Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
I see your reading (or honesty) is poor. I made no observation of your drivel re. existence of God. Speaking of honesty - it would serve that purpose if you would use only one name in this discussion. That the drivl was in quotes is irrelevant as you offered no source - but oddly now defend that it (and here you in 1st person) made no claim that God did not exist.
I don't care that you "support" evolution - the support of some poorly-educated pompous techncian is of no consequence. And do spare us the childish ad hominem - I repeated the science of the matter and offered no opinion and didn't even identify ID. Again, try to address honesty with more rigor in your future posts.
Last edited by JackBean on Thu May 31, 2012 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: deleted insults
likewise I am still waiting on you enlightening regarding evolution or your comments can be resume by word silly or you got nothing to offer!!!
anyway since this is a post to put possible proves of evolution
another example that could implied that evolution or at lest that there is dynamic change in today fauna is the larvae (caterpillars) that eat banana leaves in the island of Hawaii how it has adapt to be able to eat a plant that was not there before.
another example of survival of the fittest is went European introduce carnivores and herbivore in the island of Australia and Tasmania an how they in part help in the extinction of 11 species clear example of supremacy and one of the laws observed by Darwin.
Again child, please attempt to understand science - esp. the concept of scientifc theory. There is no proof for evolution - it is a scientifc theory. Your shallow unreferenced examples (examples are not proofs in any case) are at best sophomoric. Why are you so dense? Is it congenital?
And calm down - your eagerness to remind us of your ignorance leaves misspellings galore. Entertaining as these may be, they really serves no purpose but to suggest illiteracy accompanies your ignorance.
I stated in another post that is a theory never said it is a law you keep insisting on this you sure have a hard head. did you read post topic 5 best proofs of evolution or you also dont understand plain English. there is no absolute proves of evolution or we will not be having this conversation in the first place. so how is what I list before not and indication of the existence of evolution or a similar system and respond in something else instead of saying sophomoric etc.... you still fail to offer something better!
or do you also have a PHD in entomology and marsupials
I can see 4 reasons why you jorge are responding to my post
1) you need to feel superior to other and want to annoy me that might be the case the plz do tell since this is a general biology post for all type of background even for engineers or technicians
2) you want to teach me but so far you have only achieve annoying me with your simplistic rhetoric and not bothering with teaching anything about evolution
3) you believe I don't belong here if that is the case you should open then a post for only PHD I will be sure to never visit
4) maybe you are annoy that I believe in evolution ( note that I use the word believe
not fact or law) and and you in ID and you find my post insulting if that is the case plz also tell me why am I being insulting and debate what i bring to the table in that case
Many people adhere to a strict application of the word "proof". I am one, but I can also accept the concept "most likely true". Much of science deals with the latter, and so many professionals with much better qualifications than Jorge describe evolution as a fact. This forum often gets a bit heated, so just ignore posts that get insulting. The source of Jorge's tirade is a mystery.
Neither "most ikely true" nor "proof" are relevant scientific terms. Science does not deal with most likely true. Where do you get that silliness? Certainly not from any scientific expertise on your part. Again - the term is scienitfic theory - do look it up and if you can understand the concept, please pass it on.
No scientists with any expertise describe evolution as a fact and you do not know my qualifications (the appropriate term is credentials) nor those of others. Read please - it is a scientific theory.
Suggest folks ignore your ignorance and inablity to read as they would raven's by either of his names.
Odd that so much ignorance is proud to show itself - wbla's is as replete as raven's.
Note please the title of Gould's book (even you ignorant folk shoud have heard of Stephen J. Gould)
The structure of evolutionary theory
SJ Gould - 2002 - books.google.com
The world's most revered and eloquent interpreter of evolutionary ideas offers here a work of explanatory force unprecedented in our time--a landmark publication, both for its historical sweep and for its scientific vision. With characteristic attention to detail, Stephen Jay Gould etc.
I am now convinced - raven (by either of his names) really is THAT stupid, and I know we can count on his whining childish ad hominem.
At risk of confusing the children further, I'll observe that some have argued that evolution is so well accepted and lacking competing scientific concepts that it is effectively a "fact." That is subjective and outside the concept of science as facts in biology are data.
from wikipedia (one of its better entries)
A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
apodictic means expression of a necessary truth or absolute certainty.
further from the wikiedia entry, specifically mentioning evolutionary theory
Characteristics of theories
The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.
In practice, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:
It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
 Non-essential criteria
Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if:
It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations—commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test. (Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of these extra criteria.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests