Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[lifepsyop]

I really don't see what the problem. If things were quite different, the theory would be quite different or completely replaced by something that could deal with the observations. If there were no nested hierarchies, the Theory of Evolution would have to change to reflect that but the resultant theory would probably not resemble the current one all that much. It may have the same name but it would not be the same theory.

There is a moderate amount of plasticity in the current TOE but that is about it so whats the problem?

Dizredux

The problem is that we were going to have a "Theory of Evolution" no matter what the data was.

Evolution is a religious creation story that steamrolled its way into the scientific institutions while progressively enveloping itself around the data... all while being carefully protected from potential falsification itself.

It is a cunningly devised fable (2 Peter 1:16) to lead people away from the truth of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The problem is that we were going to have a "Theory of Evolution" no matter what the data was.

Evolution is a religious creation story that steamrolled its way into the scientific institutions while progressively enveloping itself around the data... all while being carefully protected from potential falsification itself.

It is a cunningly devised fable (2 Peter 1:16) to lead people away from the truth of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

Because the data shows only variation within species (kind after kind).

Because if they do not ignore the data then Romans 1:20 will start the ball rolling, for their really is no excuse once you study the things made by Him. That invisible quality of Him, that energy which is from Him and in everything, that can neither be created nor destroyed, might leave them with no excuse, once they understand.

I mean, what image were you made in, when made in the image of Him? What image can you make when it is everything? It is our minds that separate us from the animals. And ties us back to Him.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem is that we were going to have a "Theory of Evolution" no matter what the data was.

Evolution is a religious creation story that steamrolled its way into the scientific institutions while progressively enveloping itself around the data... all while being carefully protected from potential falsification itself.

It is a cunningly devised fable (2 Peter 1:16) to lead people away from the truth of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

Another believer who uses religion as a slur. Amazing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the data shows only variation within species (kind after kind).

Humans are variation of ape, a variation of primate, a variation of mammal, and a variation of vertebrate.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Humans are variation of ape, a variation of primate, a variation of mammal, and a variation of vertebrate.

No, no, it NEVER crosses the species line, EVER. You have distinct gaps because there were extinctions and then new creations.

Evolution opposes the data that is beginning to be discovered that life is individual bushes that varies only within it's own species. That mutation can not and never did explain the formation of new species.

You have centuries of data right before your very eyes.

 

[sfs]

The problem is that we were going to have a "Theory of Evolution" no matter what the data was.

Evolution is a religious creation story that steamrolled its way into the scientific institutions while progressively enveloping itself around the data... all while being carefully protected from potential falsification itself.

No, the real problem is that evolution works, plain and simple. Real scientists in real labs constantly use evolution to explain and predict real data. No one has offered any alternative model that's of the slightest use in predicting real observations. While that remains true, nothing you say matters. You'll keep talking, and scientists will keep using evolution.

 

[sfs]

No, no, it NEVER crosses the species line, EVER.

So why can I predict patterns in the genetic differences between species and you can't?

 

[Dizredux]

The problem is that we were going to have a "Theory of Evolution" no matter what the data was.

Evolution is a religious creation story that steamrolled its way into the scientific institutions while progressively enveloping itself around the data... all while being carefully protected from potential falsification itself.

It is a cunningly devised fable (2 Peter 1:16) to lead people away from the truth of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

And if you believe that, I have a great bridge to sell you. Half price, today and today only.

Dizredux

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, the real problem is that evolution works, plain and simple. Real scientists in real labs constantly use evolution to explain and predict real data. No one has offered any alternative model that's of the slightest use in predicting real observations. While that remains true, nothing you say matters. You'll keep talking, and scientists will keep using evolution.

It never worked, plain and simple. Real scientists in real labs quit using it because mutation only led to variation within the same species that always reached a limit of variation.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

It is rarely ever used anymore, except to make a specific gene dormant, or in an attempt to turn on, already present genes that were dormant. It's inescapable, which is why plant and animal breeders rarely even use it anymore, despite the once flourishing cash crop from past idealistic beliefs, that failed to match reality...

 

[sfs]

It never worked, plain and simple.

Nonsense. I've used it myself many times. How would you know, anyway? How much time do you spend reading and writing genetics papers?

Real scientists in real labs quit using it because mutation only led to variation within the same species that always reached a limit of variation.

Also nonsense. Did someone tell you that, or did you make it up yourself? We use evolution extensively, and according to a reliable source, we've got 7 out of the world's 17 hottest scientific researchers working here. Why do you think you know more about science than they do?

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

Oh, be real. You keep citing the same, single paper. Tens of thousands of genetics papers are published every year, many of them using evolution. Try learning something.

It is rarely ever used anymore, except to make a specific gene dormant, or in an attempt to turn on, already present genes that were dormant. It's inescapable, which is why plant and animal breeders rarely even use it anymore, despite the once flourishing cash crop from past idealistic beliefs, that failed to match reality...

You didn't answer my question: Why can I predict the genetic differences between species when creationists can't?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Huh? The point is that this would have happened over millions of years of unobservable mystical evolution time.



That's the point. They would fall outside of a nested grouping within mammals due to a rapid loss of defining characteristics, even if they had actually evolved from mammals originally.

Thus common descent can still potentially accommodate non-nested hierarchies.

We stopped being reptiles, but we are still vertebrates.

 

[lifepsyop]

Because the data shows only variation within species (kind after kind).

I think evolutionists probably treat Lonnig and recurrent variations as they do Gavin de Beer (prominent evolutionary embryologist) and the "Homology Problem"... They just sweep the problem under the rug and keep it veiled from the public.

"But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts of their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns' in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered." - Gavin de Beer 1971

Because if they do not ignore the data then Romans 1:20 will start the ball rolling, for their really is no excuse once you study the things made by Him.

Very true.

 

[Split Rock]

If you don't want to address my argument then that is your choice.

How can you accuse me of not addressing your argument, when you ignored all of my post except for one sentence???

 

[Split Rock]

The problem is that we were going to have a "Theory of Evolution" no matter what the data was.

Evolution is a religious creation story that steamrolled its way into the scientific institutions while progressively enveloping itself around the data... all while being carefully protected from potential falsification itself.

It is a cunningly devised fable (2 Peter 1:16) to lead people away from the truth of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

Made up revisionism. Proponents of the theory of evolution had to convince the scientific community and it was not easy to do so. Natural selection itself was not accepted as a major mechanism of evolution until much later. ID advocates today don't want to go through the same process... they want acceptance without having to earn it. Ain't gonna happen.

I gave you an example of a situation in which evolution would not have even been proposed by Darwin, and you ignored me. Then you repeat the falsehood that "we were going to have a "Theory of Evolution" no matter what the data was." I'll repeat it again for you. If we had whales with feathers, gills, swim bladders in all different combinations (like cars), there would be no theory of evolution. If we had chimeras of all different types, we would not have a theory of evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

We stopped being reptiles, but we are still vertebrates.

This isn't quite right. The term "reptile" is not a phylogenetically correct, much like "fish." From Wikipedia:

Reptiles, the class Reptilia, are an evolutionary grade of animals, comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards and tuatara, as well as many extinct groups. A reptile is any amniote (a tetrapod whose egg has an additional membrane, originally to allow them to lay eggs on land) that is neither a mammal nor a bird.[1] Unlike mammals, birds, and certain extinct reptiles, living reptiles have scales or scutes (rather than fur or feathers) and are cold-blooded. Advocates of phylogenetic nomenclature regard the traditional category 'Reptilia' to be invalid, and prefer to use the 'Amniota' or rather 'Sauropsida' category, because not all descendants of a common ancestor are included. However, in practice, these non-cladistic classifications, such as reptile, fish, and amphibian, remain in use by some biologists, especially in popular books written for a general audience. The historically combined study of reptiles and amphibians is called herpetology.
​

It would be better to say we are still "amniotes," rather than we are no longer reptiles. As I like to say here, you cannot escape your ancestry. Once an amniote, always an amniote. You have to remember that terminology like "reptile" and "fish" were created before the theory of evolution was accepted by the scientific community. Much of the original terminology has not caught up.

 

[lifepsyop]

I'll repeat it again for you. If we had whales with feathers, gills, swim bladders in all different combinations (like cars), there would be no theory of evolution. If we had chimeras of all different types, we would not have a theory of evolution.

I have dismantled that claim repeatedly throughout this thread by demonstrating that you have no ability to objectively identify a "chimera" when phylogeny/convergence can be structured in an ad-hoc fashion relative to such observations.

It's the core plasticity of your theory that you just don't want to deal with, but go ahead and keep on repeating the chimera mantra if it makes you feel better.

 

[lifepsyop]

Made up revisionism. Proponents of the theory of evolution had to convince the scientific community and it was not easy to do so.

You sound like the revisionist to me. Evolution was a popular creation narrative pushed by "naturalist" groups that held considerable influence over the scientific institutions of the time. They didn't have to rely on scientific evidence to make Evolution an established doctrine. There may have been many debates over the details, but the Evolution creation story itself was going to be pushed through no matter what.


The X Club was a dining club of nine men who supported the theories of natural selection and academic liberalism in late 19th-century England. Thomas Henry Huxley was the initiator: he called the first meeting for 3 November 1864.[1] The club met in London once a month—except in July, August and September—from November 1864 until March 1893, and its members are believed to have wielded much influence over scientific thought.

According to its members, the club was originally started to keep friends from drifting apart, and to partake in scientific discussion free from theological influence. A key aim was to reform the Royal Society, with a view to making the practice of science professional. In the 1870s and 1880s, the members of the group became prominent in the scientific community and some accused the club of having too much power in shaping the scientific landscape of London.

As the members of the club continued to gain prominence within the scientific community, the private club became well known. Many people at the time viewed the club as a scientific caucus, and some, such as Richard Owen, accused the group of having too much influence in shaping the scientific landscape of late-Victorian England.[25] Huxley recounted that he once overheard a conversation about the club between two men of the Athenaeum Club, and when one asked what the X-Club did, the other explained "Well they govern scientific affairs, and really, on the whole, they don't do it badly."

X Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Only Me]

You sound like the revisionist to me. Evolution was a popular creation narrative pushed by "naturalist" groups that held considerable influence over the scientific institutions of the time. They didn't have to rely on scientific evidence to make Evolution an established doctrine. There may have been many debates over the details, but the Evolution creation story itself was going to be pushed through no matter what.

A few simple questions, if you were shown that evolution was true would you accept it and renounce creationism?
or are you one of those creationists who will stick to creationism no matter how much evidence you are shown?
Do you want to remain a creationist for the rest of your life?

 

[sfs]

It's the core plasticity of your theory that you just don't want to deal with[...]

I see you haven't answered my question either. If the theory is so plastic, why can I predict the patterns of genetic differences between species? Why can't you do the same?

 

[Split Rock]

I have dismantled that claim repeatedly throughout this thread by demonstrating that you have no ability to objectively identify a "chimera" when phylogeny/convergence can be structured in an ad-hoc fashion relative to such observations.

It's the core plasticity of your theory that you just don't want to deal with, but go ahead and keep on repeating the chimera mantra if it makes you feel better.

You dismantled nothing, which is why you continually ignore my questions and the examples I have provided. You then repeat the falsehood that there was no stopping the theory of evolution regardless of the data.

Here is the scenario:
Whale species in addition to those that actually exist:
1. Whales with feathers (avian)
2. Whales with gills, swim bladders and bone-supported dorsal fin (fish)
3. Whales with both sets of features

Are you seriously going to claim that evolution would have been accepted with such data?