BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 05:42 AM

The peppered moth example shows a possible mechanism for evolution but is not in itself evolution, as both forms were already present before the Industrial Revolution. Additionally, some of the data on which the story is predicated is dodgy due to a spot of dishonesty in the gleaning. I'd love to have it as an example to chuck at the tiresome snail fellow, but my honesty will not allow it. Bet he won't credit me for that. Wait for it...

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:26 AM

"show me where I can see some evolution......snail"

You can in, er, snails. You can even be involved in educating yourself and destroying your own ignorant delusions by using empirical evidence you gather.

Evolution Megalab

I'm guessing that much to the admiration of those here whom admire your stand against the forces of reason, you can't be arsed to though.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw crawling fast
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 09:25 AM

'S all right, Stu. Snail does think that evolution happens, he just doesn't think it's true, that's all. Confusing, innit! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:02 AM

While a 2008 article, the findings indicate some interesting viewpoints that have not seemed to change that much beford the article was printed.

Scientists and Science Education 

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:16 PM

Ed, I did not see gfs comment, and I assumed that you had not checked who commented and made the mistake.                                 What's up shimrod?   Not able to advance arguments on your own account ? I don't demand you read creationist links, even though they are my main source of info. Rather I frame arguments in my own words. In my last post, I ventured that them bugs were still the same sort of bugs, even if some of em could digest citrate now.   Care to argue with that?                                  Steve, nice to be singing from the same hymn sheet for a change. In fact, I seem to remember saying the same thing some time ago.                                                             And stu, and much to the admiration of your fellow believers, you were not bothered to frame your own arguments on this occasion either.......but in fairness have done so in the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:26 PM

It's very interesting that far more people appear to approve of science and scientists than accept the truth of evolution. Having said that, the questioning regime of the survey seemed very labyrinthine, and it's hardly surprising that it threw up a good many apparent conflicts in the figures. I'd like to think that people in general trust science but are pulled rather strongly in the opposite direction by influential and charismatic naysayers. I think I'll stop there. For now.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:32 PM

Singing from the same hymnsheet my arse. The peppered moth demonstrates a process that is involved in evolution but is a somewhat incomplete and imperfect example of it. If you're extrapolating from that that I don't think evolution occurs, well you'd better wipe that great big festering blob of bullshit off your hymnsheet the better for you to see the bloody words.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:49 PM

Steve Shaw:
Singing from the same hymnsheet my arse. The peppered moth demonstrates a process that is involved in evolution but is a somewhat incomplete and imperfect example of it. If you're extrapolating from that that I don't think evolution occurs, well you'd better wipe that great big festering blob of bullshit off your hymnsheet the better for you to see the bloody words.

Thank you for your considered and 'polite' contribution.
Whilst the case of the peppered moth may not show a clear case of evolution, it does show how environmental changes may affect the chance of survival of one species in preference to another.
To state that both species already existed ignores the fact that they may have common forbears.
I was not 'extrapolating', merely showing an example of how 'natural selection' may favour the survival of one species over another.

It may be well, at this stage, to inform the discussion by giving Darwin's magnum opus its full title:
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

In further discussion of this matter I will try to avoid invoking the language of the gutter. I hope that you can do likewise.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 07:51 PM

In recent years, bacteria have been 'learning' to resist antibiotics. This IS evolution. The more antibiotics we use, the more 'practice' they get. many links

Often, people take antibiotics when they have a virus... which does no good except for the bacteria to have more to 'learn' about.

I repeat: This IS evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:32 PM

Wow, Nigel, that post was directed squarely at pete, not you. I fully respected your contribution and gave it the measured response it deserved.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 08:39 PM

Learning and practise are not a good way of putting this. Mutation is the miscopying of heritable information and is neither learned, practised or driven. Point taken apropos of antibiotic resistance, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Dec 14 - 10:13 PM

That's why it was in single brackets... and that's how it was presented on a program the other day by an expert hoping to find a way to get it across. I wish it were easier to just use all the technical terms in all cases.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 02:04 AM

"I don't demand you read creationist links, even though they are my main source of info."

Of course they are! And I suggest that you don't read any of the literature on evolution because you might learn something that you don't want to know.

"I ventured that them bugs were still the same sort of bugs, even if some of em could digest citrate now.   Care to argue with that?"

No I wouldn't because I'm not familiar with that specific example.

But you've got a lot more explaining to do, pete. For example please explain to me why I should believe that the translated, re-translated and mis-translated myths and legends of a bunch of Bronze Age, middle-eastern goatherds tell us everything we need to know about the origins of the Universe and all life on Earth. I await your explanation with baited breath!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:23 AM

Bill makes a good point re antibiotic resistance. However, my understanding is that this is about "training" your immune system to seek and destroy. Whether there has been an irreversible change in the molecular makeup of your antibodies goes to the heart of what we term evolution.

If your children retain that genetic memory, is that because the mother has passed on sufficient antibody intact or the DNA ability to produce it? Moot point. (Not just bacterial either, viral too.)

HIV itself, regardless of host is altering, as a good example of evolution. In order to evade antiretrovirals, the strain is becoming better at hiding but less virulent in doing so and it is (fingers crossed) expected to become a condition of first to catch a cold, guaranteed to catch what is going round etc in around a hundred years from now. Even where no treatment is around, the time taken to developing AIDS had increased from seven to ten years over the last twenty years. (Source BMJ, last week.)

Evolution is, to my mind, not just what we can observe.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 08:30 AM

Steve Shaw crawling fast
'S all right, Stu. Snail does think that evolution happens, he just doesn't think it's true, that's all. Confusing, innit! :-)

Thank you for your stout defense of me,Steve. I think we may have some progress here, you're almost beginning to understand what I am on about. But not quite. It's not that I think evolution isn't true it's that I don't think statements like "Evolution is true." belong in a scientific discussion.

Stu
You can in, er, snails. You can even be involved in educating yourself and destroying your own ignorant delusions by using empirical evidence you gather.

Actually, Stu, I'm quite well educated including university level courses in Evolution and Genetics. Like Steve, I've got a certificate, several in fact.

Thank you for your link to the snails example, I know of it of old. I suppose we can excuse it on the grounds that it is clearly aimed at a very young audience but, even so, it is very sloppy science. Never the less, it does help me illustrate the point. The only empirical evidence in it is that there is variation in the shell colours and patterns of banded snails and that the distribution of that variation correlates with the distribution of thrushes, their main predators. There is nothing there that is a direct observation of evolution. Evolution arises in the interpretation of the empirical evidence. Worse than that, they have decided in advance that evolution is the answer and set out to prove it. That isn't how science works.

Thanks for the link to "Scientists and Science Education ", Ed T. The full article starts off "Although evolution is firmly established as one of the most important, integrative, and robust concepts in science...". Yep. Evolution is a scientific concept. Sounds good to me. Steve Shaw would have it otherwise. In this very thread - "the truth of evolution's existence on Earth is beyond science".

I'm very much in favour of the forces of reason, Stu. I think science is a really great idea. I just don't like people turning it (and evolution in particular) into a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:06 AM

From Popular Science-on a reason men should wear skirts, unless they seek mutations. (Last article on the page).

male skirts and mutations-1958 

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:16 AM

Bty, you can see more of the 1958 Popular Science issue by turning the pages at the top of the site-I found the advertisements nostalgic. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:58 AM

"you were not bothered to frame your own arguments on this occasion either"

That's why I provided the link to the Evolution Megalab. The answers you need are there, no point in me repeating them.


"Actually, Stu, I'm quite well educated including university level courses in Evolution and Genetics."

Apologies Snail. None of that was aimed at you, but at Pete whom I was hoping might actually click the link. This hope was dashed when I read his reply.

That said, evolution isn't a religion but a fact. The point of the snail study is to show how the variation in alleles of snails of various populations are affected by agents that help drive evolution, in this case predation and environment and how they adapt to the presence of those agents. This is part of an OU undergrad degree course and a serious data-gathering exercise, and I'm sure many scientists would be happy to work with data such as those being generated by this project.

"There is nothing there that is a direct observation of evolution."

What would satisfy you as a being a "direct observation of evolution".


"It started as bugs and , best I can see , is still bugs."

What were you expecting exactly? You do understand that evolution is incremental and works over long periods of time? We can see evolution happen in these bacteria as they adapt, but that's only a single change in a single allele of one population of many. Quite a few of these changes will accrue over time and then you might eventually see speciation occur.

But I forget - time is exactly what you don't have.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 11:55 AM

Stu
Apologies Snail. None of that was aimed at you
Obviously I was misled by the fact that you based that post on a quote from me and mentioned me by name.

That said, evolution isn't a religion but a fact.
So you totally reject the opinion of the Coalition of Scientific Societies that it is a scientific concept?

This is part of an OU undergrad degree course and a serious data-gathering exercise,
I don't think so. I have done OU undergraduate courses and they never spoke to me like that. If you dig into the site you will find documents like this pdf which give a clearer idea of the intended audience.

and I'm sure many scientists would be happy to work with data such as those being generated by this project.
Perhaps they would but I hope they would analyse the data and draw conclusions from it rather than starting from the answer and then looking for supporting evidence.

What would satisfy you as a being a "direct observation of evolution".
I have no idea. I don't know how you can have a direct observation of a scientific concept which is a product of the human mind trying to make sense of the empirical evidence which can be directly observed. You're the one who says its a fact. Steve, rather confusingly, says both that it is true and that it exists. Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 04:05 PM

Well I think it's rather arrogant of any scientist to claim that a phenomenon that self-evidently occurs is a mere "scientific concept". Evolution is no more a scientific concept than the moon is a scientific concept. The scientific concepts surrounding the fact of evolution derive from the scientific explanations of evolution, no more, no less, not the phenomenon itself, which certainly occurs (and which is therefore true, just as the moon is true). The confusion, Snail, is all in your head. As you seem to want to parade your scientific credentials in front of us, I'm beginning to suspect that, rather then wanting to communicate the truth and beauty of nature, along with their elegant scientific explanations, you'd rather keep them arcane, for the consumption of a scientific elite only. No wonder we still have people like pete who have given up on science. Because of people like you, they think it's too bloody hard.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:16 PM

From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 09:58 AM

This was me, not sure why I'm a GUEST, but will check.

"and mentioned me by name"

I mentioned snails, not you. In fact, a study of snails rather than a singular snail.


"I don't think so."

With all respect, you're wrong. I completed the undergrad course with the OU this was a part of, that's how I know of it.

"I have no idea"

Ah ha.

"Perhaps they would but I hope they would analyse the data and draw conclusions from it rather than starting from the answer and then looking for supporting evidence."

Erm, they are testing several hypothesis. That's how science works.

"So you totally reject the opinion of the Coalition of Scientific Societies that it is a scientific concept"

Who? When I search for that name in Google I don't get any link to such an organisation. Please provide a link.

What defines a scientific concept? Are you talking about a theory, hypothesis or perhaps a philosophical construct? Perhaps you mean a guess? Or a musing? Define sil vous plait.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:36 PM

Is this
http://opa1.faseb.org/pages/PolicyIssues/sciencecoalition.htm what is referred to ?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 05:59 PM

If trying to explain to a Bronze Age middle-eastern goatherd why goat breeding worked the way it did would starting by explaining the difference between a concept and a hypothesis be a good idea ? How would you get the to undersand that evolution was not a 'belief'.

Why bother ?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 07:47 PM

I find it sort of amusing to see all these highly achieved people arguing about what is ,according to most here, an evident fact. At least snail is less dogmatic on that. Steve says it is as evident as the moon.   That of course is verified by direct observation, unlike evolution, except you use the bait and switch trick of equating observable change within species or even speciation itself, as if it accounted for the general theory that supposedly turned microbes to cats to mudcatters , over eons !.    Guest appeals to slow incremental changes over time, but I would have expected that experiments over decades on fast reproducing organisms might see some sort of information gaining to evolve beyond that same ol bug !. The fact that it is unobservable, only verifies that it is a philosophical belief, and not evidence.based., except it being a worldview interpretation of data.    Thank you shimrod for your confession of ignorance re lemski experiments.   I shall shelve your challenge at present. There are things I could say, but I have always admitted the element of faith in my beliefs.   I just note that this was an evasive tactic ,to avoid having to admit your own faith position.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 07:55 PM

Cut & paste.

They teach that in bible class according to my unhinged mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 14 - 08:37 PM

Well now will you look at that. Our pete has suddenly become eloquent and literate! Ha bloody ha, pete!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 12:12 AM

'Well, I'm not a scientist...'

But so many like to 'choose' which one scientist is right...according to 'Well, I'm not a scientist...'

Take for instance.....

Steve Shaw: "Well now will you look at that. Our pete has suddenly become eloquent and literate! Ha bloody ha, pete!"

In light of:

"From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 14 - 06:53 PM

You don't need qualifications to be a scientist."

...nor in your (and others) OPINIONS....which usually are based on ideological 'talking points' that are being used to further a bogus agenda...based on bad science......but you don't care...I know...call somebody some more names...that will decide it!!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 03:04 AM

"but I have always admitted the element of faith in my beliefs."

Oh right! Faith = 'fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence' - not very scientific, is it pete?

On the other hand, do I have 'faith' in science? Interesting question! In my mind, it's not about faith - or even 'belief' - it's a question of probabilities. Who should I take seriously? Thousands of modern, reputable scientists, from a variety of disciplines, whose work has been peer reviewed, or a bunch of Bronze Age, middle-eastern goat herds and their latter-day, illiberal, fundamentalist, red-neck adherents? I know which group I bet on to be talking any kind of sense!

"Thank you shimrod for your confession of ignorance re lemski experiments."

It's no point in asking me about the Lemski experiments! If you're so obsessed by them, why not write to Lemski and ask him?

Finally, most of the questions that you raise are answered in that website that you've been referred to at least twice now. But if you get off your arse and read it, remember it's a question of evidence - not 'belief'. What you choose to believe, or not to believe, is utterly irrelevant!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:47 AM

Shimrod: "Oh right! Faith = 'fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence' - not very scientific, is it pete?"

That applies to ideologies, 'religions' and political parties......think about it.....then go figure!


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 09:31 AM

"but I would have expected that experiments over decades on fast reproducing organisms might see some sort of information gaining to evolve beyond that same ol bug !"

So that's an a priori assumption, confirmation bias and personal incredulity all rolled into one sentence. Not bad even by your standards. And let's face it, if you don't believe, comprehend or can't imagine something it can't be true can it?

Do you believe in Blue Whales pete? Godzilla? Bod?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 02:49 PM

So, stu, how many decades do you require from lemskis fast reproducing bugs before you expect your......a priori assumption, confirmation bias and personal incredulity .....to be validated as bugs to biologist evolution ?.    "Blue whales..."   Funny thing is, I thought there is such a species, so named !?.          Nothing wrong with having some faith in science, shimrod.   There might well be in having faith in superstitious stuff like evolutionism.....you know.....stuff that contradicts observational science. And it don't matter how many scientists subscribe to it, if they cannot produce observational evidence.   It is like the old epicycles of yesteryear, recycled !.                                        Well thanks Steve for the ...grudging.....compliment !. It must be the poet in me emerging!.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 03:26 PM

The only thing that ever emerges from you is bullshit, right from your mouth. Mmm, tasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 04:19 PM

Steve 'The Gourmet' Pshaw!: "The only thing that ever emerges from you is bullshit, right from your mouth. Mmm, tasty."

Well, it looks like you have your own tastes...One man's ceiling is another man's floor......

Bon Appetite!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 05:09 PM

"Nothing wrong with having some faith in science, shimrod."

Oh yes there is! 'Faith' is merely irrational superstition.

And I see that you've dodged my point about probabilities. And, yet again, there's no point in raising issues like: "And it don't matter how many scientists subscribe to it, if they cannot produce observational evidence" if you're only prepared to parrot the 'arguments' from creationist websites and refuse to contemplate any other point of view.

By the way, have you composed that letter to Lemski yet? You can run it past us, before you send it, if you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 09:14 PM

"if they cannot produce observational evidence:"

Pete, you simply have a flawed idea of what "observational evidence" really is. It is NOT a real time video of a butterfly turning into a squirrel. When a scientist 'observes' a radiation level that varies in specific amounts according to carefully measured situations, that IS evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Dec 14 - 11:27 PM

I think your dialogue would progress smoother if you actually KNEW the terms you're hassling over....FAITH is NOT a 'religious believe system of dogma'!!!!...any more than sex is love!...anymore than 'science is done figuring it out'.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:14 AM

"FAITH is NOT a 'religious believe system of dogma'!!!!"

So what is it a "believe system (sic)" of then, GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 04:48 AM

"So, stu, how many decades do you require from lemskis fast reproducing bugs before you expect your......a priori assumption, confirmation bias and personal incredulity .....to be validated as bugs to biologist evolution ?."

I have no idea, I'm not a biologist working with these organisms. I think you might find the experiment is part of the attempt of science to answer that very question.

I'm off to do more dinosaur research.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:38 AM

I'm still waiting for you to write to Lemski, pete. Just get on with it!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 05:56 AM

"a priori assumption, confirmation bias and personal incredulity"

You didn't come up with those terms on your own, did you pete? You've 'parroted' them from your favourite (favorite?) creationist website, haven't you ? Squawk, squawk! Pretty Polly! Pieces of eight!!

The irony is that they are much more applicable to you than they are to Stu!

Squawk, squawk!!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 08:05 AM

> a real time video of a butterfly turning into a squirrel.

Do you have one? Could you put it on YouTube for us?

Of course, it wouldn't be evidence for evolution because job-protecting scientists might have doctored it.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Stu
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 09:21 AM

"You've 'parroted' them from your favourite (favourite?) creationist website, haven't you ?"

Actually Pete parroted them from my previous post, but that's fine by me. Fair game in a reply as far as I can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:02 AM

I missed that, Stu - sorry!

He's still a silly parrot though!

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:18 AM

Lighter: "> a real time video of a butterfly turning into a squirrel."

Actually, you need to look no further than Mudcat.....here you have squirrels turning into parrots!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 10:42 AM

That's kinda lame as a response, GfS... reminds me of "Oh yeah? Well, your mother wears army boots!"

The point I was making, which Pete will recognize, is his assertion that (paraphrased) "no one can show evidence of a (bird) turning into a (mammal)" or some such phrasing..... which, of course, no scientist has ever claimed.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 11:07 AM

> squirrels turning into parrots!

Couldn't agree more....

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:30 PM

Stu
I mentioned snails, not you. In fact, a study of snails rather than a singular snail.
Actually, Stu, you did. I suggest you read your own post,

With all respect, you're wrong. I completed the undergrad course with the OU this was a part of, that's how I know of it.
Strangely, this seems to be true. It is rather more robustly described here http://www3.open.ac.uk/media/fullstory.aspx?id=15887 although I can't help feeling uncomfortable with sentences that start "Scientists believe that...". The Evolution Megalab is not, strictly speaking, aimed at OU undergraduates but is a "Citizen Science" project which, judging by that website, is largely aimed at schools. It is very much at odds with what I was taught in the OU science foundation course.
Is this the course you studied? S170 'Darwin and Evolution' – This course explains and explores the science of evolution for those with little or no scientific background.

"I have no idea"

Ah ha.

I'm asking you.

Erm, they are testing several hypothesis. That's how science works.
It starts off "Did you know that ... you can see evolution in your own back yard?" That is not a hypothesis.

Apart from the sloppiness of the whole thing, does it show evolution happening? Not really. As with the peppered moth, all the variations already exist and all that may be happening is a change in their frequencies. None seem to be going extinct and no new species are being formed.

"So you totally reject the opinion of the Coalition of Scientific Societies that it is a scientific concept"

Who? When I search for that name in Google I don't get any link to such an organisation. Please provide a link.

It was in the "Scientists and Science Education" link provided by Ed T and has now been followed up by an anonymous GUEST immediately after you asked.

What defines a scientific concept? Are you talking about a theory, hypothesis or perhaps a philosophical construct? Perhaps you mean a guess? Or a musing? Define sil vous plait.

One or more of those would probably cover it. Would you find "scientific idea" easier? It is an explanation thought up by human beings to explain the observable phenomena A certain amount of confusion is caused by references to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. That was not his contribution. The idea (or concept) of evolution had been around for quite a long time, starting with Aristotle. Darwin goes into this thoroughly in "An Historical Note" at the beginning of The Origin of Species. What Darwin added was that evolution was driven by natural selection.

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:40 PM

Just a suggestion, Steve, but rather than thinking up more bizarre ways of insulting me, why not address some of the issues? For a start,what do you think of the Evolution Megalab? After that... could you show me some evolution please?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 01:52 PM

......parroted.....shimrod .......??????   Hope you pay more attention to youR science !    Think I may have missed your probabilities point, but since you mention that word, I hear that the probability of a self replicating simplest cell is a figure with so many noughts after it, as to be impossible. Maybe , btw, it is you that needs to write to lemski, telling him you ain't looked at his work but a creationist referenced it to demonstrate that citrate digesting bugs is the best that can be shown, and could he please show how that demonstrates I microbes to mudcatters evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: Well, I'm not a scientist...
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Dec 14 - 02:20 PM

Well bill, I would have thought that could they produce such a video, somehow, it would be submitted as science evidence.    But time is the hero for evolutionist, but not because the impossible can become probable, and the improbable fact, but because there is always the slow incremental excuse as to why it cannot be demonstrated. I got no problem with data, but unless it can be shown there are no alternative interpretations the theory is suspect, esp as it contradicts otherwise accepted scientific law.