A typical argument of an evolutionist – and who are you?
- Who are you to tell me?
- And who are you to tell me?
As I told many times, I do not have to be an authority to establish the obvious fact that evolutionists use morphology as a measurement. It is what you do, I just point to the fact that you do.
This is gonna be a quick one, its 1am. Busy weekend.
I didn't mean a "who are you to question evolution" thing. I meant you did evidence to back up your claims or else you wills eem like an fictional authority on evoltion.
I stated ‘’Proposed is not established or observed’’. I do not need to explain that this statement is true to anybody except evolutionists, and it is evident to anybody except evolutionists that nothing can be explained to evolutionists if they ask for explanation of such a simple truth.
We observe that it is sexual isolated from it parents. We observe its DNA its parents are that of S. vulgaris and S. squalidis . Is that your argument? Its flimsy. "The scientist didn't say a word a wanted". I think the evidence speaks for itself justone.
As I told many times, Neither your link, nor my investigation ever shows that your statement is true, but only the opposite can be deducted.
You investigation? What experiments did you do? What data did you collect? Your an advocate of proper science apparantly, get some evidence for your investigations.
I do not have time or intention to go through all BS you wish to post. I did not have to because I quoted the results of ISSR and as it was evident from the quote they did NOT establish parenthood, but ->
All my BS? Give evidence that it is BS. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.
Then what are DNA tests for courts for?
To ID criminals, fathers of children, that sort of thing. The odds are very scare that a RAPD test is wrong, thats why the courts use them.
As I told many times, It all starts from the fact I have demonstrated so many times, - evolutionists do not know, do not understand, do not follow rules of science from the very start, starting from Darwin. They bring confusion to most simple things as they have no ability to understand most simple things. Indeed science by its nature does not make true statements, it does not establish any truth. When you read on your calendar that the Sun will rise tomorrow at 4.53 am it is not a 100% definite and true statement. There is no logical proof for the statement that if it was raining/shining for the last n days then it will rain/shine/rise tomorrow to be true. It is a proposition - on the base of observations of the sun in the past it is proposed that it will rise tomorrow at 4.53 am as the proposition is 100% proven by mathematical calculations coming to the number 4.53 and there are no observations of the past or mathematical proofs related to this or that observation that would result in a different number, a different proposition. Science does not gather evidence, it is not an evidence related activity, it is an empirical EXPERIMENTAL activity, it starts from gathering observations of a phenomena (occurrences of the sun rising) and finishes with occurrences of phenomena.
Science gathers evidence to explain natural phenonomon until it gathers so much evidence that it backs a theory beyond all reasonable doubt.
Germ Theory, science doesn't prove that microscopic life causes disease, but we know beyond all reasonable doubt.
Mathematics can predict the time of the sunrise, because the equation has constants and predictable variables. Evolution does not have predictable variables and very few constants. Out of the blue, wolves may change its prey, bang, the ecosystem is changed. How can mathematics predict animal behaviour? Can mathematics predict whether you will fall in love with a person or not, or get in a fight, or maybe a flutter of jealously, or predict if you decide to become a vegetarian or not.
Life is too complex and unpredictable for mathematics. That is the mistake creationist math whizzes forget. They are right when they say life cannot have evolved by chance, but they do not realise that evolution is governed by nature, not chance.
Germ Theory, science doesn't prove that microscopic life causes disease, but we know beyond all reasonable doubt.
As I told many times, This is the core difference between science using the inductive method to make propositions, and evolution or philosophy using the deductive method to establish the truth.
Can you not recognised that species change, die out, are formed, that life is not static, but slowly ever changing. Static life?
Mule stats is noticeably different. As I told many times, you have not established the number dividing successful from unsuccessful. You change order and float the point 0.1 to 0.000001 at will just to fit your beliefs.
Its funny a creationist saying a manipulate the facts to fit my own beliefs lol.
The fact that crossovers between S. erboracensis and its parent S. vulgaris are not only very unlikey to happen at all in the wild, but are in fact weaker, smaller seed size etc. Could they survive in a competitive ecosystem? What we are seeing here is a new species, it cannot at the current time blend back with the parent.
How the same plant duplicating the same genetic information is getting more distant from the same plant? And whatever is the answer, - as I asked so many times, -what observation does confirm such a suggestion?
Well for a start it already is pretty distant from one parent - S. squalidis. Do you agree?
S. vulagris, is somewhat compatible in certain conditions very rare in the wild, but they will get distant geneticall.
Mutuations happen in DNA and have been observed, you agree? Both S. vulgaris and S. eboracensis will mutate. If S. vulgaris and S. eboracensis is not exchanging DNA with each other, they cannot share mutations. The mutations build up and build up independently in each species, their DNA becomes less and less identical until they have 0% of mating even in a lab.
You are pulling the same worn out ad hom a strawmen fallacies and again and again and again and again. You are –reusing the same condom again and again and again. How many more times?
Yet you still won't answer the question. Have you something to hide justone? You call us liars and cheats, yet cannot give a reason why we do so. I'm being open ,your being opaque about your views.
It is simple, if we are dishonest we are lying, therefore we have a motive for lying, its not a strawman or an ad-hom, just asking the reason why you slander scientists? Is that so unreasonable?
I gave you a concrete reference to them doing math. You have not made a word related to the reference and the facts but went into you usual violent assault on religion of other people. As well you have completely ignored my reply to your statement about evolution and mathematics. For some reason you think that if evolutionists blinded by their hatred to Christians do not notice that, then nobody notices that. I wonder how much Ikari is blinded by his hatred and if he can see what I wanted to demonstrate to him. Ikari, where are you?
I have no problem with religion in general, like I said my girlfriend is a Christain. But creationism I cannot stand, because they are putting forth their own agenda in the way of scientific enquiry.
I haven't ignored your statement about mathematics. In mathematics you can predict, in evolution you can't, except maybe the past.
[
QUOTE=justone;1058015860]
Now let’s go to meaningless insults and insinuations evolutionists always use as the main argument:
With a wave of the wrist? For some reason you think that if evolutionists blinded by their hatred to Christians do not notice detailed arguments, quotes and facts I have been submitting, then nobody notices?[/QUOTE]
Now your whining about hatred towards christains? Is this a new tactic justone?
I have been considering mostly YOUR evidence.
Not my evidence. Two scientists evidence, passed though the endless barrage of scientific criticism until in finally got published in a scientific journal. If you want to "disprove it" the method is right there for you or anyone to do it Justone.
I have assumed that the quoted sources of yours report their experiments as they should, and I have no evidence telling me that I should think otherwise and not to trust them.
Thank goodness, some leeway. Can't you see how S. erboacensis can be classified as a new species, due to its sexual isolation from its parents?
As I asked many times, how many times have you already used this line?
Sounds like what you are saying is a conspiracy theory to me.
A conspiracy theory is a term that has come to refer to any tentative theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators,[1] such as a "secret team" or "shadow government".[2]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory]Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]