Robert Heenan in UK wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:You haven't torn anything apart, all you have done is express incredulity.

What type of a scientist is it that you claim to be?

Im a scientist

Of course you are, anyone can see that by reading your posts. I see you are a fellow Brit and I find that as an embarrassment to the education system in the UK if it turns out folk like yourself.

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:Im sorry but theres no need to be swearing. As a matter of fact lies and goal post shifts is typical of the evolution pseudoscience world.

Let's explore that claim. If that was really true, and evolutionists really just rely on making shit up and presenting it as fact because it fits their preconcieved notions, and don't bother with evidence at all, then any explanation published by evolutionists in evolutionists journals are going to be accepted and presented as unassailable fact, right? This is what you're arguing after all.

Well, let me dig up some random recent paper on evolutionary biology:
How protein targeting to primary plastids via the endomembrane system could have evolved? A new hypothesis based on phylogenetic studies
Przemysław Gagat, Andrzej Bodył and Paweł Mackiewicz

This paper is published in biology-direct, which has open peer review. This should give us insight into the supposed blind rubberstamping that goes on in professional evolutionist "peer review":

Reviewer 1: Prof. Dr William Martin, Institut für Molekulare Evolution, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Germany
This is an excellent paper. The authors take the theory of Bhattacharya et al. to task, namely, if endomembrane system (ES) mediated targeting was ancestral, then the proteins imported that way should reflect an ancient status. It turns out that if we actually look at the evidence, these few ES mediated imports are of very recent origin, maybe only even in land plants. Thus, the clearest prediction that the Bhattacharya theory makes fails, hence it is not a very robust theory, and if we are honest it doesn’t even account for the proteins upon which it was based. Someone should have noticed this earlier. Gagat et al. put together a scholarly and well-written piece of work, a very welcome addition to the literature. It can be published as is in my view in BD.

Already in the very first comment by one of the reivewers we see that another evolutionist hypothesis (which was supposed to be just blindly accepted, right?) is being SLAUGHTERED.

Go read the rest of the review. Go read the reviews of 10 random papers on evolution in that journal.

QED.

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:You haven't torn anything apart, all you have done is express incredulity.

What type of a scientist is it that you claim to be?

Im a scientist

No you're not. Evident by every post you've made.

So you are a scientist who finds it incredible that evolution happens and won't name your area of expertise in science. Ok, but don't think your personal credibility has been increased by that admission. In fact it has pretty much been gutted.

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:

pensioner wrote:

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:DarkHelmet86

I cant believe you dont want to discuss this issue. I mean its all fine and well for staunch believers of evolution to seek out creationists for debate but when im seeking a debate on this pseudoscience then you dont want to know. Im a friendly guy and id consider your supposed evidences and proofs no matter how wacky and bizarre they may very well be

You can atleast try and prove as to why Lenskis experiment is "scientific fact and proof" of evolution. Im open minded about all things but just as i have never been convinced by mainstream or new age religions, im also not convinced by the supposed "scientific facts" and "scientific proofs" of evolution

Please tell me what you mean by"scientific facts" and "scientific proofs" Do tell?

You can perhaps prove this evolution pseudoscience story which is more wacky than organised religion and new age religion is really a "scientific fact" and there is "scientific proof" its really really true

First thing I expect you to do is prove that Mr Lenskis much celebrated bacteria experiment proved that evolution really did occur

Then we will move onto the yeast floccoulation experiments and the genome stuff.

Please dont be a bunch of cowards and debate this right and proper.

Im off to eat out tonight and when I get back i expect to be convinced that evolution really is a "scientific fact"

Science is not about true or false, not in the sense you mean. In fact there are no absolute truths outside of mathematics, and logic, and they are definitional eg "All bachelors are unmarried".
Absolute truth or falsity is seen to be unrealistic if you know the first thing about epistomology [the discipline that asks the question: "How do do you what you know is true?"]
The fact is everything is bollocks: religion, science, just everything.
All one can do is find useful information that solves problems in a consistent manner. Disciplines that use reason and evidence [such as the sciences] are more likely to give this type of data.
Science is about constructing falsifiable descriptive & predictive models of natural phenomena, and testing those models to destruction. If and only if a model survives such testing, then it is tentatively accepted, subject always to further testing. Scientific theories are antagonistic, meaning a differential diagnosis should favour only one hypothesis over its competitors when compared to the data. There is no belief or metaphysics to this, it is a proceedural machine called "methodological naturalism".
Thus any accepted scientific fact or theory has undergone this process. Evolution is a scientific fact. Evolutionary theory is actually a plural, because there are many different aspects of evolution that deal with the phenomenon called life. Speciation, selection, extinction, sex, development, population dynamics, epigenetics, epistasis, neutral theory, genetic drift, inclusive fitness, biogeography etc, etc.

kennyc wrote:

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:You haven't torn anything apart, all you have done is express incredulity.

What type of a scientist is it that you claim to be?

Im a scientist

No you're not. Evident by every post you've made.

I think the science of trolling is in evidence here....

Wonder what he thinks about gravity?

Rumraket wrote:

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:What type of scientist is it that you claim to be?

A PhD in personal incredulity. His dissertation was on Denial through mockery 101.

Thats the funny thing about you evolutionists. You simply cant take it when your laughable rubbish gets mocked and torn apart then you resort to making fun and mockery of people that tear apart your nonsense.

What do you mean? I'm having fun.

See, told you he was funny!

a stroll online is hmmmm enlightening...

Robert Heenan
Banned
l

http://www.not606.com/member.php/1010037-Robert-Heenan

Gee after 5 posts.....

and for your amusement

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/search.p ... id=5201473

Three should have been enough here.....

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:
Im a scientist myself

Yes, I'm sure

too but its the way evolution pseudoscientists use their nonsense to preach their rubbish as "scientific facts" when infact its not.

You haven't actually said anything here, only cast aspersions on people who actually have something to show for their work. Really, it's incredibly low quality trolling, but it seems that's all we get nowadays. 1/10

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:I have watched many programmes on this thing and also read alot on this stuff and im just as baffled and bewildered ..in fact more so than mainstream and new age religions

How much is 'alot'? You're a scientist. You should be able to quantify it. You should allot more time to writing your posts.

I think you're also missing a preposition in there, somewhere, but I could be wrong. If you are more baffled than mainstream religion is, your production here is not a surprise.

A Christian scientist?

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:Did humans really descend from a single-cell organism by zillions and zillions of beneficial mutations via fishes, lizards and baboons??

That's a bit oversimplified but, essentially, yes. Not all the mutations were beneficial in and of themselves, and indeed many of them were deleterious to some degree, but that's the basic picture painted by the evidence.

I mean the evolution story makes mainstream religion and new age beliefs seem credible

Really? A model demonstrated time and time again to be in accord with observational evidence seems less credible than ideas touted by pre-scientific ignoramuses and ideas touted by post-scientific ignoramuses? How the holy fuck does that work?

but i would like to see actual proof.

Then you're in the wrong place. Science only does proof in the negative sense, i.e. disproof. Positive proof is the remit only of axiomatic-deductive systems of logic, such as mathematics. Science is inductive, so proof doesn't apply. Perhaps some time spent learning about epistemology, specifically the appropriate remits of particular epistemological frameworks, would serve you here, as opposed to emptying your arse at us.

Please feel free to expand and explain the Lenski experiment,

What's to explain? The experiment involved tracking the evolution of 12 identical populations of Escherichia coli in various environments, resulting in various de novo traits, such as the ability to metabolise citrate in an oxygen-rich environment, a trait not previously possessed by any of the ancestral populations. This is not 'proof' of evolution, it's a demonstration of it. In short, evolution was observed to have been occurring in these populations. It's a fact that they evolved to take advantage of a newly available energy resource.

the yeast flocculation experiments and the other amazing evolution stories on here.

Yeast flocculation is simply a process by which yeasts 'clump' in adverse conditions. The process is reversible, which distinguishes it from agglomeration. Interestingly, the etymological root of the word 'flocculation' is flocculus, the diminutive form of the Latin floccus, meaning wool, from which we also derive the words 'flock' when referring to sheep and 'floccinaucinihilipilification', the act of assessing something as worthless, an exercise that many have engaged in with regard to your opening post.

Lets discuss

Obviously.

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:The onus is on you to prove this evolution actually is true and im talking about macroevolution here and not adaptation (microevolution).

Oh dear. It seems we need to go through the baby steps here.

The macro/micro distinction is a valid distinction in evolutionary biology, but it doesn't mean what the cretinists think it means.

Evolution is defined as variation in the frequencies of alleles, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. Microevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles below species level, in a population of organisms. Macroevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles at or above species level, or in populations of populations. The easiest way to think about this is that evolutionary biologists study frequencies of alleles that are shared between two species so, for example, there are many genes that are shared between humans and chimpanzees, which is to say that humans and chimps carry exactly the same version of the gene.

Another useful example is extinction, in which the frequency of all alleles in a species go from some to none.

What the creationist is actually talking about here is something that would falsify evolutionary theory wholesale, namely a cat giving birth to a dog. This, of course, doesn't happen. What does happen, though, is speciation, and in fact there is a beautiful example of extinction and speciation in a single event, namely an extinction event in a ring species. If a selection of sub-species in the middle of the ring go extinct, by a bolide impact, for example, and the remaining subspecies are no longer reproductively compatible, then we have an extinction event that is also a speciation event, both of which are correctly defined as macroevolution.

Please feel free to prove that the very much celebrated Lenski experiment is actually proof and "scientific proof" of evolution

You really need to learn the distinction between 'proof' and 'evidential support'.

As for science. Actually im not too sure the word science can actually be used to describe Mr Lenskis experiments just yet

That might have something to do with your abject ignorance of precisely what constitutes 'science'. Science is the process by which we garner information about phenomena. It involves observation, hypothesis, prediction and observation. In this case, it involved prior observations, namely those upon which evolutionary theory was founded, predictions, again these were prior predictions arising naturally out of evolutionary theory and it's many hypotheses, and then observation to see if those predictions were in accord with what was really happening. Surprise, surprise, they were. That's science in action, and it's what Lenski was engaged in for 25 years, more years than the minutes you've spent studying evolutionary theory, by the look of it.

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:I cant believe you dont want to discuss this issue.

I'm sure my colleague would be overjoyed to discuss this 'issue' with somebody who's actually open for discussion, as opposed to somebody who simply wishes to troll the board with his ignorance.

I mean its all fine and well for staunch believers of evolution

Well, that rules me out, because I'm not a staunch believer in anything. Evolution isn't something to be believed, because it's a fact. It's a fact in exactly the same way that gravity is a fact.

to seek out creationists for debate

We don't need to seek out cretinists for a debate, they seek us out.

but when im seeking a debate on this pseudoscience then you dont want to know.

You're not seeking a debate.

Im a friendly guy

We'll be the judge of that.

and id consider your supposed evidences and proofs no matter how wacky and bizarre they may very well be

And yet you erect this statement. You already introduce the weasel word 'supposed', and classify them as wacky and bizarre. You think this highlights you as somebody willing to look at the evidence with an open mind? No, it highlights you as somebody who, with absolutely no study or understanding of the subject matter, or indeed of science, has already formed an unshakable opinion. Like all opinions, though, it's utterly fucking worthless.

You can atleast try and prove as to why Lenskis experiment is "scientific fact and proof" of evolution.

Well, the experiment is fact by definition. It occurred. It's an example of an event that demonstrably happened, which is pretty much the definition of a fact. Indeed, the same is true of evolution. Allele frequencies have been observed occurring, and indeed these frequency variations have been observed to give rise to new morphological and metabolic traits.

As for 'proof', you really need to work on your understanding of science and how it works.

Im open minded about all things

Errr, no.

but just as i have never been convinced by mainstream or new age religions, im also not convinced by the supposed "scientific facts" and "scientific proofs" of evolution

I'd be surprised if you were convinced by any scientific proofs, not least because no such beastie actually exists, except, as I pointed out, in the negative form. You might want to do some reading on the philosophy of science, particularly Popper, who dealt beautifully with the way this actually works, as opposed to the idiotic fucking caricature presented here.

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:You guys claim that from a single cell ( extremely complicated) and through zillions and zillions and zillions of beneficial mutations we have come about via fish, lizards, baboons etc.

I don't claim that, it's what the vast swathes of observational evidence suggest.

The onus is on you to prove this as scientific fact

Actually, the onus is upon you to learn what you're talking about, not least because it's crystal clear that either you have done precisely zero study on the subject, or you're merely trolling.

because right now I consider the evolution field as pseudoscience and a total abuse of real science.

Well, then, we'd better tell all those scientists producing thousands of papers detailing experimental validation of evolutionary postulates every month that they should pack up and go home, because Robert remains unconvinced.

The whole thing just like climate change and organised religion seems like a total utter fraud

The climate changes. That's a fact. The causes of climate change are many and varied. That's a fact. Humans have some influence on some of those factors. That's a fact. The details are unclear, but there's no doubt that the climate varies and that we have some influence on it. Comparing experimentally validated theories to ancient ideas extracted directly from somebody's rectum is asinine in the extreme.

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:

Macdoc wrote:OP is this a serious question or ....???
Seems a tad on the basics side for a science forum. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology and medicine.
Do you have perhaps a bit more focused question.

I like that comment. Its very funny and we'll get to that later. Perhaps you can advise me as to why Lenskis experiments are so wildly celebrated as "scientific proof of evolution"

How about instead of us trying to explain it to you, you explain to us why it is bad science. Explain why it doesn't represent more prove of evolution at work. That way we will be able to correct any mistakes you might make and accept any errors that have so far gone unnoticed in the experiment.

The onus is on you to prove this evolution actually is true and im talking about macroevolution here and not adaptation (microevolution).

Oh look yet another person who can't believe people taking single steps can lead to them walking a whole mile.

Also why do chewtoys always appear overnight? I always seem to miss them.

Robert Heenan in UK wrote:You can perhaps prove this evolution pseudoscience story which is more wacky than organised religion and new age religion is really a "scientific fact" and there is "scientific proof" its really really true

Which do you look more like, your mother or your father?

First thing I expect you to do is prove that Mr Lenskis much celebrated bacteria experiment proved that evolution really did occur

You have it all bass-ackwards. Lenski's experiment doesn't 'prove' evolution, it's an example of evolution. We don't need proof of evolution, because it's been observed occurring. I don't know which bit of this is failing to penetrate.

Then we will move onto the yeast floccoulation experiments and the genome stuff.

Perhaps you could tell us which experiments you're talking about here. Yeast flocculation is something that has been an essential part of the brewing process for nearly 3,000 years. It's a non-sexual, reversible process.

Please dont be a bunch of cowards and debate this right and proper.

Cowards? You really have come to the wrong place. We don't do cowardice here, we do fucking over of ignorant fucking bollocks, as should be clear from my expositions of your ignorant bollocks thus far in this thread.

Im off to eat out tonight and when I get back i expect to be convinced that evolution really is a "scientific fact"

Which brings me back to my earlier question, namely, which do you look more like, your father or your mother?