Oldest primate fossil yet found. It is a tiny Chinese Archicebus fossil

[Azazel]

Indeed hence my annoyance of the ignorant people worshiping evolution when they have no idea how complex life is

That's very rich coming from people who worship deities who's existence cannot be proven by any means.No one worships evolution,If people were worshipping evolution then evolutionary science would've been stuck at 18th century Just like religions are stuck at stone ages.

Or maybe its time for you to come out of 1870s theory and hit 21st century

No its not me who is stuck in 1870s its you.

Theory:

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Unfortunately for Darwin, there was no experiment involved...

As I said you are stuck in 1870s,Come to 21st century.In 21st century evidence of Theory of Evolution is derived from various branches of biology which include particularly genetics, cytology, systematics, botany, morphology, ecology and paleontology.

The best current one is the E coli long term evolution experiment. Started in 1988 it has followed the evolution of E coli for 52,000 generations. That's about 1,250,000 years in human generations. The E coli have evolved and produced a new species.

With the advent of DNA testing evolution has been confirmed through experimentation. Darwin didn't dream of such technology but on going discoveries confirm the process of natural selection and evolution.

You can also review the major court cases on evolution. These are ones where the explaination of evolution has been judged in court.

Overview of the E. coli long-term evolution experiment
Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | NCSE

A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).

It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.

It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)

It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.

It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

Fact:

A thing that is indisputably the case

Drama queen,why play with the words you clearly don't know.Fact means something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information.And the evolution by the means of selection is a fact since it has over the years provided with tons of evidence and In 150 years no major tenet of evolutionary theory has been overturned.

fact noun - definition in British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionary Online

Law: An individual rule as part of such a system

Now please stop showing us more evidence of your lack of knowledge!

Again playing with the words.That's not the meaning of the word law in science,this explanation came from the law books.The laws of science or scientific laws are statements that describe, predict, and perhaps explain why, a range of phenomena behave as they appear to in nature.An analogous term for a scientific law is a principle.

Scientific laws:

1.summarize a large collection of facts determined by experiment into a single statement,

2.can usually be formulated mathematically as one or several statements or equation, or at least stated in a single sentence, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the initial, boundary, and other physical conditions of the processes which take place,

3.are strongly supported by empirical evidence - they are scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty like mathematical theorems or identities, and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations.

4.are often quoted as a fundamental controlling influence rather than a description of observed facts. I.e. "the laws of motion require that"

As used in science, both these terms "law" and "theory" share some things in common. Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time if there are data to suggest so.Remember how Einstien proved that the Newtonian "Laws" of mechanics did not explain everything.

Both these words are remarkably similar but the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform.

Literature Cited

Futuyma, D. J. 1979. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Assoc.

Krimsley, V. S. 1995. Introductory Chemistry, 2nd Ed. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove.

Lincoln, R. J., G. A. Boxshall, and P. F. Clark. 1990. A dictionary of ecology, evolution and systematics. Cambridge Univ. Press.

Moore, J. A. 1984. Science as a way of knowing--evolutionary biology. Amer. Zool. 24: 467-534.

Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; Oxford University Press, London.

Steen, E. B. 1971. Dictionary of Biology. Barnes and Nobel.


No please do stop posting such ignorance.

 

[Dubious]

@Azazel I just read what you wrote, you do not only understand what you wrote, you just blindly PLAGIARIZE...

When I said "worshiping evolution " I didnt mean literally read the context


2ndly, when you replied about law and theory, again you did not understand WHY I wrote that...I never said 1 is above the other...Bt you countryman was talking about thermodynamics is a law and whatnot...


Please stop trying to shove your nonesense down my throat you MULLAH....Just coz I do not believe what you believe in doesnt give you the right to call other people's believe anything....Sorry to say but just because you ONLY KNOW 1 THING evolution which you have been fed as a fact... without properly knowing what the process involves and how it cant and hasnt been proven ...doesnt make it right and the ONLY thing...please use your brain....I could explain in molecular biology but then you wouldnt understand a bit so why waste my time....


You want to evolve from apes, be my guest! But dont drag me into it as I do not believe in it until you bring fwd some prove if you cant its better to shut up instead of appearing an idiot day and night!

 

[FaujHistorian]

Well, God is omnipotent and omniscient by definition, so that's not really a debatable point. Either one accepts God, or one doesn't.

As for creating complex things, that's exactly what I meant: that God created a complex system, i.e. the universe, including its constituent components (matter, energy, etc.) as well as the laws governing their behavior.

Essentially, it lays the field open for science to investigate reality since understanding the cosmos only amounts to "reverse engineering" one of God's creations, not replacing Him. In fact, if you view the cosmos as God's playful challenge to humans, then science is worship of the highest order.

for sanity's sakes,


Let's keep God in our hearts where it belongs.


And


Let's keep science (scientific methods) in our heads where it belongs.



When you quit using your brain, and make decisions using emotions, you muck up your own present and your own future.

Look at the Tribal lands and learn something please.


Enough of this madness of mixing God in the discussion on scientific discovery.

Enough!

[M.........Just coz I do not believe what you believe in doesnt give you the right to call other people's believe anything....
....t!

you were sooooooooo good when you stated this. That I almost ready to consider you at the top of this discussion.

[M........
You want to evolve from apes, be my guest! ....t!

Then you mucked up your own very argument by this childish statement.

Dang!

 

[Dubious]

Well, the analogy was meant to illustrate the functional roles rather than be a detailed analogy.

It's been a while since I studied genetics, so correct me if I am wrong, but a detailed analogy might involve seeing the junk DNA as the "head office".
Its RNA as being a "corporate memo".
The encoder gene DNA as being the "site office".
It's RNA as being the "daily roster of tasks for that site".
The enzymes thus created being the "workers".
The raw material chemicals (fats, carbs, proteins, etc) as being the "cement".

Erm...I do not know management terms...what is corporate memo? and what are you refering to as encoder gene? Ermmm some RNA are encode

If the head office sends a memo to start construction, but the "stop construction" memo is late, then the wall would be longer than originally intended.

well, there are MANY reasons why the stop memo is late....

Correct, but since evolution is only concerned with mutations which do affect behavior, let's restrict the debate to those mutations. If there is nothing for natural selection to differentiate one organism from another, there is no basis for selection and evolution is not applicable.

Honestly speaking I am yet to see a paper in which they have clearly stated that the mutation was not in the junk DNA but in the coding sequence....
Natural selection, micro evolution and mutations are words which we Geneticist rely on....But the scale to jump species is not easy nor explainable hence, not proven!

It's completely speculative and it would be hard for me to explain without getting into heavy quantum mechanics.

Broadly speaking, it's about successful mutations -- which, by definition, would exist in large numbers in succeeding generations --

I got this part but you lost me in the feedback loop backwards in time...my question is how?!

providing a feedback loop backwards in time to favor their specific mutation to occur in the first place. It's a causality loop in time.

It's like saying that the lottery winner goes back in time and gives themself the winning lottery numbers.

THAT I get, but how can mutation would cause such a loop?

 

[Azazel]

@Azazel I just read what you wrote, you do not only understand what you wrote, you just blindly PLAGIARIZE...

Oh pls drama queen,Your rubbish posts don't require my full attention.I don't need to prove to you what I understand and what I don't.This is not writing a journal.I can do what ever I want.

When I said "worshiping evolution " I didnt mean literally read the context

That phrase worshipping evolution would be extremely offensive to any sane person.We study the evolution.There is a big difference between those two.People who worship are you not me.

2ndly, when you replied about law and theory, again you did not understand WHY I wrote that...I never said 1 is above the other...Bt you countryman was talking about thermodynamics is a law and whatnot...

As far as I am concerned you replied that to my post.I don't care what you wrote to others.I fu

Please stop trying to shove your nonesense down my throat you MULLAH....Just coz I do not believe what you believe in doesnt give you the right to call other people's believe anything....Sorry to say but just because you ONLY KNOW 1 THING evolution which you have been fed as a fact... without properly knowing what the process involves and how it cant and hasnt been proven ...doesnt make it right and the ONLY thing...please use your brain....I could explain in molecular biology but then you wouldnt understand a bit so why waste my time....

You are just pissed because the dogmas that you have been indoctrinated from holds no water in the realm of rationality.Unlike you my posts here are not based on presuppositions.My post are based on fully rational arguments and scientific facts.If you can't refute my posts in a rational manner then pls stop posting.

You want to evolve from apes, be my guest! But dont drag me into it as I do not believe in it until you bring fwd some prove if you cant its better to shut up instead of appearing an idiot day and night!

What makes you think I want to drag you in to anything.I've provided enough evidence to all my claims.Its just you being a dumb creationist.No matter how much evidence we bring you will never accept it.

 

[Dubious]

@Azazel Nahh am not pissed, why should it anger me if 1 person on the planet believes his ancestor was an ape or something?!

 

[MilSpec]

I suggest you stick to what YOU DO KNOW and not venture out into what YOU DONT want to know ...

An I suggest, you not undermine my understanding of religious bullcrap

 

[Dubious]

An I suggest, you not undermine my understanding of religious bullcrap

I never intended to...It was your thinking that 1 who doesnt believe in evolution has to be a creationist ...

I asked for proof...and you cant provide one and your countrymen want me to just feed on it coz they have!

 

[livingdead]

@Azazel kindly refrain from personal barbs, its unnecessary, I think people who want to know will know. This is age of internet, all you need is to give pointers. Some will not be able to jump the hurdle of pre conceived notions about the topic, some are victim of bad science teachers who forced us to memorize science instead of developing a scintific temper, luckily such people are very few among those who are educated. (at least in west and far east)

Here is an editorial cartoon lampooning darwin.. year 1871

 

[FaujHistorian]

1 [meaning Talon] who doesnt believe in evolution has to be a creationist ...
!

Well so far these are the two theories.

you got third one?

....
I asked for proof...and you cant provide one and your countrymen want me to just feed on it coz they have!

People who ask for "proof" that supports "evolution theory",

themselves

do not realize that

any "proof" for "creation theory" is even more remote.


So Ms Talon, (respectfully speaking) you got a theory other than these two, that have some proof that truly satisfies you?


just curious.

@Azazel kindly refrain from personal barbs, its unnecessary, I think people who want to know will know. This is age of internet, all you need is to give pointers. Some will not be able to jump the hurdle of pre conceived notions about the topic, some are victim of bad science teachers who forced us to memorize science instead of developing a scintific temper, luckily such people are very few among those who are educated. (at least in west and far east)

Here is an editorial cartoon lampooning darwin.. year 1871
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Editorial_cartoon_depicting_Charles_Darwin_as_an_ape_%281871%29.jpg/446px-Editorial_cartoon_depicting_Charles_Darwin_as_an_ape_%281871%29.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]


Wow.

what a nice thing to say.


Bravo.

This is how discussions on science should go.


peace

 

[Azazel]

@Azazel Nahh am not pissed, why should it anger me if 1 person on the planet believes his ancestor was an ape or something?!

Because that's true and it debunks all the religious mumbo jumbo and dogmas associated with it.It strange how people can believe and worship dogmatic deities and out rightly deny the very process that explains how we mankind came in to existence.Which makes me think there is something seriously wrong with this world.

@Azazel kindly refrain from personal barbs, its unnecessary, I think people who want to know will know. This is age of internet, all you need is to give pointers. Some will not be able to jump the hurdle of pre conceived notions about the topic, some are victim of bad science teachers who forced us to memorize science instead of developing a scintific temper, luckily such people are very few among those who are educated. (at least in west and far east)

Here is an editorial cartoon lampooning darwin.. year 1871

I didn't started any personal barbs she did.And let me tell you there is a difference between skepticism an denial.Skepticism is questioning of beliefs based of scientific understanding.Its a way of testing reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method.Skepticism is an inherent part of scientific methodology.I always welcome skeptics of Theory of Evolution because they can be convinced otherwise.But what @Talon doing here is an outright denial.She just doesn't want to acknowledge unpleasant facts that debunk her religious presuppositions.There is no way to convince them,no matter what we do we will never be able to convince them because they value dogma more than rationalism.That's why she keeps on asking more evidence even though there is plenty of it just a click away from her fingertip.

 

[livingdead]

@Azazel, I think you should stop arguing once you realize your point is clear enough. The aim is not to have the last say, but put your arguments on the table, and probably continue the conversation till you realize there is nothing much to add to the discussion. (especially topics like this).

Sometimes the last post is not the last word, people who read the post make their own judgement based on all your posts. If you wanted somebody to be convinced, I should say you have done a good job, rest is dependent on the readers.

I hope you know human mind is capable of compartmentalization, its perfectly possible for an intelligent missile scientist to be a devotee of satya sai baba, I understand your frustration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)

 

[Dubious]

Because that's true and it debunks all the religious mumbo jumbo and dogmas associated with it.It strange how people can believe and worship dogmatic deities and out rightly deny the very process that explains how we mankind came in to existence.Which makes me think there is something seriously wrong with this world.

Yet you failed to provide a single scientific proof of your mumbo jumbo believe ....Interesting....

Talk about denial! I wrote extensively about why it is not possible in terms of genetics...Not my fault you failed to understand the seriousness of everything, hence, I said stick to what you do know...

 

[Koovie]

And I am still waiting for PROOF of some people's believe that we descendant from apes!

All talk and not 1 person could put fwd ANY form of proof....

Go back to the beginning and first try to at least understand the theory of the evolution of man....

It does not say that man descended from apes, its says that humans and apes had the same ancestors millions of years ago,

 

[RKhan]

Yet you failed to provide a single scientific proof of your mumbo jumbo believe ....Interesting....

Talk about denial! I wrote extensively about why it is not possible in terms of genetics...Not my fault you failed to understand the seriousness of everything, hence, I said stick to what you do know...

Lol scientific proof? what do you want?
Him to visit your house with fossil of all of human kinds ancestors?


Seriously be ashamed of yourself