Evolution versus Interrelation

rossum

Well-known member
You see the stupidity of Evolution theory that you did not even notice?
Did you read your question? You are asking: "Did you see X when you didn't see X?"

DEFINE Evolution by using nested hierarchy.
You have it backwards. The nested hierarchy is a necessary effect of common descent. If you don't realise that, then you need to study more about evolution before you can declare it dead.

It seems that whenever you don't want to answer question, you ask your questioner to define something. You need to find a different way to avoid answering, that one is beginning to become very very obvious.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
If you knew what is wrong with Evolution, you will know what is Biological Interrelation. Can you guess? What will be the anti-Evolution argument that could topple Evolution? I am just giving you hint. If you are well versed in science, you can falsify Evolution.

If not, just claim that you are ignorant of reality.

ID basis of intelligence? Experiment and more experiments. Reality, and only reality..
Nat Selec is not part of Biology, probably Geology is the best place for Nat Selec.

Intelligence is falsifiable since there is also non-intelligence.

Juts tell me if you really have no clues on reality because Evolution had distorted your analytical mind, and I will help you.
So you can't explain what Biological Interrelation is?

No anti-Evolution argument can topple Evolution. It requires evidence from the fossil record or the genome. For example the discovery of fossil humans in Jurassic strata.

I'm ignorant of your reality.

So you don't know of an ID basis for discerning intelligence?
Can you provide any means of differentiating between what has arisen through Intelligent design and non-intelligent design?
If you don't think natural selection is a part of Biology then you either don't understand natural selection or you don't understand biology.
 
Evolution isn't defined by using the nested hierarchy. The nested hierarchy is part of the evidence for evolution.

You clearly do not know what a nested hierarchy is.
In science, especially in Biology, a scientist must be specific and realistic and not mythologistic.

Once again, what is Evolution? Define Evolution precisely first and what is the precise evidence of Evolution?

Say something like this: Biological Evolution is ________________________________________, and the best evidence for this definition of Evolution is _____________________________________________, and Evolution scientists had tested the evidence through this _________________________________.


Then, where will you fit nested hierarchy based on the definition of Evolution. YOU MUST BE VERY organized and logical...
 
Did you read your question? You are asking: "Did you see X when you didn't see X?"


You have it backwards. The nested hierarchy is a necessary effect of common descent. If you don't realise that, then you need to study more about evolution before you can declare it dead.

It seems that whenever you don't want to answer question, you ask your questioner to define something. You need to find a different way to avoid answering, that one is beginning to become very very obvious.
I am just talking what is real in biological world, since we too had two eyes to see the biological world, thus, do not invent reality in biology.

Thus, what is the precise definition of Evolution and what is your best evidence for that. From the definition of Evolution, where will you put the invented nested hierarchy. DO NOT SIMPLY invent, anybody could do that, even a stupid religious freak.. Now, go back to reality in biological world, and check your Evolution explanation.

Define and support.
 
So you can't explain what Biological Interrelation is?

No anti-Evolution argument can topple Evolution. It requires evidence from the fossil record or the genome. For example the discovery of fossil humans in Jurassic strata.

I'm ignorant of your reality.

So you don't know of an ID basis for discerning intelligence?
Can you provide any means of differentiating between what has arisen through Intelligent design and non-intelligent design?
If you don't think natural selection is a part of Biology then you either don't understand natural selection or you don't understand biology.
I told you that if you admit that you do not know reality in biology and in biological world, I will share to you the new theory.

Admit first that you do not know reality so that I could help you. I do not blame you for the stupidity in science. I always blame Darwin for his stupidity.
 

TeabagSalad

Well-known member
In science, especially in Biology, a scientist must be specific and realistic and not mythologistic.

Once again, what is Evolution? Define Evolution precisely first and what is the precise evidence of Evolution?

Say something like this: Biological Evolution is ________________________________________, and the best evidence for this definition of Evolution is _____________________________________________, and Evolution scientists had tested the evidence through this _________________________________.


Then, where will you fit nested hierarchy based on the definition of Evolution. YOU MUST BE VERY organized and logical...

You really don't have the first clue about science, do you?

Did you learn any science at school?
 
You really don't have the first clue about science, do you?

Did you learn any science at school?
I studied both science and engineering, so, I also could see biological organisms like Darwin and all of you saw/see, to test if claims of Evolution are right or wrong, since reality is with us. I also discovered the topic of intelligence.

Now, I knew that you are not science denier and you love to protect Evolution and Darwin, answer below:

In science, especially in Biology, a scientist must be specific and realistic and not mythologistic.

Once again, what is Evolution? Define Evolution precisely first and what is the precise evidence of Evolution?

Say something like this: Biological Evolution is ________________________________________, and the best evidence for this definition of Evolution is _____________________________________________, and Evolution scientists had tested the evidence through this _________________________________.


Then, where will you fit nested hierarchy based on the definition of Evolution. YOU MUST BE VERY organized and logical...
 

rossum

Well-known member
Thus, what is the precise definition of Evolution
Thank you for admitting that you do not know the precise definition of evolution. You do not know, so you have to ask.

If you do not know the definition of evolution, then what you claim your ideas have refuted may, or may not be, evolution. You first have to understand evolution for yourself if you are successfully to refute it. With an incorrect caricature of evolution, all you will refute is that incorrect caricature.

You need to study evolution thoroughly if you are to know enough about it to refute it. Start with Evolution 101.
 
Thank you for admitting that you do not know the precise definition of evolution. You do not know, so you have to ask.

If you do not know the definition of evolution, then what you claim your ideas have refuted may, or may not be, evolution. You first have to understand evolution for yourself if you are successfully to refute it. With an incorrect caricature of evolution, all you will refute is that incorrect caricature.

You need to study evolution thoroughly if you are to know enough about it to refute it. Start with Evolution 101.
I knew that Evolution is stupid, and I could see biological organisms too, like Darwin. Darwin and all of his believers are not exclusive in watching and witnessing the biological world. Thus, Evolution must be asked from those religious people like you, you are claiming that Evolution is science. What Darwin and people like you are claiming in biological world are not part of reality...they are all fantasies and fables, or fairy tales.

If you cannot define and support your Evolution theory here, either you are deluded, or stupid or intellectual dishonest, and should be considered one of many religious freaks.

Now, do you want me repost my simple challenge to all of you, so that you could really clear what is Evolution and what are your claims? Or you will get out of this Forum and say sorry for "I am trolling"?
 

rossum

Well-known member
If you cannot define and support your Evolution theory here, either you are deluded, or stupid or intellectual dishonest, and should be considered one of many religious freaks.
If you cannot define what you are refuting then how do we know what you have refuted?

If you cannot define, say, the Riemann Hypothesis, then any claim to have refuted it is suspect at best.

You apparently cannot define evolution, so your claim to have refuted it is suspect.
 

TeabagSalad

Well-known member
I studied both science and engineering, so, I also could see biological organisms like Darwin and all of you saw/see, to test if claims of Evolution are right or wrong, since reality is with us. I also discovered the topic of intelligence.

Now, I knew that you are not science denier and you love to protect Evolution and Darwin, answer below:

In science, especially in Biology, a scientist must be specific and realistic and not mythologistic.

Once again, what is Evolution? Define Evolution precisely first and what is the precise evidence of Evolution?

Say something like this: Biological Evolution is ________________________________________, and the best evidence for this definition of Evolution is _____________________________________________, and Evolution scientists had tested the evidence through this _________________________________.


Then, where will you fit nested hierarchy based on the definition of Evolution. YOU MUST BE VERY organized and logical...

You claim to have studied engineering and science, and yet you are having to ask me what evolution is?

How can you refute something you clearly know nothing about?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
In science, especially in Biology, a scientist must be specific and realistic and not mythologistic.

Once again, what is Evolution? Define Evolution precisely first and what is the precise evidence of Evolution?

Say something like this: Biological Evolution is ________________________________________, and the best evidence for this definition of Evolution is _____________________________________________, and Evolution scientists had tested the evidence through this _________________________________.


Then, where will you fit nested hierarchy based on the definition of Evolution. YOU MUST BE VERY organized and logical...
Can you do this for your theory?

Say something like this: My pet theory is ________________________________________, and the best evidence for this definition of my pet theory is _____________________________________________, and I have tested the evidence through this _________________________________.

Remember, YOU MUST BE VERY organized and logical...
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
I told you that if you admit that you do not know reality in biology and in biological world, I will share to you the new theory.

Admit first that you do not know reality so that I could help you. I do not blame you for the stupidity in science. I always blame Darwin for his stupidity.
Ok then. I admit that I do not know reality in biology and in biological world. Please share your new theory.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
What Darwin and people like you are claiming in biological world are not part of reality...they are all fantasies and fables, or fairy tales.
What Darwin claimed was not fantasies and fables, or fairy tales. It was a theory to explain how the diversity of life came to be.
It may not be perfectly true. It is however a model that has explanatory and predictive power. If you think your theory better explains what we see then present it and tell us how it is better.
 
What Darwin claimed was not fantasies and fables, or fairy tales. It was a theory to explain how the diversity of life came to be.
It may not be perfectly true. It is however a model that has explanatory and predictive power. If you think your theory better explains what we see then present it and tell us how it is better.
Who taught you science? Where did you study in analyzing and solving problem? Oh my goodness, you are showing here really the result of the stupidity from Darwin. And you couldn't even detect it and loose from the stupidity.

Did you never understand that anybody can make explanation, invent falsification, invent prediction and invent verification? IT DOES NOT mean that those are correct. Look below and see the Analogy:

ANALOGY:
On 1859 AD, a group of scientists had concluded that the shape of the earth is Flat. They called themselves Flat Earthers. They also wrote science book titled, “On the Origin of Flat Earth by Means of Area Selection”. They based their scientific explanation of Flat Earth from flat surfaces of Earth found in some major cities worldwide (not around the world) like Manila, Tokyo, Beijing, Canberra, Jakarta, Moscow, New Delhi, Riyadh, Johannesburg, Rabat, Abuja, Berlin, London, Ottawa, Washington DC, Brasilia, and Buenos Aires, etc. The basis or point of reference uses a 2 km x 2 km square flat surface, 4 km2 (4 km^2) area, on all picked cities. Since these picked flat surfaces could be found worldwide (not around the world), they concluded that the shape of the earth is really flat, and not round. They also had pictures of those flat surfaces and claimed that they could extend the area to 4 km x 4 km square flat surface, 16 km2 (16 km^2). To Flat Earthers, Round Earthers are wrong and to dis-agree with this conclusion is to become science-deniers.

To support their arguments, they invented scientific predictions for Flat Earth: (1) If Flat Earth is true, then, humans can build 50 story’s building inside the 4 km2 (4 km^2) area. (2) If Flat Earth is true, then, humans can run with their pet dogs. Flat Earthers too had invented scientific falsification criteria to disprove the theory of Flat Earth. (a) If we cannot fly a kite in Flat Earth, then, Flat Earth is not true. (b) If we cannot farm peanuts in a picked 4 km2 (4 km^2) area, then, Flat Earth is not true. Flat Earthers too claimed that there are bumped flat earth (symbolizes: slight modifications or progressions), or curve flat earth (symbolizes: beneficial changes, selective pressure and non-random) and dented flat earth (symbolizes: positive selection, strong selection, manual selection, artificial selection), to support their explanations of Flat Earth.

When they were presented with many pictures of whole round Earth from NASA, taken by a Hubble Space Telescope (HST) orbiting the Earth, (symbolizes the new Intelligent Design <id> from me), those Flat Earthers ridiculed the whole pictures and dismissed them as hoaxes.
END OF ANALOGY

Darwin had made a very severe fantasy and fairy tales, and fables, as you can see above from the Analogy!

I REPEAT, not because a stupid person like Darwin had claimed something and invented falsification, and invented prediction, that explanation is already true!

NOT ALL predictions are correct, check your English language, since there are two types: wrong and correct.
NOT all explanations are part of reality!

Oh my goodness, the level of stupidity from Darwin is overwhelming...

Next post, I will help you know real reality in biology, that you yourself can test...
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Who taught you science? Where did you study in analyzing and solving problem? Oh my goodness, you are showing here really the result of the stupidity from Darwin. And you couldn't even detect it and loose from the stupidity.

Did you never understand that anybody can make explanation, invent falsification, invent prediction and invent verification? IT DOES NOT mean that those are correct. Look below and see the Analogy:

ANALOGY:
On 1859 AD, a group of scientists had concluded that the shape of the earth is Flat. They called themselves Flat Earthers. They also wrote science book titled, “On the Origin of Flat Earth by Means of Area Selection”. They based their scientific explanation of Flat Earth from flat surfaces of Earth found in some major cities worldwide (not around the world) like Manila, Tokyo, Beijing, Canberra, Jakarta, Moscow, New Delhi, Riyadh, Johannesburg, Rabat, Abuja, Berlin, London, Ottawa, Washington DC, Brasilia, and Buenos Aires, etc. The basis or point of reference uses a 2 km x 2 km square flat surface, 4 km2 (4 km^2) area, on all picked cities. Since these picked flat surfaces could be found worldwide (not around the world), they concluded that the shape of the earth is really flat, and not round. They also had pictures of those flat surfaces and claimed that they could extend the area to 4 km x 4 km square flat surface, 16 km2 (16 km^2). To Flat Earthers, Round Earthers are wrong and to dis-agree with this conclusion is to become science-deniers.

To support their arguments, they invented scientific predictions for Flat Earth: (1) If Flat Earth is true, then, humans can build 50 story’s building inside the 4 km2 (4 km^2) area. (2) If Flat Earth is true, then, humans can run with their pet dogs. Flat Earthers too had invented scientific falsification criteria to disprove the theory of Flat Earth. (a) If we cannot fly a kite in Flat Earth, then, Flat Earth is not true. (b) If we cannot farm peanuts in a picked 4 km2 (4 km^2) area, then, Flat Earth is not true. Flat Earthers too claimed that there are bumped flat earth (symbolizes: slight modifications or progressions), or curve flat earth (symbolizes: beneficial changes, selective pressure and non-random) and dented flat earth (symbolizes: positive selection, strong selection, manual selection, artificial selection), to support their explanations of Flat Earth.

When they were presented with many pictures of whole round Earth from NASA, taken by a Hubble Space Telescope (HST) orbiting the Earth, (symbolizes the new Intelligent Design <id> from me), those Flat Earthers ridiculed the whole pictures and dismissed them as hoaxes.
END OF ANALOGY

Darwin had made a very severe fantasy and fairy tales, and fables, as you can see above from the Analogy!

I REPEAT, not because a stupid person like Darwin had claimed something and invented falsification, and invented prediction, that explanation is already true!

NOT ALL predictions are correct, check your English language, since there are two types: wrong and correct.
NOT all explanations are part of reality!

Oh my goodness, the level of stupidity from Darwin is overwhelming...
Your analogy is just ignoring reality.

The reality is that the round earth hypothesis replaced the older flat earth hypothesis because it better explains the evidence, and in the same way Darwin's evolution replaced older creationism hypothesis because it better explains the evidence.

This is not some made up fairy tale - like your little story above - this is reality. This is what actually happened.

Next post, I will help you know real reality in biology, that you yourself can test...
I find that very unlikely. The chances of you doing anything that looks at real biology is absurdly remote.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
Who taught you science? Where did you study in analyzing and solving problem? Oh my goodness, you are showing here really the result of the stupidity from Darwin. And you couldn't even detect it and loose from the stupidity.

Did you never understand that anybody can make explanation, invent falsification, invent prediction and invent verification? IT DOES NOT mean that those are correct. Look below and see the Analogy:

ANALOGY:
On 1859 AD, a group of scientists had concluded that the shape of the earth is Flat. They called themselves Flat Earthers. They also wrote science book titled, “On the Origin of Flat Earth by Means of Area Selection”. They based their scientific explanation of Flat Earth from flat surfaces of Earth found in some major cities worldwide (not around the world) like Manila, Tokyo, Beijing, Canberra, Jakarta, Moscow, New Delhi, Riyadh, Johannesburg, Rabat, Abuja, Berlin, London, Ottawa, Washington DC, Brasilia, and Buenos Aires, etc. The basis or point of reference uses a 2 km x 2 km square flat surface, 4 km2 (4 km^2) area, on all picked cities. Since these picked flat surfaces could be found worldwide (not around the world), they concluded that the shape of the earth is really flat, and not round. They also had pictures of those flat surfaces and claimed that they could extend the area to 4 km x 4 km square flat surface, 16 km2 (16 km^2). To Flat Earthers, Round Earthers are wrong and to dis-agree with this conclusion is to become science-deniers.

To support their arguments, they invented scientific predictions for Flat Earth: (1) If Flat Earth is true, then, humans can build 50 story’s building inside the 4 km2 (4 km^2) area. (2) If Flat Earth is true, then, humans can run with their pet dogs. Flat Earthers too had invented scientific falsification criteria to disprove the theory of Flat Earth. (a) If we cannot fly a kite in Flat Earth, then, Flat Earth is not true. (b) If we cannot farm peanuts in a picked 4 km2 (4 km^2) area, then, Flat Earth is not true. Flat Earthers too claimed that there are bumped flat earth (symbolizes: slight modifications or progressions), or curve flat earth (symbolizes: beneficial changes, selective pressure and non-random) and dented flat earth (symbolizes: positive selection, strong selection, manual selection, artificial selection), to support their explanations of Flat Earth.

When they were presented with many pictures of whole round Earth from NASA, taken by a Hubble Space Telescope (HST) orbiting the Earth, (symbolizes the new Intelligent Design <id> from me), those Flat Earthers ridiculed the whole pictures and dismissed them as hoaxes.
END OF ANALOGY

Darwin had made a very severe fantasy and fairy tales, and fables, as you can see above from the Analogy!

I REPEAT, not because a stupid person like Darwin had claimed something and invented falsification, and invented prediction, that explanation is already true!

NOT ALL predictions are correct, check your English language, since there are two types: wrong and correct.
NOT all explanations are part of reality!

Oh my goodness, the level of stupidity from Darwin is overwhelming...

Next post, I will help you know real reality in biology, that you yourself can test...
Who taught you science? You claim to be an engineer (I have my doubts). Engineering is not Biology. Evolution is not engineering.
You keep saying that Darwin and evolution are stupid but give no "scientific" basis for arriving at that conclusion
In your analogy I see you as being the flat earthers.

NOT ALL predictions are correct. Do you know what happens, in the scientific realm, when they are not? The theory or model that prediction was based upon is re-evaluated and either scrapped or modified to account for variables that may not have been considered. We don't just hang on to it because we like it. It has to have explanatory and predictive power.

NOT all explanations are part of reality! No, and the same thing happens. If it's not part of reality then at some stage it will fail in it's ability to explain. We will then look for a better explanation.

You have yet to show where evolution fails and present a better explanation to account for what it fails to account for.

Continuously saying "Darwin was stupid" , "Evolution is stupid" is just childish.
Step up and present your theory.
 
Who taught you science? You claim to be an engineer (I have my doubts). Engineering is not Biology. Evolution is not engineering.
You keep saying that Darwin and evolution are stupid but give no "scientific" basis for arriving at that conclusion
In your analogy I see you as being the flat earthers.

NOT ALL predictions are correct. Do you know what happens, in the scientific realm, when they are not? The theory or model that prediction was based upon is re-evaluated and either scrapped or modified to account for variables that may not have been considered. We don't just hang on to it because we like it. It has to have explanatory and predictive power.

NOT all explanations are part of reality! No, and the same thing happens. If it's not part of reality then at some stage it will fail in it's ability to explain. We will then look for a better explanation.

You have yet to show where evolution fails and present a better explanation to account for what it fails to account for.

Continuously saying "Darwin was stupid" , "Evolution is stupid" is just childish.
Step up and present your theory.
Once again, I would like to remind you that there are two things that are happening in science right now: an ideal science and an idiotic science.


IDEAL SCIENCE

When we mix Na + Cl -->, we can predict the outcome will be NaCl, and we separate NA, for example in NaCl, we can predict that the remaining element is Cl. To falsify, if we separate Cl to NaCl, and we C, then, the theory is falsified. That is science. That is ideal science. Nobody dis-agree with that.

Now, let us go to

IDIOTIC SCIENCE (aka Evolution)
Evolution is change in frequency alleles (CIFA) or change of frequency alleles (COFA), so what are the evidences of COFA or CIFA?
Nested hierarchy? as evidence, as predicted by CIFA/COFA?

or

falsification of CIFA/COFA? No Rabbit in Cambrian Area?

You see the stupidity of Evolution?

That is why, what is really Evolution? What are you talking about?
What is your explanation, your prediction and falsification?
 
Your analogy is just ignoring reality.

The reality is that the round earth hypothesis replaced the older flat earth hypothesis because it better explains the evidence, and in the same way Darwin's evolution replaced older creationism hypothesis because it better explains the evidence.

This is not some made up fairy tale - like your little story above - this is reality. This is what actually happened.


I find that very unlikely. The chances of you doing anything that looks at real biology is absurdly remote.
I commend your honesty when you wrote that Darwin's evolution replaced older creationism hypothesis because
it better explains the evidence.

You are simply saying that Darwin and supporters of Evolution are trying to falsify Creationism, since all of you think that Creationism is stupid in science.

Why Creationism is stupid in science?

Creationists are claiming that an agent/deity had created X, and to support that narrative, they relied on their holy books.
When asked by scientists with simple question like this: how can you differentiate a created X and uncreated X in science, to support Creationism? Creationism cannot answer that. The question is fair, reasonable and scientific.

Since Creationism cannot answer the question, then, Creationism is stupid. Ken Ham is stupid and all other religious folks who are claiming something in science. Stupidity is quickly concluding without knowing everything.

So, once again,

1. Darwin was trying to falsify a religious explanation. Thus, it is fair to say that Evolution was based on religious basis.
Science does not falsify religion. Science does not care about religion. Science studies reality, But Evolution, as you agreed, was based on falsifying religious explanation, thus, Evolution too is based on religion.

2. No Universal Criteria - The stupidity

Since Creationism has no universal criteria between created X to uncreated X, Darwin had solved that,
or at least, he tried. Darwin had used simple and complex, unperfect to perfect etc when he was explaining the eyes.
To explain the unexplained criteria from Creationism, Darwin had this in his mind, and wrote them in books:

CREATED X = perfect X or complex X
UNCREATED X = unperfect X or unperfect X

Darwin had added more, if you will study his narratives:

CREATED X = quick-made X and non-random X
UNCREATED X = gradually-made X and random X


Michael Behe thought that Darwin was a genius and correct in the above universal criteria, thus, Behe had used complex as the main weapon to battle in Dover Trial. He had rearranged the criteria of Darwin as "irreducible complex", which mean that

CREATED X = irreducibly complex X
UNCREATED X = reducibly complex X

That criteria was made on 1860 AD by Darwin, and many inventors of the definitions of words, as found in all dictionaries, thinking that Darwin was a genius, they defined words and phrases, to be used in science and in society - by basing Darwin's criteria as written above.

Thus, if you open your dictionaries, in all formats, in all languages, you will see that the topic of intelligence and non-intelligence (and its variants words) were greatly badly affected by following Darwin's stupidity.

3. What is the Problem of Darwin's Universal Criteria?

You cannot test or confirm, or falsify, or even define them.
There is NO numerical limits that we can measure.

How gradual is gradual? How quick is quick?
What percentage is perfect X and what percentage is simple X?

No answer, therefore, no science. Thus, stupid.

My suggestion, you, Evolutionists, must submit science article to Nature or anywhere, inventing a universal convention of limits for Evolution. Just cite my name on that paper,

Write like this:

"Evolution must have a numerical limits of change, for if not, the father and founder of new
Intelligent Design will call us "stupid" in CARM. Since we cannot allow that, we are inventing
numerical limits for Evolution. Thus, in this article, we proposed the following limits to be
used in all Evolutionary explanations. They maybe wrong, but Evolution is wrong anyway, but we hope, this
limit will help."


4. So, what is exactly the new ID?
First, on 2005 AD until 2011 AD, I discovered that universal limit, or universal boundary line (UBL) and its universal numerical limit, between intelligence and non-intelligence (and all of their variant words).

They are all correct and applicable in reality. Thus, I have models and patterns and limits to fight Evolution that
has none to offer - maybe, you will submit that article. GO FOR IT!

Then, I applied that in biology. I can apply that too in Cosmology, or anywhere since the UBL is universal.

Then, I made a new model/theory in Biology, the Biological Interrelation, BiTs. Then, I submitted that to
major science journals, but the are all stupid, so I am here.

Supposed to be, in ideal science ordeals, I will be receiving a Nobel Prize for I falsify Evolution, replaced it with Biological Interrelation and discovered those limits.

But, sad to say, I am fighting a religious group which called themselves scientists.

 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
Once again, I would like to remind you that there are two things that are happening in science right now: an ideal science and an idiotic science.


IDEAL SCIENCE

When we mix Na + Cl -->, we can predict the outcome will be NaCl, and we separate NA, for example in NaCl, we can predict that the remaining element is Cl. To falsify, if we separate Cl to NaCl, and we C, then, the theory is falsified. That is science. That is ideal science. Nobody dis-agree with that.
What a depressingly ignorant view of chemistry. What does "if we separate Cl to NaCl, and we C" mean? Do you have a clue?

Mix sodium and chlorine, and I predict an explosion! These elements react violently together and release a huge amount of energy. Consequently, I predict that separating them will be difficult and will require even more energy.

Now, let us go to

IDIOTIC SCIENCE (aka Evolution)
Evolution is change in frequency alleles (CIFA) or change of frequency alleles (COFA), so what are the evidences of COFA or CIFA?
Nested hierarchy? as evidence, as predicted by CIFA/COFA?

or

falsification of CIFA/COFA? No Rabbit in Cambrian Area?
What is your point? Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles, but that does not define it; evolution was known well before alleles were.

Evolution absolutely does predict the nest hierarchy. Do you even know what that is?

The nested hierarchy is a bold prediction - we would not expect to see it if evolution was not true. And it turns out to be right. Can your crackpot theory make any bold predictions? Of course not!

Evolution makes firm, and bold, predictions about the pattern we expect in the fossil record. And it turns out to be right. Can your crackpot theory make any bold predictions? Of course not!

You see the stupidity of Evolution?
No. All I see is your ignorance about science.

Can you explain why the nested hierarchy is stupid? Of course not! You have no clue what it is. Or what evolution is!

That is why, what is really Evolution? What are you talking about?
Right. You have no clue what evolution is, do you?

Heaven forbid you could read a biology text book before you start mouthing off.
 
Top