Originally posted by CTD___

Readers are advised not to confuse the accuracy of my science-based prediction with prophecy. I suspect one needn't study much evolutionology at all to understand how easy it is to predict the continuance of observed patterns.

It raises an interesting question, however: is a branch of science still scientific when the predictions it makes are often trifling? I believe the difficulty (or lack thereof) of the predictions have no bearing on the scientific status of evolutionology.

Explain how the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae (Rogue06's avatar) is trifling. Here is an example of evolutionary theory predicting a transitional species between the first tetrapods and lobe-finned fish. Knowing the dates of the fossils for the known species, scientists targeted rock formations dating from 380 to 360 mya. Finding a suitable target, an exposed Devonian freshwater deposit, in the Canadian arctic, a scientific crew spent four years collecting Tiktaalik fossils. And wouldn't you know it? Right in the small area they selected, in the exact time frame they were targeting was a creature that fit the bill for an intermediate species between tetrapods and lobe-finned fish.

In other words, they found a really tiny needle in a really big haystack, which would have been impossible without the predictions generated by . . . evolutionary theory.

Your Inner Fish

—Sam

Originally posted by Philosophickle

the "theory of evolution" is shorthand for a large family of hypotheses/theories about the development of life on earth through specific and well-tested (natural) mechanisms.

Equivocating over the term was covered in 2 and 3.

No one is answering you because 1) it would be futile 2) I doubt anyone really knows what you're asking.

Your assertion is contrary to observational evidence quite handily available.

If you just want to know what evolution is, then just google it.

Missing the point, somehow. 1 and 4 make clear what I'm after. Responses make it clear that my words were clear and easily understood.

It's pretty clear that it's a theory that involves these elements:

1) Where life came from and how it developed.
2) Natural selection
3) Variation
4) Heredity
5) etc.

Some definitions are more relaxed and some are very specific.

It's pretty clear that things must exist if they're to be tested. If you know of such a "theory", you need to do more than offer a sales pitch. Stun everyone here - show us the "theory"!

Originally posted by CTD___

Equivocating over the term was covered in 2 and 3.

Your assertion is contrary to observational evidence quite handily available.

Missing the point, somehow. 1 and 4 make clear what I'm after. Responses make it clear that my words were clear and easily understood.

It's pretty clear that things must exist if they're to be tested. If you know of such a "theory", you need to do more than offer a sales pitch. Stun everyone here - show us the "theory"!

I get the impression that many have done as you ask.

Your game is easy. Simply deny what others present to you.


As an example, show me that a poster named "CTD___" actually posts here.



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by CTD___

Equivocating over the term was covered in 2 and 3.

Your assertion is contrary to observational evidence quite handily available.

Missing the point, somehow. 1 and 4 make clear what I'm after. Responses make it clear that my words were clear and easily understood.

It's pretty clear that things must exist if they're to be tested. If you know of such a "theory", you need to do more than offer a sales pitch. Stun everyone here - show us the "theory"!

How is it that someone can say so much without saying anything?
Do you want a definition? I don't know what you mean by "show me the theory", because showing isn't something you usually do with a theory; a theory is something you can define or explain, but I don't know what you mean by "show".

Perhaps this is my ignorance showing, but isn't this demand for a theory akin to asking people to show you "The Theory of Math"?

It's not that somebody couldn't describe division and integrals to you, but the scope of what you're asking for is so enormous that it's pointless to try and condense it down to a soundbite.

Originally posted by Philosophickle

How is it that someone can say so much without saying anything?
Do you want a definition? I don't know what you mean by "show me the theory", because showing isn't something you usually do with a theory; a theory is something you can define or explain, but I don't know what you mean by "show".

Do you really expect a point because I didn't explicitly cover equivocating over the term 'show'?



Did I or did I not say "I would like to see it"? Does that help any? ("Help" being a matter of perspective and objective, in a context where one party is seeking to make things as clear as possible and half a dozen are opposed.)

Originally posted by CTD___

Do you really expect a point because I didn't explicitly cover equivocating over the term 'show'?



Did I or did I not say "I would like to see it"? Does that help any? ("Help" being a matter of perspective and objective, in a context where one party is seeking to make things as clear as possible and half a dozen are opposed.)

No, it doesn't help me. If you don't want to a description/explanation/definition of the theory, then changing "show" to "see" isn't progress. You want me to "show" it to you so you can "see" it? Here you go:

"The Theory of Evolution"

Originally posted by Em7add11

Perhaps this is my ignorance showing, but isn't this demand for a theory akin to asking people to show you "The Theory of Math"?

It's not that somebody couldn't describe division and integrals to you, but the scope of what you're asking for is so enormous that it's pointless to try and condense it down to a soundbite.

If someone tells you about a "theory of math" which has been around for ages and subjected to all manner of testing and proper scientific procedures, but refuses to actually produce the theory, whatchu gonna do?

All you demonstrate is the capacity to abuse terms. We have a science of mathematics.

Originally posted by CTD___

Do you really expect a point because I didn't explicitly cover equivocating over the term 'show'?



Did I or did I not say "I would like to see it"? Does that help any? ("Help" being a matter of perspective and objective, in a context where one party is seeking to make things as clear as possible and half a dozen are opposed.)

The Certified Troll Denialist will never allow for anything useful to proceed from this discussion. But I admire those of you that are trying.


Jim

Originally posted by CTD___

We have a science of mathematics.

Good. Then show it to us.


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Philosophickle

No, it doesn't help me. If you don't want to a description/explanation/definition of the theory, then changing "show" to "see" isn't progress. You want me to "show" it to you so you can "see" it? Here you go:

"The Theory of Evolution"

- FreezBee

Originally posted by CTD___

Equivocating over the term was covered in 2 and 3.

Your assertion is contrary to observational evidence quite handily available.

Missing the point, somehow. 1 and 4 make clear what I'm after. Responses make it clear that my words were clear and easily understood.

Originally posted by adamds

I wasn't sure just how deep into science this thread was going since most of the first few posts revolved around semantics and single digits so I thought I would start easy.

You were saying?

Originally posted by CTD___

The observant will have noted that the chart is "geared toward" biology, if anything, seeing how it's given by a biology professor for biology students.

Apparently, I need to go back to school. I could have sworn biology and evolution were related.

Originally posted by CTD___

Readers are advised not to confuse the accuracy of my science-based prediction with prophecy. I suspect one needn't study much evolutionology at all to understand how easy it is to predict the continuance of observed patterns.

"Evolutionology"?!?

Have you ever heard of Tiktaalik (that's the fossilized remains of the critter in my avatar)? Do you know how, based upon evolutionary theory, its discoverers predicted that a creature much like it should have lived during the Devonian and along a coastal area. They found an area in northern Canada that matched what they were looking for, went up there and guess what? In a couple of years they discovered and excavated "Tiky" as predicted. That is the predictive power of "evolutionology" in action.


Arrrgh! Just saw As beat me to the punch already (post #49).

Originally posted by wattsr1

Good. Then show it to us.


Regards, Roland

Yup. I am really curious to see if CTD can show us the science of mathematics.

Originally posted by Carrikature

Apparently, I need to go back to school. I could have sworn biology and evolution were related. :almost:

Apparently you took a class on "antihistory" which might explain your confusion

CTD is one of those ignorant blustering cretos who thinks he's being soooo clever with his cutesy little 'denial' word games.

We see the same thing all the time with things like "no transitional fossils" or "no new information'. The ignorant YEC will loudly proclaim that such things don't exist, and when provided with dozens of concrete examples will just go "NUH UH!" and continue to repeat the asinine original assertion.

Makes you wonder how people this lacking in reasoning skills and out of touch with reality manage to function in real life. I guess if you're about 12 you can slide by hiding in your parents' basement like "Mr. Maturity" CTD here.

Hey CTD, if the ToE doesn't exist, why do blustering fools like you spend so much time and effort trying to claim it is false?

- T