Sciencescience

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 04:10 PM

Fast Evolution Confirms Creationist Theory


BY RANDY J. GULIUZZA, P.E., M.D. * | MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 2017

A tenet of creationist theory maintains that creatures are designed for robust speciation. Although they cannot change into fundamentally different kinds, creatures can rapidly express a wide diversity of traits to fit changing environments. "Fast evolution affects everyone, everywhere" is one headline1 from the theme of the Royal Society's life science journal in January, 2017.2 But its content further bolsters creationist theory.

The pace of change within organisms is a keen topic of interest. One reason many people doubt evolution is that no one has ever seen one kind of creature change into another. Plant and animal breeders have never done it in thousands of years of concerted effort. Even experiments intended to force evolution along by inducing radical genetic mutations in breeding pairs result in crippled, but not basically transformed, progeny. Remarkably, both creationists and evolutionists are content with this fact.

Creation and Evolution Theory Expect Different Rates of Change

Evolutionists expect that the pace of evolutionary change will always be quite slow. No one should see it happen unless they could somehow live and observe for thousands of generations. One report accompanying the Royal Society's latest theme says, "Twenty-five years ago, science and society's view of the pace of evolution was not that different from the one famously espoused by Darwin more than 100 years previously: 'We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages....'"3 In fact, Stephen J. Gould references that same Darwin quote. Just before it he adds, "Substantial change might occur as a very rare event, but most alteration must be insensible, even on geologic scales" with which he validates that "gradualism may represent the most central conviction residing both within and behind all Darwin's thoughts."4

Conversely, if the Flood decimated air-breathing organisms only about 4600 years ago and the Ark had limited kinds of animals, then creationists are challenged to explain the huge diversity of life we see today. Creationists theorize that organisms' innate systems enable rapid rates of trait diversification to explain how they continuously fill environmental niches—particularly post-Creation and Flood.5 Evolutionists have mocked the theory of rapid-trait expression (robust speciation) as a "post-Flood Big Bang" or "Radical Anteglacial Darwinism" saying that creationists accept "rates of change that would make an evolutionist blush."6

Rapid Trait Expression Is Observed

ScienceDaily reported on the "rapid evolution" seen in organisms. What their report and the original research paper call "evolution" is the expression of new traits by organisms responding to recent human activities. As ScienceDaily summed it up, "in a theme issue of the scientific journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, researchers from McGill University have helped pull together the latest research on this phenomenon."7

ScienceDaily encapsulated the research in three examples of environmental conditions altered by recent human activity to which organisms responded by rapidly expressing new traits. The first was commercial fishing where "fish evolve to reproduce when they are younger and smaller, and thus tend to have fewer, smaller offspring." Next was the human introduction of invasive species setting conditions for "native species can then sometimes evolve in response." Finally, urbanization where "plants evolve decreased seed dispersal to compensate for the expansion of uninhabitable pavement, animals evolve resistance to industrial and residential chemicals."

One editor of the Royal Society's theme issue, Andrew Hendry, was quoted by ScienceDaily saying, "Evolution is occurring all around us all the time, and it is influencing our environment, our health, and our overall well-being." And, "in many cases, these effects play out over only a few years to decades—more quickly than biologists traditionally thought possible." This is counter-theoretical to evolution. Yet Hendry shrugged it off with, "when humans are involved, selection pressures on a species often become very strong, leading to fast evolution." Is this a scientific conclusion or speculation based on presuppositions?

Carefully Catching a Confirmation and the Cover-up

Findings of rapid trait expression by organisms tend to confirm creationist theory that emphasizes active, problem-solving organisms. As one evolutionist notes, rapid change is hard to reconcile with any theory that emphasizes an active environment fractioning out the genetic material of passive organisms by a mechanism which "requires radical amounts of natural selection (the Darwinian mechanism), mutations and genetic drift to accomplish such changes."8 The rapid changes documented in the Royal Society paper do not fit with the stagnant notion of the slow accumulation of random genetic mutations struggling to survive.

These rapid changes fit much better with contemporary research that reveals how organisms possess elaborate built-in systems composed of sensors, cellular algorithms, and output responses that enable them to continuously track environmental changes—man-made or otherwise—so they can quickly fit and fill new niches. Up-to-date research shows that they may employ dozens of mechanisms including epigenetic, hybridization, cryptic variation, behavioral changes, unreduced gametes, directed crossover, regulated micro-RNAs or RNA splicing, horizontal gene transfer, and even modulation of an organism's microbiota. None of these mechanisms require a struggle for life and death! Creationists have been reporting on these mechanisms which enable organisms to self-adjust to external conditions in a single generation—and often across multiple ones—for many years.9

Yet, it seems that the Royal Society and ScienceDaily nimbly absorbed findings against evolutionary theory as if they were evidence for their theory. Cornelius Hunter astutely exposed how evolutionists are trying to pull off a sleight-of-hand and swallow up findings related to epigenetics which contradict their theory.10 He expanded on, "the old maxim that truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. If we can slightly modify these three stages as follows, then we have the history of how evolution has struggled and opposed the scientific findings we now refer to as epigenetics ":

Reject and persecute
Delegitimize and minimize
Rename and incorporate

Hunter's framework shows that evolutionists have now advanced to stage three as touching "rapid evolution." This is a way to cover up the failed gradualist tenet of their theory. Keeping Hunter's framework handy will likely prove useful to spot when evolutionists disguise scientific findings contradictory to their theory as evidence.

References

McGill University. Fast evolution affects everyone, everywhere. ScienceDaily. Posted on sciencedaily.com December 6, 2016, accessed December 10, 2016.
Hendry, A. P., K. M. Gotanda, E. I. Svensson. 2017. Human influences on evolution, and the ecological and societal consequences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 372 (1712): 20160028.
Ibid.
Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA., 147, 148.
Jeanson, N. 2010. The Impetus for Biological Change. Acts & Facts. 39 (8): 6.
Anonymous. The Lost World of South American Ungulates: A YEC Ungulate Problem. Naturalis Historia. Posted by thenaturalhistorian.com January 13, 2015, accessed December 13, 2016.
McGill University, Fast evolution, December 6, 2016.
Anonymous. The Lost World.
See: Tomkins, J. 2012. Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Molecular Cell Biology. Acts & Facts. 41 (4): 6.; Tomkins, J. 2012. Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Genetic Diversity. Acts & Facts. 41 (5): 8.; Thomas, B. 2011. Yeast: Single Cells That Fit and Fill. Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 18.; Lightner, J. K. 2008. Life: Designed by God to Adapt. Answers in Depth. 3:37–39.
Hunter, C. Michael Skinner on Epigenetics: Stage Three Alert. Darwin's God. Posted at darwins-god.blogspot.com on November 15, 2016, accessed on December 11, 2016.

59 replies, 1620 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 59 replies Author Time Post
Reply Fast Evolution Confirms Creationist Theory (Original post)
nolidad Jun 2018 OP
marmot84 Jun 2018 #1
nolidad Jun 2018 #5
marmot84 Jun 2018 #10
nolidad Jun 2018 #13
marmot84 Jun 2018 #15
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #21
nolidad Jun 2018 #25
marmot84 Jun 2018 #16
nolidad Jun 2018 #39
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #57
marmot84 Jun 2018 #58
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #11
marmot84 Jun 2018 #14
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #18
marmot84 Jun 2018 #19
nolidad Jun 2018 #40
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #44
nolidad Jun 2018 #48
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #49
marmot84 Jun 2018 #17
nolidad Jun 2018 #33
marmot84 Jun 2018 #36
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #38
nolidad Jun 2018 #41
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #43
nolidad Jun 2018 #45
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #50
marmot84 Jun 2018 #28
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #30
marmot84 Jun 2018 #31
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #32
nolidad Jun 2018 #46
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #51
marmot84 Jun 2018 #52
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #54
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #55
nolidad Jun 2018 #34
nolidad Jun 2018 #42
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #56
Micrometer Jun 2018 #2
nolidad Jun 2018 #6
Meowmenow Jun 2018 #3
nolidad Jun 2018 #7
Meowmenow Jun 2018 #8
nolidad Jun 2018 #12
Meowmenow Jun 2018 #20
nolidad Jun 2018 #22
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #23
nolidad Jun 2018 #35
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #37
Meowmenow Jun 2018 #24
nolidad Jun 2018 #26
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply !
Meowmenow Jun 2018 #27
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #29
nolidad Jun 2018 #47
Meowmenow Jun 2018 #53
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #9
SatansSon666 Jun 2018 #4
TheShoe Jun 2018 #59

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 05:02 PM

1. Thank you for the article

as I read through it I am struck by the author's presumption of creation theory without exploring other possibilities. This is a dead give away of the intent of the article. This is not science. It is junk science.

These findings certainly don't "confirm Creationist's theory" they are evidence that points us in a particular direction and provide support for our interpretations of the Natural World.

The observed phenomena just as well bolster Darwinian Evolution providing new pathways for species to explore evolutionary niches. Darwinian Evolution is more than robust and flexible enough to incorporate these observations. No legitimate scientist would ever say that Darwinian Evolution is a static theory that is incapable of being changed. That is not how science is done. We revise our ideas when we encounter new evidence. This is no different.

There is no motivation at all for this evidence to drive us towards an extraordinary and unsupported theory of "Creationism".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 06:54 AM

5. Let us take your standards and apply them to your belief system.

1. So when a believer in evolution writes an article and the author presumes evolution without exploring other possibilities- we shall have the world reject it as junk science.

2. these findings support variation and adaptation within "kinds". It lends support to creationist theories as they show change- but within a kind and not having one creature change to a totally different creature (like raptor to bird)

3. You say: "The observed phenomena just as well bolster Darwinian Evolution providing new pathways for species to explore evolutionary niches". Now you are suggesting exploration implies intelligence behind it. there are enormous problems for evolution with this. for multiple species cohabitate same niches. You have dozens of birds in the same evolutionary niche, Same with all other creatures.

4. It is more of a hypothesis than theory. The major elements are still outside the scientific method,

5. If you read creation science research you would know they change their research as more info is uncovered.

Evolutionists stat with evolution as their foundation, creationists begin with God creating ex-Deo.

Well it may not motivate you, but as the footnotes show- it has bothered many evolutionists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 10:55 PM

10. Will need time to reply to your post and address all of the points you've made

but I will address #3 now.

Just for your reference
3. You say: "The observed phenomena just as well bolster Darwinian Evolution providing new pathways for species to explore evolutionary niches". Now you are suggesting exploration implies intelligence behind it. there are enormous problems for evolution with this. for multiple species cohabitate same niches. You have dozens of birds in the same evolutionary niche, Same with all other creatures.

I am saying nothing of the sort. The word "exploration" is only a metaphor here. In this sense, what I mean is that more chances for finding NEW stable equilibrium exist. Just like a Monte Carlo chess program (AlphaZero) is much smarter than a linear one. No "intelligence" is envolved, simply chance repeated over and over again.

I am certainly NOT implying intelligence behind the process of exploring niches. Please DON'T make false extrapolations from my points. If you don't understand what I have attempted to explain - please ask me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 15, 2018, 06:46 AM

13. That is why I used the term suggesting, for a normal reading of your answer implies that.

What your problem is is this:

You cannot prove that chance random mutations added this new information to say a dog genome or even added greater complexity to the genome.

But there is a law in science that has been demonstrated and verified that shows that these variations were not the products of random undirected unguided mutations but were already existing genetic information that camne to the forefront.

Also remember- environment does not direct mutations to any destination. Unless of course there is a high concentration of mutagenics, then it leads to fatality.

Also remember- mutations have been demonstrated to reduce the viability of a species, not enhance it. The only exception is specific mutations (like anti-biotic resistant bacteria).And while it gives the bacteria advantage in that specific environment- it reduces its viability in a normal environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 15, 2018, 07:53 AM

15. First of many examples of increase in genetic diversity from mutation to follow:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 15, 2018, 12:05 PM

21. He has me on ignore.

So let me predict.
He's gonna say something about speciation and cats or dogs, whatever animal, and that they are still cats or dogs. He may take an example from your link and/or try to discredit your link.
Scales to feathers may come up.
Anything currently unknown or in dispute will be offered as proof for his claims, without having proof to the contrary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 17, 2018, 02:03 PM

25. Gene duplication does not produce diversity!

And what source do they use to verify that this is how darwinian evolution occurred.

When a gene duplicates fully- it tends to be benign, if it does not duplicate properly- as the wiki article shows- cancer is the likely outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #13)

Fri Jun 15, 2018, 08:08 AM

16. Further documented examples with long scientific paper trail...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 04:55 PM

39. Well had a chance to peruse this lengthy link. Thank you!

Bottom line from their own pens:

1. They cannot demonstrate "positive mutations" occur randomly in nature

2. Most of the work was doen in a lab- very controlled environment under strict guidance from intelligent sources

3. They use lots of computer modelling to extrapolate backwards! Computer model;s are wonderful- but they may have 0 to do with reality!

This is a nice hypotheses but not much more.

They do agree with me:

True "positive" mutations are extremely rare, and the rest fall to slightly harmful (very slight for many) to toxic to the species!..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #39)

Thu Jun 21, 2018, 10:29 AM

57. Some mutations that are 'negative' or harmful

Can later become useful given enough time.
That's not a very good argument.
Every day you are reduced to the same old points. Every day those points become moot with new discoveries.
You need to realize that observations in the present can determine events from the past.
You know this, but you only accept the ones that the loons tell you to accept.

It's like going to investigate a murder and the lead investigator says " well, we weren't there to see the murder, maybe God created the victim to look like he's been murdered"
That is just as ridiculous as what you are saying most of the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 22, 2018, 05:07 PM

58. Well it seems you are hedging a bit now

just in case you didn't notice.

I really don't grasp your position. You claim my "experiments" are flawed because they are "experiments" and don't necessarily apply in the natural world. Then you question computer models because, well, perhaps because you don't like them and don't understand them.

Instead you wish us to consider a non-scientific and absolutely contraindicated leap of faith into some bizarre simulation reality based on ancient texts written in Bronze Age Iraq. Yeah, OK - if you say so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 11:15 PM

11. Well..

1. Evolution is far from an assumption. It is backed by countless pieces of evidence from all relevant fields that all reach the same conclusion.

2. Created kinds don't exist. Nobody can define one. Raptors didn't turn into birds, birds are still raptors. The same way we didn't turn into apes, we are still apes.

3. No.

4. You do not know the difference between hypothesis and theory as you have demonstrated dozens of times here. It is all within the realm of science. Loons like ICR think they can say what is in the realm of science, but they can't. They fucking suck at science.

5. They don't change their conclusions, they have to adapt to new discoveries and make a bunch of shit up, like kinds and sorts. They require biologists to do geology and all kinds of dumb shit. They suck.

Every new discovery is awesome. Scientists don't get bothered by them, they explain them, regardless of how.bad they want it to be something else. Another thing you will never understand because as you've said and shown, nothing will change your mind.

"I don't believe scales evolved to feathers, so there will never be evidence of it." - you
The exact same as the loons signing statements of faith saying no evidence can contradict scripture so they have to reject all evidence contrary to scripture. Then they claim to be doing science.. ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #11)

Fri Jun 15, 2018, 07:48 AM

14. +1

indeed. I am trying to say the exact same in more specific scientific and documented terms.

It will take time though. Partially because I am not a biologist by trade so I have to look up things that I am not sure of. This particular Creationist has a bunch of canned responses already loaded so a difficult climb ahead as I try to go point for point with this Creationist junk science .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #14)

Fri Jun 15, 2018, 08:42 AM

18. I have been explaining shit to him for months.

He doesn't get it.
He thinks that since we never observed something in the past it means that the scientific method cannot be used.
I've given examples like crime investigation and other things to explain that observed evidence in the present can determine events from the past, but he doesn't understand that either. He's too far gone.
It's at the point now that even admitting anything about evolution will topple his whole view of nature and his beliefs.
He has far too many years invested in his delusion to even consider anything else now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #18)

Fri Jun 15, 2018, 09:51 AM

19. Yep

understood - thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 04:56 PM

40. So according to your reasoning we are all still single cell life since that is all where you think

we came from so we still are that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 06:14 PM

44. No. That's your reasoning.

Nobody thinks that, except you.

We are all Eukaryotes.

Eukaryotes are organisms whose cells have a nucleus enclosed within membranes.

Would you say we are made up of cells that have a nucleus enclosed in a membrane?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 07:03 PM

48. YOu say that is my reasoning and you don't think that

Then agree with me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #48)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 07:06 PM

49. So are we eukaryotes or not?

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2018, 07:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I hardly agreed with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Fri Jun 15, 2018, 08:20 AM

17. Point #1

Evolution is firmly established mainstream science. There is no need to explore other possibilities in every paper. That would be absurd. Like asking that every paper on Astronomy consider an Earth centered Universe. Papers in the Astrophysical Journal are not considered junk science because they don't consider the Ptolemaic Universe. Sorry, that particular ship sailed in the 1890's or so. The experts weighed in then and have not been swayed since.

The establishment of Darwinian Evolution as mainstream science certainly had to do this in the past but it not currently an issue worth consideration.

Not that I'm not dismissing "Young Earth Creationism" but it does not, and has not, risen to the high standards of mainstream evolutionary theory. I will provide reasons for my dismissal of "Young Earth Creationism" but you will have to give me time to put it together as it is not my field of expertise nor particularly interesting to me.

Is Evolution falsifiable? This would be the scientific question. Indeed it is:

The blockquote (which doesn't show on this site) is quoted directly from Scientific American:

3. Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


New species evolve by diverging away from established ones and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. Credit: Science Picture Company Getty Images
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #17)

Tue Jun 19, 2018, 06:43 AM

33. Error in your point

Evolution is not established science- but accepted by mainstream scientists.

I fully understand micro and macro evolutionary differences.

It is the "macro" that is not true science. It is assumed because we obsewrve "micro" evolution and extrapolate backwards.

Variation within a species for the most part follows Mendels' Law. We do not see new information springing forth, but recessive genes coming to the fore or a reshuffling of existing material to adapt. It has never been proven to change genera or familes etc.

Even genetic similarity does not prove Darwinian Evolution. Identical genes in man and chimp still produce different results. in man it produces human hair and in chimps- chimp hair. They are both identical genes but produce different hair!

New species do emerge and do acquire differences- but it has not been shown that they "acquire" these differences by mutation and it is new information or that it was not latent information or simply the "turning on or off" of certain proteins that bring change.

Once again the hypotheses that random undesigned, unplanned undirected mutations being acted upon by "natural selection" has ever produced novel information or added complexity to a genome.

Falsifiability is somewhat of a red herring. When a theory can no longer be falsifiable- it becomes a law of science!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 19, 2018, 08:04 AM

36. Wrong on a essentially all points

But I'm busy watching soccer right now ... Red card against Columbia. Ehhhhh!

I'll read carefully and reply when time permits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #33)

Tue Jun 19, 2018, 10:06 AM

38. You got pretty much everything wrong there.

Maybe everything.

But I'll touch on your last point about a red herring.
Falsifiability is not a red herring. It is a rule. If your hypothesis cannot be falsified or at least be able to be tested and falsified, then you can't submit it as a scintific hypothesis. Because....
It can't be reviewed by anyone. If your hypothesis is "god has red hair". That cannot be falsified and is not a valid hypothesis for scientific review.

Laws of science are mostly mathematical equations that are held by the theory. Theories do not become laws. Ever. Theories contain the laws and hypotheses and evidence etc.. of the field of study.
You should know this, but somehow. . It still eludes you, even after having it explained several times by me and others right on this website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #38)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 05:07 PM

41. See that is where you are wrong.

IUf a hypotheses, becomes a theory and is tested and repeated and tested and repeated and tested and repeated etc.etc.etc.etc. and it cannot be falsified. When one looks to falsify a hypothesis and cannot find methods to falsify it, then ift become scientific law!

If my hypothesis is God has red hair and we cannot test that, then it falls outside the realm of physical science! I have been saying that over and over and over!

YOIu :"Laws of science are mostly mathematical equations that are held by the theory. Theories do not become laws. Ever. Theories contain the laws and hypotheses and evidence etc.. of the field of study.
You should know this, but somehow. . It still eludes you, even after having it explained several times by me and others right on this website."

Another lie!

1. I have just recently started talking about laws of science so it has not been a topic of discussion.

2. Laws are not mostly mathematical. Many are, but many laws are declared so by constant experimentation with the same results so that one can accurately predict what will happen in future experiments .

Ex. throwing a rock in the air and see it fall back to the ground over and over and over and over! While you can use math to help explain this- gravity is a law because it workd observably with or without knowing the math!

From wiki scince:

The laws of science, scientific laws, or scientific principles are statements that describe or predict a range of phenomena as they appear in nature. The term "law" has diverse usage in many cases: approximate, accurate, broad or narrow theories, in all natural scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc.). Scientific laws summarize and explain a large collection of facts determined by experiment, and are tested based on their ability to predict the results of future experiments. They are developed either from facts or through mathematics, and are strongly supported by empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they reflect causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.

Laws reflect scientific knowledge that experiments have repeatedly verified (and never falsified). Their accuracy does not change when new theories are worked out, but rather the scope of application, since the equation (if any) representing the law does not change. As with other scientific knowledge, they do not have absolute certainty (as mathematical theorems or identities do), and it is always possible for a law to be overturned by future observations. A law can usually be formulated as one or several statements or equations, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the circumstances of the processes taking place.

Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 05:59 PM

43. Laws CAN be falsified. That's the whole point.

They usually aren't because they have been tested and shown to be true so often that something pretty big would have to be found to falsify these laws now.
They are in the THEORY for whatever field of study they are used for.
Theories explain a natural phenomenon, through hypotheses and laws and math etc.. It's all contained IN the theory.
Like everything else, they are used to make predictions.
All laws are different and for different purposes and a lot only work in the circumstances they are used for, like Newton's Law. It can be used to land a capsule on the moon, but it doesn't explain gravity. The fucking theory explains it.
I didn't say they were ALL mathematical, but most of them are.

You admit to just starting to talk about laws, well the first fucking thing you should learn is what they are and why we have them.

I said the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY has been explained to you several times, not laws.

It's not lies, you have shown repeatedly that you don't know what a scientific theory is.
Laws explain something in the natural world that works every time.
Theories attempt explain WHY and include all the laws and hypotheses etc.. for that theory.

SO, before you call me a liar, learn your shit.

How is me saying "a Theory never becomes a law" a fucking lie?
How is me saying "the definition of a scientific theory has been explained to you several times on this website" a lie?
How is me saying "it eludes you" a lie, when you just proved it right here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 07:00 PM

45. alaw is a law is a law

it becomes a law because nothing we kn ow can violate it! But man makes it a law so of course something unknown can undo it! Boy and people call me woodenly literal.

You:

"I said the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY has been explained to you several times, not laws. "

Well when we are talking laws and you are thinking theories- it is a lie because it is not germane to what was said.

I admit I use terms loosely (thanks to my blue collar background) but let us look at a scientist:

Knowing the theory
In daily life, the word ‘theory’ usually evokes the meaning ‘educated guess’ or simply ‘guess’. This is misleading: in science, an educated guess on why or how something is happening is called a hypothesis. A scientific theory uses laws and facts to explain why or how something is happening; it explains the mechanisms behind a phenomenon. A theory should be provable by experiment; if a theory proposes the wrong explanation, then this should be clear from running experiments. There is nothing closer to the truth than a theory, because it creates a model of reality backed up by observation.

This is why "macro evolution" is not a theory! It is a hypotheses. It has not been provable by experiment,it has not been observed nor repeated! It is assumed based on a belief in evolution and then the use of the hypotheses to explain similarities in fossils and genetics. Once again I bring up my favorite scales to feathers. This has not been proven by experiment, nor observation nor repetition. It fails as science!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #45)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 07:22 PM

50. You are right, marco evolution isn't a theory.

It's part of the explanation of the diversity of species that the THEORY OF EVOLUTION explains.

You can't use THEORY loosely when talking about science, you can't use hypothesis loosely and then call people fucking liars when they correct you.

YOU SAID: Falsifiability is somewhat of a red herring. When a theory can no longer be falsifiable- it becomes a law of science!
I said, "a theory doesn't become a law", because you said "a theory becomes a law OF SCIENCE!"

So now I'm supposed to assume that you meant hypothesis when you said theory or some shit.

How much more dishonest can you be than calling me a liar and then lying about why you called me one.

How many times does it have to be explained to someone who says they have studied the theory of evolution for 10 years, that it is a scientific theory, it will never become the Law of Evolution. lmao..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 17, 2018, 09:08 PM

28. A detailed response ... I could add significantly more but time and interest are waning...

1. So when a believer in evolution writes an article and the author presumes evolution without exploring other possibilities- we shall have the world reject it as junk science.


Evolution is not something one “believes in.” Evolution is based an overwhelming body of evidence. Now that includes a substantial fossil record and DNA sequence analysis.

Serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist, then at the University of Washington, surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. Surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss, now at Arizona State University, were similarly fruitless.

Evolution has a long tradition within the scientific community and is accepted by scientists worldwide as providing the best evolution for the observable facts. The same can not be said about “Creation Science.”
The Judge in the Dover case provided some guidance:

“Science is essential to a lot of the determinations that we make, and we're guided by certain touchstones. For example, is it generally accepted in the scientific community? Is it peer reviewed? Has it been published? Has it withstood scrutiny by, by scientists, generally?
I mean, these are some of the touchstones that we use, and that's really what I did as I evaluated intelligent design, and if you look at intelligent design, it is not generally accepted—it's not accepted anywhere, by the leading lights of the scientific community. The works of its proponents have not been peer reviewed. It hasn't been widely published. It's been deeply criticized as not.

…Darwin didn't want to find this stuff out. I mean, the, the evidence led him to this conclusion, and he was so alarmed at it that he put it away for years. You know, he didn't reach a conclusion and then try to find evidence to justify the conclusion. He went where the evidence led him. And was very circumspect about it.”
In both a legal and Scientific sense, Evolution stands a real science. Creationism also known as “Intelligent Design” should correctly be described as junk science



2. these findings support variation and adaptation within "kinds". It lends support to creationist theories as they show change- but within a kind and not having one creature change to a totally different creature (like raptor to bird)

Created kinds don't exist. Nobody can define one. Raptors didn't turn into birds, birds are still raptors. The same way we didn't turn into apes, we are still apes. The scientific distinction you are looking for is
That evolutionary biologists do not see new species emerging before their eyes is not surprising at all given that we expect this process to take thousands of years and not be something that is observable over a standard human lifespan. Nevertheless, new species have in fact been observed to emerge.


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/



3. You say: "The observed phenomena just as well bolster Darwinian Evolution providing new pathways for species to explore evolutionary niches". Now you are suggesting exploration implies intelligence behind it. there are enormous problems for evolution with this. for multiple species cohabitate same niches. You have dozens of birds in the same evolutionary niche, Same with all other creatures.



I fail to see your “enormous problems.” Quite the contrary, such evidence provides an understanding of the diversification necessary to allow macro-evolution to differentiate species could take place.


4. It is more of a hypothesis than theory. The major elements are still outside the scientific method,




What do you mean here? Evolution is much more than a hypothesis. What are you even talking about and specifically what are you referring to?


5. If you read creation science research you would know they change their research as more info is uncovered.


Evolutionists start with evolution as their foundation, creationists begin with God creating ex-Deo.
Starting with God is just not science. This is by the definition of science which seeks to understand why and how not to circumvent these questions by substituting a supernatural explanation.
Well it may not motivate you, but as the footnotes show- it has bothered many evolutionists.
It is not my field. I long ago choose physics over biology because of my personal interests. This is irrelevant to the argument. I’m simply stating the fact that I am not an expert and my understanding is that neither are you. Further, I accept evolution as solid science. The evidence for it is overwhelming and repeated again and again. It is indeed boring in my opinion to validate a theory that has been repeatedly validated by experts far more advanced and capable than myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 18, 2018, 06:09 AM

30. Creationists need to downgrade the theory

Of evolution to a belief. That's the only thing they can do to try to be able to equate it with their ridiculous beliefs.
They have zero evidence and all evidence from every field of science confirms evolution. Evolution has never been debunked and there has never been another theory explaining the diversity of life. However, if they can make it seem like a belief, then to them their bible version is just as valid because hey, they are both beliefs right. They have been brainwashed by loons wanting their money to believe that evolution is taken on faith. When it's incredibly easy to determine that it is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 18, 2018, 07:07 AM

31. Thanks yes...

FYI, I used your point - counter point list as place holders and starters for my own since he has you on ignore. I hope you don't mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #31)

Mon Jun 18, 2018, 07:38 AM

32. Not at all. Have at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 07:01 PM

46. Because it does not even meet the simplest definition of a theory!

Knowing the theory
In daily life, the word ‘theory’ usually evokes the meaning ‘educated guess’ or simply ‘guess’. This is misleading: in science, an educated guess on why or how something is happening is called a hypothesis. A scientific theory uses laws and facts to explain why or how something is happening; it explains the mechanisms behind a phenomenon. A theory should be provable by experiment; if a theory proposes the wrong explanation, then this should be clear from running experiments. There is nothing closer to the truth than a theory, because it creates a model of reality backed up by observation.

Show me any law trhat has been verified by repetitive testing of genetic drift over time that produces new genera, phyla order etc!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 07:26 PM

51. a fucking scientific theory.

Again..
oh my.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 10:47 PM

52. You are not making sense

I am a physics teacher. I have a Ph.D. in Heavy Ion Physics. I know full well what a "Theory" and a "Hypothesis" are.

You are not making sense. I don't even understand what you are asking? A theory is NOT a Hypothesis which is testable by one single experiment. A theory may be falsified by one single experiment but no theory can be verified, only supported by any experiment. You only think you know what you are talking about. I have mountains of papers which support the "Theory of Evolution". Basically all of Biology, Paleontology and Geology. Go figure...

Now what were you falsely trying to peg to me? As I understand it you are saying that I am claiming that "genetic drift" results in new species. I am not - and you should know enough about Evolution to know that I am not. Your argument is by "Strawman" so I have no need to respond.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #52)

Thu Jun 21, 2018, 08:36 AM

54. He's been told several times.

What a scientific theory was but now he is trying to say it can become a law. When confronted with that fallacy he says he meant theory in a colloquial sense.
You can't throw words around like theory and hypothesis without using their proper meaning when discussing science. It's confusing as fuck.

Physics teacher.. good job.
Probably the most hated teacher around, lol, not for your personality, but mostly everyone dreads physics class. I did and had to take a few of them in university. PH.D in physics is not an easy task to achieve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #46)

Thu Jun 21, 2018, 10:05 AM

55. First, it wouldn't be a law.

Second, genetic drift can and does produce new species.
You want something to change at earlier levels but you can't. You can't outgrow your ancestry and you can't change your ancestry.
You need to understand phylogenetic processes and realize how many different levels there are between your examples.
The old linnean taxonomy is incredibly outdated. There are dozens of clades between them and the closer you get to the species level, more and more between them.
You will never NOT be a mammal, no matter how much you evolve. You can't change at that level, that time has passed, it's done.
You have to understand how these levels came to be and what that means as a species today.
The video series I am posting should help you with that.
That is, if you can get past the "you weren't there" Ken Ham fucking bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 19, 2018, 06:44 AM

34. I will answer this when I get the time for there are enormous errors in this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 05:23 PM

42. Wrong!

You: "Evolution is not something one “believes in.” Evolution is based an overwhelming body of evidence. Now that includes a substantial fossil record and DNA sequence analysis."

Sorry but that doesn't wash! It is the opinion of evolutionists that chimps who are 75-80% similar to man is related (that is according to the newer and more detailed genetic analysis) They had declared chimps were 98% identical based on selective and biased studies which made chimp closer to modern man than neanderthal!!!.

Fossils just simply tell us that a creature existed! We can make many accurate declarations about many of these fossils, but many also are just simply imagination! Of course there are similarities in fossils. But that does not prove evolution any more than creation!

The improtant intermediates still are missing and remain missing! I refere to my scale to feather argument. For all the bluff and bluster the best that meow meow could come up wioth is a google link that showed what may have, could have, might have, or some evolutionists thinks happened. But no evidence of scales to feathers as is required!

Same with marine to land animals. andon and on.

The naledi find has thrown human evolution into a new quagmire! Because they have found the remains of many supposed "intermediates" mingled together! Creationists were not surprised by this! It is even a predictive theory of creation science based on observation. Modern man has many varied differences in skeletal structrure. we even have modern neanderthals skeletally! They live in tghe bango Phuta (I think I spelled that right) region of India.

I full accept speciation. I fully accept genetic drift! these are observable phenomena and can be tested and repeated! these are empirical science. But to declare that genera, family, order phyla etc.sprang up through undirected random accretion of "positive mutations" is not science but philosophy for it is outside the realm of the scientific method.

evolutionists start with nothing that goes on to create, we start with god creating and building in the genome the ability to adapt within its "kind". that is what is observed and testable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #42)

Thu Jun 21, 2018, 10:12 AM

56. Stop using "kind" if you can't explain what it is.

There are only 3 kinds.
Archaea, bacteria and eukarya.
Every living thing is one of those.
No exceptions.
Eukarya is also split in 2, eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
We are Eukaryotes.

So god only needed 2 eukaryotes, 2 prokaryotes, a bacteria and virus on the ark.
Those are kinds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 05:15 PM

2. I don't believe it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Micrometer (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 06:54 AM

6. as is your privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Wed Jun 13, 2018, 07:48 PM

3. Once again demonstrating scientific illiteracy

 

and violating DI's ToS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 06:56 AM

7. Then you should take it up with the many evolutionists

who are writing that they relied upon and footnoted.

Seems many evolutionists demonstrate scientific illiteracy!

Rapid "evolution" goes against the norm!

Just look at chihuahuas! Thjey have been up north for over a century now and their hair has yet to evolve to acclimate to colder climes! But yet the cited examples have made massive evolutionary leaps even faster than Eldredge's and Gould's hypothetical "punctuated equilibrium"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 10:43 AM

8. I thought you were ignoring me.

 

No self-discipline either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #8)

Fri Jun 15, 2018, 06:35 AM

12. And you have no knowledge of civility either so whats your point.

You seem intent of acting like devil boy. Instead of engaging in discussion- you just want to act smarmy and prepubescent and just hurl your one liners.

You seem to want to work hard to make yourself an empty suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 15, 2018, 11:38 AM

20. Religious bullshit should not be posted in the Science forum.

 

Don't like idiocy being ridiculed? Stop posting it. Especially in a forum labeled Science. One liners and laughter is all that the crap you post deserves. If you want a serious discussion you need to post real articles, not wingnut religiocon crap that fails EVERY metric of scientific thought, writing, inquiry or method.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #20)

Sun Jun 17, 2018, 08:43 AM

22. So that is all you can offer.

Cheap one liners and ad-hominems! Okay then.

Well it appears the mods disagree that this belongs in religion.

But I will agree to move it and keep it in religion if you agree that Darwinian Evolution belongs there as well. For both are outside the realm of empirical science!

Neither has been observed, neither can be tested nor have they been able to be repeated empirically. Both are faith based belief systems.

Evolution in teh generic sense (meaning any change that occurs) is scientific for it has been tested, repeated , and observed, but we have never seen one gensu change to another or family change or phyla or order and that is what Darwinian Evolution not only requires, but demands. Heck we h ave not even seen any major change in organs which also is required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 17, 2018, 09:40 AM

23. Poor nolidad

Forced to project his faults onto others by trying to bring science down to his religions level.
We have no evidence or facts at all. Everything points away from creation so how can we make the ridiculous claims of our religion seem equal to evolutionary theory?
I got it. . Pretend they have equal value scientifically. YOU WEREN'T THERE!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #23)

Tue Jun 19, 2018, 06:49 AM

35. Neither were you there when the fossils were laid down.

So we have opinion and outright fraud in interprerting and displaying fossils.

The greatest fraud perpetrated by evolutionists to prove evolution was the whale evolution and the "intermediaries". It was shown and proven that bones were manipulated and when needed parts were missing- they werew drawen in on the diagrams.
It took many years and several honest people who believe in evolution to debunk the "proofs" of whale evolution. So we are back to no intermediaries after the intermediaries were peer reviewed and approved before being tossed out years later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #35)

Tue Jun 19, 2018, 08:38 AM

37. Science admits it doesn't know all the answers.

"Science" also admits that new evidence can change what they thought. Evolution has never been debunked or shown to be false.
All evidence points towards it from every field of science studying it without exception.
Facts are facts. You just have to live with being totally wrong or admit that maybe the biblical account has tons of errors and embrace old earth creationism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #22)

Sun Jun 17, 2018, 12:58 PM

24. Your knowledge of how this site works is on a par with your scientific literacy.

 

There are no mods.

Try reading the Terms of Service. You will find you are not supposed to copy and paste entire articles either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #24)

Sun Jun 17, 2018, 02:06 PM

26. So I am doing what lots of others are! Get over it!

I will match my scientific literacy with yours.

The best you came up with is a google link for scales to feathers that was loaded with all sorts of articles laced with the following har hitting scientific words:

Could be, suggests, we think, might, may have, possibly...Maybe that is your problem. You might think that science is a bunch of maybes. And if you do- then I don't know why you can't accept creation science as another maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 17, 2018, 03:18 PM

27. !

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #27)

Mon Jun 18, 2018, 04:24 AM

29. Don't fall into his scales to feathers trap.

I already showed him the genes responsible, how they are only found in reptiles and birds showing common ancestry.
I showed how certain genes were turned on in alligator embryos which elongated and thinned the scales. Several different things.
He refuses to see any of it.
Then he says he'll go toe to toe for scientific literacy.. he thinks ICR biologist bloggers are know more than real geologists about rocks.
He thinks masters of science in biotechnology know more about radio dating than chemists and physicists.
It's hilarious. . And he teaches this shit to morons who believe him, which is even worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #24)

Wed Jun 20, 2018, 07:02 PM

47. So alert me and all the others that paste articles!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 21, 2018, 12:46 AM

53. How about you take some personal responsibility and follow the guidelines and ToS.

 

Oh right, you need a daddy figure to enforce rules. You can't conceive of people being moral and ethical without the threat of judgement and damnation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 11:06 AM

9. For someone who pretends to like science

You spend a lot of time reading creationist blogs for your information.
You really, truly believe that these loons, acting way out of their fields, have the interest of science at heart when they scour journals and papers looking for things that they think gives evidence for their opinions.

So tell me, why isn't he publishing his findings in real journals?
Why is the loon reduced to writing a blog for a fucking shitty website?
Don't say they are discriminated against, if they have the research and the data and evidence to support their young earth claims there would be no denying it. They don't. They never have and they never will all they have are some people that believe their bullshit and send them money.
I have better credentials than your little bloggers. An engineer and master of theology has no business making these claims. He's a fucking loon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Thu Jun 14, 2018, 12:50 AM

4. Lmao.

How any loons do these loons employ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2018, 07:30 PM

59. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience