Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[sfs]

To the average person it would be difficult to distinguish a philosophical consensus of scientists from a true consensus of scientific evidence.

Well, that would certainly explain your confusion. The scientists themselves, however, are not so easily confused.

 

[HitchSlap]

Evolution is based on trial and error over time. When the odds of that process producing life as we know it are contemplated, it adds up to impossible.

When I contemplate the odds of you miss understanding ToE, my mind is blown at the staggering probabilities of how wrong you are.

 

[HitchSlap]

Anyone who honestly read "Origin of Species" would never claim that Darwin did not follow evidence and use a scientific approach. No one.

Another somewhat obscure fact is that Alfred Russel Wallace was arriving at the same theory completely independently of Darwin. They both followed the evidence and came to the same conclusion, completely on their own.

The audacity to then claim that "Oh, it's all a religious belief" is born of ignorance of how the theory really came about. Or at least I hope that it is based on ignorance. The other option is that lifepsyop is purposefully being dishonest.

Exactly!

Wallace was studying beetles and beginning to compile his idea of evolution, while Darwin had already documented much more than Wallace had, and only presented at the Royal Academy at the urging of his close friends. Most people don't even realize that amount of work and observations Darwin had completed when he published the Origin, with the bulk of it being barnacles!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is very common for creationists to dismiss evolution because they cannot imagine how it can happen. It has nothing to due with actually calculating odds.

The odds can't be calculated, only imagined. You only have to look at the chain of events that must happen in order for an organism to evolve to see what I mean. If a million successful changes are necessary, and each change has but a one-in-a-million chance of success you can see how the odds quickly escalate beyond the mind's ability to comprehend.

 

[BL2KTN]

Why in the world would a million successful changes be needed? Any change that doesn't stop reproduction makes it to the next generation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When I contemplate the odds of you miss understanding ToE, my mind is blown at the staggering probabilities of how wrong you are.

I understand the theory, I just don't buy it.

 

[HitchSlap]

The odds can't be calculated, only imagined. You only have to look at the chain of events that must happen in order for an organism to evolve to see what I mean. If a million successful changes are necessary, and each change has but a one-in-a-million chance of success you can see how the odds quickly escalate beyond the mind's ability to comprehend.

Where did you get those numbers?

Please show your work.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The odds can't be calculated, only imagined. You only have to look at the chain of events that must happen in order for an organism to evolve to see what I mean. If a million successful changes are necessary, and each change has but a one-in-a-million chance of success you can see how the odds quickly escalate beyond the mind's ability to comprehend.

No, that is exactly what you don't do. Consider this problem: a family has 4 male children, what are the statistical chances their next child will also be male, assuming that having a male baby results in roughly 50% of all births? If we do as you do, and calculate the probability that they will have five boys, as if they haven't already had 4, you'd get 1/32 chance, which is incorrect. The probabilities of past events don't compound upon each other that way, the chance their next child is going to be a boy is independent to the genders of the kids they have already had. Thus, their next child has a 50% chance of being male.

Likewise, the likelihood of the events which lead up to humans no longer factors in to how likely humans are ONCE THEY HAPPEN in the way you describe.

 

[HitchSlap]

I understand the theory, I just don't buy it.

Clearly you don't.

 

[lifepsyop]

Well, that would certainly explain your confusion. The scientists themselves, however, are not so easily confused.

I doubt that listening to some of them speak on the subject.

 

[bhsmte]

I doubt that listening to some of them speak on the subject.

Are you related to Gradyl?

 

[sfs]

I doubt that listening to some of them speak on the subject.

Having interacted with you here, I doubt very much that you actually listened to them.

 

[lifepsyop]

This thread went immediately off-topic with a discussion on whether or not Evolution is possible. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss that.

 

[selfinflikted]

This thread went immediately off-topic with a discussion on whether or not Evolution is possible. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss that.

Don't worry. Only one person actually read your OP.

 

[Loudmouth]

This thread went immediately off-topic with a discussion on whether or not Evolution is possible. Please start a new thread if you want to discuss that.

I addressed the first part of your post. Here it is again.

Taking this one point at a time . . .

"Put simply, the emergence of Evolutionary thought was not driven by scientific inquiry or scientific evidence."

Every theory in science was once part of a belief system in some religion. Religions believed that stars were the harbingers of gods. They believed that evil spirits caused infectious diseases. If lifepsyop were consistent, he would also classify astronomy and microbiology as non-scientific.

Or better yet, people could read Origin of Species and actually learn about the trail of evidence that Darwin followed to get to the scientific theory of evolution. That would certainly be refreshing.

Needless to say, the first point is completely irrelevant to whether or not the theory of evolution is scientific. I will await lifespyop's reply.

 

[lifepsyop]

Ok, let us assume that the entire theory of evolution and common descent has just been overturned by your rhetoric. There has to be some theory for how the current diversity of life exists on this planet and how the biosphere functions the way it does. .

There is no theory to overturn. It would be like overturning feminism. Evolution is a way of viewing the world.

Justifying Evolution's usefulness as a placeholder is okay I guess but you'd have to admit it to people and then they can decide whether or not they want to keep following that belief system. Stop pretending and bluffing people that it is some ironclad scientific revelation about the history of life.

 

[lifepsyop]

Don't worry. Only one person actually read your OP.

Why are you even posting here if you don't want to read the OP?

Here is a novel idea, if you can't be bothered to read the subject of the thread, than exit the thread and stop wasting space with your spam.

That goes for a few others posting here doing the same thing "Not gonna read it! Blah blah blah!"

Can a Mod step in and restore some order here please.

 

[selfinflikted]

Why are you even posting here if you don't want to read the OP?

Because the others discussions going on in here are interesting.

 

[lasthero]

Why are you even posting here if you don't want to read the OP?

Here is a novel idea, if you can't be bothered to read the subject of the thread, than exit the thread and stop wasting space with your spam.

That goes for a few others posting here doing the same thing "Not gonna read it! Blah blah blah!"

Can a Mod step in and restore some order here please.

Maybe if you use all caps, the mods will hear you.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no theory to overturn.

Denial just ain't a river in Egypt.