Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[lifepsyop]

The fact that the original idea concerning atomic theory was a philosophical notion has no bearing on the validity of atomic theory. Why should it have any bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution?

I didn't say that Evolution is necessarily wrong because of its philosophical/religious roots. I'm showing that first and foremost Evolution is a Creation story that influential people have favored in spite of evidence. And this is one of the main reasons Evolution rose to prominence in the 19th century.

Most people still believe the idea of Evolution originated through scientific discovery which is false. And most people don't even know that Charles Darwin's own grandfather was a committed evolutionist.

Anyways, it was more of a setting the scene for the rest of the OP.

 

[Loudmouth]

I didn't say that Evolution is necessarily wrong because of its philosophical/religious roots. I'm showing that first and foremost Evolution is a Creation story that influential people have favored in spite of evidence.

You are the one ignoring the evidence. The only one telling a story is you.

 

[lifepsyop]

Would you have a clue what that evidence is? Your "reliable" source for what scientists believe is doubtless some creationist website, rather than the scientists themselves.

If I took anything from a creationist website I would have referenced it.

I've studied the rationalizations invoked in evolution theory enough to know that it is not a consensus based on scientific evidence. It is a consensus based on a preferred metaphysical worldview.

 

[lifepsyop]

Garbage like the rest of the post. All the evidence points to evolution and none points elsewhere. I read the entire post and I have seldom seen so many words with so little substance. I literally don't know what the point was.

"This is garbage!" "Evolution is a fact!" Great arguments.

If you're confused about something in particular in the OP just ask and I will elaborate.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

You speak as if you've discovered a bunny in the Precambrian, or as if you've a better theory. C'mon then, show your cards mate. Whatcha' holdin'?

 

[keith99]

The O.P. just isn't long enough for me to bother reading. It needs to be lengthened considerably.

I bow to the master!

 

[keith99]

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.

Actually the odds probably slightly favor a boy!

Not my thought, one either Pournelle or Niven came up with (I think).

If you toss a coin 8 times and 8 times it comes up heads which way should you bet on the next toss?

Fools say tails that the laws of probability say things have to even up.

Smarter, but in the box thinkers say it does not matter.

Those who think a bit outside the box say heads. There are 2 possibilities. It is an honest coin and the odds are even or it is a trick coin or something else unusual is going on and it will come up heads again.

For having kids there are several possibilities that would cause the chance of one gender being more likely than the other. If any of those have come into play it means there is a covariance and continuing the pattern is more likely to occur.

 

[keith99]

I didn't say that Evolution is necessarily wrong because of its philosophical/religious roots. I'm showing that first and foremost Evolution is a Creation story that influential people have favored in spite of evidence. And this is one of the main reasons Evolution rose to prominence in the 19th century.

Most people still believe the idea of Evolution originated through scientific discovery which is false. And most people don't even know that Charles Darwin's own grandfather was a committed evolutionist.

Anyways, it was more of a setting the scene for the rest of the OP.

You do realize that in the terms you are using Darwin was a heretic, or do you?

Evolution through natural selection flies in the face of the myth that life had an urge to evolve.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

How about calculated the odds against leaving Fargo ND and arriving in St. Cloud MN making random turns over 24 hrs? Are those uncalculatable? Does that mean it cannot happen?

 

[Split Rock]

If I took anything from a creationist website I would have referenced it.

I've studied the rationalizations invoked in evolution theory enough to know that it is not a consensus based on scientific evidence. It is a consensus based on a preferred metaphysical worldview.

I really find this hard to believe. Even if all you look at is On the Origin of Species (and there are mounds more evidence today), your conclusion is clearly incorrect.

 

[HitchSlap]

I really find this hard to believe. Even if all you look at is On the Origin of Species (and there are mounds more evidence today), your conclusion is clearly incorrect.

I'm guessing he never has taken the time to even read "On the Origin of Species."

 

[sfs]

If you're confused about something in particular in the OP just ask and I will elaborate.

I'm confused about why you would try to draw conclusions about a scientific theory without consulting any of the scientists using it. I'm also confused about why you feel you can judge a scientific theory based on a little web reading.

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

1. Your opinion that it isn't a scientific theory does nothing to remove it from the current list of scientific theories. You must show that it is incorrect in order to have it dropped.

2. All theories are ways of viewing the world. Atomic theory changes the way we view the world once we realize that everything is made up of small particles.

3. It is as ironclad as the theory of gravity and actually has more evidence to support it. I assure you, I am not pretending or bluffing, nor are 99.9% of the scientists in the biological sciences.

4. You didn't address my questions regarding what should take the place of evolution to explain the diversity of life on this little planet of ours. You can declare it off-topic and I will drop the matter.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I didn't say that Evolution is necessarily wrong because of its philosophical/religious roots. I'm showing that first and foremost Evolution is a Creation story that influential people have favored in spite of evidence. And this is one of the main reasons Evolution rose to prominence in the 19th century.

Most people still believe the idea of Evolution originated through scientific discovery which is false. And most people don't even know that Charles Darwin's own grandfather was a committed evolutionist.

Anyways, it was more of a setting the scene for the rest of the OP.

Well then most people believe the idea of atoms originated through scientific discovery, which is false.

Again, so what? Maybe having people of influence ready to accept something besides "god did it", caused the theory to gain scientific acceptance more quickly. However, that has nothing to do with the actual validity of the theory.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Evolution has always been a theory of accommodation.
Evolution is like a fog that settles around the shifting landscape of data. It absorbs any shape. Evolution "theory" can be tweaked and adjusted innumerably to fit the evidence, while simultaneously remain well insulated from being tested itself.

All theories get tweeked with the advent of new evidence, if not, they are dropped.
Don't agree? Name one theory that has not undergone "tweeking" since its inception.

Here are a few observations demonstrating why Evolution fails as a scientific theory.

The Fossil Order
Evolutionists always try and say Evolution is falsifiable because discovering something like a rabbit in the Cambrian would falsify it. The problem is that the lack of mammalian fossils in lower rock layers was known before such claims of potential falsifiability were made.

I've gone into more detail on this before, but put simply, a definite pattern of fossils began to be discovered centuries ago, and Evolutionists built their theory around this pattern. They did not predict it, they only accommodated it.

Well, duh. It's called observation of a pattern and building a hypothesis to explain that pattern. It's part of the scientific method.
I could say right now that Darwin did not even use fossils to come up with his theory, because I have only heard of him studying living species during his development of the theory. Do you have evidence that he relied on the fossil evidence as his main source for the theory?

For example, nothing in Evolution says mammalian groups must wait to evolve till after an "age of reptiles".

Look, you got something right!

In recent centuries, if a fossil pattern had emerged where most mammals appear simultaneously or even before many reptilian/dinosaurian orders, then evolutionists could just have easily built their theory around this pattern. (mammals were once said to have evolved from amphibians) And the same could be said for numerous other fossil arrangements.

Yes it could. The theory of evolution is about the mechanisms that caused the development of other species from parent species. There is no requirement for particular species to develop from particular parent species.
The reptile-mammal tree is an observation from fossil evidence, interpreted using the theory. If mammals had simply poofed into existence with no precursors, the theory would have been falsified.
I thought you had studied the theory.

In these hypothetical scenarios, any of the more problematic fossil scenarios would be (as we see today) regarded as only Enigmas... mysteries to have light shed on in the future. Like how the Cambrian Explosion is dealt with today, or the origin of major body plans that do not have a trace of potential candidates for evolutionary precursors. (such as Bats or Icthyosaurs, etc.)... and also as we see today, any attempt at pointing out the significance of such enigmas is immediately met with derision.

Go ahead, point them out. However, you better be prepared to bring evidence.

Take any enigma and we can discuss it. I won't be derisive unless I detect such in your attitude, like accusations that I am pretending or bluffing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How about calculated the odds against leaving Fargo ND and arriving in St. Cloud MN making random turns over 24 hrs? Are those uncalculatable? Does that mean it cannot happen?

Unlikely but possible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As we can see, Evolution was a passionate origins belief system well before Charlie began dressing it up in a scientific garb... and the same goes for the "theories" of Big-Bang cosmology and Abiogenesis...

Why the quotes?

Do you think it's just a coincidence that these creation ideas became established dogma

Scientific theories are not "dogma". The word "theory" itself should tell you as much. There are no dogma's in science.

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

The emergence of descent with modification followed by natural selection was (which is the actual scientific theory).

Evolution "theory" can be tweaked and adjusted innumerably to fit the evidence

Yes. It can also be completely discarded if no amount of tweaking and adjusting can be done to fit the evidence.

That's what science is all about. Changing your beliefs/explanations to match the evidence. Not the other way round.

FYI: this contradicts your claim that evolution theory is "dogma". Dogma's don't change, aren't tweaked, aren't adjusted. Dogma's are taken as is without questioning.

while simultaneously remain well insulated from being tested itself.

Here are a few observations demonstrating why Evolution fails as a scientific theory.

This should be entertaining...

I've gone into more detail on this before, but put simply, a definite pattern of fossils began to be discovered centuries ago, and Evolutionists built their theory around this pattern.

Yes. What's the problem with that? Do you disagree that your hypothesis should be built to match the evidence?

They did not predict it, they only accommodated it.

Predictions are for the future. Presumably you will agree that we will continue to find and dig up fossils, yes?

The predictions is that you will never find a rabbit in the cambrian layers.
That nobody every found such a thing in the past doesn't mean that nobody will ever find one in the future, wouldn't you agree?

It's not just rabbits in the cambrian off course. We can make millions of such predictions.

For example, nothing in Evolution says mammalian groups must wait to evolve till after an "age of reptiles".

You should learn what evolution is all about before arguing against it. Speaking from ignorance will only result in stupid statements.

In recent centuries, if a fossil pattern had emerged where most mammals appear simultaneously or even before many reptilian/dinosaurian orders, then evolutionists could just have easily built their theory around this pattern.

Not really. It would be a huge problem. It would expose that the theory is in error somewhere.

Off course, the facts of evolution wouldn't change because of such a find...
Uncovering fact X wouldn't make facts A, B and C magically disappear...

DNA would still mutate.
Mutations would still be inherited.
Phylogenies would still point to common ancestry.

In these hypothetical scenarios, any of the more problematic fossil scenarios would be (as we see today) regarded as only Enigmas...

The key point here is "hypothetical".
Yes, if evidence against evolution would be discovered, then we would have evidence against evolution.

But in reality - we don't have such data. We only have data that confirms evolution

Phylogenetics (or the study of different molecular and morphological traits to determine evolutionary relationships) is claimed to be one of the main backbones of evidence supporting Evolution.

They show common ancestry to be a fact, yes.

The field of Phylogenetics (otherwise known as Cladistics or Evolutionary Systematics) is favored by evolutionists because it produces impressive looking diagrams with lots of numbers, and the methodology is generally too complex for the average person to wade through.

There's nothing complex about it. It's just comparing sequenced genomes and putting them into a diagrame based on DNA matches. Every time this is done, we get a hierarchical tree. A tree that is completely consistent with comparative anatomy, the distribution of species, etc.

Are you aware that these days, it's not even humans doing the comparing? It's computers. You can feed those processes 2 or more sequenced genomes from random organisms and the process will generate a diagram. And it matches every single time.

There's nothing complicated about this.
What's complicated about comparing "CTTTAAAGGCCTAGGC" with "CTTTAAAGGCCTAAGC"?

The illusion is successfully maintained that if Evolution were false than phylogenetic research would somehow come apart at the seams

It would.

This is quite false, as evolutionary phylogenetics is built in with all sorts of ad-hoc rescue devices and subjective reasoning to protect it from breaking down.

No.

There is no objective scientific method for determining if similarity is due to relatedness(homology) or independent convergence.

Tell that to the judge next time you are in a courtcase concerning a DNA Paternity test.
You are aware about DNA inheritance, right? It sound like you don't.


I'm gonna quit here. I'm starting to get dizzy from reading such ignorance drivel. Clearly, you are not interested in science and will jump on anything to argue against it, not caring wheter your objection is rational or not.

Whatever.

 

[lifepsyop]

All theories get tweeked with the advent of new evidence, if not, they are dropped.
Don't agree? Name one theory that has not undergone "tweeking" since its inception.

It all depends on how robust that theory is and how well insulated it is from potential falsification via such ad-hoc adjustments.

Within ToE, "Evolution" is actually treated as a vague, mysterious creative power. The data can be entirely contradictory and still be absorbed as 'something evolution did'.

This is because ToE is built on a metaphysical worldview, and not the rigid prediction-falsification criteria found in real scientific theories.

Well, duh. It's called observation of a pattern and building a hypothesis to explain that pattern. It's part of the scientific method.
I could say right now that Darwin did not even use fossils to come up with his theory, because I have only heard of him studying living species during his development of the theory. Do you have evidence that he relied on the fossil evidence as his main source for the theory?

There's nothing wrong with building a hypothesis around the observation. It's when you falsely claim that your theory predicts the observation that we run into trouble.

I'm sure you know that the general pattern of fossils is constantly used as if it is one of the great tests of ToE. I can find any pro-Evolution presentation and you will hear them saying something like "we don't find mammals below this rock layer" ... "we don't find terrestrial organisms below this rock layer" etc. etc. "therefore Evolution!"

This is a gigantic bluff. Like I said, if a fossil pattern had emerged where major taxa groups appeared in different rock layers, than the ToE would have been developed around that pattern.

Yes it could. The theory of evolution is about the mechanisms that caused the development of other species from parent species. There is no requirement for particular species to develop from particular parent species.

Then you are in agreement. Major rearrangements of fossil patterns could have been accommodated by ToE. But do you realize how many evolutionists will argue ignorantly that the general fossil order is a "perfect fit" to ToE? "not a single fossil out of place", yadda yadda.

The reptile-mammal tree is an observation from fossil evidence, interpreted using the theory.

If mammals had simply poofed into existence with no precursors, the theory would have been falsified.
I thought you had studied the theory.

Epic Fail. Today, based on the fossil record, many complex body-plans "poof" into existence. This is blamed on a lack of fossilization of course.

And finding candidate "precursors" is a highly subjective and ambiguous practice. Evolutionists once argued that mammals were most closely related to amphibians based on several morphological similarities. This means that any similarities between animal groups can be potentially argued as evidence of ancestry. Highly ambiguous, highly subjective.

Your "reptile-mammal tree" could have been interpreted as a series of independent morphological convergences if necessary to better harmonize ToE. That shows just how accommodating the theory is to contradictions.

Go ahead, point them out. However, you better be prepared to bring evidence.

I already did. One is the "evolution" of Bats. It isn't my argument, evolutionists themselves admit there is virtually no fossil evidence of their "precursors". The Cambrian explosion is another obvious enigma where many body plans "poof" into existence. Again, this is coming from evolutionists so I'm not going to waste my time going down off-topic rabbit trails. If you seriously doubt such enigmas exist, then you need to study your own theory more.

 

[Split Rock]

Unlikely but possible.

So, why is it different for evolution?

 

[Split Rock]

It all depends on how robust that theory is and how well insulated it is from potential falsification via such ad-hoc adjustments.

Within ToE, "Evolution" is actually treated as a vague, mysterious creative power. The data can be entirely contradictory and still be absorbed as 'something evolution did'.

This is because ToE is built on a metaphysical worldview, and not the rigid prediction-falsification criteria found in real scientific theories.

There is nothing vague or mysterious about the mechanisms of evolution.
1. Natural selection
2. Genetic drift
3. Gene flow.
Some consider sexual selection to be separate, but I normally include it under natural selection.

There's nothing wrong with building a hypothesis around the observation. It's when you falsely claim that your theory predicts the observation that we run into trouble.

We cannot make predictions about details because we often do not have enough information to do so. There are predictions, that the theory makes, however. For example, the theory predicts that the next genome that is sequences will fall within the nested hierarchy of life. The theory predicts that if a new antibiotic, or pesticide is utilized that resistance to that compound will evolve, even in species that do not have any resistance, etc.

I'm sure you know that the general pattern of fossils is constantly used as if it is one of the great tests of ToE. I can find any pro-Evolution presentation and you will hear them saying something like "we don't find mammals below this rock layer" ... "we don't find terrestrial organisms below this rock layer" etc. etc. "therefore Evolution!"

This is a gigantic bluff. Like I said, if a fossil pattern had emerged where major taxa groups appeared in different rock layers, than the ToE would have been developed around that pattern.

This is nothing but a biased assertion on your part.

Then you are in agreement. Major rearrangements of fossil patterns could have been accommodated by ToE. But do you realize how many evolutionists will argue ignorantly that the general fossil order is a "perfect fit" to ToE? "not a single fossil out of place", yadda yadda.

There is nothing that is a "perfect fit" to anything.

Epic Fail. Today, based on the fossil record, many complex body-plans "poof" into existence. This is blamed on a lack of fossilization of course.

And is this incorrect? Is the fossil record not incomplete?

And finding candidate "precursors" is a highly subjective and ambiguous practice. Evolutionists once argued that mammals were most closely related to amphibians based on several morphological similarities. This means that any similarities between animal groups can be potentially argued as evidence of ancestry. Highly ambiguous, highly subjective.

Your "reptile-mammal tree" could have been interpreted as a series of independent morphological convergences if necessary to better harmonize ToE. That shows just how accommodating the theory is to contradictions.

The reptile-mammal transition is very well recorded in the fossil record, primarily because mammal-like reptiles ruled the terrestrial ecosystems on earth for hundreds of millions of years. It is so well recorded, that we have fossils of species with both a reptilian and a mammalian jaw joint at the same time. There is a reason why they are called "mammal-like reptiles."

I already did. One is the "evolution" of Bats. It isn't my argument, evolutionists themselves admit there is virtually no fossil evidence of their "precursors". The Cambrian explosion is another obvious enigma where many body plans "poof" into existence. Again, this is coming from evolutionists so I'm not going to waste my time going down off-topic rabbit trails. If you seriously doubt such enigmas exist, then you need to study your own theory more.

Bats don't fossilize very well. This hardly helps your case, since an absence of bats in the fossil record is as equally damning of creationism (if we ignore the incompleteness of the fossil record).