Irreducible Complexity Refuted!

Please provide a link from a reputable source stating so.

Then you should have a lab name, maybe the scientist's name who observed this and was it repeatable?

So is it fact or an opinion? By saying "cannot be directly observed yet" the answer would be "opinion"

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's real simple and stated in the link rather simply...

Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.

Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution.

Evolution is a fact.

Remember what a fact is. It's an objective and verifiable observation. All of which is supplied in the simple statement above. The theory of evolution is the explanation of evolution's collective facts.



Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila

THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY & OLGA PAVLOVSKY

The Rockefeller University, New York City, New York 10021



Things do not need to be directly observed if the effects can be accurately measured. We do not need to directly observe star birth to know it's happening. We do not need to directly observe gravity to know jumping off a building is bad.

Remember what a fact is. It's an objective and verifiable observation.

Things do not need to be directly observed

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's real simple and stated in the link rather simply...

Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.

Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution.

Evolution is a fact.

Remember what a fact is. It's an objective and verifiable observation. All of which is supplied in the simple statement above. The theory of evolution is the explanation of evolution's collective facts.



Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila

THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY & OLGA PAVLOVSKY

The Rockefeller University, New York City, New York 10021



Things do not need to be directly observed if the effects can be accurately measured. We do not need to directly observe star birth to know it's happening. We do not need to directly observe gravity to know jumping off a building is bad.

Remember what a fact is. It's an objective and verifiable observation.

Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila

THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY & OLGA PAVLOVSKY

The Rockefeller University, New York City, New York 10021

I said reputable source, please.

Key word, "objective" Of which you are not, you are biased twards Darwin, hence not objective. And as you know, observations are like ***s. Every body has one.

So do you have faith in his conclusion? Put it another way, do you believe his opinion of what he observed?

What is a fact again?

I said reputable source, please.

Key word, "objective" Of which you are not, you are biased twards Darwin, hence not objective.

And as you know, observations are like assholes. Every body has one.What is a fact again?

So Wiki isn't reputable enough? You realize Wiki often steals it's info from other encyclopedias, often word-for-word.

Everybody has some bias.

I believe the saying is "Opinions are like assholes- everybody has one!"

Opinions and observations are NOT synonyms.

I gotta tackle this one too.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation

Coming back to this one again. An objective and verifiable observation. Show me where the word "DIRECT" is in that sentence. Again, this stems from a complete lack of science education. You do not have to observe an object DIRECTLY to make a factual observation.

Simple example: If I put the kettle on the stove and turn on the heat for a few minutes, you know the water inside is hot. How so? How do you know that water is actually hot without moving the kettle or sticking your finger or other measuring device inside it?

Scientific translation: How do you know this fact without a DIRECT observation of the phenomena in question? Putting your hand on the kettle isn't measuring the temperature of the water, but it does a damn good job at telling you how hot the kettle is.

So how do you know the water is hot without taking direct measurements of it? Indirect observation. The answer is this: Put your hand on the kettle two minutes later. Ouch! Still hot! But the heat's off. That energy has to be coming from somewhere, and the only source is what's inside. Coupled with knowledge of energy transfer (thermal via conduction), you can state in an objective and verifiable means that the water inside is hot without ever seeing or measuring the water DIRECTLY.

Science. It works, bitches.

I rest my case. And i quote "You realize Wiki often steals it's info from other encyclopedias" And you still insinuate they are reputable?

Some bias doesn't cut it. objectionable means no bias!

An opinion is an observation.

yes, because they have identical information to reputable non-bias sources

so when i say that i think rap music sucks, this is actually an observation?

It doesn't make them reputable, it makes them thieves.

Yup, it's an observation to you and any body else who believes you.

And i bet you think your objective?

An opinion is an observation.

Some bias doesn't cut it.