You just don't get it do you? What is your problem? We've explained this countless times. There isn't just one definition of "random". You consistently revert back to this equivocation to support your position and it is a logical fallacy and totally dishonest to do so. Go to a street corner, make a log of the color of the cars that drive by. They're all behaving according to physics, but the order they pass you, to you, is RANDOM. Why don't you get this? It's simple. It's about perspective.

DNA copying errors occur RANDOMLY in the sense that the factors that contribute to them are chaotic. Not random in the sense of cause and effect, but random in the sense that they are difficult to predict. Get this through your skull sir. It is ridiculous that you don't acknowledge this.

Way to ignore the point there.. lol.

No laws are being violated. I'm setting fire to that straw man. Give it up, it's a stupid argument.

Tell me, when a DNA copying error occurs, what "law" is violated?

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 2:51pm:


Once change CAN cause death. When it does cause death then the population has nothing to worry about. That fetus gets miscarried. Evolution is about the accumulation of neutral and positive mutations. I know you deny they exist but we've posted tons of examples. So you're totally wrong.

Ho hum. You're repeating arguments that have been eviscerated. You're defeated.

The problem is that you're not ready for evidence. You can't even get the basics right. What good is explaining anything to you if you don't have a grasp of the fundamentals.

That's been the problem all along. You want us to produce evidence for your strawman version of evolution.

The REAL evolution is waiting for you. And you deny it because you're stubborn and you don't want to hear it.

Quote:


(Update: Nov 30 2009;  Inglorious is what is known in the message forum world as a troll.  He misrepresents himself in order to play stupid games.  He is a 100% member of the Evodelusion cult and trying as hard as he can to find fault in my writings.  Basically, he represents the levels of "ethically challenged" behavior that comes from being brainwashed into beliefs that have no foundation in science. His actions are sociopathic, with no regard nor respect for anyone. You can see that I believed him in the beginning.  I trust people until it is clear they are lying to me.  If he will lie about this, then you can't believe anything he says.)


Thanks for coming by, but this is the Neutral Evolution forum and we don't tell others how to answer, because that is not science.  We listen and learn. Telling others how to answer is not even polite. Requesting of people that you want evidence and not opinion is different. That is the scientific inquiry.

The question is do you really want to know and are you willing to listen and find the reality of science? (update: The answer was no before we even got started,because Inglorious is a troll.)

I learned this over 47 years ago, and it has not changed ever in real science. Any alteration is a bastardization of science because the people in the academia with mythological (Evodelusionism) religious agendas, are trying to keep their HEMG mental programmed silly jobs and have the "world is flat syndrome" deep in their brain.

The scientific method as it has been for over 200 + years is based on testing ideas to see if they are real.

---You start with an observation of a physical observed phenomenon that you can actually see, and pose a question about what it is? (Normally you break it down into only one premise at a time. This creates focus on the single phenomenon. Any time the "scientists" injects a lot of ideas at one time, ti is not using the real scientific method. Focus only on one thing at a time.)

(Since you cannot observe evolution happening, and when this was posed as a theory, it was and still is not even a natural phenomenon, but is a religious belief. There is no way to see evolution happening in creatures, except by belief.)

--The question becomes the hypothesis (or a series of hypotheses) as to why. Then that becomes the "premise" you are testing to understand the causes and effects of it in the natural world.

--You put the premise in the center of the circle and attack it from ever possible plausibility.  You imagine what would be the cause and test from as many angles as you can think of.  You NEVER impose your belief on science and eliminate any plausibility that would limit the scientific method (as is done today in Evodelusionism). You cannot define what is science, except that mystical, magical, metaphysics is not used.  Objectivity is the absolute necessity in a scientist and no beliefs projected on the evidence nor opinions from those beliefs are allowed.  Only when the data shows the possibility of and absolute trend do you make observations and conclusions with NO mystical, unfounded  beliefs allowed.  Listen to these videos in order.









Implications, inferences and projection of belief is not scientific. This is never allowed. Opinions are not evidence.




--Then you start to think on all the ways possible to test this phenomenon in real physical scientific experiments as it congeals into a theory.

You cannot simply look at some artifact and make determinations all by yourself. You must have a form of physical, testing that is objective, obvious, empirical and has no opinions nor belief in it as to the cause.  This absolutely requires DNA testing on fossils. (This eliminates the pseudo science of paleontology on most fossils, by the way. They have not used any scientific testing on replacement fossils, because there is nothing left in the specimen to test.)

--If you have any test that is successful, you start testing more and more; the same test over and over and over and if it shows the same results; good.  If you get many more tests that suggest this may eventually develop into a scientific fact and on to a scientific law, you proceed to test and test.  You share you scientific data and have an "open" forum amongst all scientists and have them do the same "physical testing".  You never impose unscientific, magical or religious belief on any evidence. 

--When all the testing by ALL possibilities that human beings can think of, has the same results with the same experiments and there is never any contrary result nor any ambiguous inferences (from belief), you can then use this as a science fact. You only go with what is shown in evidence and has no way to be manipulated by conjecture. Conjecture on evidence is the same as opinions. There is no such thing as "expert opinion" in science, if you want to avoid all HEMG from the system.

--If there is nothing that negates this it can become a theory of science after thousands of experiments, not before.  (One time that it fails and when tested that way it always fails then your idea is not proven.) (Idiots have theories, when they have no testing at all.) After many years of no different results on millions of experiments it becomes law. Then it is at the highest level of scientific "truth", never before. A theory is not a scientific truth, never has never will be.

--Falsification is not included in the scientific method. It has never been a part of it.  We only seek the truth and nothing else on any natural event on this earth.  This is true science. This is because you cannot falsify something that can never be tested as in the Theory of Evolution which is a metaphysical religious belief that can't be tested by any physical methods.

If you find any other nonsense, called the scientific method, it is not allowed here. Here we only go with the classic and well known scientific methods and we do not allow any opinions or mystical, metaphysical answers that have no evidence at all, (like evolution/creation has), in science here.


If it can't be tested, or there is no "tools" available to see the cause,  then it is thrown out and we start with a new project or a new way of testing when the tools are available.  No assumptions are allowed in real science, only what is empirically tested millions of times can be considered to be real.

Axioms of science can only be based on real evidence and it must be self evident with no opinions.

You cannot just look at something, declare that you are an expert, and call that science.  Understand? This is done now and they abuse the term scientist with this nonsense HEMG.

This is why the theory of evolution is not science. 

Genetics and DNA study is. I have never found a single thread of evidence for any evolution in DNA or Chromosomes or observed speciation.  There is only a natural change in the creatures to survive as the same species in evidence and then extinction when the requirements for life of that particular genetic structure can no longer survive.  That is all the evidence there is in all the papers I have read on this subject.

I really despise any religion in science.  It retards any progress towards the truth.

If your religion is true then it would be able to stand up to real scientific investigation.  There is only one truth, not two or three.