Theory or vaporware? Can anyone show me?

[CTD]

Ah. So my formulation

4 and 6

 

(I was redundant)

 

of the hypothesis wasn't strong enough for you. Well, let's take the same sentence and invert it:

 

"Natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift cause species to change over time."

 

Is that specific enough? It's certainly falsifiable -- we could determine if those mechanisms actually do cause species to change.

 

Or are you looking for a formulation of the hypothesis that all species evolved from one common ancestor?

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.

[iNow]

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.

 

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

[A Tripolation]

Well I'll be damned.

I yield to iNow's well-referenced post.

 

*Waits to see if CTD will actually address it*

[toastywombel]

We really need to stop arguing with him, I said I was done last night but its so hard to resist. But arguing with CTD is what keeps him coming back.

 

Its kinda like a kid who picks on you, if you let it get to you he will keep doing it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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.

 

How are you to decide what is testable and what is not? I would think the validity of each would be best determined by the scientific literature.

[CTD]

Or are you looking for a formulation of the hypothesis that all species evolved from one common ancestor?

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".

[A Tripolation]

iNow, I say me, you, and toasty here have Capn give us this guy's IP location and go have some heathen fun and shove him in a locker.

[toastywombel]

iNow, I say me, you, and toasty here have Capn give us this guy's IP location and go have some heathen fun and shove him in a locker.

 

Hahahaha! I'm going to keep my mouth shut on that one.

[Moontanman]

Me me me, let me help too!

[CTD]

It is apparent that nobody but you seems to think your request is clear. You have seemingly specified what you want, but rejected apparently valid answers. You accuse everyone else of a conspiracy to deliberately misunderstand you. I think it would be reasonable to also consider the possibility that you're not asking a coherent question.

Okay, we still disagree. If the chart's so all-fired impossible to understand, why is it provided for creationists?

 

 

Also, you should answer my questions:

 

1) Is there any type of answer that would be satisfactory?

2) Is this a religious matter for you?

3) If the answer to 2 is yes, why are you here?

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

Ummm...I'm quite unaware of the sociopolitical implications of evolution...aside from the theists who hate it because it somehow disproves God, when it seeks to do no such thing.

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

 

Try and actually address the links people are giving you, then.

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.

 

Ok, you didn't specifically call them Godless. But it was such a strong implication that you might as well have. Such are the rules of comprehending English. I figured an omniscient being would know that. (See how I didn't call you by name, but you took it to say I was calling you omniscient? Semantics is a funny thing.)

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 tell me, if God did have a guiding hand over how we evolved (I'm deist, so I don't believe he did), then why exactly are we so imperfect as a species? Why do we suffer so much? These are questions that easily falsify a PERFECT God constantly watching over us.

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?

[toastywombel]

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?

 

Your totally right CTD a theory of evolution is just ridiculous, I can't believe I didn't see your point earlier.

 

I realize now that anyone logical would have to understand the truth.

 

There is an invisible man in the sky. And he created the whole Universe in seven days, including man who he created in his image. He puts man in a special place, where everything is perfect. He gives man free will to do anything he wants except eat from a special tree that God places in the special place. When man is tempted by a serpent (another one of God's creations) to eat from this tree he does! This of course is totally blasphemous! So God banishes man outside of this special place to a world full of evil!

 

I know when my kid breaks the rules I will definitely do what God did to humanity. Throw him out on the street and abandon him! Anyway. . .

 

This invisible man does not like it when people don't recognize him as God. Simply being all-knowing, all-powerful was not enough! No, he needs a fan club! If you do not recognize him as God and accept him into your life he will banish you to an eternity of hell! Then after God realized his demands were too much, no one was following his 10 rules! He couldn't just forgive humanity, No! That would be too easy for someone all-knowing and all-powerful! He had to create a special human that he called Jesus by impregnating a married woman. All while knowing that Jesus would grow up to be vilified, beaten, crucified, and suffer for all the evil man-kind has ever done.

 

But not even that was enough! We must all confess what rules we broke to a specially anointed man who sits in a box. If we don't he will again banish us to an eternity of HELL!

 

But he loves us

 

Your right CTD, the above listed is a much more logical and scientific way of looking at the world. Your wisdom amazes me. Thank God you found this forum man, whew I was on the fast track to hell!

 

Now if I could just think of a hypothesis to formulate and an experiment to scientifically prove the above.

Edited October 20, 2009 by toastywombel
Had to perfect the word of God

[mooeypoo]

I am reminding everyone on the thread that we got rid of the Religion forum for a reason. Religious arguments are not allowed in here. Please avoid them.

 

Be civil. If you think someone is trolling or doing anything wrong, you should report it. There is a little triangular button at the top of every post. Use it. Blaming others is achieving nothing more than to degrade the thread into personal attacks, and that will not be tolerated.

~moo

[CTD]

The point you somehow miss is that I'd like to see it.

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.

[toastywombel]

I am reminding everyone on the thread that we got rid of the Religion forum for a reason. Religious arguments are not allowed in here. Please avoid them.

 

Be civil. If you think someone is trolling or doing anything wrong, you should report it. There is a little triangular button at the top of every post. Use it. Blaming others is achieving nothing more than to degrade the thread into personal attacks, and that will not be tolerated.

~moo

 

sorry lol

[CTD]

Right then, let's follow the graph you shared:

Observation: Species have several similarities.

Observation: Species have several differences.

Observation: Individuals reproduce.

Observation: Mutations occur, which can cause differences.

Observation: Mutations can be passed on to offspring.

Observation: Some mutations are beneficial, some neutral, and some harmful.

Observation: Fitter individuals tend to have more surviving offspring.

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.

(from the abstract)

...In this review, we give a brief historical overview of mathematical approaches used to estimate the fixation probability of beneficial alleles. We then focus on more recent work that has relaxed some of the key assumptions in these early papers, providing estimates that have wider applicability to both natural and laboratory settings. In the final section, we address the possibility of future work that might bridge the gap between theoretical results to date and results that might realistically be applied to the experimental evolution of microbial populations. ...

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?

 

---------

 

 

Hypothesis: Species have a common ancestor, and diverged from it via an accumulation of mutations.

 

Prediction: The differences between species must "look" like they are the result of mutation and selection. Specifically:

1) The observed differences must be able to be accounted for by known mutation mechanisms.

2) The amount of difference must be compatible with known mutation rates, allele frequency change rates, and the amount of time they were separated.

3) There must not be many more coincidences than expected.

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.

[D H]

Okay, we still disagree. If the chart's so all-fired impossible to understand, why is it provided for creationists?

 

[chart elided]

Enough straw manning with the chart already!

 

A controlled experiment is one way, but not the only way, in which a scientific hypothesis can be tested. You trollish act is not going to work here.

 

Either provide a "theory of evolution" or acknowledge that evolution theory exists rather than any "theory of evolution".

Other than word order, WTF is the difference between "evolution theory" and a "theory of evolution"? You really are a troll, and a bad one at that.

 

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?

This is a non-issue. Of course a legitimate theory of evolution exists. The theory of evolution is a large body of knowledge. The best place to find a complete description is in a textbook on the theory of evolution. Nobody on this forum has the time to write a book just for you.

 

 

Harkening back to Darwin as an attempt to falsify evolution is just stupid. Darwin was not the be-all and end-all of the theory of evolution. He did not know about genetic theory. He did not know about DNA. Arguing that flaws in Darwin's writings falsifies the theory of evolution is akin to arguing that flaws in the Bohr model of the atom falsifies quantum mechanics. Darwin and Bohr were the starting points of two scientific bodies of knowledge, not the end points.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So typing up a legit "Theory of evolution" would take tens of thousands of years?

Stop with the fallacies already, this time argument from ridicule.

 

Use of fallacies is strictly forbidden by the rules here. The time to ban this utter fool has long since passed.

[CTD]

PS: If you give some indication that you are honestly looking for the truth, you will be treated with far more respect by myself and almost everyone. As it is, the appearance is that you just want to stir up trouble. My apologies if I am mistaken in this.

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.

[toastywombel]

CTD, look I can take your argument and put it into a single sentence. Observe. . .

 

LISTEN TO ME! I WANT ATTENTION!

 

guess I was wrong it took two sentences.

[Moontanman]

Stir up trouble? You assume a dichotomy where none WHATSOEVER exists. Seeking truth IS often a very good way to stir up trouble.

 

I agree, when do you intend to start?

 

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.

 

Caving in to creationist bullies is counter productive to the truth as well.

 

 

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!)

 

How many times does it have to be spoon fed to you?

 

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.

 

You have to show respect to get it CTD, just being a bully is not good enough. I suggest you go to a Christian fundamentalist forum CTD, you'll get all the sunshine pumped up your skirt you can handle.

[CTD]

The point you somehow miss is that I'd like to see it.

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?

[toastywombel]

I agree, when do you intend to start?

 

 

 

Caving in to creationist bullies is counter productive to the truth as well.

 

 

 

 

How many times does it have to be spoon fed to you?

 

 

 

You have to show respect to get it CTD, just being a bully is not good enough. I suggest you go to a Christian fundamentalist forum CTD, you'll get all the sunshine pumped up your skirt you can handle.

 

He might also be interested in a Male Lactation Forum.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So tell me: was this cheap deception planned ahead of time, or just spontaneous propagandizing?

 

No it was me agreeing with a fellow science forum member.

[CTD]

The point you somehow miss is that I'd like to see it.

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

Well I'll be damned.

I yield to iNow's well-referenced post.

 

*Waits to see if CTD will actually address it*

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".

[toastywombel]

Listen Jackass it was not pre-meditated I have been on this forum for like a week, I hardly know anybody on this forum. The reason the three of us came to the same conclusion is because it is known fact. You obviously are not going to convince us and we are not going to convince you. Why do you keep posting? Do you feel the need to get in the last word? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Do you really like to waste your time like this? If you believe your theory good for you, go live life. The only things you have provided to this forum is disruption and limited information on male lactation, is this the extent of your knowledge? Why not post on other topics?

 

Instead you went into a science forum, denounced evolution, and implied that everyone in the forum was godless when everyone pointed out how your arguments were wrong! You came here looking for a fight! Maybe because you have no other way of getting attention! Maybe love conflict I just don't know. But seriously this is beyond ridiculous. There is nothing productive about this.

Edited October 20, 2009 by toastywombel

[CTD]

How are you to decide what is testable and what is not? I would think the validity of each would be best determined by the scientific literature.

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.

[toastywombel]

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.

 

Yeah go do your own thinking, on your own!