(T)ain't that an odd thing to study?
Please note the ".gov" in the address. I think you can answer your own question now.
(T)ain't that an odd thing to study?
Please note the ".gov" in the address. I think you can answer your own question now.
If all you do is take the ".gov" and think it is a government study then you would be mistaken. You should also look at the NIH (National Institute of Health) before the ".gov." All it indicates is that the researchers applied for and got funding from a government agency. To imply that this is a government study because of the funding or the web address without further proof is disingenuous.
If all you do is take the ".gov" and think it is a government study then you would be mistaken. You should also look at the NIH (National Institute of Health) before the ".gov." All it indicates is that the researchers applied for and got funding from a government agency. To imply that this is a government study because of the funding or the web address without further proof is disingenuous.
So is misinterpreting my obvious joke as being a serious review. Because in all seriousness, the government has never been known to study any odd and/or irrelevant items since their inception.
They also did unethical experiments on the same as well as prisoners all without notifying anyone...
We have such a nice govt. here in the U.S...
Its fun to note that in the early 80's and before the United States intentionally sterilized the less desirable portions of the population at such fun places as free clinics and govt. funded hospitals...
They also did unethical experiments on the same as well as prisoners all without notifying anyone...
We have such a nice govt. here in the U.S...
It goes with the times. Government all over the world did these things.
It is not necessarely the government the problem, but the whole who run it or the spirit of the times. Ethics vary alot from epochs. Like slavery was acceptable in the past but isn't anymore.
O.k. what the hell? You are actually making comments that aren't meant to antagonize people and are generally acting... dare I say it... rational. Did you get laid?
While there may be a difference between being critical of the U.S. and being Anti-U.S., you come off as anti-U.S. Again, it has to o with the manner in which you choose to communicate your points of view, not the actual points of view. I've told you this before, but you choose to ignore it.
The way you choose to communicate your ideas probably has a lot to do with why you keep on having to create new screen names. At first, I thought it was funny. Then I thought it was stupid and people just being jerks. But now, after it continues to happen so often... I'm going to say it's your fault. You get the type of response that you bait for.
An I have controversial opinions. People, you included, take them for bait. The majority of the people here lean right, weither they realize it or not, it is normal that they feel antagonized.
Should I consider the Kancer Kid thread to be bait directed toward me? Iqwinn started it, it is not a secret I am critical of the military and of human interest stories.
If you walk around dowsed in gasoline, you can hardly blame other people if you burst into flames just because they strike a match to light a candle.
An I have controversial opinions. People, you included, take them for bait. The majority of the people here lean right, weither they realize it or not, it is normal that they feel antagonized.
Should I consider the Kancer Kid thread to be bait directed toward me? Iqwinn started it, it is not a secret I am critical of the military and of human interest stories.
No, your opinions aren't controversial. They are trite. You are hardly the first to have voiced such opinions.
It is the manner in which you present those opinions that is so distasteful. I doubt that Iqwinn was thinking about you when he posted that thread up. If you want to use a thread as an example, look at the various threads that RH started titled "things that make me proud to be an American." Those were meant as obvious bait and were probably directed at Boraxe for the Canadian thread about not allowing Fox-style news in Canada.
In the cancer kid thread, you purposefully baited Iqwinn and probably tried to do the same to RH. You fail to see that others can see that PR probably had something to do with why the Army sent a couple of soldiers and what they did for the kid. However, it is not the only reason they went out there. You want to take this hard-line PR it was a PR stunt only because the military only kills people and can never ever ever... did you say ever??? Yes.... ever ever ever never do anything good. That is just being stupid. You may want to read the other posts. Others have mentioned that the possible PR possibly helped to get this going. You will of course refute this and say that everyone is against you and that the whole thing was only a PR stunt because it was done by the military. Meh... it's pointless debating with people that take such a stupid stance. If you can't allow for possibilities, what is the point in discussing it?
And I would allow for other possibilities, if other people would actually consider other possibilities then their own. And you know what? Sometimes, other possibilities shouldn't be considered, because they do not exist.
I allow for the possibility that this is absolutely hysterical.
And I would allow for other possibilities, if other people would actually consider other possibilities then their own. And you know what? Sometimes, other possibilities shouldn't be considered, because they do not exist.
I allow for the possibility that this is absolutely hysterical.
Do you think that saying all races are equal, that men and women are equal, that homosexuals are equal to hetereosexual is hysterical?
Now, to say equal doesn't close the door to saying differences exist,
LOL. You are funny.
Did you know that if you turn left 90 degrees, three times, that it is the same as turning right 90 degrees once. Well, it's the same, but it's not the same.
No, not baiting, calling it has I see it.
I know what I am saying isn't new, but people here sure react like it's new. I'll PM you something.
And I would allow for other possibilities, if other people would actually consider other possibilities then their own. And you know what? Sometimes, other possibilities shouldn't be considered, because they do not exist.
Other possibilities always exist. Tha is why they are possibilities.
Fox does lie and that palm tree footage was manipulation. To say otherwise is either you are a liar or stupid. End of the ****en story.
It's a possibility. They may lie about somethings, but they may also tell the truth about others. The problem is that most people don't recognize which are the actual news shows on Fox. Glenn Beck... not a news show. He is a political comentator that makes his money by exagerating certain things and minimizing others. He may have news events on his show, but his show is not a news show.
Evolution doesn't exist and is a conspiracy by scientist? You are either stupid or a liar. End of story.
Such extremism. There is always that evolution exist but varies from wha we have come to understand as evolution. When the aliens come, they will explain things.
The army's fonction is to kill and dominate, other stuff and PR stunt are their to make you forget that. The army ain't your friend, it will be used against you if you do not play by the rules set by those in power. ****en wake up.
The Egyptian military begs to differ.
The army's fonction is to kill and dominate, other stuff and PR stunt are their to make you forget that. The army ain't your friend, it will be used against you if you do not play by the rules set by those in power. ****en wake up.
The Egyptian military begs to differ.
They are the ones governing right now. Still no signs of elections. Only promesses.
For the rest, what you said doesn't really con tradict what I said.
As of yet there are no elections, true. This does not mean that the Egyptian military wants to or will be the permanent rulers of Egypt. Is it possible that they may become the future permanent rulers? Yes. Is it possible that they will not? Yes.
The point is that your assumption that the military is only a killing machine that is used to oppress the people by those in power is a false claim. The Egyptian military proves you wrong. You, however, will not allow for that possibility even when it presents itself.
Well first off the powers in place can change, it doesn't mean that the military isn't a thread to the population anymore. A change in the elite might satisfy and calm the population, but if things do not actually change and the people go in the streets again, who knows what the miliatry will do.
What they will do, and what they have done are tw odifferent things. The Egyptian military may go on a killing spree, killing people in alphabetical order. It is a possibility. What actually happened is another story. The military did not do the will of the elite. Point stands.
And I can admit that the military has other uses. I am use to discussing stuff with people who won't admit anything, so I just copy them.
So you act stupid because other people are being stupid? How does this help you make a point?
Québec in 1970 was occupied by the Canadian army, rights were suspended with the war mesure act and they arrested 400+ innocent people.
Yet in 1998 the miliraty once again came into Québec to help during a terrible Ice Storm that cut electricity to ten of thousand of people for days during winter. The military helped. But do you need people with guns when natural disasters strikes?
Sometimes, yes, you do. It depends on how severe the natural disaster was. Sometimes the guns are needed to maintain order. You may not go out and try to loot other people's stuff; However, there are plenty of people that will.
So out of curioaity... were the Canadian soldiers shooting down trees that were heavy with snow? Did a family get killed by a thrown granade meant for a terrorist oak tree?
A pragmatic solution is to always watch your military, have them on a short leash, limite powers and budget, not build a cult around them, and not tell yourself stories about them, they are trained to kill and to assert the elite's power when need be.
I'll give you this, soldiers are trained to kill. They are also trained to do many more than just kill.
But I do find a contractiction in some of your compatriote's glorification of the Army. On the one hand they love it and only have praise for it, yet they want guns to fight a possible tyrannical government. But those guns will be used against the Army. It is not like you just go to Washington, shoot Congress and start anew.
Some people make no sense. You stereotype based on a few extremist then start crying because some people base their views on Muslims on what a few extremist do. You know... you would probably fit right in on Fox News.
Their is some extremist here, but also alot of bad faith and dishonesty. Arguing to win instead of actually exchanging ideas. Like they do on Fox.
You seem to throw that word "dishonesty" around a lot. I am starting to think that you don't know what it means. You seem to use it most frequently when people disagree with your opinion. I've seen a lot of genuine discussions that you take to that level awfully quick.
Considering that you don't know each and every person here, and you have no way to determine their motivations or their knowledge, you're probably best served sticking to the actual discussion rather than calling them liars and stupid. Elevating to that level so quickly really doesn't do anything except put on display that you've run out of points to make on the topic and shows that you really are close-minded. That's fine if you are close-minded. You just don't need to add simple-minded to the list.
Just so you are aware, when you call someone that is not lying a liar, I believe that makes you the liar.
Not exactly. Some of the elite wanted the change of the head of state. To calm the people, to have a shot at power, becasue the ywant democraty. They put pressure on teh military, you can be sure and right now some all sort of pressure is being applied to the military. We shall see who wins.
Assumptions without proof. We can come up with a thousand different ways to rationalize what happened, it is irrelevant. We are not discussing who is in power. We are discussing the way militaries are used. Point stands. The military Is not only for killing.
I realized a while it is not about making a point or convincing people. I still try but it is futile for the most part. Debates on forums aren't about an honest exchange of ideas. This is the cynic talking again.
You’ve proven that point quite well. It is pointless to try and have an honest debate or exchange of ideas with you.
Depends on the people.
Exactly. Unless you can claim that there is absolutely no crime in Quebec, there is still going to be a need to have armed personnel maintaining law and order during a natural disaster.
I imagine you are talking about the Ice Storm. The symbolism was huge to have Canadian armed troops back in Québec since 1970. Distrust was big.
Of course. Why would I care what happens to the hippies in the 70’s?
I agree. They can also wound, torture, occupy, indimidate...
So can anyone else. This is not an exclusive activity of the military. Weren’t there some separatists from Quebec that kidnapped and killed some politician? Wasn’t he held for a while and tormented before he was killed? I’m sure you could find plenty of articles about people that are not in the military (ordinary, everyday people) who have done much worse.
They can also bring medical supplies and food, provide various aid. But this is not the "real" use of soldiers. NGOs are better equiped for this sort of missions. We shouldn't under estimate how much there is a spin on what soldiers actually do on missions.
And yet, Haiti still looks like it did right after the earth quake. NGOs may have a great capability to gather money, but they have shown a severely lacking ability to effect any actual change in Haiti. I’m sure you’ll either ignore this or rationalize it away, but it doesn’t matter. The point stands. Militaries can do many other things other than fight in wars.
And leave my cushy job? Ridiculus!
Their is some extremist here, but also alot of bad faith and dishonesty. Arguing to win instead of actually exchanging ideas. Like they do on Fox.
As I said before… you would fit right in.
As I said before… you would fit right in.
Yes, and you sure are showing how being honest and exchanging ideas in good faith really works.
Talking about having a discussion in good faith...
And I can admit that the military has other uses. I am use to discussing stuff with people who won't admit anything, so I just copy them.So you act stupid because other people are being stupid? How does this help you make a point?
I realized a while it is not about making a point or convincing people. I still try but it is futile for the most part. Debates on forums aren't about an honest exchange of ideas. This is the cynic talking again.
I am always in good faith with you HS, I do not think you always are. The hippy comment for example.
I think you were trying to show me how frustrating I can be, but you failed. You were amusing.
The hippy comment was a joke. Sometimes humor doesn't translate well on the internet. in any case, I try to have good faith discussions with you, but you tend to go off the deep end a lot.
I'm less afraid of the military than I am of the people that direct the military. Ultimately those in the U.S. that direct the military are corporations. Yes you heard me right. Its corporations. They 'lobby' the politicians and get them to do what they want. The politicians tell the military what to do and pay them to do it.
Its like when the credit card companies pretty much tied politicians hands to where they couldn't regulate them. They merely threw enough money at congress that no one would vote for regulation. Finally congress got up enough gumption to actually say "we can't be bought like that" and threw down a few minor regulatory laws which were then bypassed because the wording was too selective.
So the rest of that paragraph is worthless. Sorry.
The fact that you put the word "theory" in caps reveals that you don't understand what a scientific theory is. The fact that you don't understand how science works makes it hard to take your opinions on science seriously.
So the rest of that paragraph is worthless. Sorry.
Ah yes the logical fallacy of X is slightly not done right so Y must be completely and totally wrong.
Actually a scientific theory is an idea postulated by a scientist as to the outcome of an experiment. Who then does the experiment. After the experiment they check to see if their theory is correct.
Since short of time travel we can't really prove or disprove except by current observation (which has revealed nothing) it is merely a theory.
The fact that you seem to think 'theory' means something else means you don't know what your talking about, but it doesn't invalidate any claim you have...
Care to try again?
The brilliance of Darwin was not in his theory of evolution, per se, but that he had already disproved his own theory of evolution and wrote that into the theory itself. Thus, we have the "Missing Link," which he expressed that was likely never to be found. I wonder why he was so adamant about that (hint: because there is no "missing link").
What most people aren't aware of is that there are thousands upon thousands of such "missing links" in that evolutionary ladder. One such example is the leap from non-flowering plants to flowering plants.
Result: it is absolutely concievable to believe in something other than the theory of evolution, or to believe that evolution is only one component of the truth.
Care to try again?
I would love to.
Ah yes the logical fallacy of X is slightly not done right so Y must be completely and totally wrong.
I didn't employ a logical fallacy. There are many situations in which doing something slightly wrong leads to a completely invalid result. I count science and the understanding of science among them.
Actually a scientific theory is an idea postulated by a scientist as to the outcome of an experiment. Who then does the experiment. After the experiment they check to see if their theory is correct.
If someone accuses you of not understanding what a scientific theory is, perhaps you should check to see if you know what you are talking about before you respond. What you just described is NOT a scientific theory. It is a hypothesis. I encourage you to wikipedia the meaning of scientific theory, hypothesis, and the process of science in general.
Since short of time travel we can't really prove or disprove except by current observation (which has revealed nothing) it is merely a theory.
The fact that you seem to think 'theory' means something else means you don't know what your talking about, but it doesn't invalidate any claim you have...
Since you don't know the difference between a scientific theory and the layman use of the word "theory" these sentences don't really have any value.
EDIT: I recommend checking out this link: chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/la...
Care to try again?
I would love to.Ah yes the logical fallacy of X is slightly not done right so Y must be completely and totally wrong.
I didn't employ a logical fallacy. There are many situations in which doing something slightly wrong leads to a completely invalid result. I count science and the understanding of science among them.Actually a scientific theory is an idea postulated by a scientist as to the outcome of an experiment. Who then does the experiment. After the experiment they check to see if their theory is correct.
If someone accuses you of not understanding what a scientific theory is, perhaps you should check to see if you know what you are talking about before you respond. What you just described is NOT a scientific theory. It is a hypothesis. I encourage you to wikipedia the meaning of scientific theory, hypothesis, and the process of science in general.Since short of time travel we can't really prove or disprove except by current observation (which has revealed nothing) it is merely a theory.
The fact that you seem to think 'theory' means something else means you don't know what your talking about, but it doesn't invalidate any claim you have...
Since you don't know the difference between a scientific theory and the layman use of the word "theory" these sentences don't really have any value.
EDIT: I recommend checking out this link: chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/la...
Your right about the theory versus the hypothesis. My bad.
The fallacy though is that you associate me being wrong on one completely unrelated idea for me being wrong about the entire subject. It is just an excuse...
Also your link proves my point. There has not been any "repeated testing" done on the evolutionary hypothesis. The testing that has been done has either been 'inconclusive' or outright shows that new genetic traits can't happen and that any 'evolution' is merely selective de-evolution when species lose traits.
As Jharri has said. There is not a single chain where one species 'morphs' into another. In fact its hard to find a chain of a species that changes over time. It is completly impossible to find one that shows a new trait being gained over time. Like the whole growing eyballs or jumping from an ameoba to a bacteria or whatever they are claiming was the next step. In all of the fossil record there is nothing to show this is the case. There is not even intermediary forms for these.
I'd also like to note that I'd like to leave religion out of this as it will merely get the thread shut down. We need to approach this form a purely scientific standpoint.
I'd also like to note that I'd like to leave religion out of this as it will merely get the thread shut down. We need to approach this form a purely scientific standpoint.
Does that mean that you are going to stop using religious sources that make mention of religious beliefs to support your point?
I'd also like to note that I'd like to leave religion out of this as it will merely get the thread shut down. We need to approach this form a purely scientific standpoint.
Does that mean that you are going to stop using religious sources that make mention of religious beliefs to support your point?
I'm going to use studies that follow the scientific method regardless of where they are posted on which site...
If you find flaws in the studies feel free to point them out. Simply calling them unreliable because they are on a religious site is just another form of fallacy...
... You sluts are weird.
Hey, I'm not a ****....
...anymore...
I'd also like to note that I'd like to leave religion out of this as it will merely get the thread shut down. We need to approach this form a purely scientific standpoint.
Does that mean that you are going to stop using religious sources that make mention of religious beliefs to support your point?
I'm going to use studies that follow the scientific method regardless of where they are posted on which site...
If you find flaws in the studies feel free to point them out. Simply calling them unreliable because they are on a religious site is just another form of fallacy...
Being posted on religious sites is the least of the problems with the studies you post up. you could start with how the writers of the articles you post up have this amazing ability to misinterpret any of the articles that they try to argue. Tell you what, why don't you post up one of these great articles that you like to use so we can all take a look and see how it stacks up?
I'd also like to note that I'd like to leave religion out of this as it will merely get the thread shut down. We need to approach this form a purely scientific standpoint.
Does that mean that you are going to stop using religious sources that make mention of religious beliefs to support your point?
I'm going to use studies that follow the scientific method regardless of where they are posted on which site...
If you find flaws in the studies feel free to point them out. Simply calling them unreliable because they are on a religious site is just another form of fallacy...
Being posted on religious sites is the least of the problems with the studies you post up. you could start with how the writers of the articles you post up have this amazing ability to misinterpret any of the articles that they try to argue. Tell you what, why don't you post up one of these great articles that you like to use so we can all take a look and see how it stacks up?
Why don't you go first and put up a study that shows the observed addition of a genetic trait from mutation that resulted in a positive change. You won't because they don't exist. That's the proof that evolutionists are looking for and they've done the research and found its impossible. Yet they still spout it like its some kind of dogma...
Why don't you go first and put up a study that shows the observed addition of a genetic trait from mutation that resulted in a positive change. You won't because they don't exist. That's the proof that evolutionists are looking for and they've done the research and found its impossible. Yet they still spout it like its some kind of dogma...
Not my field of specialization. If you would like a psychological study I can help you with that. If you want a study like the one you describe, I suggest you ask Shefields_park. He seems to be educated in that.
If you don't feel you have a study that can stand up to scrutiny, I can understand your fear of presenting a study. If you feel like actually supporting your study's credibility, let me know.
I'd also like to note that I'd like to leave religion out of this as it will merely get the thread shut down. We need to approach this form a purely scientific standpoint.
Does that mean that you are going to stop using religious sources that make mention of religious beliefs to support your point?
I'm going to use studies that follow the scientific method regardless of where they are posted on which site...
If you find flaws in the studies feel free to point them out. Simply calling them unreliable because they are on a religious site is just another form of fallacy...
Being posted on religious sites is the least of the problems with the studies you post up. you could start with how the writers of the articles you post up have this amazing ability to misinterpret any of the articles that they try to argue. Tell you what, why don't you post up one of these great articles that you like to use so we can all take a look and see how it stacks up?
Why don't you go first and put up a study that shows the observed addition of a genetic trait from mutation that resulted in a positive change. You won't because they don't exist. That's the proof that evolutionists are looking for and they've done the research and found its impossible. Yet they still spout it like its some kind of dogma...
Evolutionnists do not exists. The theory of evolution is used by biologists, entomotlogists, microbiologists, paleontologists, etc, to explain why certain traits are present in species.
Like microbes developping a resistance to antibiotics. Tell me, if this isn't a sign of evolution, what is it?
Its simply recessive and dominant genes taking turns. There are only so many combination's of antibiotics chemicals. In nature this can be seen with insects and plants. Insects eat the plants because they are immune to the toxins, the plants adapt and change toxins because of recessive traits, the insects die, then the insects that survive are strong against the toxins. Its a never ending cycle. A dance of recessive and dominant genes. Its basically the same with bacteria. A small amount have an immunity to the enzymes in the antibiotics which come from molds. The bacteria eats the molds, the molds with a different toxin due to a recessive gene kill the bacteria off, the bacteria with recessive genes eat the mold. Etc...Etc...
I'm too tired to look up any studies right now, but I'll come back and do it tomorrow...
Its simply recessive and dominant genes taking turns. There are only so many combination's of antibiotics chemicals. In nature this can be seen with insects and plants. Insects eat the plants because they are immune to the toxins, the plants adapt and change toxins because of recessive traits, the insects die, then the insects that survive are strong against the toxins. Its a never ending cycle. A dance of recessive and dominant genes. Its basically the same with bacteria. A small amount have an immunity to the enzymes in the antibiotics which come from molds. The bacteria eats the molds, the molds with a different toxin due to a recessive gene kill the bacteria off, the bacteria with recessive genes eat the mold. Etc...Etc...
I'm too tired to look up any studies right now, but I'll come back and do it tomorrow...
Didn't you just define evolution?
(we need Shef, or however you shorten this)
I'd also like to note that I'd like to leave religion out of this as it will merely get the thread shut down. We need to approach this form a purely scientific standpoint.
Does that mean that you are going to stop using religious sources that make mention of religious beliefs to support your point?
I'm going to use studies that follow the scientific method regardless of where they are posted on which site...
If you find flaws in the studies feel free to point them out. Simply calling them unreliable because they are on a religious site is just another form of fallacy...
Being posted on religious sites is the least of the problems with the studies you post up. you could start with how the writers of the articles you post up have this amazing ability to misinterpret any of the articles that they try to argue. Tell you what, why don't you post up one of these great articles that you like to use so we can all take a look and see how it stacks up?
Why don't you go first and put up a study that shows the observed addition of a genetic trait from mutation that resulted in a positive change. You won't because they don't exist. That's the proof that evolutionists are looking for and they've done the research and found its impossible. Yet they still spout it like its some kind of dogma...
Evolutionnists do not exists. The theory of evolution is used by biologists, entomotlogists, microbiologists, paleontologists, etc, to explain why certain traits are present in species.
Like microbes developping a resistance to antibiotics. Tell me, if this isn't a sign of evolution, what is it?
Its simply recessive and dominant genes taking turns. There are only so many combination's of antibiotics chemicals. In nature this can be seen with insects and plants. Insects eat the plants because they are immune to the toxins, the plants adapt and change toxins because of recessive traits, the insects die, then the insects that survive are strong against the toxins. Its a never ending cycle. A dance of recessive and dominant genes. Its basically the same with bacteria. A small amount have an immunity to the enzymes in the antibiotics which come from molds. The bacteria eats the molds, the molds with a different toxin due to a recessive gene kill the bacteria off, the bacteria with recessive genes eat the mold. Etc...Etc...
I'm too tired to look up any studies right now, but I'll come back and do it tomorrow...
I am not sure why you are specifically talking about genes, but, my friend, you just described evolution.
Except it is not necessarily a cycle. Species do disappear because they didn't adapt.
I am curious to know what you would define has evolution.
Its not evolution. All the genetic data is already there. No change takes place. Its an endless cycle, where the insects and plants with dominant genes trade out with the ones with the recessive genes. No actual changes to the DNA take place.
But tell me, are you are a creationist right? Cause if you do not believe in the theory of evolution and believe that all changes come from genes who are already there, you must beleive in intelligent design. No?
Not necessarily. You can be skeptical of one theory without believing in another.
True, but he does have to believe in something to explain this stuff. I mean he is so convinced it is not evolution, he must have some sort of explanation.
Actually, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid thing to believe regarding these things, and still lets you debunk existing theories.
The different turtles on the galapogos islands is not evolution either. Its progressive traits being adapted as the best to survive. Its the same thing we do when we breed animals to get the best features. All the genetic data is there, we just breed them to get the best combinations. For example (and this is not accurate) if 36 different genetic traits determined how long a turtles neck was, and half of them lent to longer necks, you would see a huge variance of neck lengths among the different turtles in different areas. This is natural selection. I have no problem with this part of the Evolotionary Hypothesis. The problem is that the genetic data is already there. Nothing new is added. Do some research and you'll find out what I'm talking about. I have no problem with a creature adapting to its enviornment through dominant and recessive genes or even losing genetic traits to better adapt. Its when they try to say that they 'magically' gained new traits that I have a problem and all research to date has shown that this is not true.
Here is a link to the fruit fly experiements and observations. It does come from a religious website, but it quotes books that are not religous in nature (or at least I don't think they are). It shows all the years and millions of generations of frut flies that have gone into mutational research and none have come out a new species or with new traits...
Just because I'm generous I found a slew of evolution studies for you to look over. They still only prove that things devolve or change by losing genetic data. there's one study in there where they talk about a methusala gene, but apparently it only works if the flies are in 100% oxygen environment. Its not clear if it is a positive mutation or a negative one (I mean losing data or gaining).
(Sorry I thought it was a funny image
)The part I have a problem with is the gaining of genetic traits. Usually glossed over and not ever explained how it happens, or even how its possible for it to happen. For instance I have no problem with all catlike creatures coming from a diverse super-cat in the past through the loss of genetic data or recessive or dominant traits.
Bacteria and viruses have almost nothing in common. A virus is a shell with genetic data in it. It does nothing alone. When it comes into contact with a compatible cell shell chemical reactions in the cell actually absorb the viral data and from there it read the instruction written in the RNA and then does what its supposed to do which is continue to replicate the viruses until the cell dies. Bacterias only feature that can be compared is that Bacteria trades out genetic data with other bacteria this is not the same or even a similar process to viruses it is completely different. Its akin to comparing a lock and key to two people trading goods by hand.
In fact in the fossil record there is not a direct connection from one species to another. Out of the millions of fossils dug up not one complete line has been found.
I could understand if only a few were found or even only one, but not a single one doesn't look good for the theory.
The ones they claim to have found don't actually work. They claim that a fish that looks similar to another fish but with extra fins is somehow linked together. This is akin to saying that dogs and cats are related and one came from the other. They both have four legs, claws, are similar sizes (in the wild before domesticated), wet noses, triangular ears, long snouts, etc... but we all know its ludicrous to think they are related or one came from the other. They tend to ignore the differences and focus solely on the similarities. Its like taking a bunch of puzzle pieces and creating a relational tree without knowing that each piece was created separately and don't inherit from each other... What they are doing is taking the available information after they have made up their mind and then trying shoehorn that information into their view. In many cases it doesn't work. Take for instance the duck billed platypus. Pro-evolutionists won't touch that one with a ten foot pole.
There really is just not that much information around and too many suppositions. The fact that if you try to even mention evolution you'll lose your tenure, job, and be blacklisted. There was one guy that was pro-evolution that made the mistake of mentioning an anti-evolution study in one of his articles. The article put down anti-evolutionists and their theories or criticisms, yet for just mentioning them he lost his job. A science news reporter had a similar experience. This is the main reason there are no anti-evolution studies anywhere. You get fired if you mention the merest possibility...
"All studies to date have shown a change in the relative frequency of phenotypes in the genepool being observed, including wholesale loss of phenotypes and their corresponding genes, but none have thus far provided conclusive proof of new phenotypes (and their corresponding genes) being added to the genepool. This is important as gaining completly new traits is a neccessary step in achieving the diversity of life observable in the every day world by evolution alone."
It strikes me that lokiare is trying to legitmatley express a point of view for discussion but is perhapes doing a very poor job of wording it in an unambiguious way. He knows what he is trying to say and, to him, the words he is typing are saying just that. To someone else, perhapes, they say something subtley but importantly diffrent. Let me see if I can perhapes clarify. If I get it wrong, let me know:
"All studies to date have shown a change in the relative frequency of phenotypes in the genepool being observed, including wholesale loss of phenotypes and their corresponding genes, but none have thus far provided conclusive proof of new phenotypes (and their corresponding genes) being added to the genepool. This is important as gaining completly new traits is a neccessary step in achieving the diversity of life observable in the every day world by evolution alone."
Something like that though I'll have to look to make sure 'phenotypes' are what I'm talking about.
Say evolution is a kid playing with blocks. He can take the blocks that are there, reaarange them, grab some other blocks our of the storage bin, and arrange them any way he likes. He can even chuck a few out of his window if he so chooses. He can make many diffrent designes. But he cannot make a sphere. If designs exist with spheres in them, then "a kid playing with blocks" is not a good explanation of how thoes designes came about. The spheres had to come from somewhere, and there is no evidence that the kid can make them on their own.
Showing that the kid can arrange the blocks into diffrent patterns does not prove that all the paterns observed could have been achieved in such a way, unless you can demonstrate the ability to create new types of blocks.
> phenotypes in the genepool being observed, including wholesale loss of
> phenotypes and their corresponding genes, but none have thus far provided
> conclusive proof of new phenotypes (and their corresponding genes) being added
> to the genepool. This is important as gaining completly new traits is a
> neccessary step in achieving the diversity of life observable in the every day
> world by evolution alone."
All of this is addressed in the various TalkOrigins FAQs (see my previous post). Apart from the first bit of the above describing evolution all by itself ("a change in allele frequencies over time"), the rest of it is patently false; the appearance of new genes (and over a long time frame, new traits) is a fairly continuous process, not some rare or difficult-to-locate event.
Of course, Lokiare is challenging everyone to "convince him", but it seems rather evident that he's not willing to be "convinced" of anything, since whatever gets put forward results in some vague dismissal and variation of, "I still don't believe it, so there!"
"Lol, you must be religious"
"Lol, thats what eveloution means, ****tard"
"Lol, you got the termonology wrong, so your a moron and not worth talking too"
Really not very convincing. As for your FAQ's, what the hell man? This is a discussion forum, have some fun and discuss, don't go all trying to give everyone reading homework.
Survival of the fittest, the notion that what traits most frequently occur in a population can be influenced by environmental pressures is not what he is objecting to, and is what he claims all the studies demonstrate. His complaint seems to be that none of them have been able to demonstrate the whole "random mutation" part. The fact that it is a hard thing to demonstrate does not in any way detract from the fact (if it is a fact, I'm just going off what has been claimed in the thread) that it has not been shown and thus is a reasonable cause for doubt and worthy of further consideration.
It's not as though Lokiare and others haven't been posting links to this place and that, either, so calling me out over doing so is a bit rich.
At any rate, the diffrence is that they are posting them as citations "I say this (based on this)" your saying "Go read this, it will take you a long time and many of the the things are probably above your ability to comprehend." Intrinsically diffrent things. In short, I would say that you should give atleast a short explanation of what items there are supposed to adress his concerns and then post the link for further evaluation.
I have never understood that turn of phrase regarding anything other than edibles. Is that to say it is humorus?
At any rate, the diffrence is that they are posting them as citations "I say this (based on this)" your saying "Go read this, it will take you a long time and many of the the things are probably above your ability to comprehend." Intrinsically diffrent things. In short, I would say that you should give atleast a short explanation of what items there are supposed to adress his concerns and then post the link for further evaluation.
Exactly. I don't want to have to read a 300 page doctoral thesis for a single paragraph or two of information...
Highlight the good parts and copy paste them into a post with quote tags. Be sure and provide either direct links to studies or at the very least a direct study by name so I can check it out...
I'm still confused by the whole "I'm attacking evolution!" bit combined with actually attacking just one possible explanation for evolution's black box, all the while describing evolution as "what actually happens" as opposed to evolution.
I'm confused as to what the **** your talking about, willis.
What has been attacked is not the Theory of Evolution, but one possible explanation for the contents of the black box. This is made abundantly clear when he then goes on and describes Evolution as what happens as opposed to Evolution.
It's like... Newton had his Theory of Gravity. The theory doesn't say why gravity works, it simply observes it and describes it. We still don't know why it works. If someone had a theory ("The atoms are lonely and want hugs" for example), and that particular explanation was being attacked ("Nah, they're all anti-social loners who shiv anyone who gets close enough for a hug"), it's not the Theory of Gravity itself being attacked, just one possible explanation for the Theory of Gravity's black box.
the Theory of Gravity's black box.
Which was, I believe, Newton's favorite part of the Theorey of Gravity.
;)
Edit: Aside from me claiming Lokaire is being attacked. Are you refeering to Lokaire's comment about the fate of scientists who make inquieries about non-standard possibilites for the existance and diversity of life?
Lokiare seems to think he is attacking the underpinnings of the Theory of Evolution by attacking one possible explanation for it's black box.
Actually I'm not. The only change to the Evolutionary Hypothesis because of "added traits's" absence would just mean that evolution is a downward spiral and not an upward one as the current view is. The fact that scientists pretty much take as fact that things in general don't start out simple and get more complex in every other facet of research, but in this one instance they just kind of throw that out the window and say this is how it worked, then forget to present the evidence. A simple example would be two gears rubbing against each other. Eventually one or both of the gears are going to break or wear down. That is a scientific fact (or whatever you want to call it). That's generally accepted.
Also I'm still waiting on a relevant quote that shows a genetic trait was added with the name of a study. All of the studies I've seen simply show loss of functionality and loss of traits. You know like the loss of eyes, the shortening of the middle section of the tail on beta (fish), loss of wings, loss of sexual organs (by the way which immediately stops evolution in its tracks). Can't someone give me something to look at that would prove me wrong (And I'm not talking about a 30 page paper that you want me to read cover to cover)...
They're fluffy, have insulating properties and fall as fast as a penny in a vacuum.
Also, a pound of them is exactly as heavy as a pound of lead!
Also, a pound of them is exactly as heavy as a pound of lead!
Good point! I can't believe I forgot about that fact. Damned important to know.
They're fluffy, have insulating properties and fall as fast as a penny in a vacuum.
Also, a pound of them is exactly as heavy as a pound of lead!
Another fun fact, a pound of them weigh more than a pound of silver.
That would be an interesting (and unlikely) thing. What makes you say that?
My guess, he'll go along the lines of saying that a pound of feathers is less dense than a pound of silver, and thus it displaces more water and blah blah blah...
Most materials use pounds and ounces from the avoirdupois system, and such a standard pound is made up of 16 ounces, where each ounce is 437.5 grains, making a total of 7000 grains to the pound of lead.
All this means that a pound of lead (or bricks, or feathers) is heavier than a pound of precious metals.
What's water displacement have to do with weight?
These guys seem to be having an interesting discussion about it.
boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/ind...
Normally I would've used Kilo, but it sounds so stupid in English
I don't know why that is, but in English I'm more likely to measure things in pounds......oh yeah, it was issued by ZB. Carry on.
Your Goggle skills are good, but you can't even understand the things you link to. Weight is only related to density in the respect that mass is a variable in the calculation of each. I used silver, because 'gold' is traditionally used in this trick question, and I wanted the answer to be more difficult to google.
The difference is, as you later pointed out, that precious metals use the Troy scale, but use the same terminology as the scale used for measuring almost everything else.
I wonder why is it that you always have it out for me. Do you depend so much on your feelings for determining what is right and wrong that you can't stand it when I point out the errors in your own beliefs?
H_S you're slipping. Your response should have been, "Pluisjen, don't bother. Capt_Est is a denialist, blah blah blah."
Felt like changing it up. If you would like, I can always go back and tell Plu not to bother. Would that make you feel better?
I love how you cover your own ignorance with 'he will probably say'. Your Goggle skills are good, but you can't even understand the things you link to. Weight is only related to density in the respect that mass is a variable in the calculation of each.
Didn't feel like getting into a whole explanation. If you want, you are more than welcome to do so. I understood it well enough. However, I figured you would have gone with the troy scale instead.
I used silver, because 'gold' is traditionally used in this trick question, and I wanted the answer to be more difficult to google. The difference is, as you later pointed out, that precious metals use the Troy scale, but use the same terminology as the scale used for measuring almost everything else. I wonder why is it that you always have it out for me. Do you depend so much on your feelings for determining what is right and wrong that you can't stand it when I point out the errors in your own beliefs?
You've yet to point out any errors in my beliefs. Seeing as you and I don't get into debates, I don't see what makes you think that you have pointed any out to begin with.
I was referring to your in ability to acknoledge that your statement about removing collective bargaining from public sector employees in Wisconsin wouldn't remove those rights from the private sector. You went on to use a slippery slope argument that you you chose not to apply in same sex marriages. I get the feeling that you base your beliefs on how things make you feel, rather than if they make sense.
I doubt you did, or you would't have linked to an 'interesting discussion', you would have just explained that your first Google result that led you to believing that density and water displacement had something to do with it was wrong.
you may want to read what I wrote. I did mention density and the continue with the blah blah blah. I just didn't feel like getting into an entire technical explanation. Not in the mood.
I was referring to your in ability to acknoledge that your statement about removing collective bargaining from public sector employees in Wisconsin wouldn't remove those rights from the private sector. You went on to use a slippery slope argument that you you chose not to apply in same sex marriages. I get the feeling that you base your beliefs on how things make you feel, rather than if they make sense.
Your feelings are wrong; however, if you see a problem with the way I act towards you, you can always educate yourself in how to either respond to my posts or ignore my posts. That should resolve your problem. See, there is no problem at all. What were you crying about?
My feelings aren't wrong, that's the problem with arguing with some one who bases their beliefs on feelings, feelings are never wrong. You might actually be capable of reasoning and critical thinking, but you haven't shown much evidence to support that.
I feel no need to ignore you, as I find your posts amusing.
I mentioned that you mentioned density, and I will mention again that you keep mentioning density. Density as I have already said has nothing to do with it. I get the feeling that you aren't in the mood to get into the explaination of how density has something to do with it because it doesn't and/or it would require you actually understanding what you link to. Your knoledge of introductory physics is abysmal.
Sorry... fell asleep. Would you like to try again?
My feelings aren't wrong, that's the problem with arguing with some one who bases their beliefs on feelings, feelings are never wrong.
Is that how you feel? Well good for you. By the way, are you still selling Thin-Mints?
You might actually be capable of reasoning and critical thinking, but you haven't shown much evidence to support that.
Going to have to do better than that.
I feel no need to ignore you, as I find your posts amusing.
Up to you.
You guys do enjoy taking a bit of wordplay far too far, you know that?
I'm in denial about it
Wait what? feathers? what do you want to know about them? They degraded into fur (which is as plausable and provable that fur upgraded into feathers from the evidence we have at hand)...
Did feathers degrade into fur or did fur upgrade into feathers? I thought you had mentioned that "evolution" was actually "de-evolution" or something like that. Wouldn't something upgrading into something else be evolution? I'm not sure I understand your point of view on this. Could you clear it up a bit?
Micro evolution is a fact, since it is just the definition of a measurement. The proof for it is that things that are living die, and genotypes are diverse within a species.
Wait what? feathers? what do you want to know about them? They degraded into fur (which is as plausable and provable that fur upgraded into feathers from the evidence we have at hand)...
Wait, what are we talking about?
Wait what? feathers? what do you want to know about them? They degraded into fur (which is as plausable and provable that fur upgraded into feathers from the evidence we have at hand)...
Wait, what are we talking about?
We were talking about how the Duck-billed Platypus is never touched by pro-evolutionists. Also I'm waiting on someone to put up a direct link and/or quote to a study that shows positive traits coming out of nowhere, rather than as has been proven by losing traits. In other words no new traits have appeared though traits that negatively impact a species may be dropped in favor of a lesser trait that suddenly becomes more important to survival...
Either is just as possible because neither has any evidence to support one or the other. lokiare, has been arguing that the existance of evidence of new genetic features evolving doesn't exist. This is the fundamental 'theory' of evolution (sometimes called macro evolution).
Micro evolution is a fact, since it is just the definition of a measurement. The proof for it is that things that are living die, and genotypes are diverse within a species.
Interesting. So what are the causes of microevolution?
I already said what they were. Living thongs die, and variation exists wihin a species.
Captain_Esteban, you are going to have to be more specific than that. What are the causes in the changes in microevolution?
By the way, do you have any links to what a living thong is? Or how one dies? It's probably a s
y death isn't it? Virtual keyboards make errors common.
Excuses... you hit the wrong key. Don't blame your virtual keyboard for your bad typing skills. Besides, it is more interesting to look at thongs than these things you are referring to.
Look up the definition of micro evolution and my explaination of why things die is proof of it.
Care to explain the cause(s) diversity in genotypes?
Virtual keyboards make errors common.
Excuses... you hit the wrong key. Don't blame your virtual keyboard for your bad typing skills. Besides, it is more interesting to look at thongs than these things you are referring to.Look up the definition of micro evolution and my explaination of why things die is proof of it.
Care to explain the cause(s) diversity in genotypes?
Don't hold your breath. He is more likely to link to some article.
Care to explain the cause(s) diversity in genotypes?
I thought this was common knowledge, but I will repeat it for your benefit.
Genotype, is the genetic makeup of an organism. Usually it is in regard to a specific pair of alleles that cause a particualar phenotype. Diversity in genotypes is caused by the fact that organisms that reproduce sexually get one gene from each parent. Since a population doesn't usually contain all dominate, or all recessive genes, it is possible for gene pool to change over time.
Microevolution is the change in gene frequency within a population. (with the population usually being a species in which breeding is possible.)
As for the origins of diversity in general, that is more of a religous question that can't be explained.
Genotype, is the genetic makeup of an organism. Usually it is in regard to a specific pair of alleles that cause a particualar phenotype. Diversity in genotypes is caused by the fact that organisms that reproduce sexually get one gene from each parent. Since a population doesn't usually contain all dominate, or all recessive genes, it is possible for gene pool to change over time.
Microevolution is the change in gene frequency within a population. (with the population usually being a species in which breeding is possible.)
As for the origins of diversity in general, that is more of a religous question that can't be explained. I don't know the answer.
Had to fix that for you. I must admit, I did not expect you of all people to reach for religion.
I must admit, I did not expect you of all people to reach for religion.
I meant the Church of Evolution. Like the Church of Global Warming, or the Church of Socialism, or the Church of Capitalism, or the Church of Dancing Bees...take your pick. Dogma looks similar no matter who is spewing it.
Stating that something "cannot be explained" is a cop-out. There are only things that cannot be explained yet. And things that are defined as "unexplainable", but usually this is only done by people who use a lot of cop-outs.
Plu, allow me to introduce you to captain_esteban.
I was waiting for him to reply so I could respond with a "My point exactly".
I couldn't help it. Besides, he would probably add some link to something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand in order to explain himself. It would probably go something like this:
captain_esteban: "Well cop-outs are blah blah blah..."
Since you think it us a cop-out though, feel free to enlighten the boards with your explaination.
It is unexplainable by scientific means. I don't believe it is possible to claim to the origins of diversity that could be falsified. Since you think it us a cop-out though, feel free to enlighten the boards with your explaination.
Well if you look at the evidence at hand, and you eschew all of the 'this is what we think happened' or 'this is how it could have happened' you are left with 'there were a lot of very geneticaly diverse animals who then got seperated out and lost genetic data until we have many different kinds of cats (lions, leopards, tigers, house cats, etc...etc...) and other species.'
That's about the most reasonable conclusion for the evidence at hand. When you start throwing in magically 'gaining traits to adapt to the environment that weren't previously there in any form' then you can go in all kinds of directions. None of which will reflect the truth...
I do so love the "I can't think of way to falsify it, so it's impossible" thinking.
Captain_Esteban's specialty. Makes for a very convinient-skeptic.
It is unexplainable by scientific means. I don't believe it is possible to claim to the origins of diversity that could be falsified. Since you think it us a cop-out though, feel free to enlighten the boards with your explaination.
Inability to prove "Not A" does not imply correctness of A. Just because there's no scientific proof now does not mean there never will be such proof. For the time being, it's merely "unknown".
That's about the most reasonable conclusion for the evidence at hand. When you start throwing in magically 'gaining traits to adapt to the environment that weren't previously there in any form' then you can go in all kinds of directions. None of which will reflect the truth...
Wait, so you're saying it's impossible for creatures to gain traits over time?
Wait what? feathers? what do you want to know about them? They degraded into fur (which is as plausable and provable that fur upgraded into feathers from the evidence we have at hand)...
Did feathers degrade into fur or did fur upgrade into feathers? I thought you had mentioned that "evolution" was actually "de-evolution" or something like that. Wouldn't something upgrading into something else be evolution? I'm not sure I understand your point of view on this. Could you clear it up a bit?
Micro evolution is a fact, since it is just the definition of a measurement. The proof for it is that things that are living die, and genotypes are diverse within a species.
Wait what? feathers? what do you want to know about them? They degraded into fur (which is as plausable and provable that fur upgraded into feathers from the evidence we have at hand)...
Wait, what are we talking about?
Wait what? feathers? what do you want to know about them? They degraded into fur (which is as plausable and provable that fur upgraded into feathers from the evidence we have at hand)...
Wait, what are we talking about?
We were talking about how the Duck-billed Platypus is never touched by pro-evolutionists. Also I'm waiting on someone to put up a direct link and/or quote to a study that shows positive traits coming out of nowhere, rather than as has been proven by losing traits. In other words no new traits have appeared though traits that negatively impact a species may be dropped in favor of a lesser trait that suddenly becomes more important to survival...
Either is just as possible because neither has any evidence to support one or the other. lokiare, has been arguing that the existance of evidence of new genetic features evolving doesn't exist. This is the fundamental 'theory' of evolution (sometimes called macro evolution).
Micro evolution is a fact, since it is just the definition of a measurement. The proof for it is that things that are living die, and genotypes are diverse within a species.
Interesting. So what are the causes of microevolution?
I already said what they were. Living thongs die, and variation exists wihin a species.
Captain_Esteban, you are going to have to be more specific than that. What are the causes in the changes in microevolution?
By the way, do you have any links to what a living thong is? Or how one dies? It's probably a s
y death isn't it? Virtual keyboards make errors common.
Excuses... you hit the wrong key. Don't blame your virtual keyboard for your bad typing skills. Besides, it is more interesting to look at thongs than these things you are referring to.
Look up the definition of micro evolution and my explaination of why things die is proof of it.
Care to explain the cause(s) diversity in genotypes?
Virtual keyboards make errors common.
Excuses... you hit the wrong key. Don't blame your virtual keyboard for your bad typing skills. Besides, it is more interesting to look at thongs than these things you are referring to.Look up the definition of micro evolution and my explaination of why things die is proof of it.
Care to explain the cause(s) diversity in genotypes?
Don't hold your breath. He is more likely to link to some article.
Care to explain the cause(s) diversity in genotypes?
I thought this was common knowledge, but I will repeat it for your benefit.
Genotype, is the genetic makeup of an organism. Usually it is in regard to a specific pair of alleles that cause a particualar phenotype. Diversity in genotypes is caused by the fact that organisms that reproduce sexually get one gene from each parent. Since a population doesn't usually contain all dominate, or all recessive genes, it is possible for gene pool to change over time.
Microevolution is the change in gene frequency within a population. (with the population usually being a species in which breeding is possible.)
As for the origins of diversity in general, that is more of a religous question that can't be explained.
Genotype, is the genetic makeup of an organism. Usually it is in regard to a specific pair of alleles that cause a particualar phenotype. Diversity in genotypes is caused by the fact that organisms that reproduce sexually get one gene from each parent. Since a population doesn't usually contain all dominate, or all recessive genes, it is possible for gene pool to change over time.
Microevolution is the change in gene frequency within a population. (with the population usually being a species in which breeding is possible.)
As for the origins of diversity in general, that is more of a religous question that can't be explained. I don't know the answer.
Had to fix that for you. I must admit, I did not expect you of all people to reach for religion.
I must admit, I did not expect you of all people to reach for religion.
I meant the Church of Evolution. Like the Church of Global Warming, or the Church of Socialism, or the Church of Capitalism, or the Church of Dancing Bees...take your pick. Dogma looks similar no matter who is spewing it.
Stating that something "cannot be explained" is a cop-out. There are only things that cannot be explained yet. And things that are defined as "unexplainable", but usually this is only done by people who use a lot of cop-outs.
Plu, allow me to introduce you to captain_esteban.
I was waiting for him to reply so I could respond with a "My point exactly".I couldn't help it. Besides, he would probably add some link to something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand in order to explain himself. It would probably go something like this:
captain_esteban: "Well cop-outs are blah blah blah..."
Since you think it us a cop-out though, feel free to enlighten the boards with your explaination.
It is unexplainable by scientific means. I don't believe it is possible to claim to the origins of diversity that could be falsified. Since you think it us a cop-out though, feel free to enlighten the boards with your explaination.
Well if you look at the evidence at hand, and you eschew all of the 'this is what we think happened' or 'this is how it could have happened' you are left with 'there were a lot of very geneticaly diverse animals who then got seperated out and lost genetic data until we have many different kinds of cats (lions, leopards, tigers, house cats, etc...etc...) and other species.'
That's about the most reasonable conclusion for the evidence at hand. When you start throwing in magically 'gaining traits to adapt to the environment that weren't previously there in any form' then you can go in all kinds of directions. None of which will reflect the truth...
I do so love the "I can't think of way to falsify it, so it's impossible" thinking.
Captain_Esteban's specialty. Makes for a very convinient-skeptic.
It is unexplainable by scientific means. I don't believe it is possible to claim to the origins of diversity that could be falsified. Since you think it us a cop-out though, feel free to enlighten the boards with your explaination.
Inability to prove "Not A" does not imply correctness of A. Just because there's no scientific proof now does not mean there never will be such proof. For the time being, it's merely "unknown".
That's about the most reasonable conclusion for the evidence at hand. When you start throwing in magically 'gaining traits to adapt to the environment that weren't previously there in any form' then you can go in all kinds of directions. None of which will reflect the truth...
Wait, so you're saying it's impossible for creatures to gain traits over time?