I do understand the difference. You just can't see it. Scientific theory requires verification. I don't believe it exists, you do. Simple as that.
The evidence exists whether or not you believe in it. Simple as that.
Quit acting like you win an argument just because you make ridiculous claims like this when in reality I simply disagree with you.
Lol, I'm the one making ridiculous claims? Name one. Name a single one.
I also love how you simply claim "we have clear evidence of speciation" but don't proffer any.
Wolves were domesticated and bred through artificial selection to create dogs. Speciation.
Horses and donkeys were bred to make mules. Speciation.
The list can go on.
First, using a conclusion to prove a point is poor arguing. Try again.
Yes, I'm using proof of speciation to show that speciation exists. Crazy, that.
Second, those are two completely different genetic examples. You would know that if you had a clue. Clearly you are just pretending you have studied biology. Wolves to dogs would constitute speciation if it were proved. But in order for you to prove it, you must make many assumptions about something that happened a long time ago with no record that it actually happened. As for mules, that is VERY different. That is the crossbreeding of two species that results in a sterile offspring. Not even speciation.
This is just too wonderful. You couldn't have handed me an easier argument than this. Let's get started.
Yes, these are two different genetic examples. Both are speciation. New species emerged from existing ones. That's speciation.
Are you seriously going to argue that dogs did not come from wolves? Lol, now I'm beginning to suspect you're a Young Earth Creationist. Tell me Ohio, is the Earth roughly 6,000 years old? Anyway, this is still incredibly ignorant of you. But don't take my world for it; take Wikipedia's:
Oh, would you look at that. Dogs came from wolves. It's like I actually know what I'm talking about or something.
And, you know, I find it funny that you say we have no choice but to assume that dogs came into existence that way, because "no one was around to observe it." First of all, yes, people were around to observe it. Humans made dogs, either directly through selective breeding or indirectly depending on who you ask. Second, the reason I find it funny that you say this is that, for the third time, you're religious. No one was around to witness your god talking to Moses or Abraham or Isaac, yet you seem perfectly okay with believing that. But no, when it comes to actual evidence, like DNA gene sequencing showing the DNA of gray wolves and domesticated dogs to be nearly identical, you don't agree with it because you claim the proof is not sufficient. Okay, you go ahead and do that, Mr. Double Standards.
And as for the mule, yes, it is very different. As I said earlier, it is technically speciation because a new species is created from the process.
But you're missing the point. You said there was no evidence of speciation, and I gave it to you. Now you're falling back on "Oh, you didn't have anyone observe it." And let's be honest: That's a crappy argument. You've never observed electrons, yet you don't doubt their existence, surely. Odd, then, that you'd place evolution, which has just as much evidence supporting it as does the theory of universal gravitation, under harsher scrutiny and deny it apparently off-hand. Quite hypocritical of you.
You have yet (along with any scientist) to put forth evidence of evolution that doesn't require assumptions or inferences. Until you do, it is not verified. Showing mutation or natural selection goes nowhere to actually prove evolution (common ancestry). You must be blind not to see that.
You keep saying this, but you never tell me what assumptions are being made. I think that speaks for itself.
That aside, it's not my job to tell you what the proof is any more than I already have. You clearly have no intention of reading anything I link you to, and I'd be willing to bet my left testicle that you have not and would never read "On the Origin of Species". If you want to know what the proof is, go look for it. It's not obscure. Just pull your head out of that Bronze Age fairy tale long enough to fairly judge what you're reading.
Um, every single thing you put forth, i.e. natural selection, the genome, genetic mutation, etc... Using those all rely on the assumption that these things can actually lead to speciation and a common ancestor. Yet there is no way to rely on these things as proof of evolution without having to infer that at some point during these processes speciation occurs.
Dude, steady genetic variation + large amount of time = new species. This is non-negotiable, at least in the way you're trying to argue it.
And no one is inferring that speciation occurs. We've seen it. Dogs. Goddamn dogs, dude. I know you won't accept that dogs used to be wolves, but that doesn't mean it never happened. It did.
I never said it was sarcastic. Again learn to read.
You said "QTF" which, as I said before, means "Quote for truth." So, either you agree with what he said in the image or you were being sarcastic about saying QTF. There is no alternative.
I said it was clear I understood he was trying to make fun of me.
No, you said QTF.
However, by stating he sucked at antagonizing me, because what he posted was basically internet speak for how I feel arguing with an idiot like yourself. So I wasn't sarcastic in saying QFT, but serious. But your conclusion that I didn't know he was making a lame attempt to be funny at my expense just shows your stupidity.
Except his image makes absolutely no sense when applied to what I've said, considering I'm not the one constantly going "herp derp you missed my point lol Imma repeat myself ad infinitum". It's okay, seriously. This isn't the first time you've made a fu
ck-up of that caliber. I mean, really, in this discussion that's the last thing you need to be worrying about.
or maybe you just are too illiterate to know what "antagonize" means.
Yeah, clearly I don't know what "antagonize" means. Good call.
Sadly, I'm not sure given your clear lack of reading comprehension skills (see above).
Oh aren't you just a witty SOB? You and Dane Cook would be hilarious together.
wouldn't surprise me after reading your responses here.
Oh look, you didn't capitalize the first word of your sentence. Naturally, the only reasonable assumption I can make is that you're the product of centuries of inbreeding and only have stubs where your hands should be, leading to your inability to hold down the right keys on your keyboard. That definitely explains why you didn't capitalize properly.
Sadly this actually resembles many of the ways you read posts.
I read posts with my hands? Lol, by science you're dumb.
You improperly try to assume what argument is being made because you lack the ability to extrapolate thoughts from text.
I find it funny that every time you're on the losing side of an argument you resort to "you have no reading comprehension skills." It's tantamount to waving a white flag at this point.
But you are willing to rely on assumptions in your science, so why not other times?
Bi
tch, science doesn't make assumptions. That would be religion.
I find it cute that you keep trying to bring up religion.
Well I'd sooner imagine that was the source of your intellectual weakness rather than thinking you were actually this stupid originally. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong.
I think it goes a long way to show you aren't able to comprehend this outside the science vs. religion argument.
This isn't a science vs. religion argument. I keep referencing it because I find the double standard you and K practice to be absolutely hilarious.
However, I have yet to bring religion into this.
And that means I can't bring religion into it? Lol.
It has nothing to do with the flawed conclusions that the theory of evolution relies upon.
Evolution's conclusions are not flawed. You've yet to say, specifically, how they're actually flawed. I attribute this to your realization that, until you say why they're wrong, I can't refute the ridiculous claim that would undoubtedly be.
Additionally, as I said above, I bring up religion to shed light on your hypocrisy with regards to when you demand proof and when you don't.
Every time you bring it up all you do is prove to everyone that you don't know what you are talking about and have to resort to unrelated topics to advance your position.
Haha, sure, sure. Yes, my references to how ludicrous religious claims are definitely means I don't know what I'm talking about.
Meanwhile, though, your failed attempt at quote-mining and denial of valid evidence only makes you more right. I always love watching you contradict yourself.
You might fool many idiots around here into thinking you have a clue and your arguments are good.
Whoa, calling your userbase idiots? That doesn't seem very smart.
But to those of us who actually understand logic and reasoning, we know better.
Ohio, if I had to choose between who was more rational, logical, and reasonable between you and a rabid chimp, I'd choose the chimp. You are the antithesis of logic. It's amazing you actually hold a job in your chosen profession, though I suppose your presence in that field simply speaks poorly of the requirements needed to enter said field.
You are nothing but a moron who spews out a lot of words pretending to be intelligent.
Ah yes, I pretend to be intelligent. Because that's definitely something you can do.
Disregard the fact that you yourself have said I'm very intelligent and that you enjoy debating with me. Disregard the fact that some individuals around here think I'm some kind of genius (an incorrect claim, but whatever, I'm not going to complain). Yes, you're right, I'm just a moron who spews things (like misquotes trying to prove my point, amirite?) to seem intelligent.
If that's true, though, what would it say about your ability to argue? Wouldn't exactly put it in a good light, considering I'm the one citing evidence and correcting your miserable attempts at portraying foremost evolutionists as detracting from the evidence of their fields.
But, you know, if you want to call me a moron, go right ahead. It means about as much to me as you saying you like giving rimjobs or something. It's information I couldn't care less to know, and will promptly forget not long after I submit this message. You act like your opinions of people are universal, which is nothing more than laughable, especially when you consider what a whiny little bi
tch you are.
But again, you are trying to make this an argument about the merits of evolution. That was not my original argument, and I think we can both agree it is futile. My point was that your reliance on a candidate's position regarding evolution as a determining factor in your vote is ridiculous.
If your original point was that you thought my voting values was ridiculous, I think it's safe to say that you wouldn't have gone on your little venture of trying to make it seem like evolution was a indefensible theory by using misquotes of eminent biologists, paleontologists, etc. Let's be honest: You were attempting to undermine the validity of evolutionary theory by indulging in an intellectually dishonest action: quote-mining.
I then made it my duty to show you why evolution was valid, in response to your attempt to discredit it via an appeal to (false) authority. Now, if you'd like to simply voice your opinion that you think my voting habits are ridiculous, go right ahead. I'll simply reply along the lines of "I'm sorry you feel that way" and we can go about our respective businesses. That'll be the end of it.
So if you're being honest about your original intention, prove it. If you drop the argument over the validity of evolution, I will make no further mention of it here. Sound good?
Oh, so you fully accept evolution? That's good. My apologies.
Except, I'm pretty sure you don't.
I have no dog in the race, although I do get quite amused (and did so before I became Christian, so your toss outs of religion in this thread have no meaning) when someone without proof says that
I have evolved from a fish that humped a land creature and we somehow sprouted legs, arms, noses, and the most complex brains in the animal kingdom. I'm still waiting for nature to produce me a flying vehicle. It sure is taking it's sweet ass time.
That's not what evolution says at all.
It seems like someone did you an injustice when they apparently explained evolution to you very poorly. I you want to discuss it, I'd be more than happy to share what I know with you and do my best to help you understand, at least in a general sense, what it's all about. But the way you're portraying evolution here tells me that either no one explained it to you, or someone severely misrepresented the information about evolution.
reddit.com/r/atheism
Only ~200,000 people who it would matter to on the internet alone. Granted, it's down right now, so you can't actually look. r/science and r/askscience too, most likely.
SOPA
Anyway, is evolution a more important issue to the country and it's people when it comes to picking a leader at this particular time?
Probably not, considering most of the country is evangelical Christian and a good chunk of them likely dismiss evolution on religious grounds. That doesn't mean that the issue is not important, nor does it mean that it is not important to many people, myself among them.
Nowhere in those quotes is it implied that I don't care about economic issues. You're quite literally dumb as rocks if you think that is the case.
I never said you didn't care about economic issues. You just initially threw out the issue of evolution as if to sway 京阪 away from his vote.
I only mentioned that because I knew it would be something that he shared my concerns over. I agree with a good portion of Paul's economic policies, but I am wary about his generally anti-science stance with regards to evolution, due primarily to his religious position. The reason I asked 京阪 what I did was simply because I wanted to inform him about something he may have been unaware of. I wasn't interested in starting a debate over it.
No. See, unlike you, I don't ignore people who disagree with me. I'm able to handle disagreement without throwing a pity party, as I recall you doing because I was "persecuting" you over your religion. Again, no thanks. I can handle myself like a grown up. Ignoring people is what children do.
I don't ignore you because you disagree with me, I ignore you because I think you're a piece of sh
it.
My wounds may never heal.
(It may not be the "Christian" thing to do, but I guess I will reap any consequences that God has in store for me.)
Lol. For someone who actually believes in judgment after death, you seem quite okay with intentionally going against your god's wishes. Of course, I don't really care one way or another.
Why would I talk to you if I have nothing meaningful to say to you?
I don't know. You might should ask yourself that, considering most of what is discussed on this site isn't really meaningful.
I guess you're the one who can't handle being "ignored" since you're bumbling about it.
Bi
tch please. Only reason I brought it up was to make you look bad.
TO HELL WITH Ron Paul. I'm voting for Turbo.