if you got science..faulsifyable *PROOF present it HERE NOW
as it hasnt been..attempted..to even correct..
let alone presented..*therefor..dont egsist..but by visions/or put down

[reveal your proof[not your re-proof]
that aint proof
its opinion//NOT SCIENCE fact
if you going to take the high ground..at least reveal..the 'firm ground' falsifiable FACTS

[sans FACTS..your standing on aint a sinking shipof faith

google up 'AIDS from monkey serum'

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rls=MEDA%2CMEDA%3A2008-36%2CMEDA%3Aen-GB&q=aids+from+monkeys+serum&btnG=Search&meta=

or'frauds in science'
771,000 for science fraud...in..2005
over 5 million..today

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=frauds+in+sciernce&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Modern_frauds_in_science&sa=U&ei=LyniUdKUKcSRiQfm-4GYAg&ved=0CCAQFjAB&sig2=BP7huGotEuOKMnQ6n_RFeA&usg=AFQjCNETLqT4_neeX8Dt08TDiTB9ApKZfA

the role of journals in fraud science
http://www.google.com.au/url?q=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct&sa=U&ei=LyniUdKUKcSRiQfm-4GYAg&ved=0CB0QFjAA&sig2=iXxhAXqmdYAMHFoKTc9C5A&usg=AFQjCNGQowe-LOtphwVT-_57TF0_XU53rg

Scientific fraud and the power structure of science,
by Brian Martin published in Prometheus,1992.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92prom.html

Global Trend:..More Science,..More Fraud
New York Times..20 Dec 2005 ... A global explosion in research is outstripping the mechanisms meant to guard against error and fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20rese.html

More science fraud..More science fraud.//By Jonathan M. Gitlin | Published: January 19, 2006..Scientific fraud is a topic that no-one in the profession likes to ...
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/1/19/2578

Amazon.com: Voodoo Science:
The Road from Foolishness to Fraud Robert L. Park:
http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195147103

Fraud in Science(Aaron Swartz:..The Weblog)14 Mar 2005 ... That’s what most scientists will tell you about fraud in science.Science is magically self-correcting, fraudsters are isolated incidents, ...
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001616

Ruthless Science Fraud at the University of TorontoIn 1981 I began Ph.D. research at the University of Toronto..I walked into a trap: after five years, I was removed from the laboratory and the credit for my ...
http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/ruthless.htm

SCIENCE FRAUD;NPRA leading scientific journal..is taking an unusual step today ..it is retracting three papers it published in recent years. Science magazine is taking the ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1050374

Chowk: Science: Fraud and Forgery
in Science Fraud and forgery..is rare in the science world..BUT..it’s there.
www.chowk.com/articles/9466

Science Fraud Shakes Stem Cell Field,
LiveScience24 Dec 2005...

Scientists fretted Friday that a spectacular cloning fraud that hid in plain sight has set back legitimate stem cell work around the world.
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_051224_stem_cells.html

the not so nobel?..prize is perfect
in being'..sciences..lol..'highest..*honour?

OR..a bunch of fraudsters..and scamers?
that cant even provide falsification..that thus leads us to blatant lies...even if only by omission

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=frauds+in+sciernce&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

continued from
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257&page=0

extracted from

http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/Evolution_Of_Evolution.pdf

<<..Prior to the discovery of DNA,..scientists looked at the physical features of animals..(or fossils) and claimed that similarities between their physical features..indicated a proof of evolution...by claiming these animals were "related" to each other on the "phylogenetic tree" or "evolutionary tree.">>

<<The "phylogenetic tree" is the tree that shows how different species are related to each other by evolution.>>>..VIA TAXONOMIC looks like

<<..Let me emphasize that,..by definition, each plant or
animal on the phylogenetic tree..is a unique "species.">>

<<..On a pedigree chart..every person is the same species(i.e. a human being).

<<On a phylogenetic tree,however,..each entity on the tree is a different species!>>

<<..Morphology" is the science..of studying the visible structures of different species,..to determine the evolutionary relationship between the species...Morphology became obsolete,..as an argument for evolution,..after the discovery of DNA.>>

<<..Prior to the discovery of DNA..it was easy to support the theory of evolution...All you needed was someone..to take a few species which had similar*..features and..you needed someone...to draw a phylogenetic tree.

Because of the vast number of animals..which do live,and have lived, on this planet,...almost all*..animals can be placed on a phylogenetic tree and be*..made to appear closely related..to other species of animals.

Also, due to the vast number of animals which have lived on this earth,..and do live on this earth,.."transitional" species can usually be found.

These are species..which fill the gap..(on the evolutionary tree) between two known species (which THUS..*appear to be related}>>

but via dna..have been revealed to be based more by faith..than true science falsifiable proofs..based on looks like [phenotype..rather than genotype...thus the taxomomic fraud is exposed

EG,..<<with the right mix..of a few key fossils;
it can be claimed that there is evidence that land animals ..e.g. hippopotamus) "evolved" into whales,..as one of many examples..of the actual claims of evolution.

But even with all of this..*visual "evidence"..for the theory of evolution,..all was not well for the evolutionists ..ven before the discovery of DNA.

For example,..there are many species..of animals which do not appear to have.."parent species"..(the "parent species" is the species which had their DNA mutate into a "child species"..on the phylogenetic tree)..*because of their unique and highly complex physical capabilities.

For example/the neck,heart,etc...of the giraffe a
nd the unique,..*complex mechanisms which allow it to "stoop down" and drink..without choking to death..and having their brain blood vessels burst..*do not have any parallels with other animals or fossils.

In other words,..giraffes have no obvious.."parent species."

As a different type of example..of a lack of parent species;
..let us consider..*the Cambrian Explosion...Many of the creatures found in the Canada Rockies have no known parent species.

The Cambrian Explosion..brings up another issue.
Darwin predicted that the number of new species..found in the fossil record would gradually increase over time..(i.e. "gradualism"),*..but the Cambrian Explosion discoveries do not fit that prediction.

Many species,*..without any known "parent species,"
suddenly appeared in the fossil record.

One explanation.l.for this lack of "parent species,"..in the fossil record,..is that they..simply haven't been found yet..or that time has destroyed these transitional fossils.

Nevertheless,..the problems for the theory of evolution
are so well known that the scientific establishment coined the term "punctuated equilibrium"..to take the place of "gradualism" because that is what they observed;..based on many of the fossils they have found.

We immediately see a problem

Evolutionists..embraced a term..(i.e. punctuated_equilibrium)..which means exactly the opposite*..of what Darwin predicted..(i.e.
gradualism)!*!

Instead of dropping Darwin's theories,..they coined a new term..and continued to endorse..the theory of evolution..using what visual "evidence"..they had!

But*even..by using clever terminology,..such as "punctuated equilibrium,..was not saving the theory of evolution..because people remembered Darwin's claims

and..*it was obvious..that the data from paleontologists..*was never going to support..some of..the key predictions of Darwin.

The fossil record..was so flawed..in several different ways that according to one author..the theory of evolution was dying a slow death.

With the discovery of DNA..in 1953 the theory of evolution should have died on the spot. ..*scientists now had to explain..*how a series of accidents could have..*created the highly complex DNA molecules of millions of different species.

As scientists started to unravel the complexity,sophistication and functions of DNA,..the theory of evolution was looking worse..

*because the more complex..and sophisticated DNA was found to be,..the harder it was to explain that the DNA of each species was created by a long series of accidents.

Note:.."Pure accidentalism,"..both before..and after the discovery of
DNA,..is the technical way to describe.,.the core beliefs of the theory of evolution.

The opposite of "pure accidentalism"..is "design and creation."
For example,an explosion in a junkyard..making/EVOLVING into a jet.

In addition,it was learned that all plants and animals,..and even single-celled/organisms,..have their own unique DNA/RNA...Thus,there were literally millions of unique sequences*..of DNA for living species..and for some relatively/recent extinct species.(e.g. Neanderthal man,..who may*..or may not have been a different species than humans

there is evidence both for and against this theory).
Suddenly,..with the discovery of DNA,..the significance of the phylogenetic tree totally changed.

Scientists now had to explain..where these complex molecules,
called DNA,..came from for every living...and extinct species of plant,animal,etc.

The key question..became:.."how was the DNA
of a 'parent species'..accidentally mutated..a new species,..

the 'child species,'..was created,..with a new and improved*.."child
species"..was..*always considered to be..a superior species compared to the.."parent species."

importantly,..there were no errors in doing this,
*..meaning there are not..*millions of giant/graveyards..of failed attempts..to morph one..*highly sophisticated/DNA strand..into another highly/sophisticated DNA strand..

The truth is that the statistical problems..of the theory of evolution have gotten worse..as the understanding of the capabilities of DNA,..and how sensitive it is to FATAL/mutations..(i.e. errors), have become better understood.

never forget the massive number
..*of failures evolution..CHANCE*..would create
when a randomly mutated DNA strand..*failed to create a viable new species.
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/Evolution_Of_Evolution.pdf
Where are these failures..in the fossil record?

But scientist peer's quickly figured out..to use their power
to control over information...and have very carefully buried their embarrassments from public view[and from their students]by using deceptive definitions!

They "blacklisted".."ignored".."buried"..ridiculed/missdirected.."don't talk about"..the problems with their cherished..*theory/evolution(at the DNA level)..and continue to talk/ubiquitous phylogenetic trees, natural selection,survival of the fittest

edited

If you ever debate an evolutionist,..ask them to show proof that any scientist has ever observed macroevolution...Until they can do that, there is nothing to debate.

truth is irrelevant ..nd their statistical problems buried!

After burying their problems,..pretend there are no statistical problems and that the critics of evolution..were "not true scientists"..and are not playing fair.

To this day,..the main "evidence" for the theory of evolution is still based on pre-1953 technology, meaning phylogenetic trees, natural selection, examples of microevolution..(i.e. deceptive terminology),etc.

In fact, many "fossil digs" going
on today..are designed to find "missing links"..lol..on the phylogenetic tree!..*REDFUITED long-ago!

Scientists still refuse to honestly confront..the issues of DNA and macroevolution,which are post-1953 issues, ..hough they have now come up with some very clever statistical tricks..to talk about DNA and evolution.

But these new tactics..RUN_AWAY..don't look at permutations of nucleotides,nor do they demonstrate..how evolution could have overcome its statistical problems...or claim science..sans faulsifyables&

If you read any pro-evolution book,you will see numerous references to natural selection,survival of the fittest,morphology, phylogenetic trees and/or using the word "evolution").

Rarely is the word.."microevolution"..[within species;ie dog/cat/pigeon/finch..etc :ie *breeds]
or "macroevolution" [the creating a VIABLE..*new genus as postulated by 'theory'...of evolution]..actually used.

theissue often arises in..'discussions'..
that of where the extra chromosomes comes from..for evolution into new genus..*would need

http://eweb.furman.edu/~wworthen/bio111/mutation1.htm

<<..For the most part, mutations occur randomly.

And as you would suspect, making random changes to a complex, functional system like a living cell are probably going to have a negative effect.

This is particularly true for large changes, like the gain or loss of individual chromosomes or chromosome sets. In humans and other animals with complex development and tissue specialization, most of the large-scale changes cause such profound problems with development that the embryo does not develop correctly and is spontaneously aborted.

*Over 90% of all spontaneous abortuses (that are tested) have chromosomal anomalies.*

By analogy, think about the complex system of an automobile. If you make a large, random change to a functioning car - like taking out the engine, or putting one big wheel on the front right axle - it is unlikely that you will improve the functioning of the system.

Small changes are probably going to have a negative effect, also, but it is more likely that a small change has a beneficial effect than a large change.

For example, you might randomly change the angle of the rear-view mirror every time you get in the car.

Well, sometimes you will throw it off
so you can't see, but sometimes, just by chance...>>

later it explains why just by chance...in the main self abort..[or die early or are infertile]
<<.. some embryos with these conditions can complete development to birth, and some individuals can survive for decades. When non-disjunction occurs in the #21 chromosome, TRISOMY 21 occurs.

This is also known as Down's Syndrome. Other autosomal trisomies can survive to birth, but that is rare and the effects are much more severe.>>..

its fine for you to chose to remain ignorant
i seek to know*..cause im the ignoreant one

but heck you knew this..