Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Here you go again, It has never been observed or recorded but since there is probability that it happens then you assume it did. whether it can happen is non of my concern anything can happen, the question is DID it happen, was there an experiment that proved it happen. Either way coming to a conclusion based on a hypothesis or a small probability without any proof is not scientific so curse and swear as much as you want because you have no "PROOF".
You're a lying ass. Just one page ago you were trying to disprove evolution with the idea that it's statistically unlikely that evolution has occured...and when I show you that possibility exists, suddenly statistics aren't the question anymore.
Hmm.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Even in the case of Complex Specified Information, Intelligent Design does not conform to the scientific method. It does not qualify as a scientific theory because it is not testable, it is not falsifiable, and it does not make predictions about natural phenomena. It it a waste of time, just like you.
👆
Modern studies in Cosmology and Abiogenisis have demonstrated teh accuracy of evolutionary theory.
Complexity does not define intelligence, rather intelligence defines complexity.
For example, the average strand of DNA consists of thousands of nucleotides, made up of various phosphates, chemicals and what not. About 1.5 percent of the Human Genome contains DNA that map's various proteins found within the DNA strand. Why would anyone think that such a process was designed?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Speciation is macroevolution.
I was waiting for you to post that, actually your wrong.
Macro evolution is is a type of speciation were mutations supposedly create new traits and a species barrier is created, not once have have you demonstrated that.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
You're a lying ass. Just one page ago you were trying to disprove evolution with the idea that it's statistically unlikely that evolution has occured...and when I show you that possibility exists, suddenly statistics aren't the question anymore.Hmm.
I quoted in argument, I never said with my on letters that it's statistically impossible.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneI quoted in argument, I never said with my on letters that it's statistically impossible.
I don't think you understand what you're saying. You are trying to tell me evolution is false because it's statistically unlikely. So what if it is?? It is not impossible, as has been shown and admitted. Whether it's unlikely is irrelevant.
It's unlikely that a person will be struck by lightning 7 times...but it's happened.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I don't think you understand what you're saying. You are trying to tell me evolution is false because it's statistically unlikely. So what if it is?? It is not impossible, as has been shown and admitted. Whether it's unlikely is irrelevant.It's unlikely that a person will be struck by lightning 7 times...but it's happened.
I didn't say evolution was impossible "EVER", What I've been trying to ask you the whole time despite everyone's bashing of me is what experiment proved or recorded mutations creating traits that result in speciation aka macro evolution, without that experiment you cannot arrive to a conclusion.I think everyone taking this way to seriously and alot of miscommunaction via text has been made.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I didn't say evolution was impossible "EVER", What I've been trying to ask you the whole time despite everyone's bashing of me is what experiment proved or recorded mutations creating traits that result in speciation aka macro evolution, without that experiment you cannot arrive to a conclusion.
Then what the hell was that whole rant of Complex what-the-****-ever about if you didn't mean that? If it's irrelevant, don't bring it up.
I'd like you know how you support micro-evolution, and then bash macro-evolution, and in turn say evolution is false. Its a little contradictory.
I already explained DNA copying errors to you, which result in mutations. If a DNA wrongly copies a trait, like let's say its supposed to copy the code for normal nails, but a protein is encoded improperly, it could result in denser claw like finger nails. zOMG 'tis a new trait! claws in a human NOES IT CANT BE TRU!11!!
Also, fortunately for you, the experiment is ongoing indefenitly. Like I said, which you flat out refuse to accept for some unknown reason, it takes time. Scientists have found, are finding, and will continue to find evidence that SUPPORTS evolution, and until they find undisputable evidence that denies evolution, it will continue to be the most acceptable theory we have.
The problem is that you can't prove a negative(which is what you're trying to do by trying to disprove evolution), so until we have evidence that supports a positive that contradicts evolution, its the best bet.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Then what the hell was that whole rant of Complex what-the-****-ever about if you didn't mean that? If it's irrelevant, don't bring it up.
It is relevant, it was proof of ID.
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakI'd like you know how you support micro-evolution, and then bash macro-evolution, and in turn say evolution is false. Its a little contradictory.
.
Not really micro evolution is genetic variation just because it's hypothesised to be connected with macro evolution then you and everyone else have come to the conclusion that it is. You need in experiment showing Micro-evolution becoming macro-evolution and don't give that "Millions of years rubbish" you CANNOT draw a conclusion from a hypothesis.Show me mutations creating traits
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I already explained DNA copying errors to you, which result in mutations. If a DNA wrongly copies a trait, like let's say its supposed to copy the code for normal nails, but a protein is encoded improperly, it could result in denser claw like finger nails. zOMG 'tis a new trait! claws in a human NOES IT CANT BE TRU!11!!
Sorry your wrong a mutated trait is not a new trait, and point mutations generally don't effect phenotype, go ahead and try to prove otherwise.
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakAlso, fortunately for you, the experiment is ongoing indefenitly. Like I said, which you flat out refuse to accept for some unknown reason, it takes time. Scientists have found, are finding, and will continue to find evidence that SUPPORTS evolution, and until they find undisputable evidence that denies evolution, it will continue to be the most acceptable theory we have.
So if an experiment is going to to prove evolution, how did you come to the conclusion evolution is true?
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakThe problem is that you can't prove a negative(which is what you're trying to do by trying to disprove evolution), so until we have evidence that supports a positive that contradicts evolution, its the best bet.
Why do I have to disprove something that hasn't been proven, you yourself said experiments are underway so in other words it hasn't been proven.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
I was waiting for you to post that, actually your wrong.
Macro evolution is is a type of speciation were mutations supposedly create new traits and a species barrier is created, not once have have you demonstrated that.I quoted in argument, I never said with my on letters that it's statistically impossible.
Kid, you haven't got a clue about what it is you're talking about. Please study up on evolution.