Why evolution isn't scientific

[DogmaHunter]

Ditto for my 8-year-old neighbor?

Would you tell a piano virtuoso that he hit the wrong key playing Chopsticks, if he hit the wrong key playing chopsticks?

Or would you say, "I don't have the capacity to answer that, as I don't have any idea whatsoever about music theory; but it sounded wrong."

Evolution sounds wrong.

And it sounds wrong because it is wrong.

And it is wrong because, for one, it goes against the Bible.

Nuff said.

The bible sounds wrong. Therefor it is wrong.


I like this "methodology" of yours.

 

[drich0150]

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

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

Actually I am quite successful as I am a engineer and have a successful business based in practical science. Rather I use applied science to support me and about 14 employees.

People like me mock people who take science fiction/theoretical science and pair it with the stuff we do. You are a nut bag if you think the science that makes you cell phones work in on par/as dependable as the theory of darwin's evolution. literally 20 years ago there was a clean and clear line. once 'non-believers' saw the faith required in believing things like darwinism, and began to question and mock you guys for your faith, you all have since been on a mission to try and assimilate the whole of science under one roof.

While science fiction may inspire people to push the limits of technology, it has no place in stretching the boundaries of truth. Truth should not be made to fit the current narrative of science fiction.

 

[Aman777]

Can you trace your family line all the way back to them?

Sure, and you can too since ONLY Humans (descendants of Adam) post. We inherited our superior intelligence, which is like God's Genesis 3:22, from our first parents. No animal posts because they don't have the intelligence necessary to post. Amen?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're horribly out of your depth, aren't you?

I only appear that way because you don't want to agree with the point I'm making.

 

[sfs]

Actually I am quite successful as I am a engineer and have a successful business based in practical science. Rather I use applied science to support me and about 14 employees.

That's using science, not doing it. So no, you haven't done any science.

People like me mock people who take science fiction/theoretical science and pair it with the stuff we do. You are a nut bag if you think the science that makes you cell phones work in on par/as dependable as the theory of darwin's evolution.

Call me a nut bag, then. Common descent is as well supported by evidence as well-established theories in physics.

literally 20 years ago there was a clean and clear line.

I've been in science for quite a bit longer than 20 years, and I can confidently state that this clean and clear line you're claiming never existed.

once 'non-believers' saw the faith required in believing things like darwinism, and began to question and mock you guys for your faith, you all have since been on a mission to try and assimilate the whole of science under one roof.

For someone who mocks others for creating fiction, you seem to have quite a knack for it yourself. I work for one of the larger biomedical research institutions on the planet. Our sole reason for existing, and the reason for everything we do, is to apply biology to cure and prevent disease. One of the things we study is evolution, not out of some theoretical interest, but because it's the best way to understand a lot of biology, and it lets us answer questions we couldn't in other ways. We study and use evolution because it works. Until critics of evolution have an alternative that works as well in explaining and predicting data, we'll keep using it. Since you have no idea how we actually use evolution, you're not really in a position to be telling us that what we're doing is fiction, are you?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We only know they're disfigured because we know what they should look like. You're horribly out of your depth, aren't you?

Why should we know what they should look like? Is not evolution of forms an ongoing process? Shouldn't we "expect" change?????

 

[drich0150]

That's using science, not doing it. So no, you haven't done any science.

so coming up with a patentable product (something that did not exist before) and taking it to market is not applying science?

Call me a nut bag, then. Common descent is as well supported by evidence as well-established theories in physics.

which is not the same as scientific principles or truths in science. they are theories like the world is flat, the man made hole in the ozone, global cooling/mini ice age that was to happen before 2000, global warming, then global climate change so no matter what the earth did (besides stand still) would verify 'scientific theory.' what about the 'god particle? you know the reason they built they 1.5 billion euro hadron supercollider why the evidence the presented mirror that of what they originally presented in order to get the 1.5 billion dollar grant? if it all worked as plan why do they want to build a bigger one? 3xs as big?

I've been in science for quite a bit longer than 20 years, and I can confidently state that this clean and clear line you're claiming never existed.

I'm not saying 20 years ago to this day a movement started and took over inside a few weeks. I'm saying 20 years ago there was a clean and claer line standing on the practical science side in an effort to try and not mix science fiction with science fact. now when you google mixing science fiction with science fact it is the norm or one article said it is the engine driving new discoveries.. sad. so rather than discribe or learn what drives the uiverse we simply take what we want to be true and lable what we find in the universe after what we want the universe to be like. how narrow minded can one people be... oh that's right these are the same minds who said the world was flat, hole in the ozone. global climate change ect.. Aren't you tired of your 'great minds' being wrong so much?

For someone who mocks others for creating fiction, you seem to have quite a knack for it yourself. I work for one of the larger biomedical research institutions on the planet.

then you should be able to seperate applicable science from disenfranchised theory. you of all people should be able to see where theory ends and real world applications begin. You should be able to appreciate how many times in your efforts that 'theory' has been proven wrong, verses how applied science is always there, can be depended on. in your mind there should be a great line between the applied sciences (stuff you can put your life in the hands of) and theoretical nonsense that you would not place your life in the hands of..

Our sole reason for existing, and the reason for everything we do, is to apply biology to cure and prevent disease.

don't be obtuse here... I see you heading down this road, don't align innerspecies evolution/the ablity for immunity with darwin evolution/species to species evolution. you pretend to be a 'science' guy you should know better than try and shift the goal posts here.

One of the things we study is evolution, not out of some theoretical interest, but because it's the best way to understand a lot of biology, and it lets us answer questions we couldn't in other ways. We study and use evolution because it works. Until critics of evolution have an alternative that works as well in explaining and predicting data, we'll keep using it. Since you have no idea how we actually use evolution, you're not really in a position to be telling us that what we're doing is fiction, are you?

you guys are all too transparent. so you study the science of monkeys trans mutating into different species?!?!?! Really?!!?! do you have any documented examples??? do you have a 1/2 monkey half banana hybrid? or a maybe a whole new species that a basic lab monkey has mutated into? can you even show a species mutation in a 24 hour fruit fly? (Their generational mutatable rate is 1000xs faster than our own, yet 'science' in all of it's glory can only activate a gene that blinds them.. yes this is a innerspecies evolutionary example which is all you are talking about, but it is not an example of what I and your god darwin is speaking of.) we are looking for one species mutating into a completely different species.

 

[sfs]

so coming up with a patentable product (something that did not exist before) and taking it to market is not applying science?

No, it's not doing science, which is what I asked about. Applying science means applying the results of scientific studies in some way. Doing science means undertaking the investigations themselves. (By the way, we currently hold the US patent on applying CRISPR-cas9 technology to humans. Now that's applied science.)

which is not the same as scientific principles or truths in science. they are theories like the world is flat, the man made hole in the ozone, global cooling/mini ice age that was to happen before 2000, global warming, then global climate change so no matter what the earth did (besides stand still) would verify 'scientific theory.' what about the 'god particle? you know the reason they built they 1.5 billion euro hadron supercollider why the evidence the presented mirror that of what they originally presented in order to get the 1.5 billion dollar grant? if it all worked as plan why do they want to build a bigger one? 3xs as big?

Uh, what? I'm not going to try to untangle all of the confused threads you've tangled together here. Theories in science are explanations. Well-established theories include things like Special Relativity, the germ theory of disease, classical electromagnetic theory. They are the ideas that do indeed make your cell phone work.

I'm not saying 20 years ago to this day a movement started and took over inside a few weeks. I'm saying 20 years ago there was a clean and claer line standing on the practical science side in an effort to try and not mix science fiction with science fact.

Yeah, I understand that you're saying that. I'm saying that your understanding of the history of science is deeply confused. Common descent has been a fact for a lot longer than 20 years.

then you should be able to seperate applicable science from disenfranchised theory. you of all people should be able to see where theory ends and real world applications begin. You should be able to appreciate how many times in your efforts that 'theory' has been proven wrong, verses how applied science is always there, can be depended on. in your mind there should be a great line between the applied sciences (stuff you can put your life in the hands of) and theoretical nonsense that you would not place your life in the hands of..

Well, if you were right I could. But you're not right. There is indeed a real, if blurry, distinction between theoretical, experimental/observational, and applied science, but ideas move from one class to another all the time, and the applied science depends entirely on previous theoretical science and on previous apparently useless experimental science -- the stuff you're calling science fiction.

don't be obtuse here... I see you heading down this road, don't align innerspecies evolution/the ablity for immunity with darwin evolution/species to species evolution. you pretend to be a 'science' guy you should know better than try and shift the goal posts here.

Once again, you're arguing against facts that you made up. We do indeed study inter-species evolution -- common descent -- for its practical value.

you guys are all too transparent. so you study the science of monkeys trans mutating into different species?!?!?!

Sure. We're not studying changes in real time, of course. We use the fact that we share a common ancestor with other species to tell us a variety of things about genetics. For example, here is a paper in which we used common descent to tell us how mutation rates vary across the genome, and to conclude that recombination is clustered in hotspots. Would you care to critique our use of common descent?

 

[xianghua]

Can you show an example of this happening?

so if i will show you will admit that evolution is false according to your criteria?

 

[xianghua]

There's a difference between finding a fossil that shows a certain dino is a bit older then previously thought (and still well within the boundaries of the dino age) on the one hand, and finding mammals in the pre-cambrian on the other.

so where is the limit that we can push the first mammal?

 

[xianghua]

Until critics of evolution have an alternative that works as well in explaining and predicting data, we'll keep using it.

but we do. maybe you just dont want to accept/admit it. evolution for instance cant explain how a complex systems evolved by small steps. id can. evolution cant explain how we found spinning motors in nature. id can and so on.

 

[sfs]

but we do. maybe you just dont want to accept/admit it.

Sorry, but you had your chance. I gave you some genetic data to explain, and in the end, the only creationist explanation you could come up with was essentially, "That's the way it was created."

 

[pitabread]

ok. lets play in your game.

I'm not playing a game here. What I'm trying to do is get to a common understanding. But the only way this will work is if you also work towards that common understanding.

1) about 15-30 my ago. depend how you define " great ape".
2) from other kind of monkeys.
3) about 60my ago.
4) from a primate-like creature?

By "great apes", I'm referring to the Hominidae family which includes gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and humans.

For my next questions:

1) When did modern humans evolve?
2) What are the immediate ancestors of modern humans (and when did they evolve)?
3) How are humans connected with the other taxanomic groups such as great apes and primates?

 

[pitabread]

you said that they didnt pushed back the creature. right?

They pushed back the date neosauropods evolved. It is not a falsification of biological evolution, nor is it a true "out of place" fossil since it still fits the time frame for sauropod evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Of course it's relevant. It describes why your "deleted ERVs in primates" wouldn't work. The idea that ERVs could be deleted so precisely is preposterous. For example (very simplified):

Let's say these five ERVs are found in this pattern (animals listed in hierarchical order):


Humans: ABCDE
Chimps: ABCD
Gorilla: ABC
Orangutan: AB
Gibbon: A
Hypothetical creature: ABCDE

In this scenario your "deletions" after an ancient common ancestor between human and hypothetical have occurred like this:

E is deleted in: Chimps, Gorilla, Orangutan, Gibbon
D: Gorilla, Orangutan, Gibbon
C: Orangutan, Gibbon
B: Gibbon

wait a minute. your original claim was that we need to find more ervs that are shared batween the pig -like creature and human. you said nothing about hierarchy. so lets deal with your original claim first. so can you show me why its impossible according to evolution to find a pig-like creature that shared more ervs with human instead of human with apes? what is the chance that the same say 100 ervs where deleted from the genomes of apes but remain in both the human and pig like creature genome? you also ignored my claim about changing the creatures phylogeny.

 

[46AND2]

wait a minute. your original claim was that we need to find more ervs that are shared batween the pig -like creature and human. you said nothing about hierarchy. so lets deal with your original claim first. so can you show me why its impossible according to evolution to find a pig-like creature that shared more ervs with human instead of human with apes? what is the chance that the same say 100 ervs where deleted from the genomes of apes?

As I've told you many times, it's because the hypothetical creature doesn't fit in the hierarchy. I don't know why you think it is new information. Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

It's also just common sense, based on the original claim, if you knew anything about the ERV evidence.

 

[xianghua]

I'm not playing a game here. What I'm trying to do is get to a common understanding. But the only way this will work is if you also work towards that common understanding.



By "great apes", I'm referring to the Hominidae family which includes gorillas, chimps, orangutans, and humans.

For my next questions:

1) When did modern humans evolve?
2) What are the immediate ancestors of modern humans (and when did they evolve)?
3) How are humans connected with the other taxanomic groups such as great apes and primates?

the first human is date about 2.8 my (homo genus- if you consider it to be a modern human). so according to evolution its ancestors where older that that. as for 3) im not sure what are you asking but since i answered to your first two questions its probably irrelevant. now please answer my simple question. where is the limit that we can push back human?

 

[xianghua]

As I've told you many times, it's because the hypothetical creature doesn't fit in the hierarchy. I don't know why you think it is new information. Apparently you haven't been paying attention.

It's also just common sense, based on the original claim, if you knew anything about the ERV evidence.

so you cant disprove the claim about finding a creature with more ervs that are shared with human than with apes then.

 

[FredVB]

so coming up with a patentable product (something that did not exist before) and taking it to market is not applying science?
which is not the same as scientific principles or truths in science. they are theories like the world is flat, the man made hole in the ozone, global cooling/mini ice age that was to happen before 2000, global warming, then global climate change so no matter what the earth did (besides stand still) would verify 'scientific theory.' what about the 'god particle? you know the reason they built they 1.5 billion euro hadron supercollider why the evidence the presented mirror that of what they originally presented in order to get the 1.5 billion dollar grant? if it all worked as plan why do they want to build a bigger one? 3xs as big?

I'm not saying 20 years ago to this day a movement started and took over inside a few weeks. I'm saying 20 years ago there was a clean and claer line standing on the practical science side in an effort to try and not mix science fiction with science fact. now when you google mixing science fiction with science fact it is the norm or one article said it is the engine driving new discoveries.. sad. so rather than discribe or learn what drives the uiverse we simply take what we want to be true and lable what we find in the universe after what we want the universe to be like. how narrow minded can one people be... oh that's right these are the same minds who said the world was flat, hole in the ozone. global climate change ect.. Aren't you tired of your 'great minds' being wrong so much?

then you should be able to seperate applicable science from disenfranchised theory. you of all people should be able to see where theory ends and real world applications begin. You should be able to appreciate how many times in your efforts that 'theory' has been proven wrong, verses how applied science is always there, can be depended on. in your mind there should be a great line between the applied sciences (stuff you can put your life in the hands of) and theoretical nonsense that you would not place your life in the hands of..
don't be obtuse here... I see you heading down this road, don't align innerspecies evolution/the ablity for immunity with darwin evolution/species to species evolution. you pretend to be a 'science' guy you should know better than try and shift the goal posts here.


you guys are all too transparent. so you study the science of monkeys trans mutating into different species?!?!?! Really?!!?! do you have any documented examples??? do you have a 1/2 monkey half banana hybrid? or a maybe a whole new species that a basic lab monkey has mutated into? can you even show a species mutation in a 24 hour fruit fly? (Their generational mutatable rate is 1000xs faster than our own, yet 'science' in all of it's glory can only activate a gene that blinds them.. yes this is a innerspecies evolutionary example which is all you are talking about, but it is not an example of what I and your god darwin is speaking of.) we are looking for one species mutating into a completely different species.

This is it. Experiments are needed in verifying the science is going in the right direction, and the current circumstance of the theory of evolution needed the hopeful monster model, which was replaced with puntuated equilibrium. So new species coming from other species should be observable as it happens.

 

[xianghua]

Sorry, but you had your chance. I gave you some genetic data to explain, and in the end, the only creationist explanation you could come up with was essentially, "That's the way it was created."

no, this isnt what i said back then. i actually showed you that we can get the same result even without a common descent (by neutral mutations). on the other hand- you never explained how evolution can evolve a complex biological systems.