CTD

If all you can do is spout false accusations, I may be soon research a bit and see if there's an ignore function available here. So any author who just ends his saga with "...and they have more offspring" is doing a disservice. And just for kicks, what is the noun to which your pronoun 'it' has been referring? 'It' is not my question; 'it' is not an answer to my question. Higher than whom? And howso? Assertions are a dime a dozen (actually cheaper than that locally). What a surprise: yet another unsupportable assertion contrary to universal observation. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust a quick salute to those who take the time to even read my post before slinging mud. SaaaaaaLUTE ! P.S. This is funnier even than I expected.

Fear not - I never put much stock in Darwin's musings. Perhaps one of the "educated" types you spoke about will be able to explain the significance to both of us.

From time to time we see assertions that mutations and 'natural selection' result in some lifeforms having more offspring than others. And they just stop right there, like that means something. I think several questions remain to be answered, but I suppose I should give some examples first. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE2Fitness.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silence/Introduction_to_evolution http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html Darwin didn't think it sufficient to "produce more offspring". In his chapter on "Struggle for Existence" (Link) he says "Struggle for Existence" (Link) He proceeds to discuss the various checks to population then in the next chapter we find This almost sounds like a prediction. Notice the emphasis on competition (death of the unfit). He goes on to say Which sounds like there's an advantage to be had in numbers. But he knew nothing of genetics, which render this reasoning hollow. Say A has more offspring than B. Let time pass. Before too long, the offspring of A mate with the offspring of B. The generations that follow are the offspring of both A and B. The dichotomy has vanished. Now that I think of it; you really don't need to know a lot about genetics to figure this out. Oh well... Whether it be double-talk, or he simply couldn't remember what he just said, later in the same chapter he says Now here we see that extermination of one's inferior kinsmen is what Darwin's evolution is all about. Having more offspring won't do. This is more clear when one accounts for genetics, and the spread of mutation; but on other occasions Darwin did stress the importance of eliminating the "less fit". 'Selection' is just an euphemism for death, after all. I think this post is getting long enough. My first question seems to me to stand right out, but I want to be clear: What difference does it really make if A has more offspring than B? This is just shortsightedness in action. Unless B's offspring are quickly selected, it will only be a few generations until A's offspring are B's offspring.

This caught my eye. From the SA Link (bold supplied to assist in communication) The failure to maintain "plodding equilibrium" is inconsistent with the commonly voiced assertion that stasis in "living fossils" like crocodilians can simply be attributed to an allegedly unchanging environment. I wonder how quickly the implications of this discrepancy will spread from those who study bacteria to those who study croc history.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7 Can you find the OP or should I copy & paste?

You've only been here a week, and you confidently behave so? You already understand mindlessly ganging up on the unpopular is the way to go around here? That's meaningful. Would you have me believe you were fooled by that cheap snippin' out-of-context trick? How could anyone reading this thread not understand I've been asking all along to see the "theory of evolution"? How how how how how hww - see what you made me do! "Hww" from my keyboard. Happy now? You better be happy, 'cause provoking too-fast typing is about all you can really threaten, ain't it? Nobody's making you read any of this. What? Are you curious that just maybe someone might find the "theory"? Untrue. I have repeatedly said I accept the changes in allele frequencies as a factual observation. Why do you insist on pretending otherwise? What does it take to satisfy you - not the rest -just you - that I really do believe this? I came here, made a couple of posts, and was challenged to "fight" right off - just like that, for no reason at all. I have never indicated a preference one way or another about fighting. You assume I enjoy it because all the attacks thus far have failed and or backfired. I enjoy funny. There are plenty of other funny thing and plenty of other things I enjoy. Want to understand me? I'll explain a bit. While all the loopy idiots are slingin' mud, what if there's someone with a little actual gray matter lookin' on. What if they get upset and go searchin' and find a legitimate "theory of evolution"? Some people get determined when they get upset, rather than throwing temper tantrums. You think you know so much? You're really that certain that no proper "theory of evolution" has ever existed that you cannot give the community time to find it, but have to stink up the place with childish antics? Gotta hurry up and get me banned? Doesn't bother me. I conclude there are many here who are also, in fact, agreeing by their actions. I think it's obvious enough for anyone who considers the matter. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is a non-issue. Of course a legitimate theory of evolution exists. Textbook double-talk. It matters or it does not matter. There is no in between. If it mattered very much at all, there would be concern. There is none. Zero. We'll need to measure something else just to be sure the concernometer isn't broken. And just up'n saying "Harkening back to Darwin as an attempt to falsify evolution is just stupid" isn't? Looks like you meant to give the impression I was doing something stupid there, but you have no basis. I did not "harken back" to anyone in my post, or attempt to falsify evolution. I classify this as a variation of straw man - let's call it "ghost man" for now. Um ...whatever. Perhaps some phantom will happen along and respond; it doesn't concern me or the topic. Stop with the fallacies already, this time argument from ridicule.Fallacies? Some cyper.... entity... snips my words way way WAY out of context in an attempt to mislead the readership, and calling him on it in an entertaining manner is a fallacy? You people and your delusions... Maybe sometimes I shouldn't, but I do laugh. You give me no choice! post number 64, people, that's where I'm accused of employing "argument from ridicule". Nothing strict at all about the enforcement. If they banned the utter fools, how many'd be left? If they banned those who've employed fallacies in violation of the rules in this thread alone, how many? Oh, and how much of the "I can't read the OP" fallacy will we continue to see? I know it's long, but really... Most of it's just don't-play-stupid-games stuff. Blame the deceptive: if not for them it wouldn't be there. The real question couldn't be much simpler.

You just want to set me up so your partner(s) can whine that some lame, off-topic insult didn't get a response. And no, I'm not ending my sentence with "don't you?" One might ask what the purpose was served by your own post... Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not what I said. I said "hypothesises" - plural. -And that should be "an hypothesis" there, wise guy.

Enough lying already! Or don't you know what the term 'straw man' means? I know. Gotta sling mud so you can feel important, or intelligent, or whatever - devoted... I never claimed a controlled experiment was the only way to test an hypothesis. I'm claimin' you ain't got no hypothesises t'be a-testin' nohow. You really are a mudslinger, and a bad one at that. Haven't hit the mark even once. Long ago and more than once I explained that the order of the words is meaningful in English. Hoping someone forgot? I'm not interested in say-so. Figure that out.

I don't think you see my point yet. If you see it as ridiculous, you see it as extant. We disagree. I see it as vaporware. We just might ridicule it together if you can find it!

Just how do you propose to get your project retroactively into this literature? Your argument is classic you-can't-knowism, by the way. "You can't know, so allow us to teach you". I'll do my own thinking.

Ohhhhhhhhh. Now I get it. Listen good. We can't SEE evolution occur. It takes time periods far longer than your life for evolution to "occur"...it takes tens of thousands of years, to result in new species. Can you SEE gravity? Can you SEE Earth's magnetic field? Going by your logic, you aren't allowed to believe in the Theory of Gravity or the Dynamo Theory. Quick side note. You want to see evolution happen fast? Called viruses and bacteria. They evolve incredibly fast. Actually, we can see it, and we've detected new species. Just FYI. http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12001839 Dung beetles provide an object lesson in the speed of natural selection ONE of the lies regularly promulgated by creationist ideologues is that you cannot see evolution in action right now. For microorganisms this is obviously untrue. The evolution of new viral diseases, such as AIDS, is one example. The evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is another. But bacteria and viruses breed fast, so natural selection has time, within the span of a human life, to make a difference. For species with longer generations, examples are less numerous. But they do exist. A new one has just been published, appropriately, in Evolution. It concerns dung beetles. Harald Parzer and Armin Moczek, of Indiana University, have been studying a species called Onthophagus taurus. Or, rather, it was a species 50 years ago, but it is now heading rapidly towards becoming at least four of them. These are nifty, too: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe Looks like it was premeditated from the get-go. Been pulling these stunts long? Have they been successful in the past? Please do tell. I know you want to brag. Bonus: if you brag about how well this worked in the past, it's off-topic! Now for those who might not quite be following the show, I said I'd like to see - get this - the "theory of evolution". That is the "it" which was snipped out of context so they could play this scam and manufacture an excuse (as if they need one) to post links to talkdeceptions. What a haul! To bad I'm lookin' for truth. Well, actually that ain't precisely so. I'm lookin' for the "theory of evolution".

Ohhhhhhhhh. Now I get it. Listen good. We can't SEE evolution occur. It takes time periods far longer than your life for evolution to "occur"...it takes tens of thousands of years, to result in new species. Can you SEE gravity? Can you SEE Earth's magnetic field? Going by your logic, you aren't allowed to believe in the Theory of Gravity or the Dynamo Theory. Quick side note. You want to see evolution happen fast? Called viruses and bacteria. They evolve incredibly fast. You can see some aspects of adaption which over time leads to evolution. Example males and females now are on average taller and bigger than males and females from the 1950's. Also bacteria and viruses adapt to the medicines that we come out with, all the time. That is why we always need a new flu vaccine and if you do not finish your anti-biotics round, the bacteria will become immune to those anti-biotics. But your point is a good one. Just because we cannot see "it", does not mean "it" doesn't exist.So tell me: was this cheap deception planned ahead of time, or just spontaneous propagandizing?

Stir up trouble? You assume a dichotomy where none WHATSOEVER exists. Seeking truth IS often a very good way to stir up trouble. You can keep you for-show apologies for someone else. Caving in to cowards does not earn their respect, and everyone knows this. Including said cowards. Now let me explain one more thing. When the existence of a thing is disputed, the burdens of proof are well known. The affirmative side must present credible, consistent evidence, and the negative side is obliged to consider the evidence fairly. In this case, the thing itself should by all means be handily available, yet the only evidence of any attempt at to find it consists of a link which the provider gives no evidence of having bothered to read. (An efficient call!) Okay, here's a challenge: Link me to a thread where someone caved in to harassment (interweb harassment, at that - oooh, what a scare thing!) and was subsequently treated with respect.

Well, Mr S, the software doesn't like your post. Quoting & responding isn't working, so I'll try to cobble something together. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"From these observations you can get some hypotheses, though I shall deal only with the bolded one: Hypothesis: Though the probability mutations providing a selective advantage is much lower than of one providing a selective disadvantage, they can nevertheless be more likely to accumulate because the probability of a mutation reaching fixation is dependent on its selective advantage and the population size. (Link) provides evidence for this and equations." Okay, I checked the link. No evidence there. Evidence for things actually happening in the real world does not consist of surveying models on paper. In case you haven't considered the term, 'evidence' does not consist of assertions, conclusions, or interpretations either. Stick to actual observations if you'd safely employ the term. I have chosen the more charitable interpretation of this event, for those desiring to take offense. One could presume the author to be familiar with the term 'evidence' and conclude the link was included deceptively. Show of hands: who'd prefer me to be less charitable? --------- 4 and 6 once again. This isn't even a good start. Your prediction is overtly subjective from the get-go. I shan't bother with the remainder of your post. I'm not terribly concerned with illogical ramblings against ID. Maybe some of your fellows will be grateful. Were they true friends, they might set you straight in private. Things work fairly backwards with fake friends, and I haven't time to explore the likely scenarios. You're probably much more keenly aware of your situation than I.

Ohhhhhhhhh. Now I get it. Listen good. We can't SEE evolution occur. It takes time periods far longer than your life for evolution to "occur"...it takes tens of thousands of years, to result in new species. Can you SEE gravity? Can you SEE Earth's magnetic field? Going by your logic, you aren't allowed to believe in the Theory of Gravity or the Dynamo Theory. Quick side note. You want to see evolution happen fast? Called viruses and bacteria. They evolve incredibly fast. So typing up a legit "Theory of evolution" would take tens of thousands of years? Is that the excuse? Good thing you're warning all these would-be composers. Question is: should the project be abandoned as impractical, or do they "need to get working right away"? Thank you so much for demonstrating how sincere you really are. Information's like gold to me. And as a bonus, your stunt probably won you a lot of admiration hereabouts. It's win-win, isn't it? Let us consider that for a moment. Do you really want friends who applaud deceit? Could you trust such? Might they trust you? The truth-averse (that is a more politically-correct term, I think) community isn't very pleasant from any perspective.

Okay, we still disagree. If the chart's so all-fired impossible to understand, why is it provided for creationists? 1. Yes. A straighforward, truthful, accurate answer would be most satisfactory. Either provide a "theory of evolution" or acknowledge that evolution theory exists rather than any "theory of evolution". 2. I wouldn't describe it that way. I refuse to indulge in blind faith and accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence on the basis of assertion alone. Is that your idea of "religion"? 3. N/A and about as O.T. as 2. Now do you need to tell yourself it's just me being stubborn? Does it mean anything to you at all, this issue of whether or not a legit "theory of evolution" exists? If so, why not treat it with respect and investigate? If not, what are you doing other than advocating your own religion? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I see you're unaware of a good deal of history, but that's not something I'll remedy today. If you'd like to actually investigate, here's a link to get the ball rolling http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-9105.html What part of any link provided contains the "theory of evolution"? Waste your own time researching that - then complain to me. Or just lie and say it's there without providing an excerpt, if that's how you (t)roll. I haven't time to research individual history just now, so I won't guess either way. Deny that the question I shared was suggested by the situation. Deny it! I need more data if I'm to accurately predict your behaviour. And keep asking more and more questions, and dragging things further and further afield... You haven't said one on-topic thing yet - not one. What has your bogus attempt to falsify the Living God to do with the real/vaporware status of the "theory of evolution"? Kinda strange that they warn creationists not to preach, but all anyone wants to talk about is my God. PM any real questions, folks, or email them. Don't expose any more hypocrisy than necessary, okay?

In this context, the question is tricky. Whatever is a mandatory belief should certainly have been subjected to the same "rigourous testing" we keep hearing about. Now locally, if acceptance of the obvious fact so clearly demonstrated by Gregor Mendel that allele frequencies must change should suffice, we might have another situation to consider. I don't get the impression that anyone here is satisfied with my status as an evolutionist; they all seem to adamantly disagree with the forum definition. As a practical matter, searching for a "theory" which will satisfy a view held by a small community (and do a poor job satisfying most of them) seems like a waste of time. I think the more broadly-accepted version of 'evolution' is the one we need a "theory" for. Again (as simple as I can handily say it) all mandatory beliefs should be included in the "theory".

4 and 6 (I was redundant) While attempting to formulate a fresh candidate from scratch is an interesting exercise, I would prefer to discuss it at another time, or at least in another thread. If you were intending to be scientific with this, here's a snag: there are 3 elements listed. How can we know ns ss and gd are in play? What if it's only 2 of the three? What if there's fifteen elements? One could slip in all sorts of unwarranted elements unless there is a means of determining which are valid and how much each is contributing. In short, you need measures which will allow you to properly exclude the tooth fairy.

Now here is the crux of your problem: you need to read what is said before responding. Nothing except the unsubstantiated assertion "As such, Evolution is a scientific theory (and an extremely well tested one at that)." in your post has any bearing on the existence of a "theory of evolution". I have already stated that I've heard tell of such a "theory". The point you somehow miss is that I'd like to see it. I have also already stated that I believe allele frequencies change over time. Why do you behave as if I don't? And if you must spend time "preaching to the converted", please try to dredge up a convincing, relevant sermon.

You assume one cannot search for something more than one place? Guess you never lost anything, huh?

I did not call them 'godless' - quite the opposite. They are not without gods they are without God. Neither did I say it was the case universally, so don't try to lay that to my credit either. I accept that allele frequencies change all the time. According to the introduction spiel, that means I accept evolution. Do I accept any of the garbage produced over the ages in order to dispute or undermine history? Not a bit. Am I inclined to take advice from people who misinterpret practically everything I write? Take a guess! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged You simply misapply the term 'theory'. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Laws of Thermodynamics are none of them all that long. The entire body of Thermodynamic theory is another story. 'Thermodynamic theory' is not the equivalent of 'the theory of thermodynamics'. It's pretty simple how English works. There are reasons English speakers of the past invented the system. Clearly there was an attempt to avoid, as opposed to creating confusion. Please feel free to fault this motive, or otherwise argue against compliance with the established convention.

Yes there are two 5's. I noticed that and was surprised it took so long for it to come up. But it is a legitimate (although quite trivial) complaint, and said legitimacy probably makes it a lower priority than the complaints I've seen. I have indeed defined what I want. I have asked in very simple terms recently, and in very detailed, specific, no-weaseling-out terms originally, as I'm not entirely inexperienced. You may be familiar with http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17113 which advises those who would understand how science works to see http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm On the righthand side there is a diagram. I'm after the second box from the top, which, if the stories we're told are true, equals the bottom box in the diagram. I'm confident you prefer to speak of it as the latter. But proper procedure will require me to evaluate it as the former if it ever turns up, you hopefully understand. 6 I'll explain. That lifeforms change from generation to generation is observation - not theory. The remainder simply claims explanations exist for the observation. That's hardly a falsifiable claim. Probably the best response yet. Concise, subtle, and amusing. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Know what? I'll leave it to the readership to contemplate for themselves how in the whole wide universe I could possibly have been any clearer. I have specified what I want and what I don't want. We all know which is available.

I've been pretty specific about what I'm interested in. It really should be a simple matter of asking "Hey, anyone got a link to the Theory of Evolution?", getting a helpful response and being done. If I'd asked to see Ohm's Law, I expect that might've happened in spite of all the emotions we see on display. I have made the most reasonable request I can rightly imagine, but we all know it cannot be met. So here we go. Mudslinging won't get you one step closer to finding a "theory", ...assuming you'd actually go looking for one.

A question was suggested by the situation. I merely shared it. Whatever the actual case may be, everyone can see that the population here appears largely Godless. Do not mistake 'Godless' with 'godless', however. No no no. Evolutionism has quite the pantheon of crypto-goddesses, and they're not the easiest things to investigate. The religion forbids them to be directly acknowledged, you see. There's a "Natural Selection goddess", a "Sexual Selection goddess", a Luck goddess, and plenty more. By now folks should understand that I was composing and missed your post. I have to wonder what part of it you think responseworthy in any case... I wouldn't say "weakest of all". I will admit your faith is stronger in many respects than my own. You agenda doesn't happen to include presenting the "Theory of Evolution", does it? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm just guessing you didn't have to dig back to 1913 to cherry-pick that one. Sure it would. That's why the adjective 'blind' has to be affixed to describe faith in molecules-to-man stories. We all exercise faith all the time. Try driving down the road without assuming the oncoming traffic will stay in their lane. The faith God requires of man is the same kind of faith we place in our family and friends. We trust them to keep their commitments to us and love us, etc. This is based upon past performance - it isn't blind at all. And no faith is required to conclude God exists, unless one gets very quibbly about defining 'faith'. THAT kind of "faith" is the very same kind we all have in gravity or math. One who calls such an heavily-evidenced premise "faith" will apply the term to anything. Harassing me will prove counter-productive if I have any choice in the matter. I don't know, but if this forum has an "ignore" feature, you might want to consider it. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedA little more As it is I who employed the term 'faith', it is I who am entitled to choose from among the valid English-language definitions for the term. This is my prerogative - nobody else's. I choose what I believe to be the most popular, and well-known of all the definitions for the term 'faith', the one given in Heb 11, verse 1. Everyone see the term 'evidence'? It couldn't be more closely associated. Even I used to believe there was such a thing as a "theory of evolution". Although I had never seen it myself, there is a good deal of evidence suggesting it exists. People talk about it all the time. But one time too many someone undertook to lie to me about what it said. The obvious, common-sense, straightforward way to investigate is go to the source. Poof! There ain't no source. I looked, and others have too. I've seen a lot of what's out there, as people with half a clue could gather from my OP, if they chose to do so. So employing my definition, probably the most common one used in English, I have evidence-based faith that God exists and keeps His Word; I have no desire to possess blind faith in a non-existent "theory", the twisted objectives of which have been clear since before my grandparents were borne. If toastywombel is really finished, it will fall to some other would-be scoffmeister to try to twist this post. Bad luck, whoever you are.

CDT what if anything does either of your links have to do with the OP? What, if anything, would lead you to think you can discuss sexual dimorphism without properly contrasting the two sexes? What, if anything, makes you think male humans have breasts compatible with assertions of the "flat-face-theory"? What, if anything, so motivates people to oppose the presentation of on-topic evidence? Here, let me add some bold to the O.P. and perhaps people who aren't wearing hate-coloured glasses will see some relevance. It was convenient for me to present those relevant links and I did so. Fer cryin' out loud!