Login

Join for Free!
117074 members


3 best disproofs of evolution

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby JackBean » Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:33 pm

I'm saying, that you repeat some boring stuff all again and again and again.

If not evolution, what is than true in accordance to you? Everyone can criticise, but bring alternative, that's the chalenge
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby gamila » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:00 pm

you say

If not evolution, what is than true in accordance to you? Everyone can criticise, but bring alternative, that's the chalenge


its simple see without seeing as the zenists say
bilogy is 100 years behind


the physicist bohr said the problem was words
Bohr commenting on the dual, or paradoxical nature of quantum mechanics laid the blame on the paradoxes on words, or language. As he said “Dual pictures, dual language: linguistic analysis is the key to the understand quantum mechanics Bohr told his protegee Heisenberg, shattering his hard-won vision of the microworld. The very words physicists use to describe reality constrain their knowledge of it and scientists in every field will one day encounter this barrier to human understanding
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby JackBean » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:10 pm

OK, so you have nothing. Good to know
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm


Postby gamila » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:16 pm

you say
OK, so you have nothing. Good to know


you obviously cant see what is in front of you
"see without seeing"
that phrase may take you a lifetime to understand

bohr saw it
but you cant
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Re:

Postby Dougalbod » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:26 pm

gamila wrote:you say

The octopus, assuming it was a scientific octopus, would have the same understanding of population growth as we do,


nothing but an ethnocentric comment
...


Can you explain to me how this is an ethnocentric comment, or do you think the fundamental laws of physics and maths are different for 8 legged sea creatures?

Dougal
Last edited by Dougalbod on Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dougalbod
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:55 am

Postby gamila » Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:29 pm

you say
Can you explain to me how this is an ethnocentric comment, or do you think the fundamental laws of physics and maths are different for 8 legegd sea creatures?


i did by pointing out your use of the term scientific

further you talk about physic so listen to one of the greats

Bohr commenting on the dual, or paradoxical nature of quantum mechanics laid the blame on the paradoxes on words, or language. As he said “Dual pictures, dual language: linguistic analysis is the key to the understand quantum mechanics Bohr told his protegee Heisenberg, shattering his hard-won vision of the microworld. The very words physicists use to describe reality constrain their knowledge of it and scientists in every field will one day encounter this barrier to human understanding
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby Darwin420 » Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:49 pm

Aren't our concepts based on nature? Laws of nature etc?

Also if you are going to have a debate about whether evolution exists are not....site actual worthy sites....not wikipedia.

Explain to me your idea of devolution...and give me supporting evidence.
BTW all of your "disproofs" are not disproofs at all...it doesn't support your argument in anyway.

For example, you say that scientists can't tell us what a species is...so therefore evolution doesn't exist. How does that work?

And if you did more research you would know that it isn't the fact we can't define it...it is just that there are many factors that contribute to a "species" it is just difficult to define...like a lot of things.

Your way of arguing is soo fallacious that it is unsettling.

"O since we don't know what came first the chicken or the egg, or all the answers in the universe...GOD MUST EXIST...INTELLIGENT DESIGN!"

All I want to say, is that your arguments are garbage....your reasoning is garbage...and your assumption that a god must exist since we don't know all the answers....is garbage.
Darwin420
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:09 am

Postby canalon » Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:03 pm

Gamila is not a creationist give him or her that. He is deaf, stubborn, and what is generally known as a post-modernist. A philosophic endeavour that would consider that all human endeavour, including science are social construct. Hence scientific theories have no other values than that you want to give them, and all are equally (in)valid.
As one can imagine, it is not a philosophical trend that got very well with most of the scientific community. And Alan Sokal convincingly (that is if you are a scientist, not one of the victims of the hoax...) proved that this school of thought was ... hmmm... not really up to the snuff with all the notions they were using.
As far as I can see (but I am a scientist, not a philosopher) there is nothing useful that came from this school of thought applied to science. But it showed that some philosopher like to talk out of their arses about things that they do not understand (any post by gamila would be a good example of that assertion).

In conclusion Please stop answering and posting in any thread started or hijacked by Gamila this will lead nowhere.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 3 best disproofs of evolution

Postby robsabba » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:42 pm

gamila wrote: 3 best disproofs of evolution

1)scientists cannot tell us what a species is


This is actually proof for evolution. According to evolution, species and in particular populations are always in flux. Therefore, we should expect that defining a species would be a problem, since species are NOT static according to evolution. Thanks for the affirmation.

gamila wrote:2)scientists cannot tell us what a r phylum is

Just as species are not defined by static boundaries, neither are phyla. Phyla are made of up of species, afterall, and nature does not produce phyla. It is a way of classifying organisms and nothing more. Also, you forgot class, order, family, genus, etc. You could have had more "proofs."

gamila wrote:The Colin Leslie Dean species paradox
3)who did the first bird mate with who did the first dog mate with

an individual of species A gives birth to a individual of the new species B so who did this new individual of new species B mate with to continue the new species


either

1)there was no one to mate with- so how did the new species B become common
or
2)a whole lot of species A gave birth toa whole lot of new individuals of species B at the same time so that these new individual members of species B could mate together

if this 2) was the way it happened
we have a major problem
it would mean something made a whole lot of members of species A give birth to a whole lot new members of species B at the same time
we are told species form due to random mutations
so
it is beyound possibility that the same random mutation took place in a whole lot of different members of species A at the same time

the other alternative is that some intelligence was at work

Ah yes, The "Insert my own name as an authority" Species Paradox. I have told you this before as you continue to ignore me in your ignorance. But I will explain once more for the other posters and any lurkers out there. Populations Evolve, Not Individuals. Therefore, there was NO first male bird looking for a first female bird on a lonely mission in the wide blueworld. So yes, (2) is sort of correct. There is no problem with this, since evolution is A Change in Gene Frequencies in A Population Over Time. If a particular gene allele provides a fitness advantage It Will Increase In Frequency In The Population Over Time. It is not required that there be multiple mutations in individuals producing the same mutation over and over. This is basic Population Genetics. Thus, The "Insert my own name as an authority" Species Paradox is resolved!
User avatar
robsabba
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 6:53 pm
Location: North Dakota State University

Postby gamila » Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:14 am

you say
BTW all of your "disproofs" are not disproofs at all...it doesn't support your argument in anyway.


if biologists cant tell us what a species is or phylum
they cant then talk about evolution ie specis evoluve into other species
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby canalon » Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:19 am

Topic blocked, this go nowhere. And Gamila definitely banned for... so many reason that I will not list them all here. But basically repeating the same thing again and again refusing to acknowledge that the answer to the question has been given multiple times in different words, but always amounting to the same.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Previous

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron