Evolution is not really a theory

[Nando Ronteltap]

Pointing towards the planets and saying the position of them changes, is not really a theory. Pointing to populations of organisms and saying they change is likewise not a theory. Saying "things change" is a rather meaningless catchall frame of reference. Especially when they made no change part of evolution theory, as by punctuated equilibrium, it shows evolution theory is essentially meaningless.

To say evolution is occurring basically means to say that occurrences are occurring. There is not a single occurence which falls outside the frame of reference of evolution theory.

How organisms are actually formed is by intelligent design. That is a real theory.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Pointing towards the planets and saying the position of them changes, is not really a theory. Pointing to populations of organisms and saying they change is likewise not a theory. Saying "things change" is a rather meaningless catchall frame of reference. Especially when they made no change part of evolution theory, as by punctuated equilibrium, it shows evolution theory is essentially meaningless.

To say evolution is occurring basically means to say that occurrences are occurring. There is not a single occurence which falls outside the frame of reference of evolution theory.

How organisms are actually formed is by intelligent design. That is a real theory.

I understand that "theory" in a scientific context means a model that accounts for all the data.

It does not mean what "theory" means in ordinary speech.

 

[sfs]

"Evolution" means several different things. It can mean common descent: the idea that different species share a common ancestor. This is a theory, because it is an explanation for data, and it's a scientific theory because it makes testable predictions about new data.

It can mean a process: the change in a species from generation to generation as new genetic variants arise and old ones are lost. The fact that the process, actually multiple processes, occur is not a theory. Using those processes to explain data (i.e. to explain common descent) is a theory.

How organisms are actually formed is by intelligent design. That is a real theory.

Great. What can this theory tell me to expect when I compare the genomes of, say, humans and chimpanzees? I know what evolution predicts, in considerable detail. What does ID predict?

 

[Steve Petersen]

How organisms are actually formed is by intelligent design. That is a real theory.

A real theory is potentially falsifiable. How is ID falsifiable since the creator is, by definition, immaterial.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

A real theory is potentially falsifiable. How is ID falsifiable since the creator is, by definition, immaterial.

That is a matter of pure logic, that the agency of a choice can only be identified with a chosen opinion. But, we can still establish the decisionprocesses as fact. And obviously by the intricate design of organisms we can see this must have been very sophisicated decisionmaking processes.

To theorize in terms of decisionmaking processes is fundamentally different from cause and effect logic. No scientist is very good at it. But there is terrific evidence that choice is real, namely I myself make choices. And as with any observation we must generalize it. Therefore everything in the universe is chosen. And the evidence fits this generalization.

 

[Steve Petersen]

That is a matter of pure logic, that the agency of a choice can only be identified with a chosen opinion. But, we can still establish the decisionprocesses as fact. And obviously by the intricate design of organisms we can see this must have been very sophisicated decisionmaking processes.

To theorize in terms of decisionmaking processes is fundamentally different from cause and effect logic. No scientist is very good at it. But there is terrific evidence that choice is real, namely I myself make choices. And as with any observation we must generalize it. Therefore everything in the universe is chosen. And the evidence fits this generalization.

You can't choose an option you don't know about. Choice is limited.

 

[Gene2memE]

Pointing towards the planets and saying the position of them changes, is not really a theory. Pointing to populations of organisms and saying they change is likewise not a theory. Saying "things change" is a rather meaningless catchall frame of reference. Especially when they made no change part of evolution theory, as by punctuated equilibrium, it shows evolution theory is essentially meaningless.

The full title is the 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection'. That last part is the important bit, and the bit you're conveniently leaving out.

Darwin's book in which he spelled out his theory was: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'

As Alfred Russel Wallace pointed out in 1958:

The problem then was not only how and why do species change, but how and why do they change into new and well defined species, distinguished from each other in so many ways; why and how they become so exactly adapted to distinct modes of life; and why do all the intermediate grades die out (as geology shows they have died out) and leave only clearly defined and well marked species, genera, and higher groups of animals?​

The answer to this, which both Wallace and Darwin figured out at roughly the same time, was natural selection. That's why their joint paper, published in 1858, was 'On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'

To say evolution is occurring basically means to say that occurrences are occurring.

Correct. Observation shows that organisms pass different traits down to their offspring, which results in differing reproductive success, with the traits leading to more success (or at the very least, not lowering success) becoming fixed in the population.

In other words, evolution by natural selection is what it observed occurring in nature. It's not the only game in town (hello horizontal gene transfer and epigenetics), but its the most dominant.

There is not a single occurence which falls outside the frame of reference of evolution theory.

Correct.

Evolution by natural selection is supported by the known evidence, and is not refuted by any of it. That isn't to say there aren't plenty of unresolved questions in evolutionary biology and lots of gaps in our knowledge (some of which may never be filled). However, to the best of our knowledge, nothing in existence contradicts the theory as it is presently formed.

How organisms are actually formed is by intelligent design. That is a real theory.

It's not a theory. It doesn't even make the grade of hypothesis. It's an assertion, without evidence or support. What's more, its an unfalsifiable assertion, which makes it useless from a practical standpoint.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

You can't choose an option you don't know about. Choice is limited.

You know about choosing? Have you studied it? Our knowledge about choosing is going backwards. I can't really talk to people who don't have a dedicated attention to the subject. It's very practically useful knowledge, like for making choices in life. And politics, and religion. And undoubtedly it will also be practically useful for the origin of organisms, because it is very clear that the organisms came to be by sophisticated decisionprocesses. There is no actual evidence that natural selection can do it. It is just supposition. The supposition on the side of intelligent design has more evidence.

In any case, even if you believe evolution, you should study the mechanism of creation, which is choice. Because of the practical usefulness of the knowledge about making choices.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pointing towards the planets and saying the position of them changes, is not really a theory. Pointing to populations of organisms and saying they change is likewise not a theory. Saying "things change" is a rather meaningless catchall frame of reference. Especially when they made no change part of evolution theory, as by punctuated equilibrium, it shows evolution theory is essentially meaningless.

To say evolution is occurring basically means to say that occurrences are occurring. There is not a single occurence which falls outside the frame of reference of evolution theory.

How organisms are actually formed is by intelligent design. That is a real theory.

Nope, ID is religious nonsense that has been repeatedly refuted. A lack of understanding does not mean that evolution is not a theory.

But in regards to ID what reasonable test could show that it is wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a matter of pure logic, that the agency of a choice can only be identified with a chosen opinion. But, we can still establish the decisionprocesses as fact. And obviously by the intricate design of organisms we can see this must have been very sophisicated decisionmaking processes.

To theorize in terms of decisionmaking processes is fundamentally different from cause and effect logic. No scientist is very good at it. But there is terrific evidence that choice is real, namely I myself make choices. And as with any observation we must generalize it. Therefore everything in the universe is chosen. And the evidence fits this generalization.

This is just an Argument From Ignorance on your part. How about a discussion on the scientific method?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Nope, ID is religious nonsense that has been repeatedly refuted. A lack of understanding does not mean that evolution is not a theory.

But in regards to ID what reasonable test could show that it is wrong?

Number 1 is, you cannot have a functional society when everyone, or people generally, are ignorant about making choices. So you have to study decisionmaking regardless.

What they do in evolution theory is, they discover some new mechanism, and thenthey throw the mechanism into evolution theory. Like with the recent epigenetic mechanism. Evolution is just a catchall for anything.

So really, I don't see how you cannot just investigate decisionmaking processes, in for instance the DNA system. This could be very productive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Number 1 is, you cannot have a functional society when everyone, or people generally, are ignorant about making choices. So you have to study decisionmaking regardless.

What they do in evolution theory is, they discover some new mechanism, and thenthey throw the mechanism into evolution theory. Like with the recent epigenetic mechanism. Evolution is just a catchall for anything.

So really, I don't see how you cannot just investigate decisionmaking processes, in for instance the DNA system. This could be very productive.

What is that first line even supposed to mean?

And no, you do not understand the theory of evolution at all. You are complaining about minor tweaks to the theory and most scientific theories improve over time as we find out more about the world that we live in. It still is a scientific theory. It always has been. People do not assume it is true. That is what creationists do. There is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

There is no indication of a "decision making process" in regards to DNA. Again there is not even any scientific evidence for it. This is another concept that creationists need to learn. Once one understands it they cannot honestly deny that there is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism.

Where would you like to start?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Are you one of those who denies free will altogether, that also people don't make choices? Choice is the mechanism of creation. I don't think you can really consider creationism without some understanding and acceptance of the mechanism of creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you one of those who denies free will altogether, that also people don't make choices? Choice is the mechanism of creation. I don't think you can really consider creationism without some understanding and acceptance of the mechanism of creation.

You are still using a bit too much word salad. We can't be sure if free will exists or not. Many Christians do not believe in it, they may say that they do, but their beliefs are contradictory.

And you really should learn what evidence is, then you might be able to find some for creationism.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

You are still using a bit too much word salad. We can't be sure if free will exists or not. Many Christians do not believe in it, they may say that they do, but their beliefs are contradictory.

And you really should learn what evidence is, then you might be able to find some for creationism.

I think the fact that people talk in terms of making choices in common dicourse, and then many, very many, say it is not real, or that they doubt that it is real, that's really more of a psychological problem. I mean it is knowing and being certain of it in common discourse, and then denying and doubting intellectually. I think if you don't know, it means you don't want to know.

But any evaluation of creationism by a free will denier or doubter, is meaningless. I guess that all who take knowledge about how things are chosen seriously, support some form of intelligent design theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the fact that people talk in terms of making choices in common dicourse, and then many, very many, say it is not real, or that they doubt that it is real, that's really more of a psychological problem. I mean it is knowing and being certain of it in common discourse, and then denying and doubting intellectually. I think if you don't know, it means you don't want to know.

But any evaluation of creationism by a free will denier or doubter, is meaningless. I guess that all who take knowledge about how things are chosen seriously, support some form of intelligent design theory.

Now you are just making excuses and possible breaking forum rules. If you want to know why we know that creationism is false then you should try to learn. Creationism being false does not automatically mean that there is no God. It only takes away the Genesis story. But then we knew Genesis was wrong long before evolution came out. Early geologists were Christians that were looking for evidence of Noah's Ark. Instead they showed that there was no worldwide flood.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Well you don't know anything about choosing as a reality of physics. So your evaluation of creationism means nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well you don't know anything about choosing as a reality of physics. So your evaluation of creationism means nothing.

That makes no sense at all. Try again.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

It must be true that the physical body of a human can go left or right. That choice is real must mean it is a matter of physics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It must be true that the physical body of a human can go left or right. That choice is real must mean it is a matter of physics.

Can you please attempt to make a rational argument? Try to stay on topic.