us all the agony.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 5:38 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 5:38:11 PM