proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Speedwell]

. Yet you continue to try and perpetrate the fraud.

Fraud, by any definition, involves a deliberate intention to decieve. Are you sure that is what you mean?

 

[Uber Genius]

If you can prove evolution wrong there is a Nobel prize waiting for you. Good luck.

Lol.

Perhaps not. Perhaps you would lose your job as a professor, like many have. Just as classic liberalism has been taboo in many colleges since the 1970s, and historical inferences that are in any way pro Western European about any topic, we find that for every epistemic category there are men and women wearing priestly garments proclaiming their right to control "knowledge."

But you received a bunch of "likes" and a "winner" so you must be on to something.

 

[Uber Genius]

I would suggest not using the word "theory" to mean hypothesis, or unproven.

Theory in scientific knowledge means proven via experiment.

Hypotheses such as Darwinian evolution grow over time to become "theories."

That said Darwinian theory has some significant challenges facing it.

There is the sudden arrival in only 50 million years of almost all phyla during the Cambrian era circa 550 million years ago. The Darwinian inference is orders of magnitude more gradual. Further we find severe limits to change organisms can support leading I oscillation around a norm rather than the unbounded directional evolution we would need to produce speciation.

We have new body plans formed through epigenetic information not found in the DNA and not subject to the same random mutation.

Further random mutation destroys information not the other way around. So we have some significant barriers to evolution due to the destructive nature of the vast majority of variations producing devolution (current figures demonstrate over 10000 to 1 random negative impacts to positive impacts).

Numerous complex specified machines in the cells,

Sudden arrival of information-rich DNA?

Origin of life barriers at both the early Earth as well as the universe levels all are part of the discussion.

But it is weeks and months worth of discussions. Filled with controversial findings. The scientific community is in some ways deeply divided about the causal story and at the same time rallying the wagons against the special creation folks.

If you just roll out lists of categories (as I have done above) you will be guilty of what is called a Gish gallop or argument to verbosity. I am just listing a few points that you could research to engage your friend.

 

[Dawnhammer]

current figures demonstrate over 10000 to 1 random negative impacts to positive impacts).

Even if true what would that signify? The whole point of evolution is the survival of positive traits because they give the organism an edge in survival and reproduction.

Why would a large number of harmful or non advantageous mutations be of any concern to evolution process ? They would simply die out.

Like most of the species have throughout the history.

 

[Uber Genius]

Even if true what would that signify? The whole point of evolution is the survival of positive traits because they give the organism an edge in survival and reproduction.

Why would a large number of harmful or non advantageous mutations be of any concern to evolution process ? They would simply die out.

Like most of the species have throughout the history.

Misses the point.

If the Darwinian inference was correct we wouldn't expect the experimental data to show such difficulties producing traits that would confer survival benefits!

This is one of many recalcitrant facts of the theory. Recognized by proponents of same.

 

[rjs330]

More mischaracterization.

The fusion is a conclusion:

Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.



"Adaption"?

Yes, you throw out a tag line, but other than tossing out a slogan to counter evolution, what logic or rationale is there for this fusion?

What possible "design" does it reflect?

Please read the first paragraph of that paper. There is "suggestion and unknowns admitted from the start. Also the word similarities is there. Once again evolution in this case is assumed. The similarities mean nothing. It's assumed the fusion took place but it is not proven that it did. One more piece of evidence that evolutionists assume something happened. With no real way of proving it did. As I have said, it's an assumption and continues to be. Similarities do not mean anything in this case. It's a classical case of common design but not common ancestry.

 

[Dawnhammer]

we wouldn't expect the experimental data to show such difficulties producing traits that would confer survival benefits!

Interesting. Why wouldn't we expect that ?

Mutations are inherently random.

For any single scenario for survival there must logically be far more mutations that are not really suitable for these specific circumstances than some mutation that actually helps organism to survive and thrive.

Like throwing 12 sided dice when only number 7 is a pass. The likelihood of rolling other 11 numbers , possibly multiple times is statistically far greater.

 

[rjs330]

Fraud, by any definition, involves a deliberate intention to decieve. Are you sure that is what you mean?

Well good point. It's obvious he believes it with all his heart. So even though the idea is a fraud he is not the person knowingly committing the fraud. I guess you could say he is the victim of the fraud. So point taken

 

[xianghua]

Why did you cut out the rest of my post? Seriously, you aren't going to even respond to the important parts?

what important parts? if a single trait can evolve by convergent evolution why several traits cant? this is my main point. and indeed we found such an example:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160204150559.htm

 

[Speedwell]

Well good point. It's obvious he believes it with all his heart. So even though the idea is a fraud he is not the person knowingly committing the fraud. I guess you could say he is the victim of the fraud. So point taken

Still, if it's a fraud it is still a deliberate attempt to decieve on someone's part. Who do you think is the perpetrator?

 

[rjs330]

Still, if it's a fraud it is still a deliberate attempt to decieve on someone's part. Who do you think is the perpetrator?

Science in general. It doesn't mean one person is at fault. What the fraudulent part is about is the utter dismissal of anything that is contrary to the theory. We see that all the time is science. Particularly in the evolutionary sciences.

How many times have I heard the "he's a creationist" dismissal. Meaning someone believes in creation and is therefore not a real scientist. There is evidence such as horses that existed at the time of the eohippus which show that eohippus cannot be used as real evidence of evolution. But that is dismissed. Why I wonder. Could it be that evolution science will not allow it? That is evidence that evolution is not real science but a deeply held belief system. These folks believe it to their bones. Just as I believe in creation to mine. It is taught in every single educational system that it is a fact. Why would anyone believe otherwise if you're in the educational system? Evolutionists know they cannot prove evolution using common scientific methods. They can't test it, reproduce it or observe it in action. But they can certainly assume it to be true.

 

[Uber Genius]

Interesting. Why wouldn't we expect that ?

Mutations are inherently random.

For any single scenario for survival there must logically be far more mutations that are not really suitable for these specific circumstances than some mutation that actually helps organism to survive and thrive.

Like throwing 12 sided dice when only number 7 is a pass. The likelihood of rolling other 11 numbers , possibly multiple times is statistically far greater.

Randome

Interesting. Why wouldn't we expect that ?

Mutations are inherently random.

For any single scenario for survival there must logically be far more mutations that are not really suitable for these specific circumstances than some mutation that actually helps organism to survive and thrive.

Like throwing 12 sided dice when only number 7 is a pass. The likelihood of rolling other 11 numbers , possibly multiple times is statistically far greater.

actually the fixation rate and problems related to producing a beneficial trait in a population are problematic due to time.

There is not enough time in many populations to produce enough positive survivable traits to account for the major moves in speciation. No problem with small organisms that reproduce quickly such as bacteria. But significant problems with more complex creatures such as mammals that reproduce a handful of times in a lifetime.

 

[Uber Genius]

Randome

actually the fixation rate and problems related to producing a beneficial trait in a population are problematic due to time.

There is not enough time in many populations to produce enough positive survivable traits to account for the major moves in speciation. No problem with small organisms that reproduce quickly such as bacteria. But significant problems with more complex creatures such as mammals that reproduce a handful of times in a lifetime.

I shouldn't say no problem even at the level of insects that rapidly reproduce every few days such as fruitflys. Often there are studies lasting for years with hundreds of generations and next to no change despite wide change is environment. This again demonstrates something very counterintuitive to the predicted results of the studies.

However it is best to think of NeoDarwinian evolution as a large collection of smaller theories. Some of these theories will be proven correct others falsified, without damaging the inference of Darwinian evolution whatsoever.

 

[HitchSlap]

Lol.

Perhaps not. Perhaps you would lose your job as a professor, like many have. Just as classic liberalism has been taboo in many colleges since the 1970s, and historical inferences that are in any way pro Western European about any topic, we find that for every epistemic category there are men and women wearing priestly garments proclaiming their right to control "knowledge."

But you received a bunch of "likes" and a "winner" so you must be on to something.

He's "on to something" because if there were a better theory for the biodiversity and distribution of life on earth, we would know about it... "firing" someone doesn't suppress the truth.

 

[Uber Genius]

He's "on to something" because if there were a better theory for the biodiversity and distribution of life on earth, we would know about it... "firing" someone doesn't suppress the truth.

Strange. My friends in departments of theoretical mathematics talk about publishing "Contraversial theories" in mathematics can be career limiting, but you are not granting a research field like evolution is controversial?

Do you think that when the number one molecular evolutionist is fired that doesn't slow people who are researching from publish findings that disconfirm the theory. Follow Eugenie Scott NSF and ask if any grants will be awarded to someone who doesn't support a NeoDarwinian inference?

Your inference sounds like something out of Pravda.

 

[pitabread]

Further random mutation destroys information not the other way around.

Define "information".

 

[HitchSlap]

Strange. My friends in departments of theoretical mathematics talk about publishing "Contraversial theories" in mathematics can be career limiting, but you are not granting a research field like evolution is controversial?

Do you think that when the number one molecular evolutionist is fired that doesn't slow people who are researching from publish findings that disconfirm the theory. Follow Eugenie Scott NSF and ask if any grants will be awarded to someone who doesn't support a NeoDarwinian inference?

Your inference sounds like something out of Pravda.

Who’s the #1 molecular evolutionist that was fired?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who’s the #1 molecular evolutionist that was fired?

Lucifer

 

[HitchSlap]

Lucifer

For publishing ant-neoDarwinian propaganda. Sounds legit.

 

[sfs]

how so? the first human (homo genus) is about 3 my old. fit pretty well with my estimation.

Very different from modern humans. Much smaller brains, among other things.

what prediction? be specific.

The prediction I've been very specific about. The one we're talking about, and for which you just offered an attempt at a creationist explanation. The prediction that interspecies genetic differences would show the same pattern of differences as intraspecies differences.

that orangutan is more different then the chimp compare with human.

What will we find relevant to the subject we're actually talking about?