Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 21, 2014, 06:06:36 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 1214 1215 [1216] 1217 1218 ... 1526
30376  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: CHAZZ WEAVER:50 years old: ALL MCDONALDS! on: March 10, 2007, 02:09:26 AM

 to learn more

Okay, here are the results:

Weight – I started at 222lbs and in thirty days I dropped 8lbs of “body fat”, ending the thirty days at 214lbs.
Blood Pressure - I started at 111/71, a bit low, and ended the thirty days at 121/81 which is optimal.
Cholesterol – this is where you need to understand about cholesterol!
My HDL (the good cholesterol) improved 80%.
My LDL (the bad cholesterol) went down 2 points. That’s an improvement!
My overall cholesterol went up 6% because of my HDL improvement, however this is an improvement overall.
My Triglycerides improved 42%

30377  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: CHAZZ WEAVER:50 years old: ALL MCDONALDS! on: March 10, 2007, 02:00:35 AM
Furthermore Joe(Mr. Intenseone) and ONLYME,

Chazz is not only a lifetime natural, he also looks better than the both of you.

I feel sorry that the two of you have lived this long being so unintelligent.

When did the ability to think for yourself and to be rational leave your collective conciousness?

I hope you guys get it back one day.
30378  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: CHAZZ WEAVER:50 years old: ALL MCDONALDS! on: March 10, 2007, 01:58:01 AM
This fag trains at my gym, he didn't prove anything exept what we already new before, what he didn't tell you is that Spurlock was a vegan and putting that into his body would fuck anyone up...DUH!!

It also tells you that when your body is clean and you introduce processed foods, that will also fuck up your body. Congrats Adam, your diet principals and full of pollution!
Joe is an idiot. He believes in angels, fairys and thinks Unicorns grazed in fields with people and Dinosaurs.  Sorry, but you cannot take any Creationist serious when their level of intelligence regarding Science stops at a 1st grade level.  With his creationist view on the world, he believes that, the sun, solar system, the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was created, AFTER the domestication of the dog.  That speaks volumes of his intelligence or lack thereof.
30379  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: CHAZZ WEAVER:50 years old: ALL MCDONALDS! on: March 09, 2007, 10:46:19 PM
A calorie is a calorie in which sense:

1. Adding muscle or
2. Lowering fat.

Speak on this.

A calorie is a calorie in all sense.

1 Calorie=1 Calorie of any substance.

When it comes to food, you should not overeat even when trying to gain muscle.

In any normal diet, you will be adequately fueled nutrient wise to build muscle or lose fat.

You would have to try your HARDEST to not meet nutritional needs.  Its not feasible.
30380  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: CHAZZ WEAVER:50 years old: ALL MCDONALDS! on: March 09, 2007, 10:28:32 PM

Completly wrong.

You can add muscle just as fast.
30381  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: CHAZZ WEAVER:50 years old: ALL MCDONALDS! on: March 09, 2007, 10:19:05 PM
Nice way to prove a fact. A calorie is a calorie, the source is up to you as long as you get enough carbs and some protein, you are set!

Chicken breast and rice every day? Sad...

BTW this guy downed between 3500 to 5700 calories per day in fast food. It's all about weekly average and energy expendure.

Exactly my friend.
30382  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: CHAZZ WEAVER:50 years old: ALL MCDONALDS! on: March 09, 2007, 10:01:06 PM
Here is Chazz`s Website.

30383  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: CHAZZ WEAVER:50 years old: ALL MCDONALDS! on: March 09, 2007, 09:58:26 PM
Costa Mesa, CA (WFN) -- A Costa Mesa, California, man has just ended a 30-day "McDiet," just as healthy as he was when he started.

Chazz Weaver, an economist, took the challenge of eating only McDonalds' food for 30 days to refute Morgan Spurlock's documentary "Supersize Me" -- which shows the filmmaker packing on the fat after eating only at McDonald's.

Weaver lost six pounds of fat on his diet and did not lose any muscle mass or strength. He's still waiting for the results of his cholesterol test.

He thinks he had success on the McDiet because he maintained an exercise routine that burned the calories he ate, something he says Spurlock did not do.

Weaver says his results prove that Spurlock did the same thing he accused McDonalds of doing: using misinformation to profit off the public.

During the diet Weaver was asked what his first post- McDonalds meal would be, and, after thinking it over for a long time, on Saturday (May 1) he went to McDonalds for breakfast.

A documentary of his experience is in the works.
30384  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: CHAZZ WEAVER:50 years old: ALL MCDONALDS! on: March 09, 2007, 09:54:09 PM
30385  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / CHAZZ WEAVER:50 years old: ALL MCDONALDS! on: March 09, 2007, 09:53:20 PM

He got to the meat of his argument
'Chazz' Weaver ate only fast food for 30 days, challenging assumptions about diet.
The Orange County Register
COSTA MESA – Charles "Chazz" Weaver on Friday completed his monthlong McDonald's-only experiment, claimed he lost 8 pounds in the project, and challenged the creator of the "Super Size Me" film to a public debate on obesity and fast food.
Weaver, 48, ate nothing but McDonald's fare for 30 consecutive days – every menu item at least once – to prove that staying thin is about calorie intake and exercise. His credentials are his fit body, 19 years of studying fitness as a hobby, and helping friends lose weight.
"I am not an advocate of fast food as a lifestyle, but neither do you have to be on a so- called diet," he said.
His strength and energy have not diminished and he hasn't had negative effects, he said.
"Not even a headache or a mood swing," he said.

Statistics detailing 30-day experiment
Weight: 222 pounds on Day 1 and 214 pounds on Day 30
Blood pressure: 111/78 on Day 1 and 121/81 on Day 30
Cholesterol: 208 at the start of the project; he will retest today and should have results on his Web site by Monday
The last meal: Friday, April 30, 4:30 p.m. Big Mac, Double Cheeseburger, 6-piece Chicken McNuggets, snack-size Fruit & Yogurt Parfait, medium Diet Coke – total calories: 1,550
Media interviews: 50-75, mostly for radio talk shows
Exercise: 25-30 minutes of cardio training and 50-60 minutes of strength training, six days a week
Verification: A witness was present to videotape meals.
Calories: Started at 3,500 daily calories but has fluctuated as high as 5,700. He warns that this amount is tailored for his body and exercise regimen and is not for a typical person. Before starting the challenge, he used protein shakes and bars but no other supplements.
Favorite item: McGriddle breakfast sandwich
Least favorite item: The ice cream
Seminar: Weaver will give a free fitness seminar and a report on his 30-day challenge today at Triangle Square, 1870 Harbor Blvd., Costa Mesa, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The Costa Mesa resident is fed up with Americans who don't take responsibility for being out of shape, fitness entrepreneurs who make a living on incomplete information, and overweight nutrition scholars who don't "walk the walk," he said. He hopes the project will inspire people to research fitness and help them lose weight.
He got the idea for his experiment after reading about and taking exception to the documentary, "Super Size Me," which records the deterioration of filmmaker Morgan Spurlock's health. Spurlock ate almost as many calories as Weaver, but his only exercise was walking the same amount of steps as the average American.
"I think its great that Chazz is attempting to stay fit," Spurlock said through a spokesman Friday. "The underlying theme in my film is to try to increase personal and corporate responsibility."
He declined to respond to Weaver's debate challenge.
At least five people have taken up experiments such as Weaver's, McDonald's spokesman Walt Riker said. He said the company has no connection with them or Weaver.
"There seems to be a grass- roots backlash against the outrageous misbehavior in Spurlock's film," Riker said. "Stuffing yourself and not exercising is irresponsible."

Weaver said he has spent about $13,000 of his own money on the project.
"I'm looking for the psychic benefit," he said. "Doing something good for people is really pleasurable."
30386  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: HOW I DEADLIFTED 225 112 Times! on: March 09, 2007, 08:22:48 PM
I`ll never benchpress 455 or 405. There is no need to and I couldn`t do it.
30387  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Nutrition, Products & Supplements / Re: Low carbohydrate "diets" are.................... on: March 09, 2007, 08:20:00 PM

.......but not for bodybuilding, why do you think your "principals" are original? this is nothing new, it's a theorie that's been around forever, it common freaking sense, you burn off more than you take in and lose weight.....pretty simple, huh?

"Well, it works like this. I have come up with a formula that determines down to the exact limit of how much heat I release in a closed system. I have come up with this formula based solely on each individuals performance so Anyone is capable of doing this.

Here is a before and after. I haver ALWAYS been a hard trainer and have used conventional methods in the past regarding diet. I have gotten lean on the typical bodybuilder diet, but I also got WEAKER,more tired,felt awful and not to mention it is inconvenient,not economical or practical.

I got fat eating Chicken Breast and Oatmeal and eating clean, I got Ripped eating, Ice Cream and Krispy Kreme.

The idea of eating 700 lbs of meat(350 grams of protein a day for a year) to build about 48 ounces of muscle(about the lifetime natural limit`s average muscle building potential) is just an inefficient waste of heat energy. The body is an effecient processor and science dictates that eating in this manner is futile and pointless. This being based on the conversion of energy. It simply makes zero sense to put in 700 lbs of potential energy to convert into 48 ounces of a different form of stored potential energy. It does not add up!
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed so as you can see, most of this 700 lbs is just wasted potential energy.

Now my equation can be utilized by anyone to be whatever Bodyfat their heart desires at any given time. This means anyone can also hold whatever conditioning they want indefinitely since they know their heat values. They can adjust accordingly at any moment up or down to manipulate fat storage.....You can essentially pick a single date on the calendar and to the DAY, determine EXACTLY what bodyfat you will be.

I also do no cardio and lift about 3 or 4 days a week.

The best part is, you do this by eating whatever your heart desires. I like Burger King,Krispy Kreme,Cake and Cookies and Pizza. So that is what I eat. I also eat off the Food Network. And my favorite, Ice Cream! Everyday! hahah MY girlfriend is one hell of a cook and we like to pick up specials from the fish market as well. The choices are limitless....Whatever you want."
-The True Adonis

30388  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Stills from relentless on: March 09, 2007, 08:18:34 PM
I hope to god that isn't his house.  He bought that dresser at Home Depot.  I wonder if he put it together.


Funniest thing I have read all year.  The mental imagery, including the purchase, delivery and assembly is hillarious. hahahah
30389  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Nutrition, Products & Supplements / Re: Low carbohydrate "diets" are.................... on: March 09, 2007, 06:05:37 PM
I know you don't have a point system but I was looking at that fat women eating all those pasta and she told me she could eat whatever she wants but she can't exeed 25 point a day.

so she must always have a certain limit of calories that can't be exeeded. that is her diet.

of course, those fat women keeps calculating everything and always eat more than they should anyway  Grin

That is how any diet works.  Limits on Calories.
30390  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Nutrition, Products & Supplements / Re: Low carbohydrate "diets" are.................... on: March 09, 2007, 06:00:59 PM
I was eating with the women at the job today and they are following a "weightwatcher" plan.

they explained it to me and it looks a lot like the Adonis Principles

I don`t have a point system.  You can eat whatever you like.  With my formula you can Predict on an individual basis, how many calories you need down to the Thousandth even.  Plus with my formula, it is constantly being applied and re-evaluated and adjusts to any differeing change in metabolism or muscle increase.  

No other diet offers this ability.  
30391  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Nutrition, Products & Supplements / Re: Low carbohydrate "diets" are.................... on: March 09, 2007, 05:57:15 PM
All diets work.  Some are more efficient, practical,optimal, economical and non-limiting.

Palumbo`s is not any of those.

It only works because with the successful elimination of an entire Macro-Nutrient, the overall caloric amount is reduced.

30392  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Nutrition, Products & Supplements / Re: Low carbohydrate "diets" are.................... on: March 09, 2007, 05:55:46 PM

Which is why whenever a competitive bodybuilder needs to diet for a show, he cuts carbohydrates.  Roll Eyes

You've been toking on TA's pipe or something.
This isn`t always the case.

Don`t be so stupid.

Caloric amount is the reason for someone getting lean.
30393  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Nutrition, Products & Supplements / Re: Low carbohydrate "diets" are.................... on: March 09, 2007, 05:53:41 PM
gayer than fat old guys in speedos on the beach next to a "CAUTION: power rescue boat training arear" sign

I just follow the TA diet myself. And look at meeeeeee!!!!

The sad thing is, I could actually help you from being a fat ass. 
30394  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Nutrition, Products & Supplements / Re: Low carbohydrate "diets" are.................... on: March 09, 2007, 05:51:47 PM
Just plain idiocity and stupidity eliminating carbohydrates.

30395  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: BOB CHICHERILLO: I applaud you! on: March 09, 2007, 03:06:12 PM
I agree with you here 100%, TA. *Picks self up off the floor* You are correct. The point I was trying to make to Mr. usmokepole was that his idea of 'theory,' what Gould calls the 'vernacular' (or demotic, I guess) is not how it is defined by the scientific community. This is where the creationists fark it up and try to sway the gullible.

/met mr. gould years ago. man, talk about intelligent. this rumpled, easy-going fellow was one of a handful of guys who i've met who were/are beyond smart. he would make a polymath feel limited by his knowledge. simply brilliant.   

Yah that was meant for the Usmokepole guy who simply has a complete misunderstanding of Science and the champions of it.

30396  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: HEY CHICK!!! on: March 09, 2007, 02:07:34 PM
Of course...It was also discussed that they might bring back the Masters O...either or both would have been great...but neither is going on since it doesn't pay for the promoters to pick it up.

Bodybuilding is dying. Show by show.

Soon it will be over, especially as more and more people learn supplements are useless as they are the only ones sponsoring these things.
30397  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: HOW I DEADLIFTED 225 112 Times! on: March 09, 2007, 01:47:33 PM

Why did you claim a 455 lbs benchpress?


I don`t remember doing so.  But I can assure you that I have NEVER done it.
30398  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: You know you're a bodybuilder when..... on: March 09, 2007, 01:46:31 PM
......You can't walk up a flight of stairs without oxygen jump out of bed to run to the toilet then snap a hammy. THINK bodybuilding is a sport and you call yourself an "athlete".
I think you have obesity confused with Bodybuilding.
30399  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: BOB CHICHERILLO: I applaud you! on: March 09, 2007, 01:36:11 PM
Evolution is a fact.

Just like Einstein`s theory of gravity is a fact.
30400  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: BOB CHICHERILLO: I applaud you! on: March 09, 2007, 01:33:22 PM

Educate yourself.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
by Laurence Moran
Copyright © 1993-2002
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]

 When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.
Pages: 1 ... 1214 1215 [1216] 1217 1218 ... 1526
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!