Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
This is not an oral forum, it is written. Therefore chllenging pronunciation of written english displays "ignorance." Ignorance is not a perjorative term - it merely says you don't know what you're talking about. This has been the case with odinraven and you (likely the same person). Unlike your other persona, I hope you hve learned something from our exchange.
and what are your qualifications? Certainly not an english major.
You are simply ignorant, but that can change. Have you yet sought out the defintion of scientific theory or has your intellectual cowardice driven you to permanent ignorance?
I'll repeat the points you chose to ignore. Evolution is a scientific theory. Theories in science are not casual concepts (not, as you offered, everybody has a theory), they describe the prevailing concept among scientists that explain a body of phenomena. Such theories are testable and falsifiable among other characteristic. Falsifiable is not time limited - it was, is and will be possible that additional data and observations, other theories not yet offered, etc. may lead the scientifc community away from the concept. So it is not "airtight" (not a scientifc term in any case and certainly not so by your sophomoric post), it is again the previling theory at this time among scientists to explain relevant phenmena.
Further, evolution does not negate the existence of God nor God the theory of evolution (even if there were a deity-based creation). Evolution does not speak to the beginning of life, only to change after its initiation. God is not a scientific thery as it is untestable - those who accept it do so on belief.
Now try to grow up and think - and stop whining like a child.
first of all jorge I never stated that god does not exist and I am quite aware that the theory of evolution and the theory of the begin of life is quite another matter. never said that evolution is a fact I just posted a "quote " I like of somebody that consider it a fact. since you can clearly see that I support evolution instead of the ID theory that most likely you support that implied in the way you responded to my post and Odins ( two separate persons).
I am a Lift and escalator technician that does not implied I am ignorant or that you teach me anything since at the end you refrain from putting your point of view and only focus in being a critic of the most accepted theory and refrain from showing how your ID theory has a better evidence or any other theory for that matter.
note: PHD does not mean that you can treat people like dirt or act all superior and this web page is for biology online in general not a PHD only post learn a bit of humility instead of being arrogant
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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest