Quote
Stillo at it CTD. Let's try Russ's approach at brevity:

Quote
It is you yourself who have maintained that there's no burden of proof. I was just pointing this out.
Actually it is what you are avoiding. The evidence remains that you cannot produce one single theory that has been proven from any scientific field. If this "burden of proof" existed in other sciences then it should be easy to find one.

But there is no "burden of proof" for any theory in any science. This is because scientists know that absolute proof is impossible. The best we can do is eliminate concepts that are false -- a flat earth, a geocentric solar system, a young earth, a young universe.

You will note that not one of those items listed have to do with evolution, just with reality.

Until you either (a) post a proven theory or (b) admit that no theory is ever proven in any science, you are avoiding the issue.

Enjoy.
Have I not already said my Theory of Skunk Funk benefits from the burdenless paradigm? I think I have. And I think you're aware of this. Just like you were aware of my statements about the feet of ape-men, so you turned right around and posted skulls.

I know how evolutionists think. You think it is a vulnerability that I'm consistent. You think it's a strength that you change definitions willy-nilly. You think it helps you survive if you're always a moving target. Allow me to elevate LindaLou in your esteem. (bold added for your benefit)
Quote
Prediction 5:2 -- Morphological (shape) Change. "Macroevolution requires that organisms' morphologies have changed throughout evolutionary history; thus, we should observe morphological change and variation in modern populations. There have been numerous observations of morphological change in populations of organisms . . ." (Endler 1986, Barsh 1996, Houde 1988, Morton 1990, Johnston and Selander 1973, Futuyma 1998).
(I'm assuming you missed Post 253105 in another thread.)

And I shall stick to my position so that you may think me weak. Although burdens of proof exist, it would damage my own theory to demonstrate this. I have chosen not to damage my theory at this time (as you know).

Now can you demonstrate that I actually am weak because I don't dance from position to position? Here I sit, stationary. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tauntyou.gif" alt="" /> Blast away, if you've got anything.

Your dispute with Russ may involve epigenetics, for these things are commonly associated and/or confused with Lamarckism. I hadn't heard that tanning is regulated in this way, but I wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand.

More epigenetics links:
http://www.bio-pro.de/en/life/thema/03951/index.html
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/undergrad.prog/stephan/genetics.notes.html
http://vorpal.us/index.php/2006/11/lamarcism-long-scientific-heresy-is-validated-after-200-years/

Wouldn't hurt for folks to learn a thing or two about recombination as well.

More recombination links:
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Genetic_recombination/
http://www.bio-medicine.org/q-more/biology-definition/gamete/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/plants_animals/genetically_modified/

These things could rate their own thread. Much of what is called "mutation" in order to promote evolutionism is actually recombination and/or gene expression operating just perfectly. There are those who would have us believe every single difference among siblings is the result of mutation, and they seem to control more newspapers & TV stations than the rest.

I highly recommend that folks learn at least a little about these things. It's fascinating, wonderful stuff; and anything the evolutionists have to keep hush-hush is ...well, it's entertaining & profitable.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson