Why evolution isn't scientific

[AV1611VET]

You appear to have a unique Christian theology.

Sorry, Aman.

I gotta go with pitabread on this one.

 

[drich0150]

Right, right, "sheeple" etc.

I was actually commenting on your ability to construct a legible post.

good gob.. yes I got it the first time sport. which is why I use 'sheolpe' as a retort. I'm saying your version of sheolpe are trained to only look for certain pomp and presentation, which allows you to criticize anything else is "not Legible." get it now? Am I going to have to explain everything to this degree lest you stay 2 steps behind?

I look forward to it.

note.. when I do, you whine about me being mean I didn't mean to hurt your feelings I just set out to meet the spirit and tome you set up in your first post to me. You set the mean-ness level sport, i just held up a mirror and reflected back the same kind of ugliness you showed me when you thought I was wrong. if you don't like it then change how you address people.

I know what a scientific theory is, it seems that you don't though.

it seems you favor the definition of theory but forgot theory was not principle. You defined theory well enough/went a little over board but for all intents and purposes we will use it... but you seem to not understand I defined principle equally as well. and principles are not theories. no principles are verifiable truths that often times make up theories.

Your own quoted paper put principle, not the theory of evolution but the princples that make the theory up into practice. the difference? the theory is specific and defined by interspecies morphing, to another species all together.. while a principle like "survival of the fittest" is a general truth used in part to proof the theory. do you understand the difference now? Saying you use an evolutionary principle like survival of the fittest means nothing because that truth or that principle is not unique to interspecies or outer species evolution.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

No matter how well the are accepted theory is not truth. a principle is truth that makes up a theory. your own reference material point this out smoothie.. It is explicitly identifying two principles out of the whole theory of interspecies evolution and applying them to their research. One interspecies evolution IS NOT DARWINISM/EVOLUTION As per our discussion..

two or three principles out of the whole theory is not an example of the theory put into practice. Stop being foolish. that is like saying I used two nuts off of a Rocket and put them in my truck and now claim my truck is rocket powered! when in fact those nut are universal and can be used in any application where they fit. Just because they fit a rocket and happen to also fit my truck does not make my truck a rocket any more than using two universal principles found in darwin's evolutionary theory makes immunity to herbicide an example of species to species evolution.

Grow up sport this is not going to work with people who can think for themselves. I know people like you must accept this as God's truth, because it is packaged a certain way and you can't make sense of it, unless you are told differently by someone approved.. but in truth there is nothing of note in the garbage you are trying to sell. you are telling people you have a 'rocket' because of two universal pieces you boke off the end fit your evolutionary truck!!! NO SALE!
Think for yourself don't be a world is flat till the crowd find's out it is round! use your common sense work thinks out this is basic logic. two parts don't verify a whole of a billion moving parts!

or

In science, an unproved idea or a mere theoretical speculation is regarded as a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory. However, in science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation or a set of statements that have been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments.

Just to be clear, you are utterly mistaken about what a scientific theory is. The closest thing to a "working guess" would be a falsifiable hypothesis, which would then be tested through experiment and observation.

Red Herring! As discussed Principle is not theory! A principle used in your own reference material i defined as apart of the theory. In your reference material they never claimed to use the whole theory just one or two truths that make the theory up. That is what makes your claim garbage. you are equating apart as a whole.

And where do you suppose these "evolutionary principals" derive from? The Theory of Relvativity?

observation, but again these observations are universally true and not bound to species to species evolution.

The aim of the paper is to...

"Explore these fundamental concepts under four main themes: variation, selection, connectivity, and eco-evolutionary dynamics. Within each theme, we present several key evolutionary principles and illustrate their use in addressing applied problems. We hope that the resulting primer of evolutionary concepts and their practical utility helps to advance a unified multidisciplinary field of applied evolutionary biology"

Yep, "Variation, selection, connectivity" what could that possibly have to do with the Theory of Evolution? LOL

Read the post again! it supports my assertion, not yours! It is attempting to legitimize the 'use of evolution' through the the fundamental principles/scientific truths that CROSS the two fields. Meaning they are trying to use the universal truths, that their field of study and evolution share in an attempt to bring legitimacy to the theory of evolution on par with the application of said principles they can verify in their field of study.. If you still don't get it ask one of your smarter friends to explain it to you. in short they are taking what works universally works, and because evolution is partially based on two of those principles they are trying to draw legitimacy from the real world practical science and apply legitimacy to theoretical science.. for instance see these two parts work i the real world which means the rest of the theory who has part in the real world must also be true! Hence GARBAGE!!!

Besides, that's just one paper out of many thousands of scholarly articles online that deal with practical applications of the TOE. I'm not responsible for your education

You put your best foot forward out of three papers and got your [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] handed back to you
when I showed you all three examples where of the same nature. people like you desperately trying to bring legitimacy to a field that has a limited number of verifiable truths. Or did you forget the third reference you made was not even talking about biological evolution, yet you felt this made your case! what a joke! and here you are trying to pretend the other thousands you didn't reference somehow bring the legitimacy you failed to produce!!! you have no idea, what you are even looking for. you just did a google search and claimed every use of the word evolution.. Well here's the thing 2/3 of what you will find, has nothing to do with the subject matter you are trying to argue. Maybe if you could bring just one topical reference to the table that did not support my conclusion rather than your own I wold not be so... harsh. but here you are supporting me, and then trying to do a victory lap for putting me ahead in this race!

That is offensive and childish. If you can't conduct a discussion in an adult manner this will be my last response.

like I said... you will find out why your peers

It seems that you are wrong.

because you do not understand what is being discussed.

From the link...

"All evolutionary processes, including natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, migration and non-random mating, are important for understanding traits and disease."

scientific truths that are not specific evolutionary facts. even if they were.. listen close, because even if they were they have NOTHING to do with the topic (which you seem oblivious to or so set in moving the goal posts you will not acknoweledge) and that is none of these truths lend themselves to one species mutating into a different new species of orgnaism! there is no monkey turning into men with the observe principles mention. yes some speculate that mutation will eventually lend itself to such a change that would warrant a new species, but again it has never been observed. that is the claim I've taken two nuts off of a rocket and put them on my truck now I have a rocket powered truck!

"Natural selection maximizes reproductive success, sometimes at the expense of health and longevity."

. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
This idea does not allow for circumstance or even manipulation or planning. look at what german shepherds have become. for an example. just a few generations ago it was a fast strong smart and very powerful dog. now due to selective breeding the breed standard can't even support it's weight on it's hind legs for every long. Here natural selection is pushed aside to the unfit. the unfit here survives while the fit are breed out of the genepool.

But even so can be deemed a scientific truth as we can observe the passing on of traits through selective breeding, it's just the fittest is not always the one to survive.

"Tracing phylogenetic relationships for species, populations, traits or pathogens can provide insights into health and disease."

again a field of science not unique to evolution. his is you proving my point. This is a legit field being applied to evolution.. now because this field is legit the idea is to share said legitimacy with theoretical darwinism. This is why I am disrespectful to you. You seem to put so much importance on me packaging my post in such a way as to 'make good sense to you.' but you yourself do not have sense enough to understand anything outside your stereotypical atheist verse christian argument. You can't see the nuances. all you see is my ideas don't fall into place and rather than try and figure things out by asking questions you assume and go about the same argument all of you guys are programed to share when a christian argues evolution. I hope I have embarrassed you enough to where you can see the nuances now. that I am not arguing the black and white you are. I am arguing a shade of grey. the question is, are you smart enough to pick it up or ask a question? or will you just keep beating a dead horse?

"Coevolution among species can influence health and disease (e.g. evolutionary arms races and mutualistic relationships such as those seen in the microbiome)."

see spot run.. spot is a good dog.

Judging by the core principles of evolutionary medicine I quoted above seems that you didn't.

now tell me why it is not nessary

Although I notice that you've started using the term "interspecies evolution" as if that's somehow separate from the theory that explains "changes in medicine" as you put it.

They are both explained by the Theory of Evolution. And it is that theory that has practical applications in medicine.

interspecies evolution was never in question... it is monkeys turning into bananas that makes people question the darwinism part sport. or did you miss the whole separation thing? again bring legitimacy to the word evolution is not vetting darwinism how can you still not grasp that? Oh that's right the word hasn't come down the right channels.. you can't actually think for yourself... Science must tell you.

From the webiste....

"About Evolutionary Medicine
Evolutionary medicine is the discipline that uses evolutionary biology to understand disease and improve health. It is not a special kind of medical practice, it just applies evolutionary biology to medicine the same that genetics and physiology are applied. Darwinian medicine is identical but the term is used less. The field is growing fast with a scientific society, many books, a journal, an online review, and classes on the topic offered in many universities. Medical education, however, remains mostly isolated from these advances. EvMedEd should make it easier to incorporate evolutionary principles into health professional education."

Why you think that you, a laymen who doesn't even seem to be aware of what a scientific theory actually is, knows better than healthcare professionals, scientific institutions, universities etc is baffling.




I just posted that link as an example to draw your attention to another area in which ideas derived from the Theory of Evolution are used.

Do you deny that evolutionary algorithms, derived from The Theory of Evolution are used in design and programming?

https://towardsdatascience.com/introduction-to-evolutionary-algorithms-a8594b484ac
https://www.solver.com/genetic-evolutionary-introduction
https://becominghuman.ai/understanding-evolutionary-algorithms-58f7a2845537
https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf



LOL

moving the goal posts again. interspecies is not monkeys into bananas or people sport, reset and try again!

 

[pitabread]

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

It's a lot more complicated than that. Specifically, it's possible to identify the adaptations in response to environmental changes that lead certain individuals to survive versus others who do not. This can even be tied to identification of genetic differences for those adaptations. And in turn, it's possible to use genetics to determine which genes have been shaped by natural selection. For example, measuring different types of genetic substitutions (e.g. Ka/Ks ratios).

One of the big debates in evolutionary science is the relative import of natural selection for adaptation versus genetic drift.

 

[Aman777]

So who else agrees with you on this? Because like I said, I've never seen anyone on these forums (or anywhere on the internet) agree with your particular interpretation.

Since I've been online since the mid 90s I have found agreement with many. You sound a little like Ray Sutera, who couldn't believe anyone could possibly agree with me until Awoman50 posted that she did and so did Pillarsfour and others. The reason many Christians disagree is that they believed by Faith the religious views of ancient theologians which "seem" to agree with a "plain" reading of Genesis.

You appear to have a unique Christian theology.

It is the coming theology of the last days since God is pouring out His Spirit of Truth in these last days through Scientific discoveries of things written in Genesis. Notice that my brethren in Christ don't correct me Scripturally. It's because the story is there, but it's new to them. I didn't write it but just read it. God Bless you

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

 

[pitabread]

Since I've been online since the mid 90s I have found agreement with many. You sound a little like Ray Sutera, who couldn't believe anyone could possibly agree with me until Awoman50 posted that she did and so did Pillarsfour and others.

Can you point to where that happened? And keep in mind, I'm talking about agreement with your broad theology including all this multi-world stuff, Ark coming from another dimension/world; all that stuff.

I've never seen anyone besides yourself with these kind of theological views.

Notice that my brethren in Christ don't correct me Scripturally.

I've seen other Christians disagree with you and debate your theological beliefs. I've just never seen anyone agree with you on them.

 

[Aman777]

Sorry, Aman.

I gotta go with pitabread on this one.

That's okay since you have the time left before your journey home to learn. Unbelievers don't. Amen?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's okay since you have the time left before your journey home to learn. Unbelievers don't. Amen?

I guess I can't argue with that.

Unbelievers do have time to change their minds before it's too late though.

Once their telomeres quit working though, it's curtains.

 

[tas8831]

im not sure what you are trying to say. i just said that since we cant falsify evolution- evolution isnt a scientific theory. do you agree?

There is a difference between "not falsified" and "unfalsifiable".

 

[Aman777]

Curious as to why you NEVER present evidence FOR creation/ID?

What good does it do? I present evidence from 3k years ago and evolutionists hand wave it off as nothing. It's because they have NO evidence for the process by which prehistoric people magically changed into Humans (descendants of Adam) with an intelligence like God's. Genesis 3:22

 

[xianghua]

The fact that you can't falsify evolution doesn't mean that it can't possibly be falsified. You just don't have the requisite evidence to do so.

i actually gave here scientists way to falsify evolution and show why even in this way evolution isnt false.

 

[xianghua]

But you are trying to make the argument that that would be a falsification of evolution. It's not. Read the article again.

according to many evolutionists it is. they just dont accept it. this is why evolution scientific.

 

[sfs]

If you study Quantum Physics you get scientific proof

I've studied quantum mechanics. Have you? Quantum mechanics doesn't provide scientific proof -- it provides the ability to predict and explain data.

that after eighty years of experiments that the theory of evolution is like looking at a iceberg's tip and thinking that's all there is.

Like quantum mechanics, evolution also provides the ability to predict and explain lots of data. That's why both are well-established scientific conclusions.

 

[xianghua]

A quick search reveals eight pages of you waffling on about out of place fossils in multiple threads, none of which were ignored. You're always a polite poster so I don't want to be rude to you, but this obsession of yours is getting tiresome.



https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-evolution.8058343/page-73#post-72754554


You are always free to leave the debate, but it's not on me if you do. I am not satisfied in the slightest. The fact that you continue, even now, not to acknowledge that the simple fact that the fossil record for members of the genus Homo is extremely complete and depicts origins of the genus within less than 10 million years demonstrates that your claim that a 70 million year old Homo sapiens fossil could just be hand waved away is incorrect. You have yet to demonstrate any actually comparable event in which something on that scale was handwaved despite a very complete fossil record. All examples provided either pertain to organisms which do not have a very complete fossil record, significantly less amount of time adjusted, or both. In fact, all the ones I recall have both.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-evolution.8058343/page-63#post-72642766

-_- no, because that would make humans predate all other primates, let alone other apes, which DOESN'T match up with genetic evidence whatsoever. It would be out of order. Snakes diverging from lizards 53 million years after the existence of lizards doesn't change order at all.

The difference is like this: My great great grandma had to predate me, and so did my great grandma. But by how many years depends on the age at which the people in my family had children. It wouldn't matter if my great great grandma gave birth to my great grandma at the age of 37 or 16, they still would both predate me in the correct order either way. Same thing as the lizard and snake situation happens with this example.

However, a human living alongside dinosaurs might as well be my great grandmother for how out of order it is. That is, it would be the equivalent of making an ancestor that chronologically MUST be born after a bunch of others be born long before they even existed. It would be my great grandmother predating her own mother, and no amount of "pushing back" could hope to repair the order. If the snake fossil predated the oldest lizard fossil, this would be the situation that evolution would have problems with.

A quick search reveals eight pages of you waffling on about out of place fossils in multiple threads, none of which were ignored. You're always a polite poster so I don't want to be rude to you, but this obsession of yours is getting tiresome.



https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-evolution.8058343/page-73#post-72754554


You are always free to leave the debate, but it's not on me if you do. I am not satisfied in the slightest. The fact that you continue, even now, not to acknowledge that the simple fact that the fossil record for members of the genus Homo is extremely complete and depicts origins of the genus within less than 10 million years demonstrates that your claim that a 70 million year old Homo sapiens fossil could just be hand waved away is incorrect. You have yet to demonstrate any actually comparable event in which something on that scale was handwaved despite a very complete fossil record. All examples provided either pertain to organisms which do not have a very complete fossil record, significantly less amount of time adjusted, or both. In fact, all the ones I recall have both.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-evolution.8058343/page-63#post-72642766

-_- no, because that would make humans predate all other primates, let alone other apes, which DOESN'T match up with genetic evidence whatsoever. It would be out of order. Snakes diverging from lizards 53 million years after the existence of lizards doesn't change order at all.

The difference is like this: My great great grandma had to predate me, and so did my great grandma. But by how many years depends on the age at which the people in my family had children. It wouldn't matter if my great great grandma gave birth to my great grandma at the age of 37 or 16, they still would both predate me in the correct order either way. Same thing as the lizard and snake situation happens with this example.

However, a human living alongside dinosaurs might as well be my great grandmother for how out of order it is. That is, it would be the equivalent of making an ancestor that chronologically MUST be born after a bunch of others be born long before they even existed. It would be my great grandmother predating her own mother, and no amount of "pushing back" could hope to repair the order. If the snake fossil predated the oldest lizard fossil, this would be the situation that evolution would have problems with.

thanks. i actually answered to sarah here (and sarah, if you are here feel free to join the discussion):

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-evolution.8058343/page-73#post-72760068

"here you go. if we will find a 70my human fossil we can just claim that it just didnt leaved any fossil in the last 60-70 my, like in the coelacanths case. simple and easy."

 

[sfs]

. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

You misunderstand natural selection. For example, most new, fitter mutations do not survive.

No matter how well the are accepted theory is not truth. a principle is truth that makes up a theory.

You've never done any kind of science, have you?

 

[xianghua]

It's not even the same at all. Again, you clearly didn't read and/or didn't understand the very article you linked.

Why is that?

they push back the creature by about 15 my. and if we can push back a creature by 15 my we can also push it back by about 20,30 and even 70 my.

 

[pitabread]

they push back the creature by about 15 my. and if we can push back a creature by 15 my we can also push it back by about 20,30 and even 70 my.

Not necessarily. You're continually making the same mistake of treating every single fossil and ever single evolved lineage as being necessarily equivalent. But they aren't equivalent.

Trying reading the article again: when did sauropods evolve?

 

[xianghua]

This sentence demonstrates that you profoundly misunderstand the evidence of ERVs. Your reply doesn't even make sense; it's utter gibberish.

are you saying that ervs cant be deleted from the genome?

 

[xianghua]

No, nobody thinks this is a falsification of evolution.

are you speaking about this specific case or about out of place fossil in general? what is your definition for "out of place fossil"?

 

[xianghua]

Like quantum mechanics, evolution also provides the ability to predict and explain lots of data

the creation scenario does it better. actually, creation its the only scientific explanation for nature existence since only creation can explain the existence of motors like the flagellum.

 

[xianghua]

Not necessarily. You're continually making the same mistake of treating every single fossil and ever single evolved lineage as being necessarily equivalent. But they aren't equivalent.

Trying reading the article again: when did sauropods evolve?

answer my question please: if we can push back a creature by 15my, can we push it back by 20my? yes or not?