FRiend, just this week I learned a brand new term, never heard it before.
In that case the term was applied to political discourse, but equally applies, I think, to a large portion of your postings here.
The term is: "word salad"
"Word salad is a mixture of random words that, while arranged in phrases that appear to give them meaning, actually carry no significance.
The words may or may not be grammatically correct, but the meaning is hopelessly confused."
You keep producing "word salads" which have no real meanings, certainly no scientific meanings.
For examples:
You're not really defining a scientific "experiment", you're just stringing random words together, in a "word salad", and even your intentions are not scientific.
You are obviously hoping to make a point (a ridiculous point) by using scientific sounding words to discredit science.
But your fundamental problem is that you obviously understand nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about real science, and so all you can really do is produce random "word salads".
annalex: "Take a manatee, make an elephant.
Take a zebra, make a monkey. Something. Please."
You haven't understood even a single word of what's been posted here, have you?
So all you can do is blather "word salads" which make no sense scientifically.
In your examples, fossils and DNA suggest that evolution produced manatees and elephants from common ancestors which lived about 50 million years ago.
So evolution itself did not "Take a manatee, make an elephant," even after 50 million years.
Why then would you "demand" to see such a magic trick performed in a lab in just a few years?
Fossils and DNA suggest that evolution produced zebras and monkeys from common ancestors which lived about 100 million years ago.
So evolution itself did not "take a zebra, make a monkey," even after 100 million years.
Why then would you "demand" to see such a magic trick performed in a lab in just a few years?
annalex: "Not my problem, and I did not ask to observe it in nature.
I said, use genetic engineering and accelerate the mutations.
And if you cannot prove your hypothesis, call it what it is, a hypothesis."
And still more word salad.
"Genetic engineering" does not "accelerate the mutations".
What it can do is produce hybrids by taking entire DNA sequences from one species and "gene splicing" them into another.
This process could eliminate any "species boundary" that exists in nature.
And what exact "hypothesis" do you wish to see proved?
Descent with modifications and natural selection are not scientific hypotheses, they are often-confirmed facts.
The evolution of species over millions of years is also not a scientific "hypothesis", but rather a theory confirmed by innumerable observations of fossils, DNA and other supporting evidence from different branches of science -- i.e., geology.
annalex: "Further, there has been so much switching of definitions, substituting one claim for another, psychologizing your opponent, arguing over words, segueing into theology, and arguing from authority, that I think the real damage to science is being done by your side."
I have not "switched definitions".
I have not "substituted one claim for another".
I have not "psychologized" you in any way, except to note the weirdness of your epithets "cult", "cult authority" and "voodoo".
I have not "argued over words", I have defined them, correctly.
I have only "segued into theology" when necessary to explain the limitations of natural science -- i.e., God directed "randomness".
And, by the way, this is a religion forum, so it is entirely appropriate here to discuss science and religion together. Why do you refuse?
And how could that "do damage" to science?
I have only "argued from the authority" of truth, facts, confirmed theories, accepted word definitions, etc.
And how can that possibly "do real damage" to science?
Finally, science itself does not in the least depend on my limited abilities to defend it here on Free Republic.
Nor will your ridiculous "word salads" have any negative effect.
Here's the bottom line: the truths of science exist entirely within the natural realm, beyond which science cannot and does not extend (segue into theology if desired).
But within its own realm science is a function of what scientists produce and write about their ideas.
So, for you to scientifically dispute them, you must first learn their language, their ideas and their methods.
You can't just jabber "word salads" at them and expect to have some effect, FRiend.
;-)
confirmed by your fellow cultists and believed by your fellow cultists.
I think my position and criticism of the evolutionary hypothesis has been clear to any reader throughout the thread. Prove the hypothesis by making one species from another: one distinct species from another distinct species. Two subspecies of Zebras that still can produce viable offspring in the lab do not constitute that proof. Creatures that exist today and have similar features do not constitute such proof either: similarity does not prove genetic relation. I leave the choice of the two species to you; obviously the second species does not have to be anything that exists today, but it has be as different from species 1 as a manatee is from elephant.
The last post of yours, by the way, was another example of arguing about words rather than about substance.