Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[bcuzbcuz]

Science formulates theories all the time on "it seems", "it appears" and "it is thought" all the time.

I agree. However, the idea will not last, nor even last long, if someone can't come with observations that confirm or deny the original theory. Scientists are capable of imprecise language, just like anyone else, but the final wording for a theory must be extremely precise in how it defines both the problem and the conclusion.

Science I do not have my doctorate in the sciences, my language can be sloppy.

[Tarski]

Hi again Tarski,

 

You really do have a fetish about "creationist sites" don't you?

 

 

You want to "make the situation clear" by completely dodging my questions about evolution and talk about another theory?

Odd. I wonder why you would want to do that?

 

What was that?

Not only didn't you do any dunking - you don't even have a ball!

 

 

It wasn't a challenge, it was a question/questions (although, given your bizarre and off-topic essay, I can understand why you took it as a challenge)

 

It most certainly does!

How many "slam dunks" posses difficult challenges, problems, and totally unanswered questions?

Maybe you should call it a 65 foot jump shot?

You trot out Dr. Behe?

Are you certain that it isn't you that gets his information from the "creationist sites"

 

 

How ironic!

 

 

Are you absolutely certain that you want to stick with your "slam dunk?"

In the answers you author about the question of sexual reproduction and mitosis (or challenges as you see them), your post gives me - in total:

Molecular relationships

Orbitals

Creationist sites

Atomic theory

a leaf in your back yard

Blood clots

Diffusion kinetics

Einstein

"Slam dunk"

Really?

(If you're not going to even use the ball - you should give it back)

 

Oh my. I keep forgetting that some people don't know how to think abstractly even just to the point of noticing a parallel or seeing a point made by analogy. If you could, you would have realized that my point was very simple: A theory can both massively supported by the evidence (slam dunk) and have puzzling open questions at the same time. Get it?

I gave the modern atomic theory of matter as an example. If you could think, you would not have said it was off topic or any of the other nonsense in your last post.

One more time: My post makes the point by drawing a parallel with another part of science that I figured you wouldn't have an issue with.  Try harder: Can you not get the simple point that your bringing up unsolved puzzles is beside the point since  every major modern scientific theory has plenty such remaining open questions.

 

 

The reasoning is this: You can't expect to demonstrate that evolution isn't a well supported part of science by exhibiting your little list of puzzles without also implying that other major areas have the same status. But, I take it you do believe in atoms etc. right? Thats a slam dunk. No?

 

Am I getting throught to you yet?

 

Evolution is slam dunk because of endless threads of mutually supporting independent evidence from biochemistry to genetics to biogeography to comparative anatomy, on and on and on. There is way more evidence that evolution happened than there is that the civil war happened.

 

And...at there very same time.....get this......

 

There exist pressing outstanding problems to be worked out within evolutionary biology and there always will be. Problems are being solved as we speak.

 

Wow, both are true. Amazing.

 

 

 

Now if you could stop wishing it weren't true for religious reasons (thus tainting your judgment) you could go read a few books on the beautiful topic and catch on to the force and magnitude of the evidence and appreciate the privlege we have to live in an age where we know things that countless generations before us knew nothing about. All they had was superstition--why would anyone prefer that? 

Edited March 10, 2015 by Tarski

[name]

Hey again Tarski,

 

Oh my. I keep forgetting that some people don't know how to think abstractly

 

If you could think

 

the other nonsense in your last post.

Try harder

 

Am I getting throught to you yet?

 

 

Now if you could stop wishing it weren't true for religious reasons

you could go read a few books

 

Thanks for engaging - I appreciate the spirited exchange of thought.

[Tarski]

Hey again Tarski,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for engaging - I appreciate the spirited exchange of thought.

Are you kidding. You already showed you were nohwere near wanting serious dialogue.

 

This is you being a smart alek:

Maybe you can "slam dunk" a couple for me.

Here's the ball - dunk away!

Ya, right real sincere. What was I expected to do, type out all the evidence for evolution and explain all the latest thinking about the evolution of mitosis in a paragraph and then write an essay on the comparitve weight of the evidence against the amateur concern about ther ebeing open probelms?

But I ignored your tone and tried to give you some perspective anyway.

 

You made no effort to recognize my very simple point.   You knew that no one has the time to type out the 100,000 pages of evidence that makes it slam dunk and you knew you could just brush off any scientific links, so you knew your denialism was safe.

It's always the same silly "oh yeah prove it" trope, as if there could every be a two paragraph proof. No matter what I would write, it would be too much, too little, or you could just look up the standard comeback on some anti-evolutions site. It's not my job to type out the entrie corpuse of evidence and interpret it for you. I found out that the theory weas well supported by doing the hard work of educating myself and not by challenging some scientist to prove it to me.

 

You know you are right about one thing. I don't want a dialogue with someone like you.....I've been dealing with antiscience smart aleks for far too long. You and creationism are a perfect fit. Enjoy the darkness.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Tarski

[name]

You know you are right about ne thing. I don't want a dialogue with someone like you.....I've been dealing with antiscience smart aleks for far too long. You and creationism are a perfect fit. Enjoy the darkness.

Bizarre!

[name]

It's always the same silly "oh yeah prove it" trope, as if there could every be a two paragraph proof. No matter what I would write, it would be too much, too little, or you could just look up the standard comeback on some anti-evolutions site. It's not my job to type out the entrie corpuse of evidence and interpret it for you. I found out that the theory weas well supported by doing the hard work of educating myself and not by challenging some scientist to prove it to me.

Bizarre!