Why Evolutiontheory is just a theory and not an Evidence

[ozymandias]

Great!


See ****mitar, Ozy accepts the fact that neanderthals and humans interbred. So why don't you be a good boy and accept it to?

He already stated several times this is a fact.

And you too lewanay.

Now it's obvious and clear that neanderthals, homo habilus and homo erectus were just different races of people.

Only if you use race and species interchangeably.

Hence, there is no "missing link" between prime apes and us.

What the hell? There are thousands of 'missing links' that have been found -- and that is a completely different topic!

Evolutionary theory is just a tautological truisms and historical narratives of how creatures came to be. There is no scientific backing for it ...and can't be.

False, again. Not only is there scientific backing, you have been shown just that backing.

[Alchemist]

Actually, that is an opinion, as there is very little evidence to support this claim either way. There is no reason to believe they did not have a common language of some sort -- simply because we know next to nothing of their spoken language, other than the fact we believe they had one.

Actually there are more than 500 different languages spoken by humans today, that doesn't mean we are a different species. So this point of yours was irrelevant and pointless.

Again, more opinion than fact. All we know about them is based on a few products and materials that they created that survived to this day. It is very possible that they had very similar cultures -- or at least as similar as any 2 tribes at that point in history.

Again, fact that they did invent tools and did hunt in groups, and did live in communities and did wear clothes. All these are an indication of a culture. I don't know what your idea of a culture is, microwave ovens and televisions? Or maybe you just think you are smarter than me and you feel obligated to "correct" me by restating what I had stated anyway.

Actually, that's not true at all. Skeletal remains prove that to be a lie.

Actually the bone structures of turkana boy is exactly similiar to a boy of his own age. Same number of bones. Same types of bones. Very little differences. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

Thanks for yet another irrelevant and useless post...

but a great exercise for your ego I suppose.

[Alchemist]

He already stated several times this is a fact.

He was making the argument that they could not have had viable offspring. And still persisted with that belief.

I recommend you re-read his arguments. And stop supposing his position. Or else I will just quote you what he said. And then you will feel stupid.

Only if you use race and species interchangeably.

Why would I do that?

What the hell? There are thousands of 'missing links' that have been found -- and that is a completely different topic!

Nope!

None at all.

Show me one.

False, again. Not only is there scientific backing, you have been shown just that backing.

False, again. You have shown none. You merely quoted some obscure sites that do not represent the consensus of the scientific community, e.g talkorigin. And I showed to you how it was lacking in evidence.

[ozymandias]

Actually there are more than 500 different languages spoken by humans today, that doesn't mean we are a different species. So this point of yours was irrelevant and pointless.

That was not my point. That is only a straw man that you have constructed. I simply stated that even though they may have had different languages, it is not unlikely that they had a method of communicating. Even the native American tribes with their own languages were able to speak with the neighboring tribes that had a different language.

Again, fact that they did invent tools and did hunt in groups, and did live in communities and did wear clothes. All these are an indication of a culture. I don't know what your idea of a culture is, microwave ovens and televisions? Or maybe you just think you are smarter than me and you feel obligated to "correct" me by restating what I had stated anyway.

I never said they didn't have a culture, I stated that you are assuming that they did not share more in common in their culture than they differed. They may have had a common ground that you rejected out of hand.

Actually the bone structures of turkana boy is exactly similiar to a boy of his own age. Same number of bones. Same types of bones. Very little differences. The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

.... what? you do realize that *count* is not the only metric used, right?

Thanks for yet another irrelevant and useless post...

but a great exercise for your ego I suppose.

Your welcome.

[Alchemist]

oh ok...so we agree that they had a language, they had culture, they interbred with "modern" people...

and that the bones are the same shape, size and number as us.

Ok. Great "debating" with you buddy

[ozymandias]

He was making the argument that they could not have had viable offspring. And still persisted with that belief.

Actually, I saw him state repeatedly that they may have had viable offspring -- and some of those viable offspring may have been fertile, even.

I recommend you re-read his arguments. And stop supposing his position. Or else I will just quote you what he said. And then you will feel stupid.

Feel free to try.

Why would I do that?

Poor English skills. It's the only way your statement makes any sense.

Nope!

None at all.

Show me one.

[IMG]http://api.ning.com/files/oR*3jF8D0NWl1f2MztPjFYqJYwfbGxYFFYHBJcp-WrhRH*Z*kQuwMND*1GY87DMLzsYbCHoB8oJYvKa4rVnVJ52c5z wQpx58/EvolutionGradient.jpg[/IMG]

False, again. You have shown none. You merely quoted some obscure sites that do not represent the consensus of the scientific community, e.g talkorigin. And I showed to you how it was lacking in evidence.

Just because you repeat yourself does not make it a fact. I have shown you facts that are scientifically agreed upon, but you cite your opinion as evidence, and reject them.

I am truly sorry that I cannot reach past your rejection of reality, and get around this language barrier. I really think that if you could understand what I am posting, you would see how wrong you are.

[ozymandias]

oh ok...so we agree that they had a language, they had culture, they interbred with "modern" people...

and that the bones are the same shape, size and number as us.

Ok. Great "debating" with you buddy

Indeed. So now you have the fun or 'proving' that they were the same species, and that modern science is wrong. Have fun with that.

[Alchemist]

I said different races...and I proved that they were different races...

You are so delusional that your weak mind tricked you into believing I said different "Species".

There is no evidence of natural selection.
It's just something you believe in blindly.

Different races which can't cross breed reproductively viable offspring anymore

I guess since that's how you're defining race, then all species of animals are just different races of each other according to your logic.

Epic Logic and Scientific Fact Fail

Ozy...do you feel stupid now?

[Alchemist]

LOL

you are arguing about this like a true dimwit.

You assume to know what "modern science" is... but it's just your own delusions of what it ought to be.

You can hardly argue with me on the science it self. Your best attempt so far was copy and pasting from talkorigin.com.

pathetic!

[ozymandias]

Ozy...do you feel stupid now?

Nope. Why would I? I can actually remember the context of those comments, and just see another case of you deliberately taking something out of context to try and make a point.

This is just another case of you misunderstanding speciation, and ScimitarXEdge not being accurate with his translation and definition. There are other, more recent posts where he pointed out that early on in the speciation process cross breeding would have been possible -- before the differences accumulated to a point where the offspring would no longer be fertile.

Let's not forget, at this point, no one had pulled out the scientific definition yet, and we were still letting you use your definition that claims horses and donkeys are the same species.

[ozymandias]

LOL

you are arguing about this like a true dimwit.

You assume to know what "modern science" is... but it's just your own delusions of what it ought to be.

You can hardly argue with me on the science it self.

Simply because rather than discuss the science, you call people names, and refuse to even pay attention to the science. My troubles are purely communication, and not factual.

Your best attempt so far was copy and pasting from talkorigin.com.

pathetic!

Even if that *was* my 'best attempt', at least I have made an attempt. You have yet to even make an attempt. Why should I put any more effort than copying from talk origins, when you are going to lie about what I say anyway, and are going to reject everything I say, no matter how factual or accurate, simply because it conflicts with your religion?

[Alchemist]

So basically ****mitar, in that post, didn't know what he was saying, on account of his poor grasp of the english language. Fair enough

[Alchemist]

Simply because rather than discuss the science, you call people names, and refuse to even pay attention to the science. My troubles are purely communication, and not factual.



Even if that *was* my 'best attempt', at least I have made an attempt. You have yet to even make an attempt. Why should I put any more effort than copying from talk origins, when you are going to lie about what I say anyway, and are going to reject everything I say, no matter how factual or accurate, simply because it conflicts with your religion?

No!
Actually, evolution is your religion!


Evolution is an example of an intensional fallacy.

1) evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected
2) evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.

Darwinism is committed to inferring 2 from 1 and this inference is invalid.

[ozymandias]

No!
Actually, evolution is your religion!

I have no religion, and evolution is a scientific theory, which by definition is not religion.

Evolution is an example of an intensional fallacy.

You would think, if this was true, you would not have such a hard time proving a single flaw in it.

1) evolution is a process in which creatures with adaptive traits are selected
2) evolution is a process in which creatures are selected for their adaptive traits.

Darwinism is committed to inferring 2 from 1 and this inference is invalid.

Um... that's not evolution. That's you repeating the same thing with slightly different words, and falsely calling your misunderstanding of evolution 'evolution'. You have part of the definition correct, but don't even have a full definition, and then make false claims. No wonder you reject evolution -- you don't even know what it is!

[Alchemist]

I have no religion, and evolution is a scientific theory, which by definition is not religion.

It is no different than a mythology!

A scientific theory makes predictions. Evolution is a historical narrative.
We can't use evolutionary theory to come up with a cure for aids, or for genetically modifying babies to have 300 I.Q points. Nor can we manipulate nature into producing a species of organisms that would our garbage, or produce the energy we require to run our economies. Mutations do no lead to beneficial traits! There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation! Whenever a mutation does happen, it is a defect! A loss-of-function.

You would think, if this was true, you would not have such a hard time proving a single flaw in it.

I have already. But you don't have the knowledge base to understand what I am saying to you.

Um... that's not evolution. That's you repeating the same thing with slightly different words, and falsely calling your misunderstanding of evolution 'evolution'. You have part of the definition correct, but don't even have a full definition, and then make false claims. No wonder you reject evolution -- you don't even know what it is!

So much for your grasp of the english language, Mr. Native Speaker.

The key to understanding the evolutionary theorizing in biology is to understand how it relies on an unexplicated notion of "selection-for".

Phenotypic traits evolve in the direction of increased fitness. But then what about phenotypic traits that are not adaptations? Once you understand the problems associated with "Selection-for", you will see then adaptationism simply cannot do what an evolutionary theory is supposed to do: explain how phenotypic traits are distributed in populations of organisms. The theory of natural selection cannot predict/explain what traits the creatures in a population are selected-for.

"Selection for a trait" is the pivotal notion in adaptationism; the central idea of adaptationism is that it provides for an entirely naturalistic mechanism of selection for phenotypic traits. Darwin assumed a mental cause, as he started out his discussion by eluding to artificial breeders who had an idea of what they were selecting for. So we should say that natural selection selects for whatever it has in mind in selecting. Going back to our discussion on Neanderthals and homo sapians...what made them go extinct and us flourish? You can't really say for certain what phenotype gave them the advantage for certain but only presume that your race is 'the selected one" for some obscure reason. The values of a trait parameter that are viable for one kid of creature can differ radically from the values that are viable for another. Consider size for instance. Phenotypes aren't bundles of traits, they are mostly like fusions of traits. Same is true for ecological variables with which phenotypic variables interact. There may be a law to selection, but we don't have any, simply because in the real world phenotypic traits are coextensive and we don't observe in the real world a chance in on trait with everything else left intact.


Understanding the difference between select/select-for is a difficult one. You need to have an indepth knowledge of the "assumed" mechanism that performs the selection.

Look up -free rider problems.