Wrong Section

@in10RjFox Nope. Don't worry. Nobody expects you to look at the evidence with an open mind. Your cheap sophistry in the face of a few instances of real evidence shows us just how closed your mind is.
[quote]or I do have a different hypothesis for the whole thing[/quote] Do you? Is it a [i]testable[/i] hypothesis? Yeah, I didn't think so. Feel free to share it and we'll explain again about science & testability.

Oh, and let's not forget about the Flying Spaghetti Monster hypothesis which has equal validity to yours.

@in10RjFox @newjaninev2 [quote]All I can say is Stop selling the product as no one needs the product[/quote]
Sorry, dude, the "product" is the truth, and we [i]all[/i] need the truth.

@in10RjFox I’m not trying to sell you anything.

I’m presenting physical, demonstrable, evidence that requires an explanation, and asking you for that explanation

The Theory of Evolution by natural Selection consistently, coherently, and completely, explains that evidence.

Do you have a better Theory?

@newjaninev2 you are presenting a vacuum cleaner which I don't want to buy .. and you are asking me whether I have a better vaccum cleaner than what you are presenting..

I have already told you that I don't use a vaccum cleaner and I don't need one .. as my beautiful maid is already keeping my house clean without any noise.

I don't plan to fire my maid. ... for reasons I can't tell you...

[big]And she is very religious and pious. .[/big]

@in10RjFox You just told us that you had a different hypothesis. [quote]for I do have a different hypothesis for the whole thing[/quote] Are you now denying that prior claim?

In the terms of your newest analogy, you're saying you already have a better vacuum cleaner but it's top secret or something. Go ahead, share your better vacuum with us, what is there to be afraid of??

@in10RjFox What, if anything, would ever change your mind?”

Ken Ham: Nothing

Bill Nye: Just one piece of evidence

@ElwoodBlues by which I mean in a democracy that has freedom of thought and opinions .. each one can have their own hypothesis .. as at the end of the day which is today .. all that anyone can assert is only a hypothesis .. be it you or me ..

And sheep's are those who can't make their own hypothesis but borrow other's hypothesis and follow ..

So which one are you ?

@in10RjFox Astounding... you appear not to know the nature of an hypothesis

Should I explain that to yo?

You also appear to have the ability to completely disregard the word evidence

@newjaninev2 so you have a hypothesis for an hypothesis ? Sure explain ..

Disregard evidence ?
Which means you do not know what evidence is in the first place ? And why should anyone accept your display or portrayal as evidence ? ..

Can you distinguish portrayal to evidence ?

And what was already evident need not be considered as evidence for your hypothesis ..

So don't talk as it was you who brought it out as evidence ..

@in10RjFox Science starts with observation. We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on [i]demonstrable evidence[/i] and they have wide [i]explanatory power.[/i] Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is [b]wrong[/b]. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science doesn’t try to prove that a Theory is correct. Science tries to prove that the Theory is wrong, and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.


Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them (confirmation bias). It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.


Some people claim that the Theory of Evolution is not a real theory because ‘it cannot be falsified’. This is a nonsense. So, what would falsify the Theory of Evolution? Well, if we opened up a stratum of the Earth’s crust that was laid down, say, 100 million years ago and found there the fossilised remains of a modern-day giraffe, then the Theory of Evolution would have a fatal problem. The same would apply if we found fossils out of place in the Earth’s strata. Every single fossil puts the Theory of Evolution at risk, and yet, despite the hundreds of millions of fossils on the record, the Theory still stands. We never see a ‘modern’ rabbit (as an example) suddenly appearing in fossils formed, say, 60 million years ago. The Theory of Evolution is drawn from the evidence… and the evidence we continue to gather consistently fails to falsify it... but we continue to look.


Testing the evidence from which a Theory is developed is complemented by testing the consistency and coherence of the Theory itself (if our Theory is valid, then we should see the following…). This is where science uses the (much-misunderstood) [b]hypothesis[/b].


At its heart, a hypothesis says things like: “because of the evidence we have, the Theory says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor. It therefore follows that there will be strong genetic matches between chimps and humans”. Then we examine the genes of both.


It’s worth noting that even at this level we aren’t trying to prove that the hypothesis is correct… we try to show that it’s incorrect. To achieve this, we form a Null Hypothesis, which in this case might be “there are no more similarities between chimps and humans than between any other two species”… and we then try to show that to be the case. This is an important point. We don't try to show that the hypothesis is valid... [b]we try to show that the null hypothesis is valid[/b].


If we cannot show that the Null Hypothesis is correct (i.e. we find that there are, in fact, enormous similarities), then we still don’t say that the hypothesis is correct… we say that we have ‘failed to accept the null hypothesis’. After all, we may have made an error, or missed something, and the next person to test the hypothesis might find a reason to accept the null hypothesis.


So science doesn’t try to ‘prove’ its theories are correct, nor does it try to ‘prove’ that the hypotheses that come from those theories are correct. Science collects evidence in an attempt to disprove the theories it has formed from earlier evidence, and tests the validity of those theories by forming and testing hypotheses that would invalidate them

if we find evidence that falsies the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, what would replace it?

A better Theory... one that incorporates the new evidence

@in10RjFox Earlier I showed you that across all primates (chimpanzees, bonobo, humans, and apes) the same nucleotide carries a mutation that prevents synthesis of vitamin C

Are you saying that isn’t so?

If you agree that it is so, then how is that stunningly unlikely event to be explained?

The evidence is there... I can demonstrate it for you, in fact if you come here I will show it to you myself

Or are you simply happy to ignore it... to pretend it doesn’t need to be explained, and to opt for blissful ignorance?

“Evolution sceptic: Professor Haldane, even given the billions of years that you say were available for evolution, I simply cannot believe it is possible to go from a single cell to a complicated human body, with its trillions of cells organized into bones and muscles and nerves, a heart that pumps without ceasing for decades, miles and miles of blood vessels and kidney tubules, and a brain capable of thinking and talking and feeling.

JBS: But madam, you did it yourself. And it only took you nine months.”

― Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

@newjaninev2 so it's vitamin C that's master of evolution ?

I C ..

@in10RjFox No, it’s the inability of apes to synthesise our own vitamin c that forms a minuscule part of the evidence from which the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is drawn.

I have already explained that to you in some detail

You did read it, didn’t you?

@newjaninev2 why would anyone want apes to synthesize our vitamin c ?

@in10RjFox If you bothered to read what I post for you, you would have learned that apes are chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, bonobo, etc.

[i]None[/i] of the apes can synthesise vitamin C

That’s because the same nucleotide carries a mutation that prevents synthesis of vitamin C

The [b]same[/b] nucleotide from 6.4 billion nucleotides in each species

@newjaninev2 seriously [b]WTF[/b] is wrong with you ?

You are victimising passersby by harrassing them to buy your theory of Evolution .

@in10RjFox [quote]victimising passersby[/quote]

????

specifically?

@in10RjFox So, how do you explain the inability of apes to synthesise our own vitamin C, in light of the demonstrable fact that the [b]same nucleotide[/b] carries a mutation that prevents synthesis of vitamin C?

The same nucleotide from 6.4 billion nucleotides in each species

@newjaninev2 just stick to your question .. and don't be a troll .. just to sell your Vitamin C .. nonsense .

@in10RjFox [quote]victimising passersby[/quote]

????

[b]specifically?[/b]

@in10RjFox [quote]so it's vitamin C that's master of evolution ?[/quote] [b]DUUUDE!!![/b] That's just [i]one example![/i] There are hundreds or thousands spread across our DNA!!

@newjaninev2 also gave you variations in cytochrome c encoding. She also gave you centromeres & telemeres on chromosome 2. @in10RjFox your continued evasion of the question does you no credit whatsoever.

Remember: [quote]@newjaninev2 since you insist .. I am all game for it .. let the show begin ..[/quote]
You asked for evidence, you've been provided with evidence, and now you're just ducking and weaving and playing word games. You bring discredit on your entire enterprise here!!

@ElwoodBlues Unfortunately, it’s SOP for creationists