Evolution is stupid

[BigChrisfilm]

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

[Fisherking]

The fact is that the TOE is incredibly complex and encompasses many fields of study

So does astrology, but being incredibly complex and all encompassing doesn't make it scientific.

with several definitions apparently focusing on one field or another.

It is nice to see an admission that there are several definitions (that equivocation takes place).

It's not reasonable to assume a theory is wrong when it's obviously too complicated to be defined simply to an uneducated person.

Which of the "several definitions" of the theory are too complicated to be defined simply to uneducated people?

Remember, the claim is often made that evolution is fact --

I appreciate the sentiment, but the theory has ironclad evidence to support it, and that's not likely to change, regardless of how one chooses to address it

Yes, we have observed alleles changing over time for thousands of years. Animal and plant breeders are well aware of the phenomena and have put it to good use for as long as we've known about it (creationists included).

the only problem is that change of alleles over time does nothing to explain the religious metaphysics of the molecules-to-man fairy tail that many faithfully support.

Religious metaphysics of the molecules-to-man fairy tail" is just a version of the beat up straw man creationists use to discredit the TOE on the issue of when and how molecules first aggregated in a way that some will call "life"... and the "origin of life" isn't meant to be explained by the TOE.

Oh, they would love to be able to explain "origin of life" by the TOE, but alleles changing over time doesn't quite cut it now does it?
Now we have 2 abiogenesis detractors--wise choice.

[Beto]

The fact is that the TOE is incredibly complex and encompasses many fields of study

So does astrology, but being incredibly complex and all encompassing doesn't make it scientific.

As you should have guessed by now, to me, everything is scientific. The "metaphysical" constructs of your mind exist nowhere else.

with several definitions apparently focusing on one field or another.

It is nice to see an admission that there are several definitions (that equivocation takes place).

How incredibly clever of you... There's only equivocation in the misunderstandings of the uneducated. People that understand the theory, understand the different approaches (definitions) to it.

It's not reasonable to assume a theory is wrong when it's obviously too complicated to be defined simply to an uneducated person.

Which of the "several definitions" of the theory are too complicated to be defined simply to uneducated people?

Now that you ask, "change of alleles over time" isn't clear enough for many people. "What the hell is an allele?!" many would ask. "Descent with modification" might be better, but that doesn't immediately refer to "genes" which are obviously of paramount importance. It's naturally complicated to simplify a definition to a point where it isn't oversimplified, but relying on that to discredit the theory isn't reasonable.

Remember, the claim is often made that evolution is fact --

I appreciate the sentiment, but the theory has ironclad evidence to support it, and that's not likely to change, regardless of how one chooses to address it

Yes, we have observed alleles changing over time for thousands of years. Animal and plant breeders are well aware of the phenomena and have put it to good use for as long as we've known about it (creationists included).

Denying results obtained through the application of the scientific method, only when they directly contradict scripture, is intellectually dishonest.

the only problem is that change of alleles over time does nothing to explain the religious metaphysics of the molecules-to-man fairy tail that many faithfully support.

Religious metaphysics of the molecules-to-man fairy tail" is just a version of the beat up straw man creationists use to discredit the TOE on the issue of when and how molecules first aggregated in a way that some will call "life"... and the "origin of life" isn't meant to be explained by the TOE.

Oh, they would love to be able to explain "origin of life" by the TOE

In that case "they" would only demonstrate "they" don't know any more than you do.

but alleles changing over time doesn't quite cut it now does it?

Just in case you're not getting it, "alleles changing over time" implies alleles already exist, so following that definition, "where alleles came from" is outside the scope of the theory. A manual that shows how an engine works isn't less valid if it doesn't mention the origin of the parts.

Now we have 2 abiogenesis detractors--wise choice.

If you understood the science involved you would recognize "evolution supporter infers abiogenesis detractor" as a non-sequitur.

[Cathar1950]

Denying results obtained through the application of the scientific method, only when they directly contradict scripture, is intellectually dishonest.

It is not just scripture but a story in the collection of writings that is taken literally and interpreted to stand against knowledge, science, reason and experience.
Nothing is being offered that explains the data better, only little digs at those that accept the findings that clearly shows he has little understanding of the theory.
The desire for truth should lead even a believer to reconsider but what we have here is nothing more then a dogmatic anti-science stand against evolution because some evolution because it is believed by atheists while showing no real stance towards a better idea or even an alternative.

[Fisherking]

The fact is that the TOE is incredibly complex and encompasses many fields of study

So does astrology, but being incredibly complex and all encompassing doesn't make it scientific.

As you should have guessed by now, to me, everything is scientific. The "metaphysical" constructs of your mind exist nowhere else.

Are you saying astrology is scientific? Please correct me if I am wrong.

with several definitions apparently focusing on one field or another.

It is nice to see an admission that there are several definitions (that equivocation takes place).

How incredibly clever of you... There's only equivocation in the misunderstandings of the uneducated. People that understand the theory, understand the different approaches (definitions) to it.

Those of us who understand the theory also understand the different aproaches evolutionary zeolots use. Shifting definitions for evolution is one of many illusionary tools used to make their religion appear scientific.

It's not reasonable to assume a theory is wrong when it's obviously too complicated to be defined simply to an uneducated person.

Which of the "several definitions" of the theory are too complicated to be defined simply to uneducated people?

Now that you ask, "change of alleles over time" isn't clear enough for many people.

It's naturally complicated to simplify a definition to a point where it isn't oversimplified, but relying on that to discredit the theory isn't reasonable.

Yes, we have observed alleles changing over time for thousands of years. Animal and plant breeders are well aware of the phenomena and have put it to good use for as long as we've known about it (creationists included).

Denying results obtained through the application of the scientific method, only when they directly contradict scripture, is intellectually dishonest

As you read (for the first time?)my statement above we can clearly see I have not denied goat's definition of biological evolution. Was there another definition you would like to throw out there (equivocation) as fact to see if it will stick?

Just in case you're not getting it, "alleles changing over time" implies alleles already exist, so following that definition, "where alleles came from" is outside the scope of the theory.

I never asked where alleles came from.

A manual that shows how an engine works isn't less valid if it doesn't mention the origin of the parts.

Just like a manual that shows how pixies build dresses isn't less valid if it doesn't mention the orgin of the thread?

[Cathar1950]

The fact is that the TOE is incredibly complex and encompasses many fields of study

So does astrology, but being incredibly complex and all encompassing doesn't make it scientific.

As you should have guessed by now, to me, everything is scientific. The "metaphysical" constructs of your mind exist nowhere else.

Are you saying astrology is scientific? Please correct me if I am wrong.

with several definitions apparently focusing on one field or another.

It is nice to see an admission that there are several definitions (that equivocation takes place).

How incredibly clever of you... There's only equivocation in the misunderstandings of the uneducated. People that understand the theory, understand the different approaches (definitions) to it.

Those of us who understand the theory also understand the different aproaches evolutionary zeolots use. Shifting definitions for evolution is one of many illusionary tools used to make their religion appear scientific.

It's not reasonable to assume a theory is wrong when it's obviously too complicated to be defined simply to an uneducated person.

Which of the "several definitions" of the theory are too complicated to be defined simply to uneducated people?

Now that you ask, "change of alleles over time" isn't clear enough for many people.

It's naturally complicated to simplify a definition to a point where it isn't oversimplified, but relying on that to discredit the theory isn't reasonable.

Yes, we have observed alleles changing over time for thousands of years. Animal and plant breeders are well aware of the phenomena and have put it to good use for as long as we've known about it (creationists included).

Denying results obtained through the application of the scientific method, only when they directly contradict scripture, is intellectually dishonest

As you read (for the first time?)my statement above we can clearly see I have not denied goat's definition of biological evolution. Was there another definition you would like to throw out there (equivocation) as fact to see if it will stick?

Just in case you're not getting it, "alleles changing over time" implies alleles already exist, so following that definition, "where alleles came from" is outside the scope of the theory.

I never asked where alleles came from.

A manual that shows how an engine works isn't less valid if it doesn't mention the origin of the parts.

Just like a manual that shows how pixies build dresses isn't less valid if it doesn't mention the orgin of the thread?

Have you ever seen any pixies or their work?
If you follow the pixie manual can you make the dresses?
You are making his agruments for him while you play word games.
You can't even supply a reasonable metaphysics.
What is your alternative to evolution?

[Beto]

The fact is that the TOE is incredibly complex and encompasses many fields of study

So does astrology, but being incredibly complex and all encompassing doesn't make it scientific.

As you should have guessed by now, to me, everything is scientific. The "metaphysical" constructs of your mind exist nowhere else.

Are you saying astrology is scientific? Please correct me if I am wrong.

There you go, oversimplifying the issue. "Beliefs" of this "metaphysical" nature are interesting psychological phenomena, perfectly liable to scientific scrutiny. Obviously (or so I thought) when I say "everything is scientific", I imply the "supernatural" and "metaphysical" do not really exist to me, and what matters is the underlying psychology, that creates "belief" that our personalities are influenced by "cosmological configurations".

Those of us who understand the theory also understand the different aproaches evolutionary zeolots use. Shifting definitions for evolution is one of many illusionary tools used to make their religion appear scientific.

Just when you think the memeplex can't be any more elaborate...

As you read (for the first time?)my statement above we can clearly see I have not denied goat's definition of biological evolution.

You can't really deny any, since you fail to understand the basic premises, and lack valid arguments to denounce any "ambiguity".

Was there another definition you would like to throw out there (equivocation) as fact to see if it will stick?

Any reasonable person, faced with such overwhelming evidence, will regard the theory (in any of its forms) as "factual" for any practical purpose, but that's an entirely different thing. Of course, it seems that for folks like you, it's always simply "fact" or "theory", the usual false dichotomy, disregarding the whole spectrum that relates to degrees of reasonable conviction.

Just like a manual that shows how pixies build dresses isn't less valid if it doesn't mention the orgin of the thread?

Sure, if the pixies' existence isn't an issue.

[body&soul]

there is a new theory about evolution. it is a duality theory that talks that in order for creation to process there must be two of something to exist. a pair which is defined as two of something where the first pair is partnered to a second pair called alter pair. this pair follows a sequence of instinctive information like a computer program to create and evolve. the theory is called the family pairing theory or family duality theory

this is like the family setup of most species in the animal kingdom. a male and female pair together to bring forth more offsprings. like the pairing of adam and eve, mankind is still expanding and propagate until today.

[byofrcs]

there is a new theory about evolution. it is a duality theory that talks that in order for creation to process there must be two of something to exist. a pair which is defined as two of something where the first pair is partnered to a second pair called alter pair. this pair follows a sequence of instinctive information like a computer program to create and evolve. the theory is called the family pairing theory or family duality theory

this is like the family setup of most species in the animal kingdom. a male and female pair together to bring forth more offsprings. like the pairing of adam and eve, mankind is still expanding and propagate until today.

Welcome....

But...from an evolutionary point of view the animals you are thinking of are more recently evolved and in fact the earlier common ancestors favoured asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is the main form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such the bacteria.

There would be no animals if it wasn't for bacteria.

So, it does not follow that this neologism of a "family duality theory" can be extrapolated back in time to the moment of creation. It is thus not relevant to evolution and not a proof of evolution.

As an aside "family pairing theory" does not Google and "family duality theory" has 6 hits, none of which can be considered to be remotely peer reviewed, scientific, or scholarly. Thus family duality/pairing theory is NOT a new theory about Evolution except in the disingenuous Creationist sense of the word.

[McCulloch]

there is a new theory about evolution. it is a duality theory that talks that in order for creation to process there must be two of something to exist. a pair which is defined as two of something where the first pair is partnered to a second pair called alter pair. this pair follows a sequence of instinctive information like a computer program to create and evolve. the theory is called the family pairing theory or family duality theory.

Is this really a theory? Can you cite any biologists who have written peer reviewed papers on this theory?

[body&soul]

First of all I would like to suggest some ground rules about how we must run the show, if you dont mind;

1. DO NOT, I repeat do not misinterpret any of my arguments or answers to any questions, that you may think offending or otherwise, as a personal attack or a revenge to get even for pointing that you are wrong or you are right. Since we do not see each other physically - no facial expressions, tonal pitches and body languages that will support your communication to be either a sarcastic critic or simply a plain natural truth of your claims, then let us just be civil in any situations.

2. if we refer a citations, a literature or some simple quotes, please do not use any links that will direct me to a website or a book that you want me to read first, to support yourself or your arguments. Just like the way i will convince you that the theory I have read and supported is feasible, i will backed it up completely with the author’s ideas, previous ideas or my ideas. please do likewise.

3. finally, let us make this debate as friendly as possible. you might be pros or cons about the theory, you might be right or I might be wrong, but at the end of the day just think it this way - we are great minds who just love to express our thoughts and exercise our ideas to its fullest – and everything else is simply a matter of opinion.

Since everyone here could probably been in a debate or discussion sites like this, obviously there are a lot of arguments that will be experienced. And arguments always come along with fallacies. The most common are;

1. appeal to authority – we use lines like; ‘Who are you to tell me that your theory is correct.’ ‘Your theory is wrong because a doctorate in physics or a famous quote said it so.’ ‘Do you belong to any organization that peer reviewed your theory’ You are not an expert so why do we have to listen’

2. hasty generalization – this is a form of stereotyping which is common to people who just believe or disbelieve on what was said or what was written, without getting into the details or facts and simply making abrupt conclusion or assumption

3. weak analogy – not all doctors of science are correct, there are just a few of them who evolve with flying colors. And since it is his work [most of the times can not be understood by many], his theory, his procedures, his research and his conclusion – even though their experiments are duplicated all around the world by their own peers, take note it is not the religious groups, or the atheist group or the non technical group but their own group– it does not mean his works are accepted universally. And analogy is not science. It is simply a parallelism without any relevance at all unless the analogy is an example of a fact or a reality.

so let us forget about all kinds of these fallacies and move forward since in the first place they are merely fallacies or defects in an arguments, that are often used by some people, which are totally irrelevant to the main topic of discussions.

Maybe we can start exchanging views – pros and cons- about this theory of family pairing or family duality.

The theory states that during the birth of the universe there are two lifeforms called space[presence of something] and nabse[absence of nothing] that coexisted to create ‘the’ families of anything known to man and beyond. Scientists must think differently about the origin of evolution by [a] knowing the process of creations and that the fingerprints of life can not be a single entity but a combination of two.