Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

wande,

Not at all, my friend.

I've been called crazy by better 'n you . Cool

It's water off a duck's back.

Hope you're having a good day .

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
Are you a doctor, wande?

Or do just play one on the internet?

Sorry if my having a good time has unsettled you.

You can't tell me that a statement like 'you are the one who said you had a position....' isn't funny.

Yes, it is rather funny when you claim you have a position but then can't explain what that position is.

Sad - but funny.

No , what is funny is when you admit that you are not sure if I have stated a position......

....nor sure if you understand my position.......

.......... but state that nevertheless you are certain that I am wrong........

.......... and also state that you are certain that you have not misstated my position.

That's funny. Cool

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Are you a doctor, wande?

Quote:

wande,

Not at all, my friend.

I've been called crazy by better 'n you .

I guess we have to assume that doctors are better than you wandel.

0 Replies

It's that kind of assumption that keeps getting you in trouble, parados.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
Are you a doctor, wande?

Or do just play one on the internet?

Sorry if my having a good time has unsettled you.

You can't tell me that a statement like 'you are the one who said you had a position....' isn't funny.

Yes, it is rather funny when you claim you have a position but then can't explain what that position is.

Sad - but funny.

No , what is funny is when you admit that you are not sure if I have stated a position......

You are the one that claimed you had stated a position then when asked to tell us what it was you didn't respond.

Quote:

....nor sure if you understand my position.......

You are the one that stated I mischaracterized your opinion. I asked you to show me where I did so but you have not yet shown us anything.

Quote:

.......... but state that nevertheless you are certain that I am wrong........

I don't know that I have said I am "certain" that you are wrong. Could you at least point to where I might have said that?

Quote:

.......... and also state that you are certain that you have not misstated my position.

I don't recall saying I was "certain" I have never misstated your opinion. I asked you to cite an instance of me doing it with enough information to show that I did so. You still have not done that.

Quote:

That's funny.

Yes, it is funny that you continue on red herrings instead of providing support for your statement. Can you NOT provide support? Does that mean you KNOW your statement was factually untue?
Lets look at your statement again.

Quote:

you have consistently misquoted and mischaracterized my position

There are several ways that your statement can be untrue.
1. You could not have a position so there is nothing to mischaracterize.
2. I could have never mischaracterized a position you actually do have.
3. I could have never misquoted you or your position as you stated it.
4. I could never have done either of the above "consistently"

I figured it would be easiest for you to support 1 and 2. But you can't even do that.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

1. You could not have a position so there is nothing to mischaracterize.
2. I could have never mischaracterized a position you actually do have.
3. I could have never misquoted you or your position as you stated it.
4. I could never have done either of the above "consistently"

Figure out what your story is, and stick to it.

Laughing

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Did you even read what he said? Or do you just have your responses prepared beforehand. He said

Quote:
Where it is inaccurate is in the implication (and assumption) that enough time has passed for the separation of populations of homo sapiens to show an uneven distribution of alleles (evolution) in the population, which are directly connected to "intellectual capacities" ("Intellectual Capacities being poorly defined).

Does that really sound like he says that NO evolution has taken place?

Yes.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
1. You could not have a position so there is nothing to mischaracterize.
2. I could have never mischaracterized a position you actually do have.
3. I could have never misquoted you or your position as you stated it.
4. I could never have done either of the above "consistently"

Figure out what your story is, and stick to it.

run away.. run away...
You are like a Monty Python skit but without the wit. Although I can picture you standing there hitting yourself over the head with a large fish proclaiming that evolution doesn't exist because no matter how many times you hit yourself the fish doesn't grow legs.

Meanwhile...
You still have not supported this statement real life..

Quote:

you have consistently misquoted and mischaracterized my position

If you wish to apologize for your statement instead of supporting it, that's ok too.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Are you saying that NO evolution has taken place within any populations of homo sapiens because not enough time has passed?

When the variation (of any trait) between individuals within a population, exceeds (and overlaps) the variation between populations, then the trait in question can not be associated with a particular population.

It takes more than just time to make something evolve, it takes selection interacting with variation to result in a changed distribution of alleles in a population. Variation and Selection happen to take time.

Watson was taking a very general statement about evolution and using it to make invalid assumptions about specific things. This is remarkably similar to your entire argument style, as I think everyone on these threads will quickly recognize. You are very much like him in this way.

I'm talking about your statement, ros.

You said that there hadn't been sufficient time for differences in intellectual capacity to arise among the various populations of homo sapiens.

rosborne979 wrote:
Where it is inaccurate is in the implication (and assumption) that enough time has passed for the separation of populations of homo sapiens to show an uneven distribution of alleles (evolution) in the population, which are directly connected to "intellectual capacities"

So, it would follow that there hadn't been sufficient time for differences in ANY trait to arise among the various populations of homo sapiens.

No, it does not follow. There is no reason to expect that the selective pressures on various traits are all the same.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Did you even read what he said? Or do you just have your responses prepared beforehand. He said

Quote:
Where it is inaccurate is in the implication (and assumption) that enough time has passed for the separation of populations of homo sapiens to show an uneven distribution of alleles (evolution) in the population, which are directly connected to "intellectual capacities" ("Intellectual Capacities" being poorly defined).

Does that really sound like he says that NO evolution has taken place?

Yes.

Actually, it was a trick statement, because it involved a sentence with more than three words in it, and you seem to have trouble with those.

Unfortunately, in a world of three word sentences, you have the advantage, because "Bible says so" covers all you really have to offer.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Are you saying that NO evolution has taken place within any populations of homo sapiens because not enough time has passed?

When the variation (of any trait) between individuals within a population, exceeds (and overlaps) the variation between populations, then the trait in question can not be associated with a particular population.

It takes more than just time to make something evolve, it takes selection interacting with variation to result in a changed distribution of alleles in a population. Variation and Selection happen to take time.

Watson was taking a very general statement about evolution and using it to make invalid assumptions about specific things. This is remarkably similar to your entire argument style, as I think everyone on these threads will quickly recognize. You are very much like him in this way.

I'm talking about your statement, ros.

You said that there hadn't been sufficient time for differences in intellectual capacity to arise among the various populations of homo sapiens.

rosborne979 wrote:
Where it is inaccurate is in the implication (and assumption) that enough time has passed for the separation of populations of homo sapiens to show an uneven distribution of alleles (evolution) in the population, which are directly connected to "intellectual capacities"

So, it would follow that there hadn't been sufficient time for differences in ANY trait to arise among the various populations of homo sapiens.

No, it does not follow. There is no reason to expect that the selective pressures on various traits are all the same.

Do you suppose that the 'selective pressure' on the traits related to human intelligence has been ZERO on ALL populations of humans over the course of history?

OR do you suppose that the 'selective pressure' on the traits related to human intelligence (while not ZERO) has been EXACTLY the SAME on ALL populations of humans over the course of history?

You're running out of places to hide, ros.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Do you suppose that the 'selective pressure' on the traits related to human intelligence has been ZERO on ALL populations of humans over the course of history?

Of course not.

When do we get to see where you are going with this RL?

real life wrote:

OR do you suppose that the 'selective pressure' on the traits related to human intelligence (while not ZERO) has been EXACTLY the SAME on ALL populations of humans over the course of history?

No, I don't suppose that... Wink

Have you trapped me yet?

real life wrote:

You're running out of places to hide, ros.

I'm not hiding, I'm answering your dumb-ass questions. You just seem to be running around in circles.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:

Did you even read what he said? Or do you just have your responses prepared beforehand. He said

Quote:
Where it is inaccurate is in the implication (and assumption) that enough time has passed for the separation of populations of homo sapiens to show an uneven distribution of alleles (evolution) in the population, which are directly connected to "intellectual capacities" ("Intellectual Capacities" being poorly defined).

Does that really sound like he says that NO evolution has taken place?

Yes.

Actually, it was a trick statement, because it involved a sentence with more than three words in it, and you seem to have trouble with those.

Unfortunately, in a world of three word sentences, you have the advantage, because "Bible says so" covers all you really have to offer.

Where does RL say "Bible says so" in this discussion?

0 Replies

Bartikus has trouble with analyzing evidence. Maybe RL doesnt come right out and say "Bible says so", but he only uses arguments steeped in the brew of BIblical "evidence". Like hes a big fan of THE WORLDWIDE FLOOD. Thats certainly not a scientific theory.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
maporsche wrote:

Did you even read what he said? Or do you just have your responses prepared beforehand. He said

Quote:
Where it is inaccurate is in the implication (and assumption) that enough time has passed for the separation of populations of homo sapiens to show an uneven distribution of alleles (evolution) in the population, which are directly connected to "intellectual capacities" ("Intellectual Capacities" being poorly defined).

Does that really sound like he says that NO evolution has taken place?

Yes.

Actually, it was a trick statement, because it involved a sentence with more than three words in it, and you seem to have trouble with those.

Unfortunately, in a world of three word sentences, you have the advantage, because "Bible says so" covers all you really have to offer.

Where does RL say "Bible says so" in this discussion?

He doesn't say it explicitly, but do you really think it isn't at the core of his reasoning. After all, RL cut/pastes Creationist propaganda to make his arguments so they must reflect his view or he's just dredging stuff up to waste our time. Do you think RL is wasting our time with creationist viewpoints which he does not share?

That's possible, but even so, he's still representing himself at a YEC, and the core faith of YEC is, "Bible says so".

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

........ Thats certainly not a scientific theory.

Are you willing to admit, FM, that the scientific method is not really very well designed to be used in investigating historical events, since it is based on observation and repeatability?

For instance, you cannot scientifically prove what you ate for dinner Thursday before last, can you?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
........ Thats certainly not a scientific theory.

Are you willing to admit, FM, that the scientific method is not really very well designed to be used in investigating historical events, since it is based on observation and repeatability?

For instance, you cannot scientifically prove what you ate for dinner Thursday before last, can you?

Precisely why this thread goes round and round and round and round and round . . . .

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
........ Thats certainly not a scientific theory.

Are you willing to admit, FM, that the scientific method is not really very well designed to be used in investigating historical events, since it is based on observation and repeatability?

For instance, you cannot scientifically prove what you ate for dinner Thursday before last, can you?

I find it interesting that in the same post you denigrate the scientific method you use it to make a reasonable assumption that anyone actually ate dinner on Thursday before last. What method did you use to make that assumption real life? Was it based on observation and repeatability?

You forgot the other part of the scientific method, predictions. Evolution predicts that we would share similar traits with other creatures if we evolved from a similar ancestor. We can now show that prediction to be true with DNA testing.

0 Replies

But then of course observation and repeatability has shown what your response will be when asked to support this statement of yours by providing examples.

real life wrote:

you have consistently misquoted and mischaracterized my position

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
........ Thats certainly not a scientific theory.

Are you willing to admit, FM, that the scientific method is not really very well designed to be used in investigating historical events, since it is based on observation and repeatability?

For instance, you cannot scientifically prove what you ate for dinner Thursday before last, can you?
Precisely why this thread goes round and round and round and round and round . . . .

Yes, it's true.

Unfortunately, some give true science an undeserved bad name by claiming scientific 'proofs' of things that the scientific method was not designed to prove.

I have consistently stated that, since both creation and evolution are postulated as having occurred in the past, both are supported largely by inferences and circumstantial evidence, not by 'scientific evidence' in the strict sense.

Most evolutionists are unwilling or unable to acknowledge that this is the case.

They treat circumstantial evidence as conclusive, and their inferences as fact.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know