Why Evolutiontheory is just a theory and not an Evidence

[Afghanistan2010]

You keep saying that, and keep ignoring the evidence shown to you. Why don't you try and disprove all the evidence showing you to be wrong?



Actually, no. It is up to you to prove the entire scientific community wrong. You are the one making the assertion that the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

That said, we have provided evidence repeatedly, that you simple ignore. You don't even try to make an effort to provide counter-evidence, you simply state your opinion as if it is proof of something, and then call people names.



Actually, we have. For instance, you claimed speciation does not occur, and I provided you with a list of cases where it was observed.



Speaking of projections, you are projecting again.



Zero is not 'one too many'. It is 'never'. You must disprove me at least once to claim you have done it 'one too many times'.




Projections again! I cite evidence and refer to science, and you name call and attempt to call your opinions proof -- and I am the one that is stupid? Interesting.

you seem pretty uneducated while you claim to be really some scholar,

pardon me but its just ridicules what you say.

It is if Adolf Hitler tells you proof me from my book "MEIN KAMPF" that im wrong.

[ScimitarXEdge]

check this thread : http://www.pashtunforums.com/science...e-again-22001/

we already refuted that

[ozymandias]

you seem pretty uneducated while you claim to be really some scholar,

Feel free to correct lapses in my education. You are welcome to try again. All that has happened in the past is I have educated you and shown you how you misunderstood something. I don't claim to be perfect, but I am doing a much better job of defending evolution than anyone here is doing disproving it.

pardon me but its just ridicules what you say.

It is if Adolf Hitler tells you proof me from my book "MEIN KAMPF" that im wrong.

I don't understand what you mean, or why you brought a christian into the discussion. What does Adolf have to do with anything here? We are rejecting proof from authority, proof from holy books, and instead require proof from evidence. We are rejecting the very fallacy you are suggesting we use -- and so far, we have done a good job, not many have tried to claim that the koran constitutes scientific proof, and when they try, we correct that and move on.

All claims require evidence.

[ozymandias]

we already refuted that

It was not so much a refutation, as correcting his mis-reading. He simply did not understand what his own article stated. The article is correct, so it was not refuted, just what he thought it meant was wrong.

[Alchemist]

^ Kind of like how Scimitar did not know what his articles were stating.


Ozy....You failed to disprove what I said about anti biotic resistance not being a case for evolution since the essence of the substance hasn't changed. It seems you did not even understand what I said. If you have any knowledge of what you are talking about you would try to counter me with some scientific evidence that shows to what degree the resistance is not a morphological change and how "new" the means of resistance is.


You simply keep going into denial.

You did not prove that speciation has occured. The list was simply a list of species...its like listing: cat, dog, mouse, elephant..therefore speciation has occurred.

[ozymandias]

^ Kind of like how Scimitar did not know what his articles were stating.


Ozy....You failed to disprove what I said about anti biotic resistance not being a case for evolution since the essence of the substance hasn't changed.

False. I have shown that you have not disproved the evolution of antibiotic resistance, as you have claimed, you have simply moved the timeline for that evolution farther forward than originally thought.

It seems you did not even understand what I said.

I understand what you have written well enough to point out the flaws in your logic. All you have shown is that antibiotic resistance to naturally occurring antibiotics existed 30,000. You have not shown that such resistance is not the result of evolution.

If you have any knowledge of what you are talking about you would try to counter me with some scientific evidence that shows to what degree the resistance is not a morphological change and how "new" the means of resistance is.

I guess you misunderstand what I am saying, since I would never try to prove such a claim - as that is clearly contrary to the evidence.

You simply keep going into denial.

Once you understand English enough to understand my posts, please try to make that claim. The denial you speak of is clearly a case of you not understanding what I am stating.

You did not prove that speciation has occured.

False. I provided a list of species in which speciation was observed.

The list was simply a list of species...its like listing: cat, dog, mouse, elephant..therefore speciation has occurred.

The problem with your comparison is that no one observed, and scientifically recorded the speciation of those species. The list I gave you was a list of observed, and recorded speciation. This is a major difference, and you are being very dishonest in pretending there is no obvious difference. The evolution of mice from a predecessor was not observed and recorded by modern man, to the best of my knowledge -- but the list of species I provided you *were*.

Speaking of unfounded claims, where is your 'proof' that the DNA of E.Coli has not modified in 1 billion years, as you once claimed? What about your 'proof' that donkeys and horses are the same species -- something you repeatedly claim? Or are you ready to admit you have made mistakes?

[Alchemist]

[QUOTE=ozymandias;532853]False. I have shown that you have not disproved the evolution of antibiotic resistance, as you have claimed, you have simply moved the timeline for that evolution farther forward than originally thought.[quote]

False! The timeline is irrelevant since the original assumption was that anti biotic resistance developed as a "response" to recent advances in medicine.

I understand what you have written well enough to point out the flaws in your logic. All you have shown is that antibiotic resistance to naturally occurring antibiotics existed 30,000. You have not shown that such resistance is not the result of evolution.

False! You have not shown that such resistance is as a result of evolution.

I guess you misunderstand what I am saying, since I would never try to prove such a claim - as that is clearly contrary to the evidence.

No, you clearly have misunderstood what I am saying since the evidence in question is in regards to the adaptability of bacteria to certain strainers that have always existed. It is not contrary to evidence of that bacteria has always had resistance.

Once you understand English enough to understand my posts, please try to make that claim. The denial you speak of is clearly a case of you not understanding what I am stating.

I understand that you don't understand what I am saying because you don't have a biology background and hence cannot use biology vocabulary.

False. I provided a list of species in which speciation was observed.

Not true since none of those species have been observed to evolve from what to what. It was only a list of species existing.

The problem with your comparison is that no one observed, and scientifically recorded the speciation of those species. The list I gave you was a list of observed, and recorded speciation. This is a major difference, and you are being very dishonest in pretending there is no obvious difference. The evolution of mice from a predecessor was not observed and recorded by modern man, to the best of my knowledge -- but the list of species I provided you *were*.

That is not true. You only assume that to be true because the author of Talkorigin.com said so but he does not go into details to specify what the species evolved from and what proof there was of that happening.

Speaking of unfounded claims, where is your 'proof' that the DNA of E.Coli has not modified in 1 billion years, as you once claimed? What about your 'proof' that donkeys and horses are the same species -- something you repeatedly claim? Or are you ready to admit you have made mistakes?

It should be obvious to you that since I don't believe in narrative of evolution - time scales of 1 billion, 4 billion or 600 million are all equally meaningless to me since they are not proven beyound the shadow of doubt. Such "evolutionary clocks" are based on assumptions and the models that produce the numbers are "worked" and cropped to give the assumed estimate.
My point being that some bacteria have been the same species bacteria for over 3 billion years, according to evolutionist. And since there isn't any evidence to suggest that one species changed into another, I don't assume that E.coli "evolved" later than say, cyanobacteria or Thermotoga maritima orAquifex Aoelicus or methanococcus jannaschii or pyrobaculum aerophilium or methanopyrus kandleri - all of which have remained to be the same over 2 billion years according to "Evolutionists". It is only assumed that e.coli has "descended" from something that was common to it and something else ... but if you know your stuff, then you would know that such phylogentic trees that subdivide clones of E.coli are baseless...for example Shigella spp. Salmonella has over a thousand gene couterparts in E.coli, and E.coli has 800 genes that are absent in Salmonella...however two thirds of the the gene products involved in small molecule metabolism in e.coli are the same found in yeast...but they are not even in the same genra, but of totally different kingdoms...meaning to say that because horizontal gene transfer is now accepted, the phylogenetic tree now looks more like a web, and that too is still debatable.

As for the mule, it is a hybrid, and no matter how much you wish for it to be a "Species" of it is own, that won't happen. That is your own delusion.

You wish to prove evolution by showing cases of artificial selection where hybrids are made with deleterious traits...compare a chihuahua or a ****zu to a wolf in the wild.

[ScimitarXEdge]

It was not so much a refutation, as correcting his mis-reading. He simply did not understand what his own article stated. The article is correct, so it was not refuted, just what he thought it meant was wrong.

we refuted Pakistan2010's attempt to spin the material to support his claim that it debunks evolution

[ScimitarXEdge]

Alchemist, acquaint me with where exactly I misunderstood or did not know what the articles I posted were saying?

Present it in a point for point comparison between the Articles and quotations of my own arguments/statements format please.

[ScimitarXEdge]

you seem pretty uneducated while you claim to be really some scholar,

pardon me but its just ridicules what you say.

It is if Adolf Hitler tells you proof me from my book "MEIN KAMPF" that im wrong.

demonstrate for us how what he's saying is tantamount to quoting Mein Kampf?

[Alchemist]

When I asked you to present proof of a new species of bacteria being produced as a result of antibiotic usage, you presented an article that had discovered a new gene and you called it proof of a new species.

I already made that clear...please flip back and find it your self.

[Alchemist]

I am getting tired of arguing with nincumpoops who, when given a rebuttal simply play blind to it, deny it like children, and then develop amnesia of ever having read it. Worse is Ozy, who when given a quote from a scientist, goes to say that the scientist is wrong...because by his definition horses and donkeys are the same species...when the scientist goes on a lengthy explanation of why they are NOT the same species... what jackassary!

[ScimitarXEdge]

Point by Point ...and the articles themselves talk about new species of Bacteria I posted several remember, they were about the exact same thing

I'll be waiting for a point by point comparison between my statements and the article next post.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I am getting tired of arguing with nincumpoops who, when given a rebuttal

what a convenient excuse when asked to justify your statements.

[sanman]

Alchemist is a write-off. He's just a fool. He won't even tell us what his own academic credentials are.