Why evolution isn't scientific

[xianghua]

Sigh.

Very well. Quotes from my posts where I said I would accept your evidence with the actual specific words where I said I would accept your evidence highlighted in red.







I repeated myself as well, since you apparently didn't understand what I was saying:



You once again didn't seem to understand me, so I repeated myself again:



You then outright refused to take this as a proper answer, and I responded:



You once again accused me of not answering.



I believe I have made it abundantly clear that if you can present legitimate evidence that evolution is wrong, I will accept that evidence and change my views to agree with you that evolution is wrong. I honestly do not know how to make it any clearer.

You asked me if I would abandon evolution if you could show me it was wrong, and I have stated multiple times that I would abandon it if you did so.

I answered your question three times and then I told you three times that I had answered your question, one time even quoting myself where I had answered your question. You've even had another poster on here saying that I and other people had said they will accept your evidence if you can provide it.

so your answer to my question is "yes". ok. here is your counter evidence again:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

now, with this new fossil the fossil order is look like this (image from wiki):

see the bottom left creature? its predate many of its transitional fossils. so instead of 12345 we actually find something like 51234.

so evolution is false now according to your criteria.

 

[xianghua]

That depends, when we examine the genome, would we find the same genes as we do in birds, or is it a true convergent evolutionary development and their DNA has recreated novel genes to express these new feathers, which fantasy would you like to explore?

evolution will be fine even in this case of mammal with feathers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so your answer to my question is "yes". ok. here is your counter evidence again:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

now, with this new fossil the fossil order is look like this (image from wiki):

see the bottom left creature? its predate many of its transitional fossils. so instead of 12345 we actually find something like 51234.

so evolution is false now according to your criteria.

See, this is why I asked you to properly define what the numbers in ""12345" represent, because this example here is not an out-of-place fossil, as SO MANY people have been explaining to you for weeks now!

Kylie too has stated that "...if you had VALID evidence...".
This evidence isn't valid. It doesn't pose any problems at all for the fossil succession of evolutionary history.

Now, if you would find tetrapods in pre-devonian strata, then you might have something.

In reality, what you have here is the equivalent of finding out that you weren't born in 1980, but in 1978 instead.

Now, if you had evidence that showed the equivalent of you not being born in 1980, but in 1880 instead.... THEN you'ld have something.

But you don't have such a thing, do you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

evolution will be fine even in this case of mammal with feathers.

You seem to have forgotten again to actually respond to the post you are quoting.

In this particular case, a response would consist in answering a question.

 

[Speedwell]

evolution will be fine even in this case of mammal with feathers.

With feathers? Or with feather-like structures, or structures serving the same purpose as feathers do in birds?

 

[pat34lee]

Nice vague comment, do you have a specific example?

This link explains that there is no tree of evolution, because
they can't find relations between most of the fossils. What
they have is more like many unrelated bushes.
The Tree of Life may be more like a bush

Plants defy evolutionary order.
"The plant fossil record is now more clearly defined than ever before, and it testifies more clearly than ever before that not one of the phyla is either the ancestor or the descendant of any other!"
Kingdom of the plants: defying evolution - creation.com

 

[RealityCheck01]

A software person should know that any complex algorithm must have rules, and it must have pre-determined goals. Evolution has neither.
You cannot make a totally random evolution program because it will
always, repeat always, go extinct. To get data evolution, it must cheat.

A software person should know about the artificial neural networks used in AI research networks that have no rules or pre-determined goals.
A software person should know about genetic programming which is an actual analogy of evolution with no rules or pre-determined goals.

A software person interested in evolution should learn about evolution and know that "Evolution has neither (rules/pre-determined goals)" and "totally random evolution" is not evolution. They should learn about the weasel program

The weasel program or Dawkins' weasel is a thought experiment and a variety of computer simulations illustrating it. Their aim is to demonstrate that the process that drives evolutionary systems—random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection—is different from pure chance.

The thought experiment was formulated by Richard Dawkins, and the first simulation written by him; various other implementations of the program have been written by others.

 

[pat34lee]

A software person should know about the artificial neural networks used in AI research networks that have no rules or pre-determined goals.
A software person should know about genetic programming which is an actual analogy of evolution with no rules or pre-determined goals.

A software person interested in evolution should learn about evolution and know that "Evolution has neither (rules/pre-determined goals)" and "totally random evolution" is not evolution. They should learn about the weasel program

Dawkins' program was the worst. His program looked for
certain traits to keep, giving more weight to those that
he considered better. That is one of the cheats I mentioned.

Before you even envision the program, you have a set of
standards. Programming language, hardware, software to
connect the hardware together, memory. All must synch
together before you can even begin. Once it is going, how
do you decide whether it is progressing, for that matter,
what progress means to such a program?

 

[pat34lee]

This paper is yet more evidence for evolution, pat34lee. This is a paper finding relationships between bird fossils so that an evolution of birds tree becomes an evolution of birds bush.
The Tree of Life may be more like a bush


Sorry but a link to the creation.com web site is an automatic failure because the web site lies too much to be trusted. Try again with any actual science that they cite.

First paragraph: And outside of birds, the rest of life
also defies being put into a neat evolutionary tree.
You get a few related species then nothing, repeated
over and over again, from single-celled creatures to
worms, to invertebrates, to insects, to fish......etc.

Poisoning the well. Forget the source and deal with
the quote I posted from them. Why is it so hard to
deal with issues rather than trashing the other poster
or their sources?

 

[Kylie]

You mean the sudden appearance of a great number of
species that appears to have happened at every level
of evolutionary eras?

Are you referring to the Cambrian explosion?

Do you understand that the Cambrian explosion was "sudden" only in the sense of geological time? Do you understand that the Cambrian explosion actually lasted for about 25 million years? It wasn't exactly SUDDEN as far as evolution is concerned.

 

[Kylie]

so your answer to my question is "yes". ok. here is your counter evidence again:

Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland

now, with this new fossil the fossil order is look like this (image from wiki):

see the bottom left creature? its predate many of its transitional fossils. so instead of 12345 we actually find something like 51234.

so evolution is false now according to your criteria.

I said I would agree that evolution is false IF (note that word IF there) there was no reasonable explanation. As others have pointed out, there is a reasonable explanation.

BTW, posting evidence that's behind a paywall isn't really fair. Post links that are accessable to everyone or don't play.

 

[Shemjaza]

Make this about me again and I will report you for flaming.
Deal with the specifics or don't post.

A software person should know that any complex algorithm must have
rules, and it must have pre-determined goals. Evolution has neither.
You cannot make a totally random evolution program because it will
always, repeat always, go extinct. To get data evolution, it must cheat.

So nothing specifically then.

Not surprised.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A software person should know that any complex algorithm must have
rules, and it must have pre-determined goals. Evolution has neither.

Evolution has both.
It has rules: the mechanics of genetics.
It has goals: survive and reproduce

You cannot make a totally random evolution program

Evolution isn't "totally random". At all.
It has random components. The process itself is not random.

because it will always, repeat always, go extinct. To get data evolution, it must cheat.

Makes no sense.



See, this is why I said you are ill-informed. Not as an ad hominim, but as an observation.
When you think there are no rules to the process of evolution, when you think evolution is "totally" random... you being ill-informed about how evolution actually works is the only rational conclusion.

In these last two posts, you have literally been wrong about every single thing you said about the process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dawkins' program was the worst. His program looked for certain traits to keep, giving more weight to those that
he considered better. That is one of the cheats I mentioned.

Errrr................................. that is exactly what happens in nature dude.
The traits of those creatures that survive and reproduce more, are "given more weight" then those that don't.

When using a GA, or a breeding program, we get to choose which traits we want to focus on.
It's how we breed chiuwawa's, eatable banana's, huge pumpkins, brussel's sprouts,...
None of which would have existed under natural selection.

Before you even envision the program, you have a set of
standards. Programming language, hardware, software to
connect the hardware together, memory. All must synch
together before you can even begin.

And in reality, we have a universe with physics, a planet, a sun feeding it energy and biological life that reproduces with variation.

Once it is going, how do you decide whether it is progressing, for that matter,
what progress means to such a program?

Through a fitness test.
In biology, the fitness test is living your life. Your fitness is measured by how well you survive and how many off spring you produce.

In a GA, the fitness test is whatever parameters are considered better for the thing you are optimizing.

In a GA, yes we have a goal in mind. But not a solution. If we would have a solution in mind, we wouldn't need the GA to evolve it for us.

For example: BoxCar2D

The goal is to have car-like shapes that perform well on the selected track.
It starts with random polygons and a random amount of randomly placed wheels attached with random force, spinning with random velocity.
Those with highest fitness score are selected for reproduction. During reproduction, random mutations will be applied.

Leave the browser open for some time.
Soon you'll see cars finish the track at top speeds.

 

[xianghua]

With feathers? Or with feather-like structures, or structures serving the same purpose as feathers do in birds?

yes, with feathers. why?

 

[xianghua]

I said I would agree that evolution is false IF (note that word IF there) there was no reasonable explanation. As others have pointed out, there is a reasonable explanation.

you said that you agree that if we will find a series of fossils like 12354 insetad of 12345 evolution will be false. this is exactly what we found. you cant play with this.

 

[DogmaHunter]

you said that you agree that if we will find a series of fossils like 12354 insetad of 12345 evolution will be false. this is exactly what we found. you cant play with this.

You can't play with it either.
This is why I said that you first need to define what exactly the individual numbers in "12345" specifically represent. And no, "fossils" is not specific enough. What kind of fossils?

Because if 3 represents "amphibians" and 4 represents "mammals", then "12435" would be a real problem.
But if 3 represents an extant species and 4 represents a species from roughly the same period, then "12435" wouldn't pose a problem at all.

So no, finding tetrapods in the devonian a little older then the oldest tetrapods we knew about, is not a problem.
If you would find tetrapods in pre-devonian rock, that'ld be something else.

But you don't have that, do you?

 

[Speedwell]

yes, with feathers. why?

Feathers would pose a serious problem for the theory of evolution. Feather-like structures or structures serving the same purpose as feathers do in birds would not.

 

[pat34lee]

Adding selection to a program demonstrating evolution is obviously not a cheat, pat34lee. The evolution being demonstrated is mutation + selection.

This is evolution in a nutshell (or better yet a seed ). Say there is a population of finches on an island. The climate is mild and favors bushes with soft seeds The finches are happily eating soft seeds with small beaks. This is analogous to the starting point of the Weasel program.

Along comes global warming. The climate gets hotter. Bushes with hard seeds start to dominate the vegetation. This is the selection you are complaining about !

Now run the "program" of evolution with mutation and selection. Mutations that produce bigger beaks that can crack more seeds will "give more weight" to those finches by allowing them to reproduce more, i.e. a "certain traits to keep" will more present in the next generation. Keep repeating and we get "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", i.e. a new species of big beaked finches.

Weasel program


ETA: A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

You begin with finches changing beak size. That is a matter
of natural selection, the same as if more blondes get lucky,
there will be more blonds in future generations. Once the
current issues change, here come more brunettes, or finches
with shorter bills.

The difference with the programs is that you are selecting
for something new, which both DNA and sexual reproduction
tend to weed out of the genepool.

 

[pat34lee]

See, this is why I said you are ill-informed. Not as an ad hominim, but as an observation..

You fail to see the point I'm making, therefore, since it
can't possibly be that you don't understand it, I must
be ignorant of the truth as you perceive it. It may even
be that I'm not making the best case for my POV.