Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Split Rock]

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

Then please explain why it wasn't until the Modern evolutionary synthesis between 1936 and 1947 that natural selection was accepted by the scientific community as a major mechanism of evolution. Modern evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Naturalism]

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

What truth, that man was created from dirt and a woman from his rib? Where is the evidence for any of that?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

All you have done is invent a fantasy world of your own making. That doesn't dismantle theories.

I could just as easily invent a fantasy world where light was not observed to bend around massive objects, and then claim that Einstein's theory of relativity would still be accepted anyway . . . because I say so. Therefore, the theory of relativity is a religion.

In fact, I could do the same treatment to each and every theory in science.

Dreaming up a fantasy world where the evidence is different, and then completely fabricating the reaction of scientists to that evidence, is not a valid way to refute a theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

It isn't a creation narrative. It is a scientific theory.

Trying to draw false equivalencies to your religious beliefs is not a valid argument. All you are doing is trying to drag science down to your level by making it look like your religious beliefs. Sorry, not playing that game.

 

[Dizredux]

\

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

I looked this up on Google Scholar. Since 2005 it has had 7 cites. Not much of an impact and generally indicates that few have paid much attention to it.

Not real good results for what you seem to present as an earth shaking paper invalidating much of the Theory of Evolution.


Dizredux

 

[CabVet]

I looked this up on Google Scholar. Since 2005 it has had 7 cites. Not much of an impact and generally indicates that few have paid much attention to it.

Not real good results for what you seem to present as an earth shaking paper invalidating much of the Theory of Evolution.

Dizredux

Not to mention that the paper doesn't come even close to rejecting evolution.

 

[lifepsyop]

I looked this up on Google Scholar. Since 2005 it has had 7 cites. Not much of an impact and generally indicates that few have paid much attention to it.

Not real good results for what you seem to present as an earth shaking paper invalidating much of the Theory of Evolution.

Dizredux

This more likely indicates that the evolutionary community actively ignores data unfavorable to their theory.

It's the same way with the 'Problem of Homology' first brought up by de Beer. One has to dig to find only a few researchers openly discussing it without veiling the problem behind a wall of jargon, despite the fact that it's been a major known issue in evolutionary biology for over half a century. Funny that the evolutionary spokespeople always forget to bring it up in their presentations.

Another example is the problem of nearly neutral deleterious mutations brought up by Kondrashov in 1995. He presented the problem that slightly deleterious mutations will accumulate in the genome unchecked by natural selection until the entire population is swamped.

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?
Contamination of the genome by very slightly de... [J Theor Biol. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

It's also never discussed openly when evolutionists are preaching the magical wonders of neo-darwinism.

You would think real science is about shining a light on enigmatic parts of a theory, but when it comes to Evolution it is preferred to keep such things as much in the dark as possible. After all, they wouldn't want to 'lend comfort' to the Creationist enemy by being honest and upfront with the data.

 

[HitchSlap]

This more likely indicates that the evolutionary community actively ignores data unfavorable to their theory.

It's the same way with the 'Problem of Homology' first brought up by de Beer. One has to dig to find only a few researchers openly discussing it without veiling the problem behind a wall of jargon, despite the fact that it's been a major known issue in evolutionary biology for over half a century. Funny that the evolutionary spokespeople always forget to bring it up in their presentations.

Another example is the problem of nearly neutral deleterious mutations brought up by Kondrashov in 1995. He presented the problem that slightly deleterious mutations will accumulate in the genome unchecked by natural selection until the entire population is swamped.

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?
Contamination of the genome by very slightly de... [J Theor Biol. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

It's also never discussed openly when evolutionists are preaching the magical wonders of neo-darwinism.

You would think real science is about shining a light on enigmatic parts of a theory, but when it comes to Evolution it is preferred to keep such things as much in the dark as possible. After all, they wouldn't want to 'lend comfort' to the Creationist enemy by being honest and upfront with the data.

What can we say, gods work in mysterious ways.

 

[Loudmouth]

This more likely indicates that the evolutionary community actively ignores data unfavorable to their theory.

It's the same way with the 'Problem of Homology' first brought up by de Beer. One has to dig to find only a few researchers openly discussing it without veiling the problem behind a wall of jargon, despite the fact that it's been a major known issue in evolutionary biology for over half a century. Funny that the evolutionary spokespeople always forget to bring it up in their presentations.

Another example is the problem of nearly neutral deleterious mutations brought up by Kondrashov in 1995. He presented the problem that slightly deleterious mutations will accumulate in the genome unchecked by natural selection until the entire population is swamped.

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?
Contamination of the genome by very slightly de... [J Theor Biol. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

It's also never discussed openly when evolutionists are preaching the magical wonders of neo-darwinism.

From that very abstract:

"Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations."

Not to mention, the problem has been sorted out in real populations, such as in this study:

PLOS ONE: Mutational Meltdown in Primary Endosymbionts: Selection Limits Muller's Ratchet

To make a long story short, as deleterious mutations increase in a genome they hit a limit at which time any additional deleterious mutations are strongly selected against. The idea that slightly deleterious mutations can not be seen by natural selection is refuted by the very claim that creationists are making, that a single additional deleterious mutation will be lethal. Natural selection does select against lethal mutations, and does it quite well.

You would think real science is about shining a light on enigmatic parts of a theory, but when it comes to Evolution it is preferred to keep such things as much in the dark as possible. After all, they wouldn't want to 'lend comfort' to the Creationist enemy by being honest and upfront with the data.

You would think that creationists would have the humility to actual know the state of scientific research before making such a foolish remark.

GENERAL NOTE: I'm pretty sure that lifepsyop has me on ignore, so if there is something I have written that you feel he should see, I wouldn't mind a blatant quote bump.

 

[lifepsyop]

Then please explain why it wasn't until the Modern evolutionary synthesis between 1936 and 1947 that natural selection was accepted by the scientific community as a major mechanism of evolution. Modern evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I already said, obviously there was (and still is) argument over aspects of Evolution.

But the main creation story of Evolution itself was never seriously debated. It was "scientifically" institutionalized (as it is today) because of its status as a preferred metaphysical worldview by those, like members of the 'X Club' who held influence over such institutions.

 

[StormanNorman]

Sure thing.

From that very abstract:

"Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations."

Not to mention, the problem has been sorted out in real populations, such as in this study:

PLOS ONE: Mutational Meltdown in Primary Endosymbionts: Selection Limits Muller's Ratchet

To make a long story short, as deleterious mutations increase in a genome they hit a limit at which time any additional deleterious mutations are strongly selected against. The idea that slightly deleterious mutations can not be seen by natural selection is refuted by the very claim that creationists are making, that a single additional deleterious mutation will be lethal. Natural selection does select against lethal mutations, and does it quite well.



You would think that creationists would have the humility to actual know the state of scientific research before making such a foolish remark.

GENERAL NOTE: I'm pretty sure that lifepsyop has me on ignore, so if there is something I have written that you feel he should see, I wouldn't mind a blatant quote bump.

How are you doing there, LP ?

 

[Split Rock]

As I already said, obviously there was (and still is) argument over aspects of Evolution.

I mentioned natural selection, because your link said that these members of club x were promoting natural selection. If they held the iron glove on the throat of science (so to speak) as you suggest, why did it take so long for natural selection to become accepted?

But the main creation story of Evolution itself was never seriously debated. It was "scientifically" institutionalized (as it is today) because of its status as a preferred metaphysical worldview by those, like members of the 'X Club' who held influence over such institutions.

So, why wasn't natural selection accepted with the rest? Why wasn't natural selection "institutionalized" if the x club were all for it?

 

[HitchSlap]

As I already said, obviously there was (and still is) argument over aspects of Evolution.

But the main creation story of Evolution itself was never seriously debated. It was "scientifically" institutionalized (as it is today) because of its status as a preferred metaphysical worldview by those, like members of the 'X Club' who held influence over such institutions.

Does holding a belief that a particular branch of science is metaphysical in essence, assuage your consternation regarding your Christian metaphysical beliefs?

 

[Naturalism]

It's the same way with the 'Problem of Homology' first brought up by de Beer.

Take any analysis from comparing sequences of cytocrome c proteins from a variety (at random) of different species. Any idea on what that layout consistently shows?

A treelike view of common ancestry.

Fitch, W.M. and Margoliash, E. (1967) Construction of phylogenetic trees. Science 155:279–284.

 

[sfs]

Not to mention that the paper doesn't come even close to rejecting evolution.

I think it's pushing in that direction, though.

 

[sfs]

.

 

[sfs]

But the main creation story of Evolution itself was never seriously debated. It was "scientifically" institutionalized (as it is today) because of its status as a preferred metaphysical worldview by those, like members of the 'X Club' who held influence over such institutions.

And because it lets people like me predict things that people like you can't predict. Why do you think that's the case?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There are arguments over the "aspect" of evolution because evolution does not exist, merely variation amongst all the different kinds. There is "no" data showing anything else.

Every single bacteria in the lab after mutation has been the same "kind/species" as it started out as. From the microbe to the cat, this is all that has ever been shown to be a scientifically feasible theory.

There is nothing, not a single solitary experiment that has ever shown the feasibility of one species changing into another. Plant and animal husbandry gave up on mutation as a possible cause of new species, because the variation barrier could never be broken.

Mutations never create anything new, merely turn on dormant genes or turn off dominant ones, rearrange what is already there, or cross pathways and cause damage. The gene already contains billions of possible combinations, but nothing new can ever be created, just transformed - likewise with energy.

Now if you want to talk about adaptation or variation within kind/species, that's fine. As long as you don't try to tell me that Tigers and Lions that interbreed and have fertile offspring, are two separate species. But then that slight "species" problem mainstream has, muddies the issue, because it's based mostly on whim at any given time so they can get their names in the books and basically say anything they want at any given time.

 

[sfs]

There are arguments over the "aspect" of evolution because evolution does not exist, merely variation amongst all the different kinds. There is "no" data showing anything else.

Every single bacteria in the lab after mutation has been the same "kind/species" as it started out as. From the microbe to the cat, this is all that has ever been shown to be a scientifically feasible theory.

There is nothing, not a single solitary experiment that has ever shown the feasibility of one species changing into another. Plant and animal husbandry gave up on mutation as a possible cause of new species, because the variation barrier could never be broken.

Mutations never create anything new, merely turn on dormant genes or turn off dominant ones, rearrange what is already there, or cross pathways and cause damage. The gene already contains billions of possible combinations, but nothing new can ever be created, just transformed - likewise with energy.

Now if you want to talk about adaptation or variation within kind/species, that's fine. As long as you don't try to tell me that Tigers and Lions that interbreed and have fertile offspring, are two separate species. But then that slight "species" problem mainstream has, muddies the issue, because it's based mostly on whim at any given time so they can get their names in the books and basically say anything they want at any given time.

I don't want to talk about any of those things (much of which are nonsense, as it happens). I want to know why evolutionary biologists, who are so completely wrong about everything, can make accurate predictions about the differences between species. I also want to know why creationists can't. In fact, they're so alarmed by the idea that they pretend the question doesn't exist. The bottom line in science is the ability to predict new observations.

 

[justlookinla]

As I already said, obviously there was (and still is) argument over aspects of Evolution.

But the main creation story of Evolution itself was never seriously debated. It was "scientifically" institutionalized (as it is today) because of its status as a preferred metaphysical worldview by those, like members of the 'X Club' who held influence over such institutions.

True. Darwinist creationism is simply another creationist viewpoint, but cloaked in the guise of 'science'. (for now).