Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Darwin's Experiments

Recommended Posts

Did you read post #6? Because observation is not an experiment... You need an independent and dependent factor since you are actually TESTING  the cause and effect relationships... So do something to X observe what happens to Y, cause and effect.

 

examining  fossils is not done by observation alone, thats a strawman (i rarely reply to fallacies). I am sure you could google if you want to know how paleobioligists are testing fossils.

 

Hang on so you make a prediction about the ancestor, provided you already have a fossil of said ancestor?... Sorry that isn't a PREdiction... Since you already had the fossils to begin with...

 

A PREdiction is made BEFORE you get your fossils, (pro-tip: the PREfix of PRE, means BEFORE)...

 

It's quite simple . they find fossils A,  B. they can predict a fossil X which came between A and B ( or a transitional like you like to call them). if they later find a fossil X the prediction can be proven false or wrong.

 

 

Observing fossils isn't an experiment, sorry. I already addressed you post #3 with my post #6 but I don't see a response from you?...

examining fossils is not done by observation alone, thats a strawman (i rarely reply to fallacies).

 

 

Do you really expect to see a chariot from that far away?....

No, we see the sun if we look at the sun with a telescope, not a chariot. Hence your predictive model is proven false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

examining  fossils is not done by observation alone, thats a strawman (i rarely reply to fallacies). I am sure you could google if you want to know how paleobioligists are testing fossils.

 

examining fossils is not done by observation alone, thats a strawman (i rarely reply to fallacies).

 

.... How is claiming observing a fossil not an experiment a fallacy... You're going to need to support your claim on this one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before due to our pleasant conversations before, however if you're going to continue this don't think I'll continue such pleasantries. 

 

So please tell me how

 

1- observing fossils determine cause and effect (including the independent and dependent factors as well as the controlled factors)

2- observing fossils determine ancestry (without assuming similarities = ancestry)

3- if you want to assume similarities = ancestry then provide the experiment that supports this in reference to fossils.

4- if you want to assume similarities = ancestry then you need to explain how convergence occurs and how similarities due to ancestry are determined and how similarities due to convergence are determined, and how these are differentiated between each other.

 

If you don't understand point 4 then please read this thread

 

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/5833-convergent-evolution-defies-evolution/?hl=convergence&do=findComment&comment=101567

 

 

It's quite simple . they find fossils A,  B. they can predict a fossil X which came between A and B ( or a transitional like you like to call them). if they later find a fossil X the prediction can be proven false or wrong.

 

Do you have any examples you can provide where these were stated BEFORE the fossils were found? Since all I ever find are "after the fact" claims of "predicted by evolution"...

 

 

No, we see the sun if we look at the sun with a telescope, not a chariot. Hence your predictive model is proven false.

 

Again, you wouldn't be able to see a chariot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... How is claiming observing a fossil not an experiment a fallacy... You're going to need to support your claim on this one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before due to our pleasant conversations before, however if you're going to continue this don't think I'll continue such pleasantries. 

 

So please tell me how

 

 

YOU said: Because observation is not an experiment...

While I said: the experiment is examining the fossils

 

That is a huge misrepresentation of my claim: it is a strawman as explained here:

examining  fossils is not done by observation alone, thats a strawman (i rarely reply to fallacies). I am sure you could google if you want to know how paleobioligists are testing fossils.

"observation" is not synonymous to "examination"

 

Do you have any examples you can provide where these were stated BEFORE the fossils were found? Since all I ever find are "after the fact" claims of "predicted by evolution"...

 

for example, the Tiktaalik was predicted way before 2004, and was found in 2004.

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik – a “fishopod,†beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

 

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-judgement-of-tiktaalik/

 

 

Again, you wouldn't be able to see a chariot...

like i said: we see the sun: a huge bal of heated gasses. not a chariot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.... How is claiming observing a fossil not an experiment a fallacy... You're going to need to support your claim on this one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before due to our pleasant conversations before, however if you're going to continue this don't think I'll continue such pleasantries. 

 

So please tell me how

 

 

YOU said: Because observation is not an experiment...

While I said: the experiment is examining the fossils

 

That is a huge misrepresentation of my claim: it is a strawman as explained here:

examining  fossils is not done by observation alone, thats a strawman (i rarely reply to fallacies). I am sure you could google if you want to know how paleobioligists are testing fossils.

 

 

 

 

While I said: the experiment is examining the fossils

 

 

Scientific Experiments contain VARIABLES.  "EXAMINING" is not a Variable...unless you Propose their Eyelids are the Independent Variable?  :funny:

 

 

(i rarely reply to fallacies). I am sure you could google if you want to know how paleobioligists are testing fossils.

 

 

:shock:  You "rarely reply to them???  THEN you say....

 

 

"I am sure you could google if you want to know how paleobioligists are testing fossils"   :laugh_point:    This is a FALLACY: Elephant Hurling...

 

Elephant Hurling (Fallacy):  a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument.  http://www.astorehou...lephant_hurling

 

 

Are you a Comedian?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

back on the ignore list you enoch. bye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

back on the ignore list you enoch. bye

 

 

Just in Time so as to NOT answer for any of your Child-Like Self-Contradicting Logic.

 

No worries though,  I'll just keep EXPOSING you every time you post....it's better you don't respond, cause this will happen each time: http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6457-darwins-experiments/page-6&do=findComment&comment=126100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientific Experiments contain VARIABLES.  "EXAMINING" is not a Variable...unless you Propose their Eyelids are the Independent Variable?  :funny:

 

 

 

:shock:  You "rarely reply to them???  THEN you say....

 

 

"I am sure you could google if you want to know how paleobioligists are testing fossils"   :laugh_point:    This is a FALLACY: Elephant Hurling...

 

Elephant Hurling (Fallacy):  a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument.  http://www.astorehou...lephant_hurling

 

 

Are you a Comedian?

 

Yeah I kept on referring her to the fact that experiments have variables, yet she still wanted to believe that "examining" fossils is an experiment... Its sad how evolutionists require they believe in their own misunderstanding of science in order to support their belief in evolution.... :(

 

 

YOU said: Because observation is not an experiment...

While I said: the experiment is examining the fossils

 

That is a huge misrepresentation of my claim: it is a strawman as explained here:

examining  fossils is not done by observation alone, thats a strawman (i rarely reply to fallacies). I am sure you could google if you want to know how paleobioligists are testing fossils.

"observation" is not synonymous to "examination"

 

I also said....

 

.... How is claiming observing a fossil not an experiment a fallacy... You're going to need to support your claim on this one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before due to our pleasant conversations before, however if you're going to continue this don't think I'll continue such pleasantries. 

 

So please tell me how

 

1- observing fossils determine cause and effect (including the independent and dependent factors as well as the controlled factors)

2- observing fossils determine ancestry (without assuming similarities = ancestry)

3- if you want to assume similarities = ancestry then provide the experiment that supports this in reference to fossils.

4- if you want to assume similarities = ancestry then you need to explain how convergence occurs and how similarities due to ancestry are determined and how similarities due to convergence are determined, and how these are differentiated between each other.

 

If you don't understand point 4 then please read this thread

 

http://evolutionfair...nce#entry101567

 

I have asked you to support your claim of "fallacy" and demonstrate how observing fossils is an experiment... Yet all you keep doing is ASSERT that it is without evidence or reason...

 

 

That is a huge misrepresentation of my claim: it is a strawman as explained here:

examining  fossils is not done by observation alone, thats a strawman (i rarely reply to fallacies). I am sure you could google if you want to know how paleobioligists are testing fossils.

"observation" is not synonymous to "examination"

 

Read above, if YOU want to claim that observing fossils is an experiment then YOU are the one who needs to support that claim...

 

 

for example, the Tiktaalik was predicted way before 2004, and was found in 2004.

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik – a “fishopod,†beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

 

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-judgement-of-tiktaalik/

 

Yet Tiktaalik was debunked by OLDER footprints in Poland... How can Tiktaalik be an ancestor of tetrapods when they walked on land BEFORE Tiktaalik?

 

Any other example?

 

like i said: we see the sun: a huge bal of heated gasses. not a chariot.

 

So how can you claim it isn't there.... Its too small to check.. Hence my "hypothesis" stands.

 

The fact I was trying to portray (and you keep dodging) is that even if a prediction is correct you need experimentation to demonstrate that what you believed was the cause is verified as the cause.... You can't just assign a cause and assume that that is correct... THAT was how science was performed in the 1800s NOT in 2015...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read above, if YOU want to claim that observing fossils is an experiment then YOU are the one who needs to support that claim...

 

For the simple reason that i DID NOT claim that observing fossils is an experiment.

If you don't stop this strawman (that i claimed that observation is an experiment) i'm going to report you.

 

 

Yet Tiktaalik was debunked by OLDER footprints in Poland... How can Tiktaalik be an ancestor of tetrapods when they walked on land BEFORE Tiktaalik?

1) they did not predict the tiktaalik as ancestor., i have highlighted the predictions made (red). please read correctly.

 

2) did someone claim that the tiktaalik is the ONLY ancestor of tetrapods?

if so please provide that claim + supporting evidence.

 

 

So how can you claim it isn't there.... Its too small to check.. Hence my "hypothesis" stands.

No it doesn't. if you claim that the sun is a chariot, and we see though telescopes that the sun is a giant ball of heated gasses. there is no possible way your claim stands.

or do you also claim that a chariot is a giant ball of heated gasses?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the simple reason that i DID NOT claim that observing fossils is an experiment.

If you don't stop this strawman (that i claimed that observation is an experiment) i'm going to report you.

 

I asked you to demonstrate how this is a strawman... Yet all you do is keep asserting it is... Care to address how "measuring" a fossil is an experiment?.... Or will you keep ignoring this and just assert assert assert...

 

 

.... How is claiming observing a fossil not an experiment a fallacy... You're going to need to support your claim on this one. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt before due to our pleasant conversations before, however if you're going to continue this don't think I'll continue such pleasantries. 

 

So please tell me how

 

1- observing fossils determine cause and effect (including the independent and dependent factors as well as the controlled factors)

2- observing fossils determine ancestry (without assuming similarities = ancestry)

3- if you want to assume similarities = ancestry then provide the experiment that supports this in reference to fossils.

4- if you want to assume similarities = ancestry then you need to explain how convergence occurs and how similarities due to ancestry are determined and how similarities due to convergence are determined, and how these are differentiated between each other.

 

If you don't understand point 4 then please read this thread

 

http://evolutionfair...nce#entry101567

I have asked you to support your claim of "fallacy" and demonstrate how observing fossils is an experiment... Yet all you keep doing is ASSERT that it is without evidence or reason...

 

 

did someone claim that the tiktaalik is the ONLY ancestor of tetrapods?

if so please provide that claim.

 

Did claim it was the only one... :get_a_clue: Why ask me to support a claim I never made?

 

How can their "prediction" be correct when what they claimed was an ancestor of a tetrapod existed AFTER tetrapods were walking on Earth?....

 

Its like claiming that your son (or future son) is also your grandfather.... Its insane.

 

 

No it doesn't. if you claim that the sun is a chariot, and we see though telescopes that the sun is a giant ball of heated gasses. there is no possible way your claim stands.

or do you also claim that a chariot is a giant ball of heated gasses?

 

Using that logic, the fact that we weren't able to see bacteria until the invention of the microscope means they didn't exist until the microscope was invented...

 

As I said you keep ignoring my point, which is...

 

The fact I was trying to portray (and you keep dodging) is that even if a prediction is correct you need experimentation to demonstrate that what you believed was the cause is verified as the cause.... You can't just assign a cause and assume that that is correct... THAT was how science was performed in the 1800s NOT in 2015...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked you to demonstrate how this is a strawman... Yet all you do is keep asserting it is... Care to address how "measuring" a fossil is an experiment?.... Or will you keep ignoring this and just assert assert assert...

 

and i have explained it again and again

 

"OBSERVING" DOES NOT EQUALS "EXAMINING". Are there any words here you don't understand?

 

Examining includes (but not limited to)

  • trace element and isotope analysis of soils and fossils
  • Isotope analysis of tooth enamel
  • DNA analysis
  • Binocular light microscopes
  • stratigraphic sequences
  • potassium-argon dating
  • Uranium Series Dating
  • Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) dating
  • Cosmogenic dating
  • Palaeomagnetism
  • Radiocarbon dating
  • X-rays and CT scans
  • Cave taphonomy
  • Palaeoecology
  • and yes, observing too

These are done with experiments.

 

So why the hell do you keep insisting that i claimed that "observation is an experiment"?

 

Did claim it was the only one... :get_a_clue: Why ask me to support a claim I never made?

 

Another strawman.

Where did i say you claimed that? Do you have trouble in comprehensive reading???

I asked a question ( as signified with a questionmark)

 

2) did someone claim that the tiktaalik is the ONLY ancestor of tetrapods? (<- see this question mark? this means this is a question)

if so, please provide that claim + supporting evidence.

 

 

 

How can their "prediction" be correct when what they claimed was an ancestor of a tetrapod existed AFTER tetrapods were walking on Earth?....

Its like claiming that your son (or future son) is also your grandfather.... Its insane.

 

 

And another strawman.

 

i said: 1) They did not predict the tiktaalik as ancestor, I have highlighted the predictions made (red). please read correctly.

Do you have problems in understanding this underlined sentence? (English is maybe only my 3rd language, but I am quite sure that sentence is in correct English)

 

 

I have reported you, and i am done wasting my time with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and i have explained it again and again

 

"OBSERVING" DOES NOT EQUALS "EXAMINING". Are there any words here you don't understand?

 

 

...... Yet that is what you do with fossils... You observe the fossils and make measurements... Making measurements is not an experiment, no matter how badly you want to claim it is...

 

 

 

Examining includes (but not limited to)

  • trace element and isotope analysis of soils and fossils
  • Isotope analysis of tooth enamel
  • DNA analysis
  • Binocular light microscopes
  • stratigraphic sequences
  • potassium-argon dating
  • Uranium Series Dating
  • Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) dating
  • Cosmogenic dating
  • Palaeomagnetism
  • Radiocarbon dating
  • X-rays and CT scans
  • Cave taphonomy
  • Palaeoecology
  • and yes, observing too

These are done with experiments.

 

Interesting how you "forget" to provide examples of the experiments performed on fossils to determine ancestry... Since that is what we are discussing...

 

 

 

So why the hell do you keep insisting that i claimed that "observation is an experiment"?

 

Firstly because that is what you are attempting to claim... Fossils are observed and measured you think this is somehow an experiment... However the real bombshell is you actually stated this in your reply :gilligan:

 

Examining includes (but not limited to)

  • and yes, observing too

These are done with experiments.

 

So why the hell do you keep insisting that i claimed that "observation is an experiment"?

 

 

 

 

 

Did claim it was the only one... :get_a_clue: Why ask me to support a claim I never made?

 

Another strawman.

Where did i say you claimed that? Do you have trouble in comprehensive reading???

I asked a question ( as signified with a questionmark)

 

2) did someone claim that the tiktaalik is the ONLY ancestor of tetrapods? (<- see this question mark? this means this is a question)

if so, please provide that claim + supporting evidence.

 

Um no... I was exposing your strawman and you now reply with another strawman...

 

 

You asked

 

cyara, on 06 Sept 2015 - 09:49 AM, said:snapback.png

did someone claim that the tiktaalik is the ONLY ancestor of tetrapods?

if so please provide that claim.

 

I stated that you are asking me to support something I never said... I never said that Tiktaalik was the only one, (this was YOUR strawman), all I did was demonstrate how the "predictions" surrounding Tiktaalik are false

You now claim that my pointing out YOUR strawman is somehow a strawman... Some victim complex you've got going on there...

 

 

Where did i say you claimed that? Do you have trouble in comprehensive reading???

I asked a question ( as signified with a questionmark)

 

A question about something that was never stated... Which I told you and somehow pointing out that it was never stated is apparently a "strawman"...

 

Why ask me to support the claim that Tiktaalik was the only transition when it was never stated that it was?.... Seriously...

 

 

2) did someone claim that the tiktaalik is the ONLY ancestor of tetrapods? (<- see this question mark? this means this is a question)

if so, please provide that claim + supporting evidence.

 

Here you ask the question again... It was never stated that Tiktaalik was the ONLY ancestor of tetrapods... Where are you getting this?... Have you lost your ability to read?

 

All I said was Polish footprints that are OLDER than Tiktaalik falsify any "predictions" made about Tiktaalik... Since Tiktaalik cannot be the ancestor of tetrapods when tetrapods were walking BEFORE Tiktaalik existed...

 

 

And another strawman.

 

i said: 1) They did not predict the tiktaalik as ancestor, I have highlighted the predictions made (red). please read correctly.

Do you have problems in understanding this underlined sentence? (English is maybe only my 3rd language, but I am quite sure that sentence is in correct English)

 

What strawman?... You need to actually support your claims...

 

It seems you seriously lack critical thinking.... If Tiktaalik was predicted on the basis of being a "transition" between fish and amphibians, yet it was found that it wasn't a transition... Since tetrapods existed BEFORE Tiktaalik did... Then the predictions are false... Here just for you and because I know you won't understand unless I do this I will go through each of your (unsupported) predictions and show how the Polish footprints debunk them....

 

 

predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik.

 

Except due to the Polish footprints, Tiktaalik isn't a transition... so it isn't what they predicted...

 

 

These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians.

 

Again, since Tiktaalik isn't a transition this prediction is falsified...

 

Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

 

Due to the Polish footprints in order to keep Tiktaalik as a "transition" the dates and periods for each transition would need to be reshuffled back... Hence this prediction is incorrect also...

 

 

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik – a “fishopod,†beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

 

Except Tiktaalik isn't the transition they "predicted" due to the Polish footprints existing BEFORE Tiktaalik did...

 

 

I have reported you, and i am done wasting my time with you.

 

Reported me for what.... Pointing out that evolutionists were incorrect about Tiktaalik?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly because that is what you are attempting to claim... Fossils are observed and measured you think this is somehow an experiment

Show me 1 quote of me where i state that "observing or measuring" ARE an experiment. (not a quote where i say observing is done with experiments, that is NOT THE SAME)

failure to do so will proof you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts.

Since Tiktaalik cannot be the ancestor of tetrapods when tetrapods were walking BEFORE Tiktaalik existed...

Show me 1 quote of me where I state that Tiktaalik is the only ancestor of tetrapods.

the footprints in poland can simply be the result of another transitional that existed before tiktaalik.

failure to do so will proof you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts.

 

 

im done wth you gilbo, your dishonest and fallacious posts are just a wast of my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im done wth you gilbo, your dishonest and fallacious posts are just a wast of my time.

 

The only person who is dishonest here is you... You have lied by accusing me of creating "strawmen" when in fact I was exposing YOUR strawmen..

 

Just remember making measurements is NOT an experiment... Experiments TEST cause and effect, making measurements tells you nothing of the cause, hence making measurements on fossils tells you nothing of whether evolution was indeed the cause... This is your assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only person who is dishonest here is you... You have lied by accusing me of creating "strawmen" when in fact I was exposing YOUR strawmen..

 

Just remember making measurements is NOT an experiment... Experiments TEST cause and effect, making measurements tells you nothing of the cause, hence making measurements on fossils tells you nothing of whether evolution was indeed the cause... This is your assumption.

 

Show me 1 quote of me where i state that "observing or measuring" ARE an experiment. (not a quote where i say observing is done with experiments, that is NOT THE SAME)

failure to do so will proof you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It seems you seriously lack critical thinking.... If Tiktaalik was predicted on the basis of being a "transition" between fish and amphibians, yet it was found that it wasn't a transition... Since tetrapods existed BEFORE Tiktaalik did... Then the predictions are false... Here just for you and because I know you won't understand unless I do this I will go through each of your (unsupported) predictions and show how the Polish footprints debunk them....

 

 

lol.

 

 

Also this is hilarious, "PRE"-dictions are the Consequent in a Scientific Hypothesis....they're not made in a Vacuum.  That is, you MUST HAVE an Independent Variable as the Antecedent for the PRE-diction to have any prayer of being VALID, and to make SENSE lol.

 

"Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if†portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then†portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment. An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion." ----csub.edu

 

The Independent Variable is the CAUSE...the EFFECT, your "PRE"-diction...is the effect on the Dependent Variable. (Ya know..."SCIENCE")

 

This is Tantamount to ALREADY having knowledge of many types of Organisms living in the Ocean, then "PRE-dicting"....that we will find creatures or "CREATURE" living on the sea floor.  Astonishing....WHAT'S THE Antecedent....THE CAUSE????????????  :funny:   Gives a whole new meaning to "Half"---Baked.

 

Then you have "Scientists" that make up the the Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) Antecedent.... 

"If 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula throwing pixie dust in a black hole is TRUE", we will find creatures living on the sea floor.

Yes over the TOP...but very accurate. Guess what this (or any other Nonsense you stick in here) is....Affirming The Consequent (Formal Logical Fallacy), because from Fallacies (See Non-Sequitur above) you get..... a Fallacious Conclusion, without Exception!!

 

They already had TONS of Fossils in Darwin's Day (See: Knowledge of the OCEAN above)...all you have to do is make mind numbing Pseudo -"prediction" after mind numbing Pseudo-"prediction" until something sticks.

 

I'm sorry this is just so mind numbingly stupid it's difficult to put it into words.  The worst part you get nincompoops running around screaming: "Pre-dictions" "Pre-dictions" "we have Predictions"!!!   :laugh_point: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me 1 quote of me where i state that "observing or measuring" ARE an experiment. (not a quote where i say observing is done with experiments, that is NOT THE SAME)

 

Your first post on this thread claimed that "examinations" of fossils (observations with some measurements) are an experiment... I stated that this was wrong in post #6 which you ignored (I assumed you understood the point)...

 

Then later on you referred to your post #2 as support for your claims that experiments support evolution... which led to this exchange... So IF you had just accepted my post #6 and the fact that observations are not experiments initially, (or queried so I could help you understand), then perhaps this fiasco would have been avoided.....

 

Oh but we can't have that, I'm just a lowly creationist, what would I know about science... How can I possibly know anything that a great and powerful evolutionist wouldn't... (If you didn't know I am being sarcastic)...

 

For posterity here is your post #2 (with what you were replying to for context)

 

Ok so if a scientific theory is based on laws or observed experiments... Then what were the laws or experiments Darwin used in order to establish his theory of evolution?

pretty much every fossil Darwin examined.

 

for example

 

idea: fossil X is related to known animal A

experiment : examining fossil

Does the experiment support the idea?

-yes : theory created

-no  : bad idea (the fossil is not related)

 

-> continue scientific methodology

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6457-darwins-experiments/?p=125593

 

 

From this I'd love to know HOW "examining" a fossil demonstrates ancestry... Since it seems you have an unspoken assumption, that being "similarities = ancestry"... This is why I asked of you the 4 points below, (which you completely ignored)...

 

1- observing fossils determine cause and effect (including the independent and dependent factors as well as the controlled factors)

2- observing fossils determine ancestry (without assuming similarities = ancestry)

3- if you want to assume similarities = ancestry then provide the experiment that supports this in reference to fossils.

4- if you want to assume similarities = ancestry then you need to explain how convergence occurs and how similarities due to ancestry are determined and how similarities due to convergence are determined, and how these are differentiated between each other.

 

If you don't understand point 4 then please read this thread

 

http://evolutionfair...nce#entry101567

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo, again... experiments are one facet of science. Experiments are limited to things we can test. Millions of years of evolution is not one of them. This is because it takes millions of years to occur. What we can test is whether there are mechanisms which cause evolution, which there are. There are apparently no other mechanisms which do this. Do you know of an alternative that could cause biological change?

 

Your position is anti-science. That's not a factual statement, just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo, again... experiments are one facet of science. 

 

I'm sorry, You're such a Doofus it's laughable....and from a "self purported" PhD in Biology no less.

 

To be "something" it has to exhibit characteristics/traits of that something. Bananas grow on trees: they are green/yellow/pink/purple, contain complex/simple Carbs chalk full of K+ and B6, and when you freeze them it destroys B6.  That's what makes Bananas, "Bananas" and differentiates them from Strawberries.  It's how we differentiate between Tumble Weeds and Texas Toast.  It's the same with "Science"...
"Science" exhibits characteristics/traits of it's Method, The "Scientific Method"...without it , it's not "Science".  
 
Science without TESTING/Experiment is like Water without Hydrogen....it's painfully Non-Sequitur.

 

 

 

Experiments are limited to things we can test. 

 

 

Yes...it's Called Science.

 

 

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."{Emphasis Mine}

- Richard P. Feynman PhD (Nobel laureate Physics)

 

What do you suppose he would call "Scientific Theories"...without Experiments??? 

 

 

 

Your position is anti-science. That's not a factual statement, just my opinion.

 

 

Then you have the Mind Numbing AUDACITY to Claim as your "opinion", Gilbo's position is Anti-Science.   :funny:

 

After you just Completely and Utterly Destroyed/RENDERED VOID the Quintessential INDISPENSABLE Tenet of Science.....Experiment.

 

 

Are you some kind of Incoherent Comedian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gilbo, again... experiments are one facet of science.

 

Again?

 

If you follow the scientific method, experiments are the ONLY facet to science...

 

 

Experiments are limited to things we can test. Millions of years of evolution is not one of them.

 

Eureka!

 

He can be taught...

 

 

This is because it takes millions of years to occur.

 

How do you know it does occur if you cannot perform he experiments to check?

 

 

 

What we can test is whether there are mechanisms which cause evolution, which there are.

 

And now we come to the micro = macro switch...

 

You are claiming that because you can observe change WITHIN a type of organism that is somehow evidence for your belief that an organism can become a DIFFERENT type over time.... Where are you're experiments that confirm this assumption?

 

What we observe is oscillating change, due to the fact of trade-offs which limit change to within a specific range of features.... Which means whilst change occurs it is constrained within the boundaries of trade-offs and thus doesn't lead to entirely new features over time... Rather just variants of the same feature...

 

"Tradeoffs have played a prominent role in evolutionary thinking for many reasons, most of which are directly tied to the factors that limit the adaptive potential of organisms."

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/Agrawal/documents/AgrawaletalinDarwin_150.pdf

 

 

 

There are apparently no other mechanisms which do this.

 

Biological change does occur, nobody is doubting that... What is in doubt is your equivocating between evolution and mere change...

 

You NEED to demonstrate how the change we observe today do lead to the changes you assume occurred in the past... You've already admitted that you cannot perform an experiment, which means you cannot justify this leap of faith.. You cannot know whether the changes we observe today can "add up" over time in order for things to become different organisms...

 

In fact I've already provided evidence to the contrary, trade-offs...

 

 

 

Your position is anti-science. That's not a factual statement, just my opinion.

 

Firstly it is great that you're starting to realize when you are making an opinion... That is progress :D

 

However based on what I talk about above, it seems you're position is to assume that something occurs,

 

even though you have no evidence

and admit that it is beyond the capacity of science to test,

it also defies the observation of "trade offs" which ARE demonstrated to limit change....

 

So who was anti-science again?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re #110/111:

 

Tiktaalik contains both fish and tetrapod features and was found where it was predicted to be found. Natural history describes branching speciation with many potential dead ends so for any transition event there could be multiple transitional specimens and there is no expectation that any necessarily need to be actually ancestral to modern organisms. It may be that the Ellesmere Island transitional and Poland transitional are the same species or that they share an earlier common ancestor or that there were multiple transitions to land: it is thus quite possible that either, neither or both transitional specimens were ancestral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re #110/111:

 

Tiktaalik contains both fish and tetrapod features and was found where it was predicted to be found.

 

An orange ball and the sun are both round and a similar colour.. They share features, so was an orange ball a transition to the sun? You're assuming that its a transition BEFORE you have evidence that is was a transition...

 

Yet the timeline for tetrapod "evolution" has changed due to the Polish footprints. Hence it wasn't in the right zone.

 

Natural history describes branching speciation with many potential dead ends so for any transition event there could be multiple transitional specimens and there is no expectation that any necessarily need to be actually ancestral to modern organisms.

 

How does "natural history" describe such? Or is this your INTERPRETATION....

 

Is your interpretation of a "description" scientific?

 

 

Natural history describes branching speciation with many potential dead ends so for any transition event there could be multiple transitional specimens and there is no expectation that any necessarily need to be actually ancestral to modern organisms. It may be that the Ellesmere Island transitional and Poland transitional are the same species or that they share an earlier common ancestor or that there were multiple transitions to land: it is thus quite possible that either, neither or both transitional specimens were ancestral.

 

Ad hoc hypotheses....

 

Better look out your pseudo-science is showing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An orange ball and the sun are both round and a similar colour.. They share features, so was an orange ball a transition to the sun? You're assuming that its a transition BEFORE you have evidence that is was a transition...

 

Except using "common sense" we can tell that there are rather large additional differences between an orange ball and the sun. With biology we have more trouble, because organisms show a series of hierarchical physical and genetic homologies, which defy simple explanation and which have been predicted through the application of evolutionary science. You would have us at best put these observations down to common design, or worst just ignore them all together, because you hold views that are anti-science. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

 

mr. PhD Biology chopper, (for the 32nd Time!!); Define the Scientific theory of evolution......?

 

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except using "common sense" we can tell that there are rather large additional differences between an orange ball and the sun.

 

"Common sense" so you think that you are allowed to assume your assumptions are correct due to "common sense", pray tell how this follows the scientific method? If you want to admit that this is merely your OPINION on what you think is logical and thus is not science then I'd be happy.

 

 

Except there are similarities and under the evolutionist of assumption of "similarities = ancestry" then I wonder how do you exclude these similarities and not others?

 

HOW DO YOU KNOW which similarities are due to ancestry?

 

I am asking you for the experiments that support your assumptions... No experiments = not following the scientific method = not science...

 

 

 

With biology we have more trouble, because organisms show a series of hierarchical physical and genetic homologies,

You are assuming there is / was a hierarchical structure... Hence you are assuming "evolution did it" in terms of how you view the evidence... This is how pervasive your ideology is...

 

 

which defy simple explanation and which have been predicted through the application of evolutionary science.

 

:cry:

 

The similarities were known BEFORE evolution was even thought up by Darwin.... Hence it cannot be a "prediction"...

 

Can you provide any examples of evolutionists predicting anything specific? Or are these "predictions" to the same level of 'I predict a car will pass my house today', or 'I predict the sun will rise tomorrow', or 'I predict the shopping centre will have lots of people within it'.. etc....

 

REAL scientists make specific predictions about cause-effect relationships... Are you are REAL scientist?

 

 

You would have us at best put these observations down to common design, or worst just ignore them all together, because you hold views that are anti-science. :)

 

I never said anything of the sort... Perhaps try basing your replies on what I say NOT from the words you want to put in my mouth.

 

I would have you put these observations as mere observations.... To create hypotheses from these eg- "Evolution was the cause of X similarities between organism Y and Z" and then TEST these hypohtheses...

 

In short I would have you FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD....

 

Yet it seems as if you do not want your "science" to follow the scientific method, the fact that you do not provide experimentation to support your assumptions implies that you'd rather your "science" to be exempt from the standards the rest of science and scientists must follow.... So it seems YOU are Anti-Science... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what were the experiments Darwin performed?

​If there are none then does this mean when Darwin refers to his idea as a "theory" he wasn't intending it as a scientific theory, rather just a theory (aka idea). 

 I wonder how evolutionists came to believe that evolution is a scientific theory?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms