(January 22, 2019 at 3:54 am)pocaracas Wrote: You're the one asking for all the evidence, man. I'm showing you one place where the best evidence is.
No one can help you much beyond this...

The weird thing is tha M4X has posted on previous occasions that "It's not real evidence."

Not sure if any one managed to stay yht course of that rabbit hole to get to the bottom/defiiton of what ever 'Real' evidence even was.

Not at work.

(January 22, 2019 at 3:54 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 2:41 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Not paying for a wild goose chase of what someone claims exists.  It's not bias against atheists though.  I'm the same way for people trying to sell me tickets to Bigfoot expeditions.  They think they're right too, and maybe they are, but don't care as long as the picture is fuzzy that they are shaking in front of me.

The Nature journal is one of the most prestigious scientific journals for a reason, don't you think?

But anyway, if you're only interested in the evolutionary part of biology, go here: https://www.nature.com/subjects/evolution

If you can't be arsed to pay, go to a library, they usually have these subscriptions and let you search the full catalog.

You're the one asking for all the evidence, man. I'm showing you one place where the best evidence is.
No one can help you much beyond this...

No problem with the journal.  But if someone says something is in it, then they should provide the reference.  If not, no point.   What have they found that they think is relevant and others should know?  Isn't that the basis even for writing journal material?  We include our sources so people can follow us without having to dig through an entire stack of science journals.

I don't need help.  I need proof.  If the proof is there, then that will be sufficient.

---

(January 22, 2019 at 4:15 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 3:54 am)pocaracas Wrote: You're the one asking for all the evidence, man. I'm showing you one place where the best evidence is.
No one can help you much beyond this...

The weird thing is tha M4X has posted on previous occasions that "It's not real evidence."

Not sure if any one managed to stay yht course of that rabbit hole to get to the bottom/defiiton of what ever 'Real' evidence even was.

Not at work.

What's not real evidence?  It's not that something isn't "real evidence", but it's not conclusive.  Maybe that's what you're referring to.  If something isn't conclusive, then it's a may, but also a maybe not.  If something is conclusive, then I should be able to follow what you've looked at and come to the same conclusion through the same process/methodology.  I don't care about the smoke.  I care about what is or isn't.  If you don't know for sure, then how am I supposed to know for sure?

(January 22, 2019 at 4:16 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: No problem with the journal.  But if someone says something is in it, then they should provide the reference.  If not, no point.   What have they found that they think is relevant and others should know?  Isn't that the basis even for writing journal material?  We include our sources so people can follow us without having to dig through an entire stack of science journals.

I don't need help.  I need proof.  If the proof is there, then that will be sufficient.

I think I see your problem.
And I'm sorry. No scientist will give you proof of anything, except mathematicians.

All you get is evidence. Evidence can overwhelmingly point in one direction, but it will never prove things beyond any (reasonable or unreasonable) doubt.

If you want the very first publication where many examples of evolution in action are given, look no further than Darwin's "On the Origin of Species": http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pd...Y_F382.pdf

It is known that this first approach has a few errors, flaws and missing details.
To correct those that have been spotted, biologists have developed what they nowadays refer to as "Modern synthesis", and here is the wiki version of its description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_syn...h_century).
As with any scientific wiki page, at the end, you'll find references to reputable publications. You'll notice that there are many for this page alone. What you want is the aggregate of all those references and, very likely, the references within those and, still likely, the references within these...
It is a huge endeavor, when you want to get the whole picture, to as complete a degree as someone with multiple PhDs on the subject.
Personally, I'm happy with accepting the contents of the wiki as trustworthy enough.
Good luck!

Thread title: DNA proves existence of a designer
Page count: 1100+
Status: M4x still evading questions, trying to derail the conversation, demanding evidence for all scientific findings of the past millenium in general and evolution in particular, pretending its other people making claims (while, indeed he manages again and again to trick a few of em into this.....i wonder why.  )
Conclusion: All quiet in the west ("Im Westen nichts neues").

(January 21, 2019 at 6:44 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(January 21, 2019 at 6:37 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Same thing I responded to.  I'll quote it again for you.

"Well.... since your post asked Downbeatplumb about 'Defending their position' how about 150 odd years of research?"

Ah! 'Eureka'!

So..... you want me to post..... all of the research done in regards to evolution that's transpired over the last 150 years?

 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're a hoot sometimes M4X.

Ah the cretinist tactic of "you can't personally show every evidence for evolution, therefore goddidit" rears its ugly head again.

Of course said tactic conveniently ignores that goddidit also needs evidence. With evolution the evidence is readily available, even though you and I don't have it to hand, goddidit has no evidence.

Quote:Not paying for a wild goose chase of what someone claims exists.  It's not bias against atheists though.  I'm the same way for people trying to sell me tickets to Bigfoot expeditions.  They think they're right too, and maybe they are, but don't care as long as the picture is fuzzy that they are shaking in front of me.

But he does buy tickets to the Jebus show, and that wild goose chase. 
He thinks he's right about that, too, just like every other theist in history whose gods have eventually been dismissed as nonsense. 
He's shaking his fuzzy Jebus picture in front of us, a Jebus who is powerless to do anything. 
He 's doing exactly the thing he's whining about. 
He's also try (as per his usual) to place the responsibility for actually learning about the world on others, instead of himself. 
He'd rather remain ignorant.

I mean seriously, in 10,000 years from now, they think that humans (while STILL waiting for Jebus to come again) humans will still be looking to a long-ago ancient preacher for anything. LOL

(January 22, 2019 at 4:48 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 4:16 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: No problem with the journal.  But if someone says something is in it, then they should provide the reference.  If not, no point.   What have they found that they think is relevant and others should know?  Isn't that the basis even for writing journal material?  We include our sources so people can follow us without having to dig through an entire stack of science journals.

I don't need help.  I need proof.  If the proof is there, then that will be sufficient.

I think I see your problem.
And I'm sorry. No scientist will give you proof of anything, except mathematicians.

All you get is evidence. Evidence can overwhelmingly point in one direction, but it will never prove things beyond any (reasonable or unreasonable) doubt.

If you want the very first publication where many examples of evolution in action are given, look no further than Darwin's "On the Origin of Species": http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pd...Y_F382.pdf

It is known that this first approach has a few errors, flaws and missing details.
To correct those that have been spotted, biologists have developed what they nowadays refer to as "Modern synthesis", and here is the wiki version of its description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_syn...h_century).
As with any scientific wiki page, at the end, you'll find references to reputable publications. You'll notice that there are many for this page alone. What you want is the aggregate of all those references and, very likely, the references within those and, still likely, the references within these...
It is a huge endeavor, when you want to get the whole picture, to as complete a degree as someone with multiple PhDs on the subject.
Personally, I'm happy with accepting the contents of the wiki as trustworthy enough.
Good luck!

It's not "my" problem.  It's "your" problem if you make claims you can't properly support.

I don't care about generic explanations, large pots of information that I would need to randomly sort through because you cited them.  I care about what you say and being able to show it.  Beyond that, it's just someone making invalid statements.   Now if you can pinpoint something someone found out with a direct citation, then that's something.  But to tell someone to go through thousands of journals because you claim something is there is just telling me you don't know and want to send me on a wild goose chase you know I won't go on.

(January 22, 2019 at 4:16 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

Quote:don't need help.  I need proof.

What are you asking proof for, Max? Catch me up.

(January 22, 2019 at 11:35 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:Not paying for a wild goose chase of what someone claims exists.  It's not bias against atheists though.  I'm the same way for people trying to sell me tickets to Bigfoot expeditions.  They think they're right too, and maybe they are, but don't care as long as the picture is fuzzy that they are shaking in front of me.

But he does buy tickets to the Jebus show, and that wild goose chase. 
He thinks he's right about that, too, just like every other theist in history whose gods have eventually been dismissed as nonsense. 
He's shaking his fuzzy Jebus picture in front of us, a Jebus who is powerless to do anything. 
He 's doing exactly the thing he's whining about. 
He's also try (as per his usual) to place the responsibility for actually learning about the world on others, instead of himself. 
He'd rather remain ignorant.

I mean seriously, in 10,000 years from now, they think that humans (while STILL waiting for Jebus to come again) humans will still be looking to a long-ago ancient preacher for anything. LOL

Come on Bucky.  I think you're approaching the world record for refuting yourself with your own statements.  For someone who constantly states they're a "scientist", I would think that you would understand the importance of proper citations.  If someone claims something, then it's reasonable for them to share where they obtained their information, so someone else can come to that same conclusion, or even repeat the assertions in order to validate them.  If you think asking for citations is "whining", then congrats on calling every scientist out there a whiner.  In fact, you might as well call every professional out there who deals in literature a whiner, because we all depend on writing and receiving good citations.  That's one of the most important components to being scientific.  We can gain new knowledge based on what is already known.

Also, the responsibility isn't on me to uphold the claims of other people.  If you think it is, you're just drifting further away from reality.  But no problem, it doesn't change the reality that I'm not going to do your work for you.   If you say something and come up with nothing, it's on you.  If you do have something, then happy to look at it assuming it's reasonably cited and I don't have to jump through hoops to find what you claim exists.

---

(January 22, 2019 at 1:01 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: What are you asking proof for, Max? Catch me up.

At this point, I don't even know.  At least three different claims about science, especially during the past 150 years, that supposedly support the views of said individuals and refute the claims of CDF47's.  Of course it also changed to "relevant" science when I questioned that, then I wanted to know what was considered "relevant" and who got to choose and why.  Now I guess I'm supposed to purchase a journal subscription and sort through thousands of journals to find the info on my own.  That's pretty much where it's at now.  From my perspective of course.  Thus my claim of a "wild goose chase." 

I'm really not trying to take sides here.  I don't hold to special I.D. ideology, even though I believe in creation, because I think what is known can get diluted when people add on their own ideas of what may or may not have happened.  In other words, I don't own a time machine and I dunno because I wasn't there.

BTW, nice to see ya again.

(January 22, 2019 at 1:29 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 22, 2019 at 1:01 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: What are you asking proof for, Max? Catch me up.

At this point, I don't even know.  At least three different claims about science, especially during the past 150 years, that supposedly support the views of said individuals and refute the claims of CDF47's.  Of course it also changed to "relevant" science when I questioned that, then I wanted to know what was considered "relevant" and who got to choose and why.  Now I guess I'm supposed to purchase a journal subscription and sort through thousands of journals to find the info on my own.  That's pretty much where it's at now.  From my perspective of course.  Thus my claim of a "wild goose chase." 

I'm really not trying to take sides here.  I don't hold to special I.D. ideology, even though I believe in creation, because I think what is known can get diluted when people add on their own ideas of what may or may not have happened.  In other words, I don't own a time machine and I dunno because I wasn't there.

BTW, nice to see ya again.

Likewise!  So, are you objecting to evolution?  Is that the gist of the conversation?