Are there any facts contrary to T.O.E?

[AV1611VET]

No.

No, what?

No, it's a fact?

Or, no, it's contrary to evolution?

(I know ... do I even need to ask?)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, what?

No, it's a fact?

Or, no, it's contrary to evolution?

(I know ... do I even need to ask?)

Just... No.

 

[RootedWithGod]

The way theories work is that a single contrary
fact can disprove it.

Many claim to "know" evolution is false. But no Nobel is awarded.

Does anyone have such disproof?
If not, how in good conscience can anyone say its false?

The idea can be looked at in this possible way.
We have no example of single cell life developing into complex life. In fact it appears there is no
proof multicell life as well developed into complex a life form. And even at that low level we can't draw a line
from a single cell to a horseshoe crab. Let alone Land animals. Even the cockroach there is no line.

However logic alone tells us science can proof creation not evolution.
What is nothing? The lack of any presence and can not be seen, taste, smelled or touched. Its not there.
Evolutionist tell us the Big Bang brought life, through meteors with water that eventually helped create life from nothing?
But science tells us, you can not in this universe create life from nothing.
However God created the Universe and life from nothing. So no matter how you look at it.
Life can not be created in this universe from nothing. So evolution its self can not create its self.
The laws of the universe do not show that science to exist.

God is outside of nothing. In fact nothing itself does not exist without Gods will to do so.
The nothing is created by God. And from that he brought forth life.
We get locked in to easily of proving science wrong, when its far easier to prove God right.
Science is at the moment the best guess at what makes sense. Proof itself science can not do 100%.
However since God created all things that we are basing science on. It would also be that God created the laws of science that are used.
Just that many science leaders refuse to understand, all the laws of the universe they use vary by their knowledge.
But the universe exists only because it was created. The universe did not evolve from nothing.
We have to understand the divine meaning behind creation. God is not the Universe. God created it.
Therefore all rules of evolutionary theory simply do not hold water. ( pun intended).
Because anything it would use to proof correct. Would easily be dismissed by creation.

 

[BCP1928]

The idea can be looked at in this possible way.
We have no example of single cell life developing into complex life. In fact it appears there is no
proof multicell life as well developed into complex a life form. And even at that low level we can't draw a line
from a single cell to a horseshoe crab. Let alone Land animals. Even the cockroach there is no line.

OK, the evidence is not complete. We all agree on that.

However logic alone tells us science can proof creation not evolution.
What is nothing? The lack of any presence and can not be seen, taste, smelled or touched. Its not there.
Evolutionist tell us the Big Bang brought life, through meteors with water that eventually helped create life from nothing?
But science tells us, you can not in this universe create life from nothing.
However God created the Universe and life from nothing. So no matter how you look at it.
Life can not be created in this universe from nothing. So evolution its self can not create its self.
The laws of the universe do not show that science to exist.

God is outside of nothing. In fact nothing itself does not exist without Gods will to do so.
The nothing is created by God. And from that he brought forth life.
We get locked in to easily of proving science wrong, when its far easier to prove God right.
Science is at the moment the best guess at what makes sense. Proof itself science can not do 100%.
However since God created all things that we are basing science on. It would also be that God created the laws of science that are used.
Just that many science leaders refuse to understand, all the laws of the universe they use vary by their knowledge.
But the universe exists only because it was created. The universe did not evolve from nothing.
We have to understand the divine meaning behind creation. God is not the Universe. God created it.
Therefore all rules of evolutionary theory simply do not hold water. ( pun intended).
Because anything it would use to proof correct. Would easily be dismissed by creation.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but the existence of God is not really an issue in this forum. The theory of evolution neither affirms nor denies it--nor does any scientific theory, for that matter.

 

[Laodicean60]

Which does further beg the question of why even get involved in this sort of debate in the first place.

Do you have proof that the evolution theory is true or disproof in the God theory? We all make claims of what we think are true but it all stems from a belief system. This is why I don't argue about something that happened many moons ago; we really don't know.

I didn't want to debate. I got stuck on the words "belief system" and I got the impression that you were adding a religious bias and I wasn't. I just thought back to all the things I believed and my mind changed as I grew up (new information). I used to like the History Channel so I'm open to all science. We may believe differently but we have a lot of common ground.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I didn't want to debate. I got stuck on the words "belief system" and I got the impression that you were adding a religious bias and I wasn't. I just thought back to all the things I believed and my mind changed as I grew up (new information). I used to like the History Channel so I'm open to all science. We may believe differently but we have a lot of common ground.

For starters: you really should just stop calling it a belief system, especially on this sort of website since belief is a massively loaded phrase. Just call it what people accept. The only one seemed to be coming at from the religious angle was you and you alone.

And two: I am really sorry but I do not see how you or I have any common ground on this sort of thing since you don't come across as actually wanting to learn.

 

[RootedWithGod]

OK, the evidence is not complete. We all agree on that.



I'm not sure where you're going with this, but the existence of God is not really an issue in this forum. The theory of evolution neither affirms nor denies it--nor does any scientific theory, for that matter.

Not sure why the confusion the OP posted :

The way theories work is that a single contrary
fact can disprove it.

Many claim to "know" evolution is false. But no Nobel is awarded.

Does anyone have such disproof?
If not, how in good conscience can anyone say its false?


Hence I answered the question. Please refrain from the tone of disapproval its unwarranted since I was engaging with the original post.
I am new here, not to God ! I gave a intro explaining who I am.

I also was answering a question asked in this forum. So whether God is not really and issue and I would hope not,
the OP seemed to be asking a deep question. If you would prefer I do not engage in conversation here. Contact the Admin to remove me.

But if I see a person asking a question, I will answer. What is interesting is you did not disagree with my post.
But rather felt the need to raise yourself above the new guy and suggest a passive aggressive tone of disapproval.
Without just asking a question.

Every group is different, there are thousands if not millions. And the best way to get to know the group is engaging them.

I won't respond to this category question further as answered the question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's strange. I don't remember having "led anyone on" lately, Hans. The only thing I recall having done for him was to offer (suggest, really) a further point of education about getting his point across ...

it could only end in failure. Encouraging someone to realize they are on a hopeless mission (to show evolution is a belief system) is a different thing.

... do you find fault with the short article I offered him for the sake of denotative clarification?

Didn't click it.

Of course I know that the Theory of Evolution is a scientific paradigm. And those of us, like you and I, who have been educated within its intellectual contexts, believe in its veracity. I've known this for quite some time.

That's good to hear. On this site it is not a given, even among the educated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Tell that to those who proclaim it as fact beyond doubt. That use it to refute all other options as dead wrong.

Lets start with this.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? - Nature

Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.

www.nature.com

No not GMC. Though in principle its a similar idea in that just like humans can modify genetics and environments to produce certain beneficial outcomes over others organisms can have a similar ability developmentally through developmental bias which produces certain phenotypes changes over others.

Also developmental plasticity where developmental systems are able to adapt with environments in non random ways due to the connectivity and reciprical relationships between other creatures and environments.

Developmental bias and plasticity assume central roles as generators of novel and coordinated phenotypic variation by conferring directionality on the selective processes. Instead of chance variation in DNA composition, evolving developmental interactions account for the specificities of phenotypic construction. This interpretation is also based on a fundamentally different account of the role of genes in development and evolution.

In the EES, genes are not causally privileged as programs or blueprints that control and dictate phenotypic outcomes, but are rather parts of the systemic dynamics of interactions that mobilize self-organizing processes in the evolution of development and entire life cycles. This represents a shift from a programmed to a constructive role of developmental processes in evolution.

The construction of phenotypic complexity, in which causation not only flows from the lower levels of biological organization, such as DNA, ‘upwards’ to cells, tissues and organisms, but also from the higher level ‘downwards’, such as through environmental- or tissue-induced gene regulation.

The generation of heritable phenotypic variation (variation will be systematically biased and facilitated by the generative features of development
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/

Some work on developmental bias suggests that phenotypic variation can be channelled and directed towards functional types by the processes of development [27,28]. The rationale is that development relies on highly robust ‘core processes’, from microtubule formation and signal transduction pathways to organogenesis, which at the same time exhibit ‘exploratory behaviour’ [28], allowing them to stabilize and select certain states over others. Exploratory behaviour followed by somatic selection enables core processes to be responsive to changes in genetic and environmental input, while their robustness and conservation maintain their ability to generate functional (i.e. well integrated) outcomes in the face of perturbations.

This phenomenon, known as facilitated variation [28,34], provides a mechanistic explanation for how small, genetic changes can sometimes elicit substantial, non-random, well-integrated and apparently adaptive innovations in the phenotype.

Developmental plasticity- Developmental, or phenotypic, plasticity is the capacity of an organism to change its phenotype in response to the environment.

Phenotypic accommodation refers to the mutual and often functional adjustment of parts of an organism during development that typically does not involve genetic mutation [27]. From this viewpoint, developmental processes play a critical role in determining which genetic variants will produce selectable phenotypic differences, and which will not. Genetic accommodation may provide a mechanism for rapid adaptation to novel environments, as those environments simultaneously induce and select for alternative phenotypes [47,52,53].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Actually its not and this supports my point that despite claims that the Standard theory has moved on from the gene centric views and of Natural Selection being responsible for all Adaptive variations is still promoted as the main and only forces in evolution.

In fact NS is only one of several forces and not particularly dominant and most variation comes from well integrated and non random developmental capacities such as developmental bias, Plasticity, Niche Construction and Inheritence beyond genes such as epigenetics and socialisation.

For example Niche Contruction is also a selective force that can over ride and direct NS, It can work similar to the idea of artificial selection with crops and dog breeds in selecting for the most beneficial and adaptive traits or conditions which are conducive of survival.

In this way it is the organism, the creature that is directing their own evolution rather than being passive entities acted upon by mutations and NS which quite often don't define what is best in the specific situations. Whereas the living creature themselves knows best, understands their environment and are designed with developmental abilities and knowledge to construct their own survivability.

Even culture and other nesting behaviours influence future conditions and therefore what traits will be passed on. According to Epigenetics the stresses a creature lives under will influence phenotype change in how genes are expressed positively or negatively so this points to agency in the choices made to living conditions.

HGT have been found common among all life and this is another means in how genetic info is shared and aids in adaptations especially in simbiotic relationships. So as you can see there is a whole lot more to evolution than just random mutations and NS.

The Standard Eveolutionary Theory (SET) contends biological diversity is mostly explained by natural selection, defined as the confluence of random phenotypic variation, genetic inheritance, and differential reproductive success. However, some scientists (proponents of the “extended evolutionary synthesis,” or EES) are challenging the tenet that phenotypic variation is entirely random and that natural selection is entirely driven by genetic inheritance.
"http://biologos.org/blog/the-changing-face-of-evolutionary-theory"]

Inclusive inheritance- Biological inheritance is typically defined as the transmission of genes from parents to offspring. However, it is increasingly recognized that there are multiple mechanisms that contribute to heredity [59–61]. Parent–offspring similarity occurs not only because of transmission of DNA, but because parents transfer a variety of developmental resources that enable reconstruction of developmental niches [60,62–65]. These include components of the egg and post-fertilization resources (e.g. hormones), behavioural interactions between parents and offspring (e.g. maternal care), parental modification of other components of the biotic and abiotic environment (e.g. host choice) and inheritance of symbionts directly through the mother's germ cells or by infection. In addition, recent research reveals that vertical and horizontal social transmission is widespread in both vertebrates and invertebrates, and can both initiate population divergence and trigger speciation [66].

Under this broader notion of heredity, inheritance can occur from germ cell to germ cell, from soma to germ cell, from soma to soma, and from soma to soma via the external environment [63], The pathways of inheritance that derive from a parental phenotype (‘parental effects’) have a number of evolutionary consequences similar to those of plasticity, cultural inheritance and niche construction [67]. For example, non-genetic inheritance can bias the expression and retention of environmentally induced phenotypes, thereby influencing the rate and direction of evolution [68]. There is also increasing evidence for more stable transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, or the transmission across generations of cellular states without modification of the DNA sequence, which demonstrates that adaptive evolution may proceed by selection on epigenetic variants as well as variation in DNA sequence [60,69,70].

The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone, and need not start with mutation. The most striking and contentious difference from the original MS concerns the relative significance of natural selection versus generative variation in evolution, one of the oldest controversies in evolutionary biology (e.g. [116,117]). In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Probably the overall biggest change would be from the programmed view of the standard theory where creatures are programmed by gene blueprints and acted upon passively by NS. Which narrows things down to genes and NS.

As opposed to the more pluralistic view that sees the creature itself at centre as an agent and able to make intelligent and knowledgable choices about its own evolution. That is designed with the ability to adapt both developmentally and intelligently with changing conditions.

We have proposed Evo-lutionary Teleonomy—the idea that organisms can actively affect their evolution on every level—as the new foundational principle of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary Teleonomy unifies many of the independent topics of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis under a single, understandable label. As has been demonstrated, these principles have real effects on the way that biological facts are used and applied in biological research, and using the wrong principles will lead to incorrect results.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ciple_for_the_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis

Does any of this constitute facts contrary to evolution? Building a more complex understanding of evolution is not a fact contrary to evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I copied this off the internet:
"Quantum-inspired foundations for formal systems
Axiomatic systems play a crucial role in quantum theory, aiming to provide a rigorous foundation for the discipline. In this context, axiomatic systems are used to describe quantum mechanics and quantum field theory in terms of well-defined axioms."

But *where* on the internet?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

it could only end in failure. Encouraging someone to realize they are on a hopeless mission (to show evolution is a belief system) is a different thing.

This depends on exactly what a "belief system" is or can be ...

Didn't click it.

Maybe you could take a moment and click on it so you can better understand what I was actually implying to him???? That way, you'd save yourself the time of sending a misplaced critique my way, Hans. And if there's one thing I think I know about you, it's that you don't like wasting your time.

That's good to hear. On this site it is not a given, even among the educated.

Yep. I've noticed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The idea can be looked at in this possible way.
We have no example of single cell life developing into complex life.

Evolution of multicellarlity has been demonstrated in the lab.

In fact it appears there is no
proof multicell life as well developed into complex a life form.

All complex life forms are multicelluar. This statement makes no sense.

And even at that low level we can't draw a line
from a single cell to a horseshoe crab. Let alone Land animals. Even the cockroach there is no line.

What is "a line" and why do we need to draw it? Are you talking about the sequence of descent?

However logic alone tells us science can proof creation not evolution.

Logic without data can't do anything in the scientific realm.

What is nothing? The lack of any presence and can not be seen, taste, smelled or touched. Its not there.
Evolutionist tell us the Big Bang brought life, through meteors with water that eventually helped create life from nothing?

"Evolutionist" tells you no such thing. Cosmologists developed the Big Bang model for the expansion of the Universe, not biologists. Planetary scientists hypothesize that the water on Earth was delivered by comets, not biologists. Life didn't form from "nothing". The origin of life is a problem of complex organic systems chemistry, not biology.

But science tells us, you can not in this universe create life from nothing.
However God created the Universe and life from nothing. So no matter how you look at it.
Life can not be created in this universe from nothing. So evolution its self can not create its self.
The laws of the universe do not show that science to exist.

The origin of the Universe is not the topic of this thread. The topic is biological evolution.

God is outside of nothing. In fact nothing itself does not exist without Gods will to do so.
The nothing is created by God. And from that he brought forth life.
We get locked in to easily of proving science wrong, when its far easier to prove God right.
Science is at the moment the best guess at what makes sense. Proof itself science can not do 100%.
However since God created all things that we are basing science on. It would also be that God created the laws of science that are used.
Just that many science leaders refuse to understand, all the laws of the universe they use vary by their knowledge.
But the universe exists only because it was created. The universe did not evolve from nothing.
We have to understand the divine meaning behind creation. God is not the Universe. God created it.
Therefore all rules of evolutionary theory simply do not hold water. ( pun intended).
Because anything it would use to proof correct. Would easily be dismissed by creation.

These are largely a set of theological claims and are off topic for this sub-forum.

 

[Laodicean60]

And two: I am really sorry but I do not see how you or I have any common ground on this sort of thing since you don't come across as actually wanting to learn.

Oh, stop it! Now actually want to learn? All I'm getting from this thread is "Show me the facts!" I believe a lot about the evolutionary process and this theory revolutionized biology, but I have a God component added to the equation that's why I choose not to debate.

 

[Laodicean60]

But *where* on the internet?

I think AI generated but if you copy the quote I'm sure the information will come up.

 

[BCP1928]

Not sure why the confusion the OP posted :

The way theories work is that a single contrary
fact can disprove it.

Many claim to "know" evolution is false. But no Nobel is awarded.

Does anyone have such disproof?
If not, how in good conscience can anyone say its false?


Hence I answered the question. Please refrain from the tone of disapproval its unwarranted since I was engaging with the original post.
I am new here, not to God ! I gave a intro explaining who I am.

I also was answering a question asked in this forum. So whether God is not really and issue and I would hope not,
the OP seemed to be asking a deep question. If you would prefer I do not engage in conversation here. Contact the Admin to remove me.

But if I see a person asking a question, I will answer. What is interesting is you did not disagree with my post.
But rather felt the need to raise yourself above the new guy and suggest a passive aggressive tone of disapproval.
Without just asking a question.

Every group is different, there are thousands if not millions. And the best way to get to know the group is engaging them.

I won't respond to this category question further as answered the question.

What did you mean by this, then?

"God created it.
Therefore all rules of evolutionary theory simply do not hold water. ( pun intended)."

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh, stop it! Now actually want to learn? All I'm getting from this thread is "Show me the facts!" I believe a lot about the evolutionary process and this theory revolutionized biology, but I have a God component added to the equation that's why I choose not to debate.

So, you feel it is acceptable, on a discussion and debate forum, to merely state your opinion yet refuse to justify it?

Also, you seem unaware of the requirement noted in the Statement of Purpose for this sub-forum: "Remember to quote sources if applicable. " Will you please respect this in future.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think AI generated but if you copy the quote I'm sure the information will come up.

I thought I could smell the "AI". That's OK, I don't need the source.

 

[public hermit]

I don't know of any facts that are contrary to evolution. But I think it can be a challenge to think about evolution without thinking in teleological terms. Natural selection "selects" for survival, which can seem goal oriented. But, I take it, such talk is assumed to be metaphorical.

Can the selection for survival be fully explained within the theory w/o appeals to the "goal" of survival? What might help one get past teleological thinking in regard to the theory? Honest questions. I'm not an evolution deniar.

 

[stevevw]

It's evidence that science marches on. Good for them, I say. They're trying to see what happens when they think out of the box, just like scientists should always do. Why did you post it?

They are not thinking outside the box without good reason. The ideas proposed are based of verfied science. There is ongoing research to support the ideas proposed.

But like I said this is really a philosophical issue about how one sees the world. So sometimes people resist ideas not because they are wrong but because they threaten pre existing ideas and beliefs.

All scientific paradigms are resisted at first because they change the status quo and there is a lot invested in the current ideas. So it takes time to chip away to eventually change. Its the accumulation of contradictory evidence and the moving on of current gatekeepers that lead to paradigm shifts in thinking.

 

[BCP1928]

They are not thinking outside the box without good reason. The ideas proposed are based of verfied science. There is ongoing research to support the ideas proposed.

Good for them.

But like I said this is really a philosophical issue about how one sees the world. So sometimes people resist ideas not because they are wrong but because they threaten pre existing ideas and beliefs.

Sure. It happens in this forum constantly. Many creationists think evolution threatens their faith.

All scientific paradigms are resisted at first because they change the status quo and there is a lot invested in the current ideas. So it takes time to chip away to eventually change. Its the accumulation of contradictory evidence and the moving on of current gatekeepers that lead to paradigm shifts in thinking.

Very good. Is that why you posted the article? To praise science?