Bill Clinton and Wisdom VS HRC and Smarts

[BackInTex]

None of which has been sufficient, over a period of over a quarter century to result in a single prosecutor, state or federal, bringing charges.

There is a big difference between talk, gossip, accusations, suggestions, unsourced and unfounded stories, rumors, and innuendo, of which there has indeed been an overwhelming amount, and evidence, which has been scant.

And yet, you believe in evolution.

And you obviously haven't figured out the difference between scientific proof and legal proof.

LOL. Oh I've figured it out. One you believe even though there is no connection and the other you don't believe because there is no connection.

[Bob78164]

And yet, you believe in evolution.

I suppose that gravity is just a suggestion? --Bob

[BackInTex]

And yet, you believe in evolution.

I suppose that gravity is just a suggestion? --Bob

Let me understand....you are implying that the evidence supporting and the ability to test the hypothesis of existence of evolution is on par with those of gravity?

[silverscreenselect]

And yet, you believe in evolution.

I suppose that gravity is just a suggestion? --Bob

Let me understand....you are implying that the evidence supporting and the ability to test the hypothesis of existence of evolution is on par with those of gravity?

Actually, yes.

Newton observed the effects of gravity and then calculated the laws of physics which were verified by measurements using the available test equipment without really understanding why gravity exists.

Einstein explained gravity and came up with refinements of Newton's laws that have proved accurate using our more modern equipment of today.

It's always possible that some future scientist may again refine these laws in ways we don't understand today and that his or her findings will be verified by experiment and measurement using the equipment of the future.

But in the case of both Einstein and Newton, their laws were "proved" correct by thousands of experimental results using the available technology.

Similarly, the Theory of Evolution has been "proved" by experiment and observation for the last century and a half. It's always possible that it may need refinement in the future.

In science, we prove things to the best extent possible by experiment, measurement, analysis, and refinement or rejection when necessary.

In legal matters, we prove things in a court of law according to rules of procedure and evidence, and guilt or liability can't be assumed; it must be proved. No prosecutor, including many, many who hold Hillary Clinton in low regard, has seen fit to take a case against her to court. That should tell you something about the quality of the "evidence" against her.

[BackInTex]

I suppose that gravity is just a suggestion? --Bob

Let me understand....you are implying that the evidence supporting and the ability to test the hypothesis of existence of evolution is on par with those of gravity?

Actually, yes.

Newton observed the effects of gravity and then calculated the laws of physics which were verified by measurements using the available test equipment without really understanding why gravity exists.

Einstein explained gravity and came up with refinements of Newton's laws that have proved accurate using our more modern equipment of today.

It's always possible that some future scientist may again refine these laws in ways we don't understand today and that his or her findings will be verified by experiment and measurement using the equipment of the future.

But in the case of both Einstein and Newton, their laws were "proved" correct by thousands of experimental results using the available technology.

Similarly, the Theory of Evolution has been "proved" by experiment and observation for the last century and a half. It's always possible that it may need refinement in the future.

In science, we prove things to the best extent possible by experiment, measurement, analysis, and refinement or rejection when necessary.

In legal matters, we prove things in a court of law according to rules of procedure and evidence, and guilt or liability can't be assumed; it must be proved. No prosecutor, including many, many who hold Hillary Clinton in low regard, has seen fit to take a case against her to court. That should tell you something about the quality of the "evidence" against her.

Oh please share the evolution experiments where natural pro-creation within a species, having, say vertebrae and a brain, morphed into a new species either in a single generation or thousands.

[silverscreenselect]

Oh please share the evolution experiments where natural pro-creation within a species, having, say vertebrae and a brain, morphed into a new species either in a single generation or thousands.

Here's an article on experimental evolution.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... real-time/

Obviously, you can't create laboratory experiments that measure meaningful evolution in more complex organisms because of the time and numerical factors involved. Similarly, you can't create experiments with objects the size of stars to "test" relativity. What you can do is create experiments on a smaller scale and then continually measure larger scale phenomena.

[BackInTex]

Oh please share the evolution experiments where natural pro-creation within a species, having, say vertebrae and a brain, morphed into a new species either in a single generation or thousands.

Here's an article on experimental evolution.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... real-time/

Obviously, you can't create laboratory experiments that measure meaningful evolution in more complex organisms because of the time and numerical factors involved. Similarly, you can't create experiments with objects the size of stars to "test" relativity. What you can do is create experiments on a smaller scale and then continually measure larger scale phenomena.

So that would be a "no".

[Bob Juch]

Oh please share the evolution experiments where natural pro-creation within a species, having, say vertebrae and a brain, morphed into a new species either in a single generation or thousands.

Here's an article on experimental evolution.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... real-time/

Obviously, you can't create laboratory experiments that measure meaningful evolution in more complex organisms because of the time and numerical factors involved. Similarly, you can't create experiments with objects the size of stars to "test" relativity. What you can do is create experiments on a smaller scale and then continually measure larger scale phenomena.

So that would be a "no".

What you're describing is not a new species but a new genus or higher.

[BackInTex]

What you're describing is not a new species but a new genus or higher.

Are your responding to SSS? I described nothing. I specifically stated new species.

[Bob Juch]

What you're describing is not a new species but a new genus or higher.

Are your responding to SSS? I described nothing. I specifically stated new species.

I know you said species, I'm saying you don't know the proper definition of species.

[mrkelley23]

What you're describing is not a new species but a new genus or higher.

Are your responding to SSS? I described nothing. I specifically stated new species.

BiT, I know you don't listen to people like me on topics like this, but I will state for the record that there is far more scientific evidence for evolution than there is for any currently accepted theory of gravity. In fact, the most current theory of gravity, Einstein's general theory of relativity, is in direct conflict with the theory of quantum mechanics. They can't both be completely right.

When it comes to scientific "facts," the closest thing we have at this time in history is the comprehensive theory of evolution. Yes, it has plenty of experimentation behind it. Yes, every prediction made by it that could be tested has come true (which is the test of a good theory). Like all the "big ideas," it will probably never be complete. But to actual practitioners of science, it is much more sound and reliable than gravity. The fact that you, with your opinion of what science is, demand something that no one is willing to do for you, is irrelevant. If you think you've got a testable means of disproving any major part of the theory of evolution, please, by all means, go for it. Maybe you'll list me as a co-author when you win the Nobel Prize.

[Bob78164]

I've always thought that those who don't believe in evolution should just stick to penicillin as their antibiotic of choice, and leave the fancier antibiotics for the rest of us. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

I've always thought that those who don't believe in evolution should just stick to penicillin as their antibiotic of choice, and leave the fancier antibiotics for the rest of us. --Bob

I wasn't aware penicillin was mentioned in the bible.

[BackInTex]

What you're describing is not a new species but a new genus or higher.

Are your responding to SSS? I described nothing. I specifically stated new species.

BiT, I know you don't listen to people like me on topics like this, but I will state for the record that there is far more scientific evidence for evolution than there is for any currently accepted theory of gravity. In fact, the most current theory of gravity, Einstein's general theory of relativity, is in direct conflict with the theory of quantum mechanics. They can't both be completely right.

When it comes to scientific "facts," the closest thing we have at this time in history is the comprehensive theory of evolution. Yes, it has plenty of experimentation behind it. Yes, every prediction made by it that could be tested has come true (which is the test of a good theory). Like all the "big ideas," it will probably never be complete. But to actual practitioners of science, it is much more sound and reliable than gravity. The fact that you, with your opinion of what science is, demand something that no one is willing to do for you, is irrelevant. If you think you've got a testable means of disproving any major part of the theory of evolution, please, by all means, go for it. Maybe you'll list me as a co-author when you win the Nobel Prize.

Nice, challenging someone to disprove something that not only can't be proven but doesn't exist. That's pretty hard to do. Impossible actually.

And you are confusing evidence of the existence of gravity to an understanding of why and how it works. As you are confusing the why and how "evolution" works with its existence.

I've always thought that those who don't believe in evolution should just stick to penicillin as their antibiotic of choice, and leave the fancier antibiotics for the rest of us. --Bob

Actually those who believe in evolution should not use antibiotics at all.

[silverscreenselect]

And you are confusing evidence of the existence of gravity to an understanding of why and how it works. As you are confusing the why and how "evolution" works with its existence.

You can see the evidence of evolution every day in the plants and animals you interact with.

And, to be a bit blunt, if a Divine being or some extraterrestrial engineers created life as we know it, I would have to think they would have done a better job of it. Compare a bird's wing to an airplane wing, and the latter is far more mechanically and aerodynamically efficient. And we've only been designing and improving airplane wings for 100 years or so. The bird's wing or the human eye or any number of other organs and mechanisms make sense in their current form only if they are the result of generations of occasional random mutations that don't all fit together that well because they aren't part of a human or divine master plan.

[mrkelley23]

Are your responding to SSS? I described nothing. I specifically stated new species.

BiT, I know you don't listen to people like me on topics like this, but I will state for the record that there is far more scientific evidence for evolution than there is for any currently accepted theory of gravity. In fact, the most current theory of gravity, Einstein's general theory of relativity, is in direct conflict with the theory of quantum mechanics. They can't both be completely right.

When it comes to scientific "facts," the closest thing we have at this time in history is the comprehensive theory of evolution. Yes, it has plenty of experimentation behind it. Yes, every prediction made by it that could be tested has come true (which is the test of a good theory). Like all the "big ideas," it will probably never be complete. But to actual practitioners of science, it is much more sound and reliable than gravity. The fact that you, with your opinion of what science is, demand something that no one is willing to do for you, is irrelevant. If you think you've got a testable means of disproving any major part of the theory of evolution, please, by all means, go for it. Maybe you'll list me as a co-author when you win the Nobel Prize.

Nice, challenging someone to disprove something that not only can't be proven but doesn't exist. That's pretty hard to do. Impossible actually.

And you are confusing evidence of the existence of gravity to an understanding of why and how it works. As you are confusing the why and how "evolution" works with its existence.

I've always thought that those who don't believe in evolution should just stick to penicillin as their antibiotic of choice, and leave the fancier antibiotics for the rest of us. --Bob

Actually those who believe in evolution should not use antibiotics at all.

Nice, accusing someone who challenges you of doing the very thing you're doing as a defense. Straight out of certain political playbooks. I really wish we could have this discussion face-to-face sometime, so we could converse in something other than effectively soundbites. I admit I don't understand how your mind works when it comes to things like this.

And because I believe in at least attempting to respond substantively to people I like:

Aristotle saw things fall. He figured there must be something causing them to do this. He called this thing that caused things to fall gravity. He also saw things rise (smoke and ashes from fire, for instance). He called the thing that caused them to rise levity. Gravity stuck as a name. Levity's meaning changed over time (I would say evolved, but I don't want to get off track).

Isaac Newton refined this notion of gravity and applied it to new, untested situations. He was even able to articulate a natural law of gravitation based on his theory and observations. Every test on Earth of his theory of gravity confirmed his predictions. So that theory became the accepted one, until Einstein. Some portions of Newton's theory of gravity were shown not to be true in all cases. So Einstein's theory of gravity has become accepted. Eventually, some even more comprehensive theory of gravity may emerge.

In biology, observations and many, many experiments have led to a comprehensive theory called evolution. It makes predictions, as theories are supposed to do. Many of those predictions have been proven true, and not a one has been proven false. Therefore, evolution is the accepted theory in biology. Eventually, some more comprehensive theory that fits all the facts may emerge. Until it does, evolution is it, I'm afraid. And in terms of scientific theories, evolution is acknowledged as the best there is. I don't know how better to try to explain it, my friend.

[BackInTex]

And you are confusing evidence of the existence of gravity to an understanding of why and how it works. As you are confusing the why and how "evolution" works with its existence.

You can see the evidence of evolution every day in the plants and animals you interact with.

And, to be a bit blunt, if a Divine being or some extraterrestrial engineers created life as we know it, I would have to think they would have done a better job of it. Compare a bird's wing to an airplane wing, and the latter is far more mechanically and aerodynamically efficient. And we've only been designing and improving airplane wings for 100 years or so. The bird's wing or the human eye or any number of other organs and mechanisms make sense in their current form only if they are the result of generations of occasional random mutations that don't all fit together that well because they aren't part of a human or divine master plan.

When those planes begin reproducing themselves and propelling themselves on a wide variety of consumed inputs we can discuss which are the better designs.

[silverscreenselect]

And you are confusing evidence of the existence of gravity to an understanding of why and how it works. As you are confusing the why and how "evolution" works with its existence.

You can see the evidence of evolution every day in the plants and animals you interact with.

And, to be a bit blunt, if a Divine being or some extraterrestrial engineers created life as we know it, I would have to think they would have done a better job of it. Compare a bird's wing to an airplane wing, and the latter is far more mechanically and aerodynamically efficient. And we've only been designing and improving airplane wings for 100 years or so. The bird's wing or the human eye or any number of other organs and mechanisms make sense in their current form only if they are the result of generations of occasional random mutations that don't all fit together that well because they aren't part of a human or divine master plan.

When those planes begin reproducing themselves and propelling themselves on a wide variety of consumed inputs we can discuss which are the better designs.

We already have processes that allow us to produce nearly exact duplicates of any plane and also to vary the manufacture of particular models. I doubt birds can make decisions to arbitrarily reproduce larger or smaller offspring. And, again, we've only been working on internal combustion engines for a century or so and any form of artificially powered engines (steam, etc.) for another century or so. Come back in 500 years and see what types of "consumed inputs" will be capable of propelling the aircraft of the future.

[BackInTex]

We already have processes that allow us to produce nearly exact duplicates of any plane and also to vary the manufacture of particular models. I doubt birds can make decisions to arbitrarily reproduce larger or smaller offspring. And, again, we've only been working on internal combustion engines for a century or so and any form of artificially powered engines (steam, etc.) for another century or so. Come back in 500 years and see what types of "consumed inputs" will be capable of propelling the aircraft of the future.

But the planes themselves are not reproducing. They cannot heal themselves when damaged. And bigger is not better when your mission is not flying others but just yourself.

But if you want to say the intricate design of a manufactured plane is better than that of a live bird, O.K. I can't ague your opinion.

[Bob Juch]

We already have processes that allow us to produce nearly exact duplicates of any plane and also to vary the manufacture of particular models. I doubt birds can make decisions to arbitrarily reproduce larger or smaller offspring. And, again, we've only been working on internal combustion engines for a century or so and any form of artificially powered engines (steam, etc.) for another century or so. Come back in 500 years and see what types of "consumed inputs" will be capable of propelling the aircraft of the future.

But the planes themselves are not reproducing. They cannot heal themselves when damaged. And bigger is not better when your mission is not flying others but just yourself.

But if you want to say the intricate design of a manufactured plane is better than that of a live bird, O.K. I can't ague your opinion.

Have you seen the Terminator movies? It won't be long.

[Bob78164]

We already have processes that allow us to produce nearly exact duplicates of any plane and also to vary the manufacture of particular models. I doubt birds can make decisions to arbitrarily reproduce larger or smaller offspring. And, again, we've only been working on internal combustion engines for a century or so and any form of artificially powered engines (steam, etc.) for another century or so. Come back in 500 years and see what types of "consumed inputs" will be capable of propelling the aircraft of the future.

But the planes themselves are not reproducing. They cannot heal themselves when damaged. And bigger is not better when your mission is not flying others but just yourself.

But if you want to say the intricate design of a manufactured plane is better than that of a live bird, O.K. I can't ague your opinion.

Less than a century away, is my guess. Look up Von Neumann machines. --Bob