Sorry. Undoing a bad moderation.
Also, just to add to my previous post: even if we take your definition of evolution as accurate, it does not help your argument. You provide no reason that this definition of evolution could not be the foundation of biology, you merely state that you think it is unreasonable (or that is what I gather by your use of sarcasm). You do not state WHY it is unreasonable, just that it is.
Everything after that point is just ad hominem and non sequitur. So again, you are everything you claim I am, and you still provide no basis for your irrational beliefs.
In the absense of a scientific defintion, I created one. Instead of refuting it (as it is 100% valid, matches the numbers, though the percentages alone can immediately lead one to suspect they are incorrect, but they match the statistics) you simply say "You can't do that" Well, yes I can. Offer a better one! One that can be tested, tracked, measured. Your CONCEPT is not even a Hypothesis until it is as quanticized as I've done.
I don't even know how I can debate with you if you can't understand the English language. My point was not that your definition was flawed (even though it was, but it's unimportant), but that your statement that evolution is not the foundation of biology is incorrect. Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of biologists out there consider it the fundamental theory of biology. This is not a conjecture, it is not a hypothesis. It is a fact that you do not need to take on faith, you can indeed verify it by sampling the biologists in the scientific establishment. This fact does not make evolution more inherently correct, but that is not my point. My point is that no amount of wishing on your part will make evolution less of a fundamental element of current biological study.
I've proven evolution to be bunk on every level asked of me, then I presented the closest thing to a scientific "theory" evolution has ever come to (although, mathmatically, the proposed theory showed obvious insustainability past 10,000 years or so). You shut your eyes and ears to it because you disagree with it. You ask questions I've already given answers to, so I am forced repeat myself. You show nothing but blind faith in adherence to an untested principal just like the greeks did to their pantheon.
This is just wrong. I have provided relevant counterexamples to every major claim you have made. You have not refuted any of these in a satisfactory manner. At best, you respond with tangential anecdotes and metaphor. I am not just ignoring you, and to prove it I challenge you to point out specific refutations.
As an example, you make two specific complaints about evolution which are easily debunked: (1) Evolution is untestable and (2) Evolution is unfalsifiable. Both of these claims are patently false, and you have not even tried to show otherwise.
For point number (1), I provide the data which supports the theory of evolution. Namely, the multi-billion year old fossil record that is clearly consistent with evolutionary principles. Additionally, for your sub-complaint that we cannot observe evolution on human timescales I provide the example of bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics, and the mutation of seasonal strands of influenza. There are other examples which I failed to enumerate, such as the evolution of the dark colored peppered moth during the industrial revolution.
I also provided other data points, such as the presence of common chemistry in all life found on earth, which strongly suggests common ancestry. Common ancestry is not a requirement for evolution to occur, but its presence does imply evolution.
As best as I can tell, your problem is with the word "test," and your usage of the word has no scientific relevance. From a scientific point of view, all we need to test a model is to provide further relevant data which either confirms or contradicts the model.
For point number (2), I provide one specific example of a hypothetical observation that would undeniably prove evolution to be incorrect: the presence of a fossil record which does not change with respect to time. As a matter of definition, evolution requires speciation to occur over large timescales. Absent this property, evolution could not possibly be a valid theory. There are other examples (and probably examples that make even stronger statements about evolution), but others are not required. Logically, I only need to provide one counterexample to prove your assertion incorrect.
I point out the observable fallacies in your arguments, so you simply conjure new arguments from thin air, and then, like I said in my very first post, the argument against everything I say is a combination of "You don't know what you're talking about" and "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" -- exhibits A,B,C, and D of my very original argument.
Again, wrong. Every claim I make is specifically crafted to refute your claims. You have not provided any evidence that my refutations are factually incorrect or logically inconsistent, so I have no reason to believe that they are incorrect. Furthermore, if you were to do so, as a matter of academic honesty I would be fully willing to admit that I am incorrect. Hell, I would LOVE to be proven wrong since it would lead to an even greater understanding of the physical world.
I have even tried to be relatively diplomatic here. I have avoided the temptation to resort to personal insult and have ignored your irrelevant anecdotes. I have only strictly been responding to specific claims you have made. Not once have I simply stated that "you don't know what you're talking about," because such claims are completely pointless in a discourse on scientific fact. You claim that I ignore what you are saying, yet even as we speak you are completely ignoring specific arguments I have provided for you.
The religious fundamentalist claims the title of religious zealot. You don't even realize that you are one, yet do all the same things, say all the same things, and do it with the err (ha ha) of superiority -- just replacing Zeus with Evolution, Gaia with primordial soup, Venus with DNA's inexplicable desire and precognizance required for sustained redeployment, and Mars with natural selection.
And here is another nonspecific, irrelevant rant. The great irony is that even in the very paragraph that you claim I have not substantiated my argument, you provide an unsubstantiated claim yourself. More to the point: where have I said anything that has not been backed up either directly or upon inquiry?
Fortunately for the rest of us, you don't get to define what the foundation of biology is.
Nothing you have said is substantiated or even logically consistent. You keep repeating the same points without even acknowledging the fact that they have been refuted. You seem to think that just by ignoring it, you can avoid having to concede a point. Even better, you have resorted to the same ad hominem attacks you accused others of when your world view is challenged. So yes, who's the ignorant zealot?
It's not tested. It's NEVER tested. IT CANNOT BE TESTED. If you can test it, it's not true evolution! If you see it, it wasn't evolution, because evolution cannot happen rapidly enough for people to even record! Or so they'd tell you if you went out and successfully tested it and proved it wrong.
Wrong on several levels. First of all, some evolutionary processes do indeed occur on timescales we can directly observe. Second, they don't even NEED to occur on timescales we can observe since we have a fossil record.
Perhaps you should consult with your fellow believers before saying "Dinosaurs did not evolve." I was practically tarred and feathered for saying Tyrannosaurus Rexes more likely died than became turkeys during some "feather fossils discovered!" article only a few months ago.
You still misunderstand. I'm not saying dinosaurs did not evolve. What I am saying is that your idea of evolution is way off base. The dinosaurs did not evolve BECAUSE of a mass extinction event, the species that survived did so because they had an evolutionary advantage.
If only it were tested! Instead, whenever any new data is introduced, it's immediately tethered to evolution through unfounded assumption!
It is tested, just not in the sense that you seem to think it is. Every time some new piece of data is uncovered that further validates evolutionary principles, we are testing the veracity of the theory.
I don't disagree that the original post was full of shit, but I would consider those animals modern. The issue is with how we define "modern." The common interpretation would be that a modern animal is an animal whose species has currently living specimens. The definition you are probably using is the idea that an animal is modern if it evolved to its current form within a certain period of time from the current date.
With few exceptions, EVERY biologist holds evolution as the foundational theory of biology.
The reverse is also true. I would argue that the fundamentalists on evolution's side are much, much worse. When I point out that dinosaurs couldn't have evolved their way through the mass extinction, because it would have required rapid, species-universal evolution (otherwise there would not be the threat of mass extinction)
Huh? What part of mass extinction do you not understand? The dinosaurs did not evolve their way through the extinction, they went extinct! Species that were better suited for survival evolved into the lifeforms that dominate the planet now.
Evolution, climate change (as it's understood), and other theories are commonly refuted by the observable world or have no observable models -- so they are not even true science, rather just thought experiments and allegations!
You mean such things as the observations of speciation? The rich fossil record showing clear evolutionary paths to species on the planet now? The fact that the abundance and diversity of life on the planet all share the same biological chemistry? Hell, how about the common cold evolving into resistant strains every season? I take it you don't "believe" in the common cold either.
Evolution, for example, was crafted with a complete lack of data in its time, which has since had data piled around it in order to verify/vindicate its origins. This is bad science and bad practice. BAD
What the hell are you talking about? How is it bad science to test a model with new data?
It also is non disprovable
Here is an observation that would falsify the theory of evolution: a fossil record that does not change over time.
hen, turn around and offer the imaginatory refutation as fact to someone who believes in evolution[climate change] as fiercely as you do, and say "since evolution[climate change] can't explain that, evolution[climage change] has been wrong all along!" and watch the fireworks. They will warp the very foundations of reality to show you how you're wrong, don't understand evolution, and that evolution TOTALLY explains it.
Your argument does not follow. Just because some proponents of evolution do not understand the science does not mean that the science is bad.
You're right, even highly educated people can lack a sense of humor
I more or less agree with most of what you say, but I do have a few issues. The user experience is subjective: for you and me, it's straight forward and functional. The interface as a whole is a little rough around the edges, and the iPhone has a pretty distinct advantage in this area for most people.
Also, the android market place is pretty horrible compared to the apple app store. Discovery sucks, sales are low, etc. Even some of the popular iPhone apps ported to Android aren't selling but a handful of copies. Hell, some of the best apps on the Android can't even be found without specifically searching for it.
That being said, the hardware itself is much, much better. The screen is absolutely stunning, the web browser is much faster and thus more usable. Multitasking: 'nuff said. Best of all, I can decide what software to put on the hardware I paid for (including those I wrote myself without having to sacrifice my first born at the altar of Steve Jobs).
I think the fragmentation is inconsequential to the success of the market place. In reality, supporting a handful of screen configurations and featuresets is a minor inconvenience that most developers would happily work around if the money was there. But, that seems to be the problem: it just isn't as profitable to develop android apps!
I don't doubt that Android may become the most common phone operating system at some point, but I strongly doubt it will drive Java's popularity for several reasons. For one, the mobile computing market is relatively small relative to all the rest of the java code out there. The android market place has also been an abysmal failure and might not ever be as profitable as the iPhone app store unless Google gets their act together.
I have trouble with the notion that we must somehow feel obligated to "respect" someone's beliefs. I have no respect for a belief system that can not be adequately justified. That's not to say I don't respect someone's right to believe what they want. I imagine that the distinction, however, is lost upon most people (and this confusion is probably the cause of the perception that any nonsense should be respected as long as it's a belief).
Sometimes, too long is too long. - Joe Crowe