Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 10:57 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
Now show those same steps in creating a living organism (with no scientific help) from non-living materials (that means no scientific lab to play around in).

And create your own matter ex nihilo while you're at it. :oldthumbsup:

River Jordan · Tuesday at 11:00 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
I'm not the type of person who likes others telling "this is how it is, you just have to believe us".

Then you must be okay with science since scientists don't do that.

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 11:24 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
And it seemed very redundant and meaningless to me back then (some 50 years ago) as it does to me today. It sounds like some say "world salad", to a true science at heart person it makes sense but to the common person, a theory and a hypothesis are just an idea - same words, same meaning. As I mentioned in another post, when I explain somewhat complex topics to people, who aren't affluent in the area, I break it down so even a 10 year old can understand it (if necessary). Science needs to start communicating with the common man world better.

Pehaps this explains it simply enough for you to understand:

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between multiple variables....A scientific theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that is widely accepted among the scientific community and supported by data. Scientific theories are confirmed by many tests and experiments...

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/theory-vs-hypothesis-basics-of-the-scientific-method

Read the link; it seems about as simple as one can make it and still be accurate.

Hvizsgyak · Tuesday at 11:34 AM

Larniavc said:
They can if the common man has a high school education.

It's funny, there are people with PhDs and they don't align with the evolution theory. Just because I'm very rusty on my "theory" and "hypothesis" definition does mean I can't present an argument against evolution. And as for the anti-intellectualism, oh boo hoo, like that is a real victimhood. That's like a rich person saying "people don't understand me and like me because I run the water all day long so that I can keep the freshest water in my Olympic size swimming pool".

Let me get back to the thread so I can see what other derogatory statements I have been called. This has been a very fulfilling day :wave:

.

Hvizsgyak · Tuesday at 11:35 AM

River Jordan said:
Then you must be okay with science since scientists don't do that.

Not when it comes to evolution they aren't.

sfs · Tuesday at 11:43 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
It's funny, there are people with PhDs and they don't align with the evolution theory.

Among those with genuine PhDs in relevant fields, the number who reject common descent is really, really tiny. Vanishingly small.

Hvizsgyak said:
Just because I'm very rusty on my "theory" and "hypothesis" definition does mean I can't present an argument against evolution.

Go for it. I've been looking at creationist arguments for several decades and have yet to see a good one, but anything is possible.

Hvizsgyak · Tuesday at 11:49 AM

The Barbarian said:
Pehaps this explains it simply enough for you to understand:

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between multiple variables....A scientific theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that is widely accepted among the scientific community and supported by data. Scientific theories are confirmed by many tests and experiments...

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/theory-vs-hypothesis-basics-of-the-scientific-method

Read the link; it seems about as simple as one can make it and still be accurate.

So based upon the masterclass article you gave me it should be the Hypothesis of Evolution not the Theory of Evolution. Because with the little information science has from our past (remember only 50 pieces of a 100,000 piece puzzle), they are just making educated guesses (yes, they may have some facts but nearly enough to form a Theory

).

I still think it's word salad and scientist should understand that (if they are smart as they claim) when explaining their works. They should say "hey this is very very cool and informative stuff, I want everyone to understand it". But I must say, you link to the Masterclass was very helpful, thank you for the refresher course

. Now if doing searches on the internet were that fulfilling.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 11:55 AM

Hvizsgyak said:
It's funny, there are people with PhDs ...

Which stands for "Doctor of Philosophy."

These guys are top-notch philosophers.

But bottom-of-the-barrel theologians.

Hvizsgyak · Tuesday at 12:02 PM

sfs said:
Among those with genuine PhDs in relevant fields, the number who reject common descent is really, really tiny. Vanishingly small.

I beg to differ. I am finding more scientific people each day questioning evolution or Darwinism.

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

Five Years Ago, Gelernter Gave Up on Darwin | Evolution News and Science Today

David Gelernter is one of a growing number of scientists and thinkers bold enough to look beyond a Darwinian paradigm.

evolutionnews.org

I agree these people are Creationists or Intelligent Design followers but they are starting to realize Darwinism isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

River Jordan · Tuesday at 12:07 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
Not when it comes to evolution they aren't.

So we're back to where we were a while ago when I asked you to post an example of scientists saying "you must believe us" and you didn't reply.

Can you give an example this time?

Hvizsgyak · Tuesday at 12:10 PM

AV1611VET said:
Which stands for "Doctor of Philosophy."

These guys are top-notch philosophers.

But bottom-of-the-barrel theologians.

I was hoping you'd show up :wave:

.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Hvizsgyak, I'm replying like this since this is the only way I can see myself addressing this issue, and after seeing your other comments on this thread, because I... I really cannot figure out your problem.

You say that science should share a stage with Biblical creationism, then you also say that the Enuma Elish should be given the same sort of scrutiny as any other scientific work. You also say in response to Bradskii that you don't understand scientific parlance and that scientists should dumb it down for you and you seem to have no desire to actually want to educate yourself and find that science uses a whole different and particular language set, just the same as any other specialised subject. You seem to have the most basic understanding of science and yet also seem to ONLY want to stick to that basic understanding and think that everything can fit into the basic slot. You mention alternate theories and yet when asked on them you bring up Christian Biblical creationism and the ancient Akkadian creation story, both of which are much more theological than scientific.

I am stuck exactly on what you want from this thread. I really am. Because you're confusing the hell out of me.

You tried, I appreciate that. What can I say but that I'm just a ordinary common person. I'll do my best not to bother you anymore. I know I can be a pain.

Hvizsgyak · Tuesday at 12:16 PM

River Jordan said:
So we're back to where we were a while ago when I asked you to post an example of scientists saying "you must believe us" and you didn't reply.

Can you give an example this time?

I'm sorry River Jordan, I lost my train of thought. Non-living material coming together (by itself) to create a simple form of life. I think that's where I was going with my thoughts.

The Barbarian · Tuesday at 12:21 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
So based upon the masterclass article you gave me it should be the Hypothesis of Evolution not the Theory of Evolution.

No, you're still not getting it. You see, Darwin made a lot of predictions, based on his theory. And a huge number of them have since been confirmed to be true.

A few for example:
There would have to be transitional forms between birds and other dinosaurs.
There would be transitionals between reptiles and mammals.
Some mechanism to allow the persistence of useful new traits must exist. (in Darwin's time, ideas of inheritance ruled out such persistence)
A well-fitted population in a constant environment would evolve very little.
A change in environment would lead to evolution of a population in that environment.

There are many more. How many would you like to see? As you learned, an hypothesis becomes a theory after many of its predictions are confirmed by evidence.

Hvizsgyak said:
Because with the little information science has from our past (remember only 50 pieces of a 100,000 piece puzzle), they are just making educated guesses (yes, they may have some facts but nearly enough to form a Theory ).

Well, let's ask a knowledgeable YE creationist:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between
rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

River Jordan · Tuesday at 12:22 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
I beg to differ. I am finding more scientific people each day questioning evolution or Darwinism.

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

FYI that's not an anti-evolution statement. All it says is they are skeptical that all of life's history can be attributed to mutation and selection, which I promise you every evolutionary biologist agrees with.

Hvizsgyak said:
I'm sorry River Jordan, I lost my train of thought. Non-living material coming together (by itself) to create a simple form of life. I think that's where I was going with my thoughts.

You need to show where the scientists who do origins research have said "you have to believe us" as you claimed.

Your claim is a little strange since usually creationists complain when scientists use words like "possibly" and "most likely". That's why it would help a lot if you could post a specific example of what you're referring to.

AV1611VET · Tuesday at 12:29 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
I was hoping you'd show up .

Thanks!

I try to lend a hand whenever the conversation is about Creationism or the Flood.

And if I see science starting to get out of hand too far, I'll usually show up and put it back in its place.

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 12:30 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
And it seemed very redundant and meaningless to me back then (some 50 years ago) as it does to me today.

Your dismissal of the very most basic of terminology that serves as a barrier to your understanding is telling. (And I speak of understanding, not acceptance.)

Hvizsgyak said:
It sounds like some say "world salad", to a true science at heart person it makes sense but to the common person, a theory and a hypothesis are just an idea - same words, same meaning.

First of all they are definitely not the same word (different lengths, start with different letters) nor are the meanings that hard to distinguish. Calling it "world" salad is nothing more than an excuse to not engage in what is being discussed.

Hvizsgyak said:
As I mentioned in another post, when I explain somewhat complex topics to people, who aren't affluent in the area,

Wealth has nothing to do with it.

Hvizsgyak said:
I break it down so even a 10 year old can understand it (if necessary). Science needs to start communicating with the common man world better.

I told you already. We'll deal with you and others like you at the HS level. You're an adult right? You're not mentally impared, right? You actually graduated from HS, right? Then you shouldn't have any problem with us treating you with the respect of not talking down to you like a small child.

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 12:37 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
I beg to differ. I am finding more scientific people each day questioning evolution or Darwinism.

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

@River Jordan already talked about this article, so I'll leave that to him.

Hvizsgyak said:
Five Years Ago, Gelernter Gave Up on Darwin | Evolution News and Science Today

David Gelernter is one of a growing number of scientists and thinkers bold enough to look beyond a Darwinian paradigm.

evolutionnews.org

I agree these people are Creationists or Intelligent Design followers but they are starting to realize Darwinism isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

An article on a creationist site about a computer scientist. That guy isn't a scientist. "Computer science" isn't a science it is a branch of applied mathematics. His "conversion" means absolutely nothing.

sjastro · Tuesday at 12:38 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
If only all of science was explained so nicely. Thank you for that very well layout response. Now let's see if some one can do the same non-living materials coming together to create a living organism. In you example above, you had a problem with the Toyota Camry headlights. I'm sure it was investigated and many thoughts on the cause were pondered. After much investigation, the problem was identified and a solution was installed to correct the problem. Everything was there to make the investigation a success.

Now show those same steps in creating a living organism (with no scientific help) from non-living materials (that means no scientific lab to play around in). Can the steps be as nicely laid out as the Toyota Camry's problem?

Before I respond to your post evolution is not about the creation of life, abiogenesis is the relevant theory.

Your response indicates you have very little understanding of the underlying process involved with the Toyota Camry headlights.
It is an example of how science uses model based realities applied to the real world, in this case an artificial environment created in the laboratory led to results to create a theory which predicted the failure mechanism in the real world. The success of the countermeasure where the problem disappeared in the field is the supportive evidence for the theory (and the prediction).

Evolution also uses model based realities which have made predictions supported by evidence through observations and experiments. No laboratory is required.

Model-Based Reality	Core Idea	Predictions	Supporting Evidence
Population Genetics (Hardy–Weinberg framework + extensions)	Evolutionary change is modeled via allele frequency shifts under selection, drift, mutation, migration.	- If no evolutionary forces act, allele frequencies remain constant.- Selection will shift frequencies toward adaptive alleles.- Drift has stronger effects in small populations.	- Allele frequencies in large, isolated populations stay stable across generations unless perturbed.- Long-term allele tracking in wild populations (e.g., industrial melanism in Biston betularia).- Experimental populations in labs (e.g., Drosophila) confirm drift/selection predictions.
Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution	Most molecular changes are selectively neutral and fixed by genetic drift.	- Molecular clock: roughly constant substitution rates over time.- Synonymous substitutions occur faster than nonsynonymous ones.- High genetic variation in populations without proportional phenotypic change.	- DNA/protein sequence comparisons across taxa show clock-like divergence rates.- Synonymous site variation matches drift predictions.- Polymorphism patterns in many species fit neutral expectations.
Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection	The rate of increase in mean fitness is proportional to the genetic variance in fitness.	- Populations with more additive genetic variance adapt faster.- Fitness gains plateau as variance is used up.	- Artificial selection experiments (e.g., maize oil content) show rapid gains then plateau.- Quantitative genetics studies in agriculture and natural populations.
Adaptive Landscape (Wright’s fitness landscapes)	Populations move on a “landscape” of fitness peaks and valleys.	- Multiple stable adaptive peaks exist.- Populations can get stuck on local peaks.- Genetic drift in small populations can allow escape to higher peaks.	- Microbial evolution experiments show adaptation to multiple fitness optima.- Observed divergence of isolated populations adapting to different niches.
Price Equation Framework	Evolutionary change is the sum of selection and transmission effects across generations.	- Predicts trait change based on covariance with fitness.- Allows decomposition of multilevel selection (genes, individuals, groups).	- Quantitative trait studies match predicted selection gradients.- Multilevel selection in social insects, cooperative breeders.
Coalescent Theory	Genealogies of alleles can be traced backward to a most recent common ancestor, under drift and other forces.	- Predicts distribution of genetic variation and coalescence times given population size history.- Bottlenecks shorten coalescent times.	- Mitochondrial DNA studies date human MRCA (“mitochondrial Eve”).- Genome-wide variation patterns match demographic history models.
Endosymbiotic Theory (as formalized by evolutionary cell biology)	Mitochondria and plastids originated from free-living bacteria engulfed by a host cell.	- Organelles retain bacterial-type DNA and ribosomes.- Closest relatives of organelles should be specific bacterial clades.	- Mitochondrial DNA phylogeny matches α-proteobacteria.- Chloroplast DNA matches cyanobacteria.- Double membranes and bacterial-like translation machinery.

If evolution is wrong, it is an amazing coincidence that these model based realities which draw on other biological sciences should be supported by evidence.

sjastro · Tuesday at 12:42 PM

Hvizsgyak said:
I beg to differ. I am finding more scientific people each day questioning evolution or Darwinism.

Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory

Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newman

thenewamerican.com

Five Years Ago, Gelernter Gave Up on Darwin | Evolution News and Science Today

David Gelernter is one of a growing number of scientists and thinkers bold enough to look beyond a Darwinian paradigm.

evolutionnews.org

I agree these people are Creationists or Intelligent Design followers but they are starting to realize Darwinism isn't all that it is cracked up to be.

Project Steve here we go.

Hvizsgyak · Tuesday at 12:47 PM

The Barbarian said:
No, you're still not getting it. You see, Darwin made a lot of predictions, based on his theory. And a huge number of them have since been confirmed to be true.

A few for example:
There would have to be transitional forms between birds and other dinosaurs.
There would be transitionals between reptiles and mammals.
Some mechanism to allow the persistence of useful new traits must exist. (in Darwin's time, ideas of inheritance ruled out such persistence)
A well-fitted population in a constant environment would evolve very little.
A change in environment would lead to evolution of a population in that environment.

There are many more. How many would you like to see? As you learned, an hypothesis becomes a theory after many of its predictions are confirmed by evidence.

Well, let's ask a knowledgeable YE creationist:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between
rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

There are holes to be punched into these examples but I'll need to investigate further. So this is saying that these subjects are the "go betweens" of the parenthesis subjects? Is there a continuous unbroken line from the single celled organism all the way down the line to Homo sapiens? If so, please give me the website. I want to make sure science hasn't used a sledge hammer to make the square "go betweens" fit into circular holes.

Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

On August Recess

On August Recess

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads