GoodScienceForYou wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 11:02am:Your questions are excellent and I hope you are serious that you want to understand about real science.
I have a chemistry degree, so I already know how science works thank you very much. I don't really appreciate you establishing yourself as some sort of authority figure, but comment on your condescending opening aside… let's move on.
Quote:There is evidence for other parts of science. You can also test to see how these phenomenon perform according to the hypotheses. You can't do that with evolution.
As far as I am aware, there have been studies into natural selection in controlled laboratory conditions as well as in the "wild" (for lack of a better word). I assume you mean that large scale evolution has not been tested, and in that respect you are correct; it cannot be tested repeatedly as with other sciences, which is an unfortunate hindrance when it comes to biology. The same can be said of sociology and psychology - there are too many variables and lab conditions can often affect the outcome.
Quote:If it is functional and performs identically in all tests and in all different conditions in the same way in each condition, then it can be said to be an acceptable theory.
I would say that natural selection, because of its repeated tests fits that description very well. Again, I accept that we are talking about small changes over short time periods, but still the principle has withstood rigorous testing.
Quote:This evolution pseudo science, has no way of being tested, other than by believers who project belief on fossils and living creatures. Faith and religious ideas are not science.
The primary mechanism has been tested though (again I hasten to add in short term experiments).
Quote:DNA shows no form of evolution has ever taken place, unless you void the foundation of science from the classroom.
Personally, I find comparative anatomy to be far more compelling than DNA evidence.
Quote:There is no magical processes nor mystical causes. This whole pseudo science uses magical processes that is not shown in any evidence. They project belief on evidence and force the evidence to fit but only in the brainwashed believers minds. Children are indoctrinated before the first class on this crap. Mommy and Daddy are now believers in this religious nonsense.
As far as I am aware there is no magic or mysticism in evolutionary theory. Can you explain yourself there? And I'm not sure what you are getting at at the end either, are you saying that kids come home after a science class about evolution and are convincing their parents of its validity?
Quote:I have asked many PHD's to lay a foundation for belief and they can't. They start with religious slogans which they simply accept these dogma as if it was proven by some mystical guru of science. These ideas have never been tested by any use of science.
What do you mean by "religious slogans"?
Quote:Some fool's opinion on what a fossil is IS NOT evidence. Unless you can verify exactly what that fossil is with physical evidence, it is worthless as evidence.
Understand? You simply cannot accept what humans believe as if it was real.
At the very base of things, yes, a fossil is meaningless as evidence. But inference based on the skeletons of dead creatures is surely worthwhile, even if never conclusive.
Quote:DNA; in all the experiments and studies show the same thing. That creatures are programmed to survive as the same creatures. They do not mutate unless you can prove mutations and what the cause of the mutations are. If they are existing patterns in the ancestors of this individual then they are NOT mutations at all, but are simply repeating patterns caused by genetics.
Mutations are errors in duplication. I can't see the validity of your point that mutations can only exist if you can show the cause. If a change has occurred then it has occurred, why is it necessary to prove the cause? We also return to my original question of where the boundary between genetic lineages is; as far as I know there is no such boundary.
Quote:What is shown is a pre-programming to survive using what ever tools were put in the genome from the first of this family, the original parent of the genetic lineage. All those non functional DNA patterns are there to help the creature survive as needed.
An interesting hypothesis, but it requires some foundation. For example what would be the founding families? And when in the fossil record do we see the parents of these genetic lineages?
Quote:You cannot show any evidence that any simple life form has evolved into a complex life form. That idea is contrary to the real evidence we have. No "fish" has ever "evolved" by some magical nonsense into humans over some immense time.
You're swearing again. And also using the word magic, which is inappropriate when describing evolution as I understand it. It is becoming more and more obvious that you have some personal issue with the theory.
Quote:The idea that DNA similarity shows evolution is nonsense. It shows that there are only such a tiny finite amount of materials; amino acids, elements, to produce organic life from. There are only four possible "digits" used in DNA. G,C,A,T. The CAUSE of the expression of those digits is unknown.
More swearing. As a chemist, I'm betting that the "cause" is chemical. Meaning that the expression of those groups of bases probably has a structural relevance to the amino acids they "code" for. Or are you going deeper than the chemistry of life?
Quote:If you find a similar pattern in humans and in fish it is because fish have similar needs in order to survive and so "OF COURSE" they use the same coding ideas to make up some parts of their bodies. There is a very few finite ways to make muscle tissue, for instance.
That's one way of looking at it I guess.
Quote:The whole of the "tree of life" is nonsense, and a projection of belief on this world, and it really screws up science and biology to allow this nonsense to continue.
And again with the cuss words. I still see evolution as a valid, non-magical explanation for the abundance of evidence.
Quote:According to these Evotards we are all evolved from each other if that were true. The "common ancestor" is the earth from which all life originates and gets each individual creatures "building blocks" from. The cause of life itself is unknown.
I take it "evotard" is play on words to include retard. So now you've gone from cuss words to insults. Stay away from that, it only weakens your stance.
Quote:It is ridiculous to project belief on any evidence. It is far better to just see what is obvious.
Fair enough. But personally I think the evidence points in only one direction. I've still yet to hear a better alternative.