Evolution is not science

[Pyramidologist]

The evolutionist Jerry Coyne has written a book called "Why evolution is true". He explains in the book evolution is not observable.

If you are expecting a book with the title, "Why Evolution is True" to contain proof for the theory of evolution, you will be disappointed. The book is just a list of excuses why evolutionists can’t prove evolution is true.

Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening! Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see!

Why We’ve Never Seen evolution

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature. Here is his excuse for why we have not.

(Atleast the evolutionist Jerry Coyne admits macroevolution can not be observed)

Further, we shouldn’t expect to see more than small changes in one or a few features of a species—what is known as macroevolutionary change. Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime. Though macroevolution is occurring today, we simply won’t be around long enough to see it. Remember that the issue is not whether macroevolutionary change happens—we already know from the fossil record that it does—but whether it was caused by natural selection, and whether natural selection can build complex features and organisms.

He asserts, without proof, that macroevolution is occurring today, while admitting that one can’t see it happening. That is, genetic information is supposedly arising spontaneously that will create a new kind of creature. He just knows it, even though nobody can actually see it!. The alleged reason nobody can see it is because it happens so slowly and no human being has ever seen it happen - however this is anti-scientific method which is based on observation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening!

The theory of evolution does explain what we do see happening. If you really think that evolution is false because we lack a time machine that would allow us to observe the last 3 billion years of evolution, then you simply don't understand how the scientific method works.

First, theories are not proven. Theories are always tentative and open to falsification. That is what makes them scientific.'

Second, theories are not observed. Instead, we test theories using observations. To paraphrase Gould's essay on the matter, theories and facts are two different things. Facts are the world's data. Theories explain this data and tie it together.

Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see!

Evolution is based on direct observations. The four main categories of observations are:

1. Fossil record
2. Morphology of living species
3. The genomes of living species
4. Population dymanics of living species

Those are the observations we use to test the theory of evolution, and it has passed 150 years of testing.

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature. Here is his excuse for why we have not.

We have observed speciation both in the lab and in the wild. Also, the evidence we observe in the 4 categories above are all consistent with billions of years of evolution.

He asserts, without proof, that macroevolution is occurring today, while admitting that one can’t see it happening.

What shared genetic marker between species would convince you that they share a common ancestor?

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being evidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps?

The real problem is that there is no evidence that would ever convince you. Your dogmatic beliefs are getting in the way of your objectivity when it comes to science.

 

[Split Rock]

The evolutionist Jerry Coyne has written a book called "Why evolution is true". He explains in the book evolution is not observable.

If you are expecting a book with the title, "Why Evolution is True" to contain proof for the theory of evolution, you will be disappointed. The book is just a list of excuses why evolutionists can’t prove evolution is true.

Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening! Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see!

Why We’ve Never Seen evolution

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature. Here is his excuse for why we have not.

(Atleast the evolutionist Jerry Coyne admits macroevolution can not be observed)



He asserts, without proof, that macroevolution is occurring today, while admitting that one can’t see it happening. That is, genetic information is supposedly arising spontaneously that will create a new kind of creature. He just knows it, even though nobody can actually see it!. The alleged reason nobody can see it is because it happens so slowly and no human being has ever seen it happen - however this is anti-scientific method which is based on observation.

Evolution is what scientists use in their job. Therefore, it is science, by definition.

 

[Heissonear]

The theory of evolution does explain what we do see happening. If you really think that evolution is false because we lack a time machine that would allow us to observe the last 3 billion years of evolution, then you simply don't understand how the scientific method works.

First, theories are not proven. Theories are always tentative and open to falsification. That is what makes them scientific.'

Second, theories are not observed. Instead, we test theories using observations. To paraphrase Gould's essay on the matter, theories and facts are two different things. Facts are the world's data. Theories explain this data and tie it together.

Evolution is based on direct observations. The four main categories of observations are:

1. Fossil record
2. Morphology of living species
3. The genomes of living species
4. Population dymanics of living species

Those are the observations we use to test the theory of evolution, and it has passed 150 years of testing.

We have observed speciation both in the lab and in the wild. Also, the evidence we observe in the 4 categories above are all consistent with billions of years of evolution.

What shared genetic marker between species would convince you that they share a common ancestor?

What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being evidence that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps?

The real problem is that there is no evidence that would ever convince you. Your dogmatic beliefs are getting in the way of your objectivity when it comes to science.

Your reply is not evolution confirmation. The 4 evidence you state are not supportive evolution - unless there is initial bias premise, such as Scientism.

The inclusion of a Creator is non-existent with the Naturalism and Scientism community - there are "no options" other that physical world explanations, from fossils to origin of the solar system .

.
.

 

[WisdomTree]

What is science? Something that can be falsified. Can the theory of Evolution be falsified? Yes. Does that mean the theory of Evolution is science? Yes.

 

[Heissonear]

Evolution is what scientists use in their job. Therefore, it is science, by definition.

The "scientists" you refer to are Naturalists who believe in Scientism. These brethren state what is and what is not "evidence". If it does not fit their walk, talk and view of life they reject it.

.

 

[CabVet]

The evolutionist Jerry Coyne has written a book called "Why evolution is true". He explains in the book evolution is not observable.

If you are expecting a book with the title, "Why Evolution is True" to contain proof for the theory of evolution, you will be disappointed. The book is just a list of excuses why evolutionists can’t prove evolution is true.

Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening! Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see!

Why We’ve Never Seen evolution

Nobody has ever observed macroevolution in the laboratory or in nature. Here is his excuse for why we have not.

(Atleast the evolutionist Jerry Coyne admits macroevolution can not be observed)

He asserts, without proof, that macroevolution is occurring today, while admitting that one can’t see it happening. That is, genetic information is supposedly arising spontaneously that will create a new kind of creature. He just knows it, even though nobody can actually see it!. The alleged reason nobody can see it is because it happens so slowly and no human being has ever seen it happen - however this is anti-scientific method which is based on observation.

Quote mining and spreading misinformation about somebody else's work is a dishonest practice and it is what you are doing here. What Jerry Coyne says (and what every evolutionary biologist agrees with) is that macroevolution cannot be observed in a human life time. It can however be observed very clearly in the fossil record. It can also be tested (as it has been) and confirmed (as it has been) through other means like phylogenetics.

 

[sfs]

Quote mining and spreading misinformation about somebody else's work is a dishonest practice and it is what you are doing here.

I don't think you're being fair to pyramidologist here. He is not the one quote mining Jerry Coyne -- he's just ripping off someone else doing it, without attribution. Completely different thing.

 

[CabVet]

I don't think you're being fair to pyramidologist here. He is not the one quote mining Jerry Coyne -- he's just ripping off someone else doing it, without attribution. Completely different thing.

Well, that's even worse.

 

[Nithavela]

Awesome. Evolution works really slow, so it doesn't work at all.

By the same logic, the himalayas are a plane field because they grow only a fraction of an inch per year.

 

[Michael]

The evolutionist Jerry Coyne has written a book called "Why evolution is true". He explains in the book evolution is not observable.

On the contrary.

Reprogrammed bacterium speaks new language of life - life - 23 October 2013 - New Scientist

Humans have even become the "environmental factor" that "intelligently designs" new forms of life out of existing forms of life simply by modifying the DNA. Typically it's the *environment* that is responsible for the DNA modification and in this case humans are that environmental factor.

Even macro-evolutionary changes can be observed in the lab based on relatively "small" changes in DNA. In this case, as with the last one, *humans* have now become part of the environmental factors that leads to new forms of life, including forms of life that are resistant to "Roundup".

University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science

 

[Loudmouth]

The "scientists" you refer to are Naturalists who believe in Scientism. These brethren state what is and what is not "evidence". If it does not fit their walk, talk and view of life they reject it.

.

We do tend to reject made up stories and fantasies. Why shouldn't we?

 

[Loudmouth]

Your reply is not evolution confirmation.

Yes, it is. When theories make accurate predicts they are tentatively confirmed.

The 4 evidence you state are not supportive evolution

Why not?

The inclusion of a Creator is non-existent with the Naturalism and Scientism community - there are "no options" other that physical world explanations, from fossils to origin of the solar system .

.
.

The evidence for a creator is non-existent.

 

[Doveaman]

Evolution is what scientists use in their job. Therefore, it is science, by definition.

God is also used by many scientists in their job. They pray to God for guidance in their job. Therefore, God is science, by definition.

 

[Doveaman]

Theories are always tentative and open to falsification.

No kidding.


Tentative : not done with confidence : uncertain and hesitant : not definite : still able to be changed : not fully worked out or developed

Webster

When theories make accurate predicts they are tentatively confirmed.

Tentatively confirmed?

What on earth does that mean?

 

[Doveaman]

We do tend to reject made up stories and fantasies.

We do too.

 

[Doveaman]

The evidence for a creator is non-existent.

Scientists create things by intelligent design. The results of those designs give support to an intelligent designer.

 

[Doveaman]

Reprogrammed bacterium speaks new language of life - life - 23 October 2013 - New Scientist

Humans have even become the "environmental factor" that "intelligently designs" new forms of life out of existing forms of life simply by modifying the DNA. Typically it's the *environment* that is responsible for the DNA modification and in this case humans are that environmental factor.

I see what you did there.

Interesting.

 

[Gottservant]

I put it to you, that with any belief (of any kind) there is a throwback to a past way of looking at things which must be dealt with. If the belief is the truth, you will be able to discern the reality from the throwback; if the belief is not the truth, you will end up believing the throwback.

Macro-evolution is a throwback, but because Evolution is not the truth, people fail to discern closely enough that macro-evolution is false.

It makes about as much sense as saying "planets evolve, therefore a planet can become another planet, gradually, over time, if some other planets die"

No, the Bible is correct and it established the axioms of Evolution long before Evolution did. Nothing was left out.

 

[bhsmte]

I put it to you, that with any belief (of any kind) there is a throwback to a past way of looking at things which must be dealt with. If the belief is the truth, you will be able to discern the reality from the throwback; if the belief is not the truth, you will end up believing the throwback.

Macro-evolution is a throwback, but because Evolution is not the truth, people fail to discern closely enough that macro-evolution is false.

It makes about as much sense as saying "planets evolve, therefore a planet can become another planet, gradually, over time, if some other planets die"

No, the Bible is correct and it established the axioms of Evolution long before Evolution did. Nothing was left out.

???????????????????????????????????