If evolution is teh realz then why is not it happeningg nows?

[Mott the Hoople]

Then perhaps you can explain why origin of life - which you keep claiming is not part of evolutionary theory - is invariably taught in every single biology classroom that mentions the concept of evolution? If it is taught as part of the theory, and is not, why do you not object to THAT curriculum? And do not bother denying it - all you need do is look at any 7th grade life science or high school biology text.

It may be that TECHNICALLY you are correct that abiogenesis is not part of evolution. However, it is being TAUGHT as part of evolution.

You're exagerating. Abiogenesis may be mentioned as a hypothesis for the origins of life but it's hardly emphasized in biology classroom.

The point is and I"m telling you this as a person with a graduate degree in biology who studied the subject at a professional level for many years that the purpose of evolutionary theory is to provide a scientific model of biological speciation. That's a fact.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So, apart from your silly attempt to prove your assertion by giving a lame cartoon, what proof do you have that the fossil record disproves ID?

As to extinct lines; which ones are due to bad design and not to natural causes i.e climate changes or hunting, pollution, or the destruction of the places where they live?

or could it be....they evolved into other species? (gasp) Imagine that!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I would ask you the same with regards to evolution. You know, that theory that has not been proven.

You don't know what you're talking about. Biological evolution has been proven to a high degree of probability per the modern definition of evolution. The obesrvable facts of evolution are well documented and no reasonable person disputes them. You really need to learn what evolution is before you attempt to discredit it. You and other lay persons like Dixie have that same problem.

BTW, Dembski is a discredited crank that no real researcher takes seriously. You're not helping your case by referencing him. His numeroligical nonsense has been completely debunked by sources to numerous to mention here.

 

[Timshel]

And you should have boldened the whole thing

Nevertheless, the specific design arguments currently in play are empirically testable, even falsifiable,2 and involve testable predictions.

That does not falsify ID. You apparently have little ability to comprehend your source.

I would ask you the same with regards to evolution. You know, that theory that has not been proven.

Dumbfuck, YOU argued that...

One must conclude if a test can prove design within a biologic system then intelligent design can be called a valid scientific theory.

This leads to my question above. Your attempt to spin it back at me is invalid because I do not argue that IF evolution can be proven then it is a valid scientific field. Evolution is falsifiable. It's validity as science is not based on some fantasy concerning test that can prove it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Please back that up. Show me the specific tests involved. Show me where they have been published in peer review articles. Show me where the testing of ID has been independently verified. As I've stated before I'm a biologist and I'm unaware on any. Do a google search on peer reviewed research on ID and you come up with nothing where as you get thousands of hits on evolution research.

YES... Because we all know, for something to be possible, it has to have web pages on the Internets! It has to be reviewed by other pinhead scientists whom Mott agrees with, and it has to be published in some pinhead magazine, or else it's just not real or possible!

You know Mott.... I just wonder what Galileo did when he made his discoveries, long before science publications, peer reviews, or the Internet? It's a fucking wonder we don't still believe the Earth is flat, because we didn't have some pinhead science magazine publishing peer reviews back then!

Let's also make it clear one more time for the hardheaded... we are not debating Intelligent Design vs. Evolution... go fucking educate yourself as to the difference between ORIGIN and EVOLUTION of life. If you want to pit ET against ID, as you all seem to continue wanting to do, you need to show us the "peer reviews" and "falsifiable tests" which show Evolution to be responsible for origin of life... I've not seen those, on the Internets or elsewhere.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Your attempt to spin it back at me is invalid because I do not argue that IF evolution can be proven then it is a valid scientific field. Evolution is falsifiable. It's validity as science is not based on some fantasy concerning test that can prove it.

There is no evidence or observation of cross-species evolution. It is not falsifiable. There is no test that has proven it, there are no peer reviews on it, because it has never occurred. You can't even replicate cross-species evolution in a controlled lab environment, yet you want to claim it is responsible for random origin of life in a very uncontrolled and random environment.

And please show us the "tests" which show ET is responsible for ORIGIN of life?

 

[Canceled2]

You don't know what you're talking about. Biological evolution has been proven to a high degree of probability per the modern definition of evolution. The obesrvable facts of evolution are well documented and no reasonable person disputes them. You really need to learn what evolution is before you attempt to discredit it. You and other lay persons like Dixie have that same problem.

BTW, Dembski is a discredited crank that no real researcher takes seriously. You're not helping your case by referencing him. His numeroligical nonsense has been completely debunked by sources to numerous to mention here.

Biologic design is the the topic under discussion. As to your assertion about Dembski, and ID in genderal you need to catch up.

The best evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design

It is evident by the fact that Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, and Michael Ruse have written book reviews of Michael Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, that the best evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design. That only makes sense because Darwin himself wrote much about intelligent design and devoted an entire book, The Origin of Species, in a failed attempt to refute intelligent design.

We see peer reviewed literature by Zuckerkandl, Ayala, Koonin, and others referencing intelligent design. Here is a peer-reviewed article by 3 scientists from MIT in the journal of Molecular Systems Biology: The intelligent design of evolution where the authors assert:

The debate between intelligent design and evolution in education may still rage in school boards and classrooms, but intelligent design is making headway in the laboratory…
….
Intelligent design, however, may be here to stay.

The very nature of scientific advances in the study of molecular origins keeps moving towards intelligent design, not away from it.

 

[Timshel]

There is no evidence or observation of cross-species evolution. It is not falsifiable. There is no test that has proven it, there are no peer reviews on it, because it has never occurred. You can't even replicate cross-species evolution in a controlled lab environment, yet you want to claim it is responsible for random origin of life in a very uncontrolled and random environment.

And please show us the "tests" which show ET is responsible for ORIGIN of life?

Do you understand the language? Falsifiable does not mean it can be proven true. It means that it is conceivable that one could prove it false. There is no way to prove ID false because it rests on supernatural horseshit.

 

[NOVA]

Creation for dummies....

[SARCASM BEGINS]

Part I:
In the beginning there was a tiny spot of nothing that blewup in a "big bang"....
Creating and spewing tons of atoms, electrons, neutrons and sub-atomic particles everywhere.

These atoms bonded together into what we call elements (see periodic table)until
they finally became tiny specs of dust and then little balls and then big balls we call
planets.

These balls of various sizes then joined in numbers to become solar systems and then
galaxies...billions of galaxies formed...with billions of stars and billions and billions of planets

All from a tiny spot of nothing.....

Part MMMXXLII:

Some elements and atoms bonded together and began to burn creating our sun,
which in turn heated the third planet orbiting this sun and caused some atoms there
to again bond into a slimy sludge that began to live and reproduce....
giving rise to plants and eventially germs and fish and dinosaurs and whales....wow!

Conveniently, these animals and fish evolved in pairs of male and female sexes so they could
reproduce and continue the cycle of ever changing variaties of life...

All by accident and chance.........................................................................from nothing

The End...

[/SARCASM ENDS]


Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.....apply it anytime you need

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Do you understand the language? Falsifiable does not mean it can be proven true. It means that it is conceivable that one could prove it false. There is no way to prove ID false because it rests on supernatural horseshit.

According to the dictionary, falsifiable means "testable" and cross-species evolution is not. You can't prove it true or false, because it's not testable. inter-species evolution with certain species has been tested, but that doesn't address origin of life.

You guys amaze the hell outta me! You pit ET (a theory of species evolution) against ID (a theory of origin) and then jump back and say, ET doesn't deal with origin! Well, why the hell do you keep juxtaposing it with ID? Why the hell do you keep demanding ID meet the same criteria as ET? The falsifiability of the two are entirely different, because they deal with different things!

You keep arguing that ID is invalid because it doesn't meet some false criteria you claim it needs to meet, and none of your criteria have been met with regard to ET and cross-species evolution, much less origin of life. And nothing about ID is related to horse shit. You may think that, and that is fine, plenty of people thought that Earth revolving around the Sun was horse shit at one time.... many people thought the notion of man flying was horse shit at one time.... many people thought the possibility of black holes or anti-matter was horse shit at one time. You aren't alone in your foolish ignorance. It's part of what makes us humans... the arrogance to assume we know all there is to know, and if we don't know it, then it isn't possible.

If you can't PROVE that Intelligence didn't originally design life, then you can't claim it is impossible. Therefore, it remains a valid and viable theory.

 

[Cancel3]

According to the dictionary, falsifiable means "testable" and cross-species evolution is not. You can't prove it true or false, because it's not testable. inter-species evolution with certain species has been tested, but that doesn't address origin of life.

You guys amaze the hell outta me! You pit ET (a theory of species evolution) against ID (a theory of origin) and then jump back and say, ET doesn't deal with origin! Well, why the hell do you keep juxtaposing it with ID? Why the hell do you keep demanding ID meet the same criteria as ET? The falsifiability of the two are entirely different, because they deal with different things!

You keep arguing that ID is invalid because it doesn't meet some false criteria you claim it needs to meet, and none of your criteria have been met with regard to ET and cross-species evolution, much less origin of life. And nothing about ID is related to horse shit. You may think that, and that is fine, plenty of people thought that Earth revolving around the Sun was horse shit at one time.... many people thought the notion of man flying was horse shit at one time.... many people thought the possibility of black holes or anti-matter was horse shit at one time. You aren't alone in your foolish ignorance. It's part of what makes us humans... the arrogance to assume we know all there is to know, and if we don't know it, then it isn't possible.

If you can't PROVE that Intelligence didn't originally design life, then you can't claim it is impossible. Therefore, it remains a valid and viable theory.

And we cannot prove that the Great Spaghetti Monster isn't the creating and motivating force behind all in the universe.

We don't expect you to give in, Dixie. Even if you realize that you are wrong, that would not happen.

But the details of scientific research, terminology and methodology have all been explained. And they have been explained by people who have a good amount of education in various fields. ID is not scientific.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

YES... Because we all know, for something to be possible, it has to have web pages on the Internets! It has to be reviewed by other pinhead scientists whom Mott agrees with, and it has to be published in some pinhead magazine, or else it's just not real or possible!

You know Mott.... I just wonder what Galileo did when he made his discoveries, long before science publications, peer reviews, or the Internet? It's a fucking wonder we don't still believe the Earth is flat, because we didn't have some pinhead science magazine publishing peer reviews back then!

Let's also make it clear one more time for the hardheaded... we are not debating Intelligent Design vs. Evolution... go fucking educate yourself as to the difference between ORIGIN and EVOLUTION of life. If you want to pit ET against ID, as you all seem to continue wanting to do, you need to show us the "peer reviews" and "falsifiable tests" which show Evolution to be responsible for origin of life... I've not seen those, on the Internets or elsewhere.

Dixie you can be such a putz. These are basic tenets of the scientific method. You don't think Galileo's work has been published, independently verified and peer reviewed?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

There is no evidence or observation of cross-species evolution. It is not falsifiable. There is no test that has proven it, there are no peer reviews on it, because it has never occurred. You can't even replicate cross-species evolution in a controlled lab environment, yet you want to claim it is responsible for random origin of life in a very uncontrolled and random environment.

And please show us the "tests" which show ET is responsible for ORIGIN of life?

Could it be that that's because Biologist make no such prediction as cross species evolution?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

And we cannot prove that the Great Spaghetti Monster isn't the creating and motivating force behind all in the universe.

We don't expect you to give in, Dixie. Even if you realize that you are wrong, that would not happen.

But the details of scientific research, terminology and methodology have all been explained. And they have been explained by people who have a good amount of education in various fields. ID is not scientific.

Thorn's right. We're beating our heads against a wall.

 

[Cancel3]

Thorn's right. We're beating our heads against a wall.

I will have to agree. Should have listened to that very smart lady before now.

 

[Timshel]

According to the dictionary, falsifiable means "testable" and cross-species evolution is not. You can't prove it true or false, because it's not testable. inter-species evolution with certain species has been tested, but that doesn't address origin of life.

No, falsifiable means

Fal´si`fi`a`ble
a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.

The fact that you can prove it false means it is testable. But to be falsifiable it is not necessary that you must be able to prove it true.

ID is not falsifiable. It is defined as being beyond the reach of science. Not just today, but tomorrow and forever. Even if we had the ability to go back in time and view all species at origin we still could not disprove ID because the intelligence may be beyond any capacity we will ever have to observe. That would be the answer of ID proponents, I am sure.

You guys amaze the hell outta me! You pit ET (a theory of species evolution) against ID (a theory of origin) and then jump back and say, ET doesn't deal with origin! Well, why the hell do you keep juxtaposing it with ID?

Tonya Harding did the juxtaposing.

If you can't PROVE that Intelligence didn't originally design life, then you can't claim it is impossible. Therefore, it remains a valid and viable theory.

Philosophically maybe, it is not valid as a scientific theory.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LMAO...

DIXIE: "Falsifiable means testable!"
STRINGY: "NO IT DOESN'T, IT MEANS TESTABLE!"

I mean really... Is this what we've come down to?

Cross-species evolution has never been observed, tested, or falsified. Therefore, Evolution Theory offers NO explanation for origin of life. ID, however, does offer an explanation. It's an explanation rooted in logic, probability, and observation. It can't be tested because the condition can't be replicated. However, the condition of organized systematic mechanism can be tested, and the tests conclude they are the result (always) of intelligent design.

 

[Canceled2]

LMAO...

DIXIE: "Falsifiable means testable!"
STRINGY: "NO IT DOESN'T, IT MEANS TESTABLE!"

I mean really... Is this what we've come down to?

Cross-species evolution has never been observed, tested, or falsified. Therefore, Evolution Theory offers NO explanation for origin of life. ID, however, does offer an explanation. It's an explanation rooted in logic, probability, and observation. It can't be tested because the condition can't be replicated. However, the condition of organized systematic mechanism can be tested, and the tests conclude they are the result (always) of intelligent design.

Darwinian Evolution is a dying species.

 

[NOVA]

Darwinian Evolution is a dying species.

Dying huh??? hahaha...Dying or not, its the only thing we have the attempts to explain our existence without delving into the mystical, mythical, and magical would of fantasy, i.e., elves, gods, or aliens.....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Darwinian Evolution is a dying species.

Yea? You'd like to back that up? I bet I can find more examples of peer reviewed published literature on applied evolutionary theory in the last 6 months then you can find for either creationism or ID in total.

I mean what do you know about Biology? Where did you do you undergraduate studies in Biology? Where did you do your graduate studies in Biology? What was your core area of research? What makes you an expert on this subject?

To be honest, and I don't mean this as a personal attack, but based on your postings I find you profoundly ignorant on the subject of Darwinian Evolution.