Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Empirical Evidence For Darwinism

theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:27:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

Long term E. Coli Experiment: http://myxo.css.msu.edu...

Vestigial structures; those are anatomical structures that serve no use; creationism can't explain it but evolution can; for example whales and dolphins have hind leg bones: http://www.talkorigins.org...

More evidence to come.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 1:07:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. Ubiquitous genes study by Theobald.
2. Confirmed speciation
3. Fossil record (including transitional fossils)

I am sure there is more, but this is sufficient.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 10:09:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 1:07:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
1. Ubiquitous genes study by Theobald.
2. Confirmed speciation
3. Fossil record (including transitional fossils)

I am sure there is more, but this is sufficient.

Speciation cannot be used as evidence: http://www.debate.org... (3rd round)
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 11:06:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

A. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not Darwinism. If you wish to discuss biology then talk about modern science, not 200 year old speculation.

B. science is not a religion. Take religion out of the equation here. Otherwise, your bias will overwhelm your judgment.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 11:15:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 11:06:48 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

A. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not Darwinism.

Lol yes it is. Darwin advocated evolution via natural selection. I didn't even read his book and I know this, didn't you?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 12:06:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

Hello, I agre!!!

Evilution false becus it a lie maded up by evil Nazi Communits Libral racist athist Charles Darwin! Al evidenec for eviluton maded up by evil libral comunits "scienti-t!1!!!!s".

Hav you sen goat evilve into bird? Off cors u haff knot. Becuz goat canot evilve into bird, thery explainin biologic diverse wit natral selecton it false.

Hav u sen sed in banan? That beuse banana it intellegent sdesign for peopl to eat it. Ignore scientific fact lik "wild bananas have seeds" adn "domesticated bananas are infertile. They have gone through selective breeding and cultivation". Factul evidenc and logick are evil and is maded up by evil athiest bavy eate.

Ther many typ of evilution:

Microevilution: Only tru one of al thos!
Macroevilution: Thery that cat com after dog eat catfish, and dogs giv birt to cat. It is lie!!!!11!!!!!
Stellar evilution: All 1000000000000000000 observed instance are evil liezzz!
Mater evilution: That heavir mater evilve from hydrogen. It impossible, abnd the sun is not exactly doin ir righ now, becux sun does nopt hav nucler fusion in core, insted it run on fart gass!

Eviluton says tha noting exploded int somting, and den planet form trough random chans becuz gravit dont exist so it must be random and not cause by mater attractin eachother, then a ightnin strik pudle of penut buter, then lif spontanousl evilv from non biolog mater, then whale cam out of sea and turn into cow! IT clarly lie!

If people cam from monkey why ar the stil arong? Chekmatt athist! U cult is fail!

The eath is perfec and intelegant design. it only plac where water exist in univers. The water vapor in ceres http://en.wikipedia.org... and water in ice in comet http://en.wikipedia.org... are lies!!!!11!!!11 There also no water in moon soil either! All are lie!

There is no transiton fossl! All transitional fosil here: http://www.talkorigins.org... are lies maded up by NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. as a pat of projec blu bemm to institut wrold odor of anticritz!

All evidence for evilushun is lie and I deny them all

Evilutin evil conspirac. any support and evidenc its fail. It should not be taugnt in schol becuz it just a THERY!!!1!!!!!1!1!!1!!!! Eviluton will destruction of 'Murica, and will magicaly turn everybody homosexual and socialst world odor wil destroy fredum. It part of projec blu bemm to fak a secon coming, and OOBBBBAAAMMMAAAAAA is behid this!

If eviluton taught in schol, then natral disaster and ten prednacy mor comon becuz corelation = causaton wen I say!!11!!!111!!

wE th peple aar bein oppres by govment and we ned to tech cretion in schol becuz it mos falsifible evr.

Anyways:

There is empirical evidence for evolution. Many peer reviewed, independent studies are online for you to look at. There are a few sources that argue for evolution, which cite good sources, such as Talk.Origins.

An example is http://www.talkorigins.org... . It contains articles about transitional fossils, avatisms, etc. and links to other articles if you want to go in depth, and they cite good studies.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 10:57:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This op is posted by installgentoo. As we all know gentoo is a version of linux. This linux version is named after a penguin, the gentoo penguin. The gentoo penguin is the third largest penguin in the world. Penguins are only found in the antarctic. Penguins share lots of features in common with birds. Gentoo penguin are kept in the zoo in runescape.

How could I possibly know all this?
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 11:13:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 11:15:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:06:48 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

A. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not Darwinism.

Lol yes it is. Darwin advocated evolution via natural selection. I didn't even read his book and I know this, didn't you?

It is not. Darwin's discoveries set the ball rolling, but they do not constitute today's science. If you wish to discuss this topic, you need to get with the times. I don't debate quantum physics using Newtons theories, I don't debate calculus using Pythagoras, and I don't debate biology using Darwin.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 12:21:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 10:09:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/27/2014 1:07:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
1. Ubiquitous genes study by Theobald.
2. Confirmed speciation
3. Fossil record (including transitional fossils)

I am sure there is more, but this is sufficient.

Speciation cannot be used as evidence: http://www.debate.org... (3rd round)

GarretKadeDupre wrote:"Evolution predicted that individuals do not evolve. But clearly, at least one individual bacterium in Lenski's experiment evolved the ability to metabolize citrate!"

E. coli reproduce asexually, so the organism in question was part of another organism originally. In a very fundamental way, at least, this would be a group of organisms. Plus, are you trying to reference yourself as an authority? Speciation stands.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 1:44:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 10:09:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/27/2014 1:07:41 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
1. Ubiquitous genes study by Theobald.
2. Confirmed speciation
3. Fossil record (including transitional fossils)

I am sure there is more, but this is sufficient.

Speciation cannot be used as evidence: http://www.debate.org... (3rd round)

I'll be honest, this was a new level of facepalm, reading that round. A species is very rigidly defined in biology: "An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same." (http://www.biology-online.org...)

But, tell me how you got from "They can interbreed" to "Therefore, they're the same species." You'll be telling me that tigers are actually lions because they can produce ligers, next...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 3:22:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 12:06:57 AM, jh1234l wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

Hello, I agre!!!

Evilution false becus it a lie maded up by evil Nazi Communits Libral racist athist Charles Darwin! Al evidenec for eviluton maded up by evil libral comunits "scienti-t!1!!!!s".

Hav you sen goat evilve into bird? Off cors u haff knot. Becuz goat canot evilve into bird, thery explainin biologic diverse wit natral selecton it false.

Hav u sen sed in banan? That beuse banana it intellegent sdesign for peopl to eat it. Ignore scientific fact lik "wild bananas have seeds" adn "domesticated bananas are infertile. They have gone through selective breeding and cultivation". Factul evidenc and logick are evil and is maded up by evil athiest bavy eate.

Ther many typ of evilution:

Microevilution: Only tru one of al thos!
Macroevilution: Thery that cat com after dog eat catfish, and dogs giv birt to cat. It is lie!!!!11!!!!!
Stellar evilution: All 1000000000000000000 observed instance are evil liezzz!
Mater evilution: That heavir mater evilve from hydrogen. It impossible, abnd the sun is not exactly doin ir righ now, becux sun does nopt hav nucler fusion in core, insted it run on fart gass!

Eviluton says tha noting exploded int somting, and den planet form trough random chans becuz gravit dont exist so it must be random and not cause by mater attractin eachother, then a ightnin strik pudle of penut buter, then lif spontanousl evilv from non biolog mater, then whale cam out of sea and turn into cow! IT clarly lie!

If people cam from monkey why ar the stil arong? Chekmatt athist! U cult is fail!

The eath is perfec and intelegant design. it only plac where water exist in univers. The water vapor in ceres http://en.wikipedia.org... and water in ice in comet http://en.wikipedia.org... are lies!!!!11!!!11 There also no water in moon soil either! All are lie!

There is no transiton fossl! All transitional fosil here: http://www.talkorigins.org... are lies maded up by NSA, FBI, CIA, etc. as a pat of projec blu bemm to institut wrold odor of anticritz!

All evidence for evilushun is lie and I deny them all

Evilutin evil conspirac. any support and evidenc its fail. It should not be taugnt in schol becuz it just a THERY!!!1!!!!!1!1!!1!!!! Eviluton will destruction of 'Murica, and will magicaly turn everybody homosexual and socialst world odor wil destroy fredum. It part of projec blu bemm to fak a secon coming, and OOBBBBAAAMMMAAAAAA is behid this!

If eviluton taught in schol, then natral disaster and ten prednacy mor comon becuz corelation = causaton wen I say!!11!!!111!!

wE th peple aar bein oppres by govment and we ned to tech cretion in schol becuz it mos falsifible evr.

Anyways:

There is empirical evidence for evolution. Many peer reviewed, independent studies are online for you to look at. There are a few sources that argue for evolution, which cite good sources, such as Talk.Origins.

An example is http://www.talkorigins.org... . It contains articles about transitional fossils, avatisms, etc. and links to other articles if you want to go in depth, and they cite good studies.

It is the evil ilerminaty that are tricking people into believing into the EVILution lie.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 6:20:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 11:13:06 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:15:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:06:48 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

A. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not Darwinism.

Lol yes it is. Darwin advocated evolution via natural selection. I didn't even read his book and I know this, didn't you?

It is not. Darwin's discoveries set the ball rolling, but they do not constitute today's science. If you wish to discuss this topic, you need to get with the times. I don't debate quantum physics using Newtons theories, I don't debate calculus using Pythagoras, and I don't debate biology using Darwin.

Ask anybody what Darwinism is, and they will tell you Evolution via Natural Selection.

I didn't say pure Darwinism constituted today's science. But if you want to feel smart, just keep erecting strawmen.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 6:42:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 6:20:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 11:13:06 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:15:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:06:48 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

A. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not Darwinism.

Lol yes it is. Darwin advocated evolution via natural selection. I didn't even read his book and I know this, didn't you?

It is not. Darwin's discoveries set the ball rolling, but they do not constitute today's science. If you wish to discuss this topic, you need to get with the times. I don't debate quantum physics using Newtons theories, I don't debate calculus using Pythagoras, and I don't debate biology using Darwin.

Ask anybody what Darwinism is, and they will tell you Evolution via Natural Selection.

Bandwagon fallacy


I didn't say pure Darwinism constituted today's science. But if you want to feel smart, just keep erecting strawmen.

You are the one straw manning here. I never said that you did. Pick what you are going to debate, Darwin or modern science? Two different things.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 6:45:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 6:42:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:20:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 11:13:06 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:15:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:06:48 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

A. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not Darwinism.

Lol yes it is. Darwin advocated evolution via natural selection. I didn't even read his book and I know this, didn't you?

It is not. Darwin's discoveries set the ball rolling, but they do not constitute today's science. If you wish to discuss this topic, you need to get with the times. I don't debate quantum physics using Newtons theories, I don't debate calculus using Pythagoras, and I don't debate biology using Darwin.

Ask anybody what Darwinism is, and they will tell you Evolution via Natural Selection.

Bandwagon fallacy

You don't get to accuse me of bandwagon fallacies whenever you have been appealing to authority in almost every single debate.


I didn't say pure Darwinism constituted today's science. But if you want to feel smart, just keep erecting strawmen.

You are the one straw manning here. I never said that you did. Pick what you are going to debate, Darwin or modern science? Two different things.

So modern science doesn't promote evolution via Natural Selection, aka Darwinism?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 6:52:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 6:45:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:42:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:20:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 11:13:06 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:15:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:06:48 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

A. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not Darwinism.

Lol yes it is. Darwin advocated evolution via natural selection. I didn't even read his book and I know this, didn't you?

It is not. Darwin's discoveries set the ball rolling, but they do not constitute today's science. If you wish to discuss this topic, you need to get with the times. I don't debate quantum physics using Newtons theories, I don't debate calculus using Pythagoras, and I don't debate biology using Darwin.

Ask anybody what Darwinism is, and they will tell you Evolution via Natural Selection.

Bandwagon fallacy

You don't get to accuse me of bandwagon fallacies whenever you have been appealing to authority in almost every single debate.

Appeal to authority is only fallacious if it is false authority. If you want to tell me that scientists are false authority on the matter, then you will lose the little bit of respect I have built up for you over the past week or so.



I didn't say pure Darwinism constituted today's science. But if you want to feel smart, just keep erecting strawmen.

You are the one straw manning here. I never said that you did. Pick what you are going to debate, Darwin or modern science? Two different things.

So modern science doesn't promote evolution via Natural Selection, aka Darwinism?

No. It has deleted, modified, and expanded on Darwin's hypothesis. Calling it Darwinism is the same thing as calling modern quantum theory Newtonism.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 6:56:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 6:52:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:45:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:42:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:20:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 11:13:06 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:15:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:06:48 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

A. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not Darwinism.

Lol yes it is. Darwin advocated evolution via natural selection. I didn't even read his book and I know this, didn't you?

It is not. Darwin's discoveries set the ball rolling, but they do not constitute today's science. If you wish to discuss this topic, you need to get with the times. I don't debate quantum physics using Newtons theories, I don't debate calculus using Pythagoras, and I don't debate biology using Darwin.

Ask anybody what Darwinism is, and they will tell you Evolution via Natural Selection.

Bandwagon fallacy

You don't get to accuse me of bandwagon fallacies whenever you have been appealing to authority in almost every single debate.

Appeal to authority is only fallacious if it is false authority. If you want to tell me that scientists are false authority on the matter, then you will lose the little bit of respect I have built up for you over the past week or so.

The authority of scientists lends them credibility until shown otherwise, not infallibility. If I'm not allowed to dispute the scientific consensus because of their authority, then I'm not allowed to debate Evolution, which is absurd.



I didn't say pure Darwinism constituted today's science. But if you want to feel smart, just keep erecting strawmen.

You are the one straw manning here. I never said that you did. Pick what you are going to debate, Darwin or modern science? Two different things.

So modern science doesn't promote evolution via Natural Selection, aka Darwinism?

No. It has deleted, modified, and expanded on Darwin's hypothesis. Calling it Darwinism is the same thing as calling modern quantum theory Newtonism.

And Neo-Darwinism has deleted, modified, and expanded on ITSELF. You mean to tell me that Neo-Darwinism isn't modern science?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:15:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 6:56:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:52:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:45:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:42:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:20:14 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 11:13:06 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:15:37 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/27/2014 11:06:48 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:07:53 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
I demand empirical evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection, otherwise I cannot believe in this religion.

A. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not Darwinism.

Lol yes it is. Darwin advocated evolution via natural selection. I didn't even read his book and I know this, didn't you?

It is not. Darwin's discoveries set the ball rolling, but they do not constitute today's science. If you wish to discuss this topic, you need to get with the times. I don't debate quantum physics using Newtons theories, I don't debate calculus using Pythagoras, and I don't debate biology using Darwin.

Ask anybody what Darwinism is, and they will tell you Evolution via Natural Selection.

Bandwagon fallacy

You don't get to accuse me of bandwagon fallacies whenever you have been appealing to authority in almost every single debate.

Appeal to authority is only fallacious if it is false authority. If you want to tell me that scientists are false authority on the matter, then you will lose the little bit of respect I have built up for you over the past week or so.

The authority of scientists lends them credibility until shown otherwise, not infallibility. If I'm not allowed to dispute the scientific consensus because of their authority, then I'm not allowed to debate Evolution, which is absurd.

I didn't say that. I merely point out that while both Of us may appeal to authority on the matter (scientists), neither of us may use a bandwagon fallacy.




I didn't say pure Darwinism constituted today's science. But if you want to feel smart, just keep erecting strawmen.

You are the one straw manning here. I never said that you did. Pick what you are going to debate, Darwin or modern science? Two different things.

So modern science doesn't promote evolution via Natural Selection, aka Darwinism?

No. It has deleted, modified, and expanded on Darwin's hypothesis. Calling it Darwinism is the same thing as calling modern quantum theory Newtonism.

And Neo-Darwinism has deleted, modified, and expanded on ITSELF. You mean to tell me that Neo-Darwinism isn't modern science?

I am under the impression that you just made the term up. I will not entertain this, just as I would not entertain someone calling modern quantum theory "neo-Newtonism".
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:17:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 7:15:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:56:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:52:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:45:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:42:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:

You are the one straw manning here. I never said that you did. Pick what you are going to debate, Darwin or modern science? Two different things.

So modern science doesn't promote evolution via Natural Selection, aka Darwinism?

No. It has deleted, modified, and expanded on Darwin's hypothesis. Calling it Darwinism is the same thing as calling modern quantum theory Newtonism.

And Neo-Darwinism has deleted, modified, and expanded on ITSELF. You mean to tell me that Neo-Darwinism isn't modern science?

I am under the impression that you just made the term up. I will not entertain this, just as I would not entertain someone calling modern quantum theory "neo-Newtonism".

Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics


http://www.princeton.edu...
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:24:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 7:17:46 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:15:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:56:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:52:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:45:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:42:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:

You are the one straw manning here. I never said that you did. Pick what you are going to debate, Darwin or modern science? Two different things.

So modern science doesn't promote evolution via Natural Selection, aka Darwinism?

No. It has deleted, modified, and expanded on Darwin's hypothesis. Calling it Darwinism is the same thing as calling modern quantum theory Newtonism.

And Neo-Darwinism has deleted, modified, and expanded on ITSELF. You mean to tell me that Neo-Darwinism isn't modern science?

I am under the impression that you just made the term up. I will not entertain this, just as I would not entertain someone calling modern quantum theory "neo-Newtonism".

Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics


http://www.princeton.edu...

I concede that you did not coin the term.

However, I think you should have read the entire article before you posted it. It refutes the use of the term as incorrect.

This idea of "neo Darwinism" is 110 years old. Obsolete and irrelevant.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:32:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 7:24:20 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:17:46 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:15:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:56:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:52:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:45:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:42:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:

You are the one straw manning here. I never said that you did. Pick what you are going to debate, Darwin or modern science? Two different things.

So modern science doesn't promote evolution via Natural Selection, aka Darwinism?

No. It has deleted, modified, and expanded on Darwin's hypothesis. Calling it Darwinism is the same thing as calling modern quantum theory Newtonism.

And Neo-Darwinism has deleted, modified, and expanded on ITSELF. You mean to tell me that Neo-Darwinism isn't modern science?

I am under the impression that you just made the term up. I will not entertain this, just as I would not entertain someone calling modern quantum theory "neo-Newtonism".

Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics


http://www.princeton.edu...

I concede that you did not coin the term.

However, I think you should have read the entire article before you posted it. It refutes the use of the term as incorrect.

This idea of "neo Darwinism" is 110 years old. Obsolete and irrelevant.

Then why was it used in 2010? http://jp.physoc.org...
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:35:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 7:32:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:24:20 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:17:46 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:15:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:56:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:52:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:45:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:42:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:

You are the one straw manning here. I never said that you did. Pick what you are going to debate, Darwin or modern science? Two different things.

So modern science doesn't promote evolution via Natural Selection, aka Darwinism?

No. It has deleted, modified, and expanded on Darwin's hypothesis. Calling it Darwinism is the same thing as calling modern quantum theory Newtonism.

And Neo-Darwinism has deleted, modified, and expanded on ITSELF. You mean to tell me that Neo-Darwinism isn't modern science?

I am under the impression that you just made the term up. I will not entertain this, just as I would not entertain someone calling modern quantum theory "neo-Newtonism".

Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics


http://www.princeton.edu...

I concede that you did not coin the term.

However, I think you should have read the entire article before you posted it. It refutes the use of the term as incorrect.

This idea of "neo Darwinism" is 110 years old. Obsolete and irrelevant.

Then why was it used in 2010? http://jp.physoc.org...

I stand corrected.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:53:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 7:35:05 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:32:31 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:24:20 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:17:46 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:15:55 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:56:35 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:52:30 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:45:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/28/2014 6:42:47 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:

You are the one straw manning here. I never said that you did. Pick what you are going to debate, Darwin or modern science? Two different things.

So modern science doesn't promote evolution via Natural Selection, aka Darwinism?

No. It has deleted, modified, and expanded on Darwin's hypothesis. Calling it Darwinism is the same thing as calling modern quantum theory Newtonism.

And Neo-Darwinism has deleted, modified, and expanded on ITSELF. You mean to tell me that Neo-Darwinism isn't modern science?

I am under the impression that you just made the term up. I will not entertain this, just as I would not entertain someone calling modern quantum theory "neo-Newtonism".

Neo-Darwinism is a term used to describe the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics


http://www.princeton.edu...

I concede that you did not coin the term.

However, I think you should have read the entire article before you posted it. It refutes the use of the term as incorrect.

This idea of "neo Darwinism" is 110 years old. Obsolete and irrelevant.

Then why was it used in 2010? http://jp.physoc.org...

I stand corrected.

Thanks.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 9:33:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 11:13:06 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:

It is not. Darwin's discoveries set the ball rolling, but they do not constitute today's science. If you wish to discuss this topic, you need to get with the times. I don't debate quantum physics using Newtons theories, I don't debate calculus using Pythagoras, and I don't debate biology using Darwin.

This is twisted reasoning. Obviously, 'Darwinism' is the term long used for the theory of evolution by natural selection as presented by Darwin. Scientists have built on that but that hardly makes the term irrelevant. The same applies to Newtonian mechanics and Pythagoras' theorem which still remain relevant (in their domains) today; as is thought of Darwinism.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 10:23:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:33:14 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 1/28/2014 11:13:06 AM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:

It is not. Darwin's discoveries set the ball rolling, but they do not constitute today's science. If you wish to discuss this topic, you need to get with the times. I don't debate quantum physics using Newtons theories, I don't debate calculus using Pythagoras, and I don't debate biology using Darwin.

This is twisted reasoning. Obviously, 'Darwinism' is the term long used for the theory of evolution by natural selection as presented by Darwin. Scientists have built on that but that hardly makes the term irrelevant. The same applies to Newtonian mechanics and Pythagoras' theorem which still remain relevant (in their domains) today; as is thought of Darwinism.

Also, if the Theory of Evolution is not falsified, but modified (as most proponents claim), as certain aspects of it are falsified, then this means that the Theory of Evolution remains the Theory of Evolution no matter how much it is changed.

Which means that the Theory of Evolution has been the Theory of Evolution since Darwin invented it, and since it was certainly Darwinism back when it was invented, it remains Darwinism today.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...