Jaim, you are the guy after a big fight that says, “sorry, I was parking the car”, then gives everyone a high five.

Impaler, you aren’t even smart enough to make a stupid argument, this is word salad from the Sarah Palin Institute of Technology (SPIT). Frankly, no one cares what you believe, because your beliefs are a pile of nonsense atop a steaming mound of feces. If you educate yourself far more thoroughly and demonstrate a bit of thought, then maybe your beliefs might be worth the electrons you’re currently wasting. But no one here is holding his/her breath.

We’re done here.

I give up.

Don’t bet on it.

Well can you at least agree to the fact that the Scopes Monkey trial was fraud, for entertainment, PR, and money.

“No doubt you can imagine a situation where some deity creates everything just like this 5000 years ago just to confuse scientists, planting fossils, designing similar DNA, etc, or you can try to think and learn and consider how things could have actually happened.”

I do not believe this either this is just a popular argument used by detractors, that appeals to simple folk, to sway them to a belief in evolution.

“The hell it doesn’t, the fact that I could sequence everyone on earth and identify your parents and children doesn’t mean anything?”

Right, I agree with you. natural selection and the other laws, mentioned or inferred, are true. Just not evolution, of species, the speciation argument, when observed goes back to my theory of Evolution of Theory, argument you cannot disagree that there is much debate among scientists, today as to how to even define a Species, (again moving definition target) BSC is one. Or Phenetec, or one of the other concepts to describe what a Species is. I prefer if they can interbreed argument, but hey I am just one guy.

Insert tag line here!

Did you read the rest of that article? You know, the evidence from nine different fields of study that support the evolution of the whale from terrestrial mammals? Did you try to understand any of those arguments, or did you just dismiss the best scientific minds in the country with your “Thus speaks the Impaler” schtick?

The hell it doesn’t, the fact that I could sequence everyone on earth and identify your parents and children doesn’t mean anything? Were I a defense attorney, I’d definitely want you in the jury. You have the perfect blend of ignorance and arrogance with which to obscure clear scientific data.

No doubt you can imagine a situation where some deity creates everything just like this 5000 years ago just to confuse scientists, planting fossils, designing similar DNA, etc, or you can try to think and learn and consider how things could have actually happened. What you’re doing requires ignorance and a good bit of plugging your ears and screaming “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!!”.

Crusty, you can’t reproduce it because it doesn’t happen that way. DNA are the building blocks of life, it doesn’t mean that I am related to it because I have the similar DNA sequencing, I like the Lego example I use in person, with Lego’s I can build a tree, I can build, a cat, I can build a monument to myself, the only thing they would have in common is the blocks, and me, the creator, any way that is why I said DNA a separate discussion.

So Evolves Impaler!

FWIW, genetics (that tricky DNA you don’t want to get into, Impaler) provides pretty awesome evidence of evolution. Look at proteins that are identical (or nearly so) from mouse to man, despite a large number of non-coding mutations. One of the best examples is a protein that is identical in man and mouse, yet has 42 non-coding mutations. Other genes show little change to their proteins, while some show nearly complete reconstruction, suggest that changes led to evolutionary development. Do you have an alternative theory, Impaler?

Of course, Impaler is going to suggest that nothing is proof because we don’t have pictures from 30 million years ago and can’t perform whale evolution in the lab. Because he’s a twit.

Don’t bet on it.

Here.

And if you’d like to read a detailed explanation, I recommend this.

If you would have followed my posts (read them), you would know why I am here. I am just sharpening my claws to get back into the political game, Oh the science stuff, no PhD, like Grits, but, you don’t practice for a fight with easy opponents, I will not need a Teleprompter to feed me answers, nor, retorts. People here know, I am confident I am. What kind of CEO, or politician would I be if I wasn’t? Oh and that is my real picture posted.

This Jaim is my game. What is yours!

So sayeth the Crusty Crab! (crabby patty anyone)

So the theories of evolution and gravity might change in the future. This doesn’t invalidate their current explanatory power, or the fact that they are verifiable through research.

And your idiotic wall-of-text demonstrates that your are a pea-brain when it comes to science.

Great at astrophysics, suck at reading comprehension, in the post I said, ‘but what I can tell you is the only evolution that has occurred is the term theory” even you cannot argue with this, a generation ago or so, the terms Law, Theory, scientific, or for that matter evolution, these words are the evolution here as I stated.

I personally believe its laziness, “oh yea you know theory, law, hypothesis, yes that’s what I do, I created the language of evolution, can I buy you a drink?”.

Now, let me explain the second part of my post. (“The Theory of evolution as proposed has parts that work and parts that don’t. For instance people think that “survival of the fittest” is evolution, it is not, it is part of the process used by Darwin to try and explain (theorize) how a Species changes, (evolves).”)

Well I was posting for Indeed, so I was keeping it simple. (No insult intended). When the debate started on Creationism v. Darwinism, there was a group, let’s call them atheists, that in that time would like nothing better than to prove, then push the Darwin’s theory of evolution, and erase G_D from the landscape.

So back to the Theory of Evolution, the Law of Natural Selection is deemed this way, because it is verifiable in the Life Science arena, this when later coupled with Mendel’s laws, again why did they call it Mendel’s Laws? Because, Mendel’s work was rediscovered and his experiments where replicated (easy, grits, keeping it simple) with the same results. This created a powerful combination to try and push the Theory of Evolution. In fact, as the Theory of Evolution evolved, it would pick up other pieces along the way, Speciation, DNA (whole other subject), and others, but instead of saying, “oh that occurs because of the Law of Natural Selection”,people say, (and we have all heard this used in the classroom, media, and by politicians), “oh that’s the proof of Evolution, it’s not a theory it’s a fact.”

And do not confuse the folks here, with Astrophysics. The realm of your field of study, has many more laws, and is far more predictive mathematically, than Life Sciences, the current scientific community cannot even agree on the mathematics with Speciation, let alone, finding a missing link. Professor, if you would have read the rest of the post, I specifically asked for a mammalian example to be given, we know it can’t be given, it’s either undiscovered or does not exist. (trick question for Indeed). No, Evolution and Speciation (uncomfortably similar), which means if it occurred; the two related but now separate species cannot mate. You know let’s just say 4.2 million years ago there was a common ancestor and today one is a chimp and the other is human, the two cannot mate. But, if that occurred, (whole other set of problems) not the least of which could be spontaneous abortion, then where is the missing link, and the chain of evidence, no it does not exist, (or undiscovered).

Moving the Goal Post (go bolts) on the definition to make it a reality, is scientific fraud of the highest level. Oh and for those of interest I am going to post definitions over time so the Professor here and the rest of you can witness Impaler’s Law of evolutionary theory! Well, maybe not, don’t want to inflame the Comparative Literature Department, now do we.

Law

A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

Theory

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971).

A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding (“explain”) a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984)

The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990)

An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995)

Evolution (now this is funny)
“In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.”
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

“In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

“evolution: …the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower..” – Chambers (no date but older dictionary)

“evolution: …the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny” – Webster’s

I will find older definitions to further prove my theory, and post them soon, But scientist do this all the time, they are looking for grant money, and fame to get more grant money, part of my observations of my theory is in how good scientists have became at marketing, I remember when I was in the sixth grade and my science teacher was telling us the we descended from Neanderthals (we know no this to be false, or at least seriously questioned, wow grits accually has me being cautious), that the world was subject to overpopulation because some idiot with the newly created calculator, (perhaps it evolved from a grain of sand) did some math to say that by 2020, there would be starvation and 10’s of billions of people, and it would cause us to suffer a new ice age, ok it was a sixth grade class. But, they are good at marketing and getting you to believe them.

So my example and observation for my theory, Al Gore did not invent the Internet, but he did invent global warming, (different argument, relax) and when things started to go wrong with his theory, and he could not prove the existence of global warming, then it evolved into, (everyone say it with me) Global Climate Change, why you may ask, he could not prove his theory of Global Warming. What idiot would argue against Global Climate Change, the Climate changes every nanosecond. Its all Marketing people.

Oh and one more note, I am sure the Professor here will back me up on this, speaking of fraud and marketing, when you think of evolution, one usually (public education) thinks of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, the battle between atheist evolutionists and divine creation, this was a marketing hoax to make money and increase the population of the town it was held in, Oh and who do you think sponsored the event and staged this event, (and I am sure profited from it), none other than the ACLU, thats right 80+ years ago these little bastards were shaping public policy. Yep the same people who want G_D out of our lives, what a coincidence. Not!

So Sayeth the Impaler!

Of course, ignorance is understandable (and frankly, expected coming from a first-rate wingnut troll), but only a truly egomaniacal and obtuse douchebag would introduce it with the statement “I do not have time to educate you in biology”.

Do you even know who Kuhn is? Did you even finish high school you blathering, useless idiot?