Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Dizredux]

Because the central creation story of Evolution is not open to change with evidence. Models of Evolution will change, but never Evolution itself.

Another puzzler, what is the difference between Models of Evolution and Evolution itself? This makes no sense.

Dizredux

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

This set of statements has all the hallmarks of unsupported rhetoric. So, I am going to request evidence be provided by you for the following:
1. Evolution is insulated from potential falsification by ad-hoc adjustments. An example of such would go a long way toward showing this to be plausible.
2. Data can be entirely contradictory (to the theory?) and still be absorbed as something evolution did. Do you have an example of this? It would have to be data that was gathered by scientists and accepted by scientists as something evolution did.
3. Evolution is not tested by the rigid prediction-falsification criteria found in real scientific theories. There is a prediction that every organism found will fall into the nested hierarchy (both morphologically and genetically). How is that not following the rigid prediction-falsification criteria for scientific theories?

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.

The prediction is not that the pattern we have already observed will exist. The prediction is that future fossils found will fall into the evolutionary pattern of being a transitional between groups. If major taxa fell out of that pattern to the point that transitions could not be identified, the theory would be in crisis. You have examples of such?

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 current fossil record does does fit the evolutionary paradigm.

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.

Then you believe the fossils we have found so far is a complete record of organisms that have ever existed in the past? If not, then the record is 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.

With less evidence, any argument can be made. However, more evidence exists for reptile-mammal transition than amphibian-mammal transition.
However, since you state that any similarities between animal groups can be potentially argued as evidence of ancestry, please do so for two groups that the current classification does not consider ancestor-progeny.
How about arguing for bird-to-bat transition? What about fish-to-porpoise transition without passing through land mammals?

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.

Please take the current set of transitionals from reptile to mammal and make your case that the morphological changes are independent convergences.

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".

Fossils solve mystery of bat evolution | Science | theguardian.com

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.

Then you feel it is acceptable for you to toss in accusations without evidence and we are required to gather evidence to refute those unsupported claims.

 

[lasthero]

I said if we have bat fossils than there's no reason not to expect a few intermediates here and there.

We do.

Primitive Early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation : Abstract : Nature

The environmental conditions for fossilization probably have much more to do with the chances of fossilization than the size of the animal.

Do bats frequent an environment that favors fossilization? They don't, as far as I'm aware.

 

[florida2]

But evolutionists believe in untold billions of imaginary intermediate creatures, and in this case an incomplete fossil record just becomes an inexhaustible rescue device for a lack of evidence.

Yes, there is a lack of fossil evidence, sadly, but the process of fossilisation causes this because it is so rare and unlikely.

Maybe one organism in a million becomes a fossil. That fossil then has to survive millions of years of tectonic plates shifting, earthquakes and many other ways it can be damaged or destroyed. So the actual number of fossils is very small.

Second, perhaps one species in a thousand has any fossilised remains. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of species of all varieties of life which lives on Earth yet we will never know about because there is no record.

Thirdly, we have explored a tiny tiny fraction of the planet for fossils. 0.1% maybe? Some areas are explored more, like deserts, because of the large amount of exposed rock that makes work easier because you don't have to dig. There are probably millions of spectacular fossils out there of many undiscovered species that we haven't found and may never found. You may have a complete T Rex skeleton under your street but you'll never know it.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm talking about what committed believers think those mechanisms can do. They turn natural selection into a superstitious magical force that can potentially build anything - just add time.

What is a "committed believer?" I accept the theory of evolution as it is the best scientific explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth, and because it has not been falsified. That is all.

I have often said here that you cannot escape your ancestry. This is why it is quite incorrect to say that evolution can "potentially build anything." Evolution is constrained by
1. physical requirements
2. heredity

This is why horses with feathered wings and giant ants as big as a car do not exist in the real world.

Well a mammal genome will probably be similar to another mammal genome with a similar phenotype, insect similar to insect, etc.

There is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent, though, if that's what you were implying. I've already listed a few reasons why in the OP.

Sure there is. Some details are still controversial, but for the most part it consistent between morphology/ chemistry and genetics. There is also the issue of horizontal gene transfer in lower organisms especially. These mechanisms are not theoretical, they are observable, btw.

So extinction falsifies Evolution?

How so? The fact is that no pesticide or antibiotic has ever eliminated a target organism. Other factors must be utilized, such as mass vaccination, and elimination of other host species to serve as reservoirs, etc. We succeeded with smallpox, only because it requires a human host. Polio is also doable, but still hangs on in Africa because of inefficient application of the mass vaccination programs required.

Of course it is incomplete, but how incomplete? The re-occurring pattern of discovery shows that we mostly keep finding the same general body plans over and over again. This is a strong indicator that the fossil record is mostly complete in terms of representatives of major types of life.

But evolutionists believe in untold billions of imaginary intermediate creatures, and in this case an incomplete fossil record just becomes an inexhaustible rescue device for a lack of evidence.

Either it is incomplete (or nearly so) or it is not. You have admitted it is incomplete. Now you are vacillating.

Okay it sounds like you do not understand that your "well-recorded transition" is only a subjective interpretation.

For one thing, this "transition" is an example of an "evolving body part". It focuses on the jaw/ear area and ignores otherwise diverse body plans.

I used jaws as an example, only. There are many other features that evolved in this transition and are documented in the fossil record. Others are not documented because they require soft tissue; in some cases these can be inferred from the fossils.

However, as I was saying before, this "transition" could also be interpreted as an independent convergence of different lineages towards certain mammalian traits. This would be invoked if, say, mammal groups tended to appear in lower rocks than that jaw "transition".

Various features of a transition do not always change at the same time. This is not a problem.

(Interestingly, some paleontologists are even now saying that certain stages of this jawbone transition happened convergently multiple times.)

We are dealing with many different populations in many different environments and locations over a long time period. Therefore, such a scenario is not impossible.

And actually, it is meaningless to ToE that this 'evolving body-part' "transition" is even in a stratigraphic order. If it was out of order, you could just say that it is evidence that a more primitive trait happened to fossilize before a more derived trait. Care to comment?

Is the trait one that tends not to fossilize?

When we look at derived features, we tend to find them in only more advanced species. For example, let's look at whales. Primitive whales all have teeth, and not baleen. Baleen is a derived feature, whereas teeth are a primitive one. Also, the blowhole tends to be closer to the tip of the snout, also a primitive feature. Blow holes are derived. We also find that primitive whales have four legs rather than just two... another example of the derived trait being found where expected. Is this all just a coincidence?

This is also an example of that vague magical force that evolutionists make natural selection out to be. Though they have no clue why NS would even begin to favor gradually morphing a jawbone into an ear-bone, they are positive it happened because NS can do anything.

It has to do with being able to breathe while eating. If that provides an advantage, it will be selected for.

Sorry but things far more delicate than bats have left plenty of fossil evidence. And bats themselves have left fossils, so there is no good reason that populations of billions of alleged bat intermediates could not have fossilized.

Why didn't the bats created by your god (or their descendants) fossilize?

You may as well just appeal to pure chance.

How about a god poofing them into existence?

 

[Naturalism]

Well a mammal genome will probably be similar to another mammal genome with a similar phenotype, insect similar to insect, etc

Why do suppose that is?

There is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent, though, if that's what you were implying. I've already listed a few reasons why in the OP.

If it's not objective why should nested hierarchy work at all?

This is also an example of that vague magical force that evolutionists make natural selection out to be. Though they have no clue why NS would even begin to favor gradually morphing a jawbone into an ear-bone...

Suppose for a moment that you're a mammal like reptile in the Permian living largely underground. You can feel the noise as you rest your head/jaw along the sides and base of your underground dwelling where you're kept safe from larger predators. The noise is not always loud and thundering though as a range of size of predators exist. Consider that small changes to how the jar is shaped would allow for a slightly increased ability of the host to feel those not as loud predators & thus would allow the host to avoid being picked off if they ventured out too soon.

And bats themselves have left fossils, so there is no good reason that populations of billions of alleged bat intermediates could not have fossilized.

Except that fossilization and preservation over many millions of years is the exceedingly rare exception to the otherwise normal occurrence.

 

[Naturalism]

I said if we have bat fossils than there's no reason not to expect a few intermediates here and there.

Then he followed that up with

The environmental conditions for fossilization probably have much more to do with the chances of fossilization than the size of the animal. Favorable environmental factors could easily offset any bias from organism structure. Again, you may as well just appeal to chance.

Yes, everyone get that?

The rarity of intact fossils is directly related to many factors. That is why we actually ought not expect to find billions of fossils everywhere, why we ought not to expect to find, relatively speaking, much more than expect a few intermediates here and there.

In the whole, the existence for fossils after so many years and so many processes working against it from being is some matter of chance.

How about icthyosaurs? You'll just say the intermediates didn't happen to fossilize.

Here they are - Archosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intermediate to what? Well, you should know but if you don't I will help you though.

 

[lifepsyop]

That's not entirely accurate, I will highlight a few examples. Consider when the ToE was conceptualized in the mid 19th century, prior to a modern understanding of physics, radioisotopes decay rates and the now known age of the earth.

At the time the age of the earth was understood to be maybe in the millions of years, and as discoveries in physics & how to date material become understood the age could have been only that or younger. With such an age and as the knowledge of the rate of speed of evolution as observed the theory could have been basically falsified right there or certainly would have involved some massive overhauls.

There are no observed "rates of evolution"... There are mutation rates, but as far as supposed rates of major evolutionary transitions, as these are imaginary deep-time events, they can be played around with a lot by assuming all kinds of extreme selection pressures as well as fluctuating population numbers.

Radiometric dates that were unfavorable to Evolution could simply be assumed to be suffering from some source of contamination. (That's how discordant radiometric dates are treated today, by the way.)

If it was more of an apparent problem for Evolution, then radioactivity in general would never have begun to be advertised as a reliable dating method to begin with. In fact, since the belief in Evolution takes priority over everything, this would actually be used as evidence for universal contamination.

To give a related example, take something like the "Oort Cloud". This is a purely imaginary object that was created to explain why we still have comets flying around the vicinity of the Sun if the universe is billions of years old. If the universe is really that old then all the comets should have been burned up by the Sun a long time ago during repeated orbits. Thus the existence of comets themselves could be interpreted as a type of "dating method" of the universe. But since this conflicts with the religious belief in deep-time, the contradiction was actually taken as evidence of an imaginary unobservable object called the Oort Cloud that is spitting out a vast supply of recycled comets. This imaginary object saves deep-time religion. You can expect as much as the same type of rationalization as needed with other "dating methods".

Consider the recent discoveries in the mapping of the human genome and other genomes of other organisms. At the time it was found that human's have 2 pairs of 24 chromosomes and recent analysis for the Chimpanzee revealed they have 2 pairs of 23 chromosomes (the same is true for Gorillas, Orangutans, and Bonobos). The existing theory/model on evolution and common ancestry is that we share relatively close common ancestry with members in the Great Apes family.

So how could this be if they have one less pair of chromosomes?

I think you meant this the other way around. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Chimps, etc. 24 pairs.

Differences between humans and chimpanzees would be regarded as something natural selection did.

Humans have thousands of functional "orphan" genes not found in chimpanzees. This is regarded as something natural selection did.

Similar rationalization would be used for a chromosomal discrepancy. Maybe it would make humans and chimps far more divergent than previously thought, though of course they would still be argued to share a recent common ancestor.

(by the way, Ken Miller's simplistic descriptions of Chromosome#2 are about as dubious as the claim of 98% similarity between Humans and Chimps)

Possibly, but not necessarily, it would entirely be dependent on what was found & where geologically. What I guess is curious if you're a creationist & compelling for the model overall is that all the existing patterns, both in phylogenetic trees created via genetics and patterns in creation of clades are basically identical and are perfectly in line with common ancestry

They are "in line", because phylogenetics is accommodating enough to make room for many different kinds of data. I explained this in the OP concerning homology and convergence.

For instance, if we did find mammals in the Cambrian strata how could the existing model explain this? It would require a full re-write of the ancestry of all of the tetrapoda ancestry. All the earlier ancestors of amphibians, reptiles would need to be explained in this new model somehow & it would be a major challenge.

Yes, now it would. (providing the fossils aren't shelved as an unknown anomaly) But that is hardly an evolutionary prediction, when the dominant pattern was revealed prior to the advent of the theory. Same with the "age of reptiles", etc.

 

[lifepsyop]

Then he followed that up with
Here they are - Archosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol.. really? Okay, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about now. That's like giving a wiki link on Laurasiatheria as evidence for a transition for the Bat body-plan.

I'll repeat, these aren't my arguments. Evolutionary paleontologists themselves admit that the icthyosaur body plan pretty much just appears with no viable precursor candidates.

No offense but I'm not going to waste any more time arguing this with you.

 

[Naturalism]

Evolutionary paleontologists themselves admit that the icthyosaur body plan pretty much just appears with no viable precursor candidates.

Ichthyosaurs was a reptile yes? So are not archosaurs considered intermediate to them & say between members of Stegocephalia?

 

[lifepsyop]

Another puzzler, what is the difference between Models of Evolution and Evolution itself? This makes no sense.

Dizredux

Evolution itself is the central religious creation story of universal common descent that you believe in.

A 'model' of Evolution would be.. say.. evolution of birds from dinosaurs, or some other sub-theory like that.

 

[NannaNae]

Conclusion

Evolution can more accurately be described as a simulation of a scientific theory. It's how a scientific theory would look in a parallel world where the essential likelihood of Evolution had somehow been scientifically established. But in reality, this "likelihood" was never established. It was, and is, a mystical Creation story that is believed and assumed.

Evolution can also be described as a metaphysical research program. By that I mean it is a way of studying things after first assuming that the nature of reality is an evolutionary one. One does not test or even question the fundamental metaphysical belief, but proceeds as if such a thing is a given, and interprets all data within the confines of that belief.

This is why it is possible for there to be a seemingly "scientific consensus" about Evolution while simultaneously failing as a robust scientific theory. The real consensus is that there is a tacit agreement that nature will be interpreted through an evolutionary worldview. It is purely metaphysical. It is agreed upon that the nature of reality is an evolutionary one. Put simply, Evolution is a philosophical consensus held by many holding 'scientific' roles, and not a consensus born out by the evidence itself.

To the average person it would be difficult to distinguish a philosophical consensus of scientists from a true consensus of scientific evidence. That confusion has provided the bedrock by which evolutionists are able to so effectively advance their "theory".

Your all over that one..
mysticallllllll magical " knowledge" = ancient and new kinds of goofy!

 

[Naturalism]

There are no observed "rates of evolution"...

Looks to me like there are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(unit)

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

Radiometric dates that were unfavorable to Evolution could simply be assumed to be suffering from some source of contamination. (That's how discordant radiometric dates are treated today, by the way.)

Such as where today?

It's all a conspiracy by all other domains of science to support evolution is that it?

Seriously though, the earth didn't have to be 4.5 billion years old, even being only a few 100 thousand years with all we know about other constants in the rates of evolution, other geologic processes would pretty much make the entire evolutionary model bunk.

If it was more of an apparent problem for Evolution, then radioactivity in general would never have begun to be advertised as a reliable dating method to begin with

Why? Why defend something if physics and other domains of science show conclusively it cannot be true?

What you're not commenting on is that none of the other domains in science needed to support the evolutionary model at all. That they do I guess is all a conspiracy in your eyes.

There is no reason the discovery of DNA had to support the existing model of evolution, & yet it does. What if the discovery of DNA revealed that there are is no shared genes between separate kingdoms of life, illustrating that the biblical narrative of independent creation of "kinds" was real?

I think you meant this the other way around. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Chimps, etc. 24 pairs

Correct I mistyped there.

Differences between humans and chimpanzees would be regarded as something natural selection did.

Well, for the most part it is. What is your explanation for the facts observed in the genomes and their comparison here? Do you offer a more scientifically accurate explanation for the cause?

Here you have a prediction & it was upheld per the evidence. IF the evidence showed no inactive centromere or extra telomeric DNA in the middle it would make the model of shared common ancestry much less certain. But that is not what happened, here we found a smoking gun.

Humans have thousands of functional "orphan" genes not found in chimpanzees. This is regarded as something natural selection did.

You'll need to be specific on the genes here, but for arguments sake why can't it be? Why can't NS be a part of the causes for why specific genes in one population are different than the other?

Similar rationalization would be used for a chromosomal discrepancy. Maybe it would make humans and chimps far more divergent than previously thought, though of course they would still be argued to share a recent common ancestor.

If you share a more distant relative than previous thought they're still a relative though, right? The evidence is not that we don't share a relative but how closely that common ancestry is.

They are "in line", because phylogenetics is accommodating enough to make room for many different kinds of data. I explained this in the OP concerning homology and convergence

If what you're saying is right then a nested hierarchy should not even be possible. It implies we ought not to do nesting based on any method (morphology or genetics) and it would have to imply weird chimera organisms that can't diagnostically and distinctly belong to one and only one group. It would be like finding whales with feathers.

Yes, now it would. (providing the fossils aren't shelved as an unknown anomaly)

It would have now and it would have then. How could you even explain what apparently are the descendants, like whales in the Cambrian, existing prior to any of the intermediates?

 

[sfs]

Humans have thousands of functional "orphan" genes not found in chimpanzees.

They have what?

 

[crazyforgod1212]

They have what?

Orphan genes.

Orphan gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aren't you supposed to be some kind of scientist? Your true colors are starting to show...

 

[CabVet]

Orphan genes.

Orphan gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aren't you supposed to be some kind of scientist? Your true colors are starting to show...

Oh, look, someone knows how to use Google and to insult somebody else that doesn't recognize a term...

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Oh, look, someone knows how to use Google and to insult somebody else that doesn't recognize a term...

I'm not the supposed biologist that doesn't recognize biology terms.

 

[CabVet]

I'm not the supposed biologist that doesn't recognize biology terms.

Orphan gene is not a term know by all biologists. It is not even known by most evolutionary biologists. I can probably throw in 10 terms here that biologists in fields other than mine won't recognize.

 

[Split Rock]

Evolution itself is the central religious creation story of universal common descent that you believe in.

.

(emphasis mine)

Yet another example of a creationist using terminology best used to describe his own dogmatic beliefs as an insult against an evolution supporter. Sad. Maybe you guys should stop telling everyone else what they do and do not "believe."

 

[DogmaHunter]

I couldn't agree more. That's why Evolution is not science.

So first you state that evolution theory changes as more evidence comes in.
Then I say that that is how science operates: it matches theories to the evidence, not the other way around.
Then you agree to that and in the same breath say "that's why evolution is not science".

And you are confused about the nature of those predictions.

Such predictions are based on the observation of the fossil pattern itself. NOT Evolution theory.

No, they aren't.
They are a prediction about future discoveries. We will continue to find fossils. The prediction is that these fossil will be found in specific layers that make sense in an evolutionary history, with anatomical properties that fall into nested hierarchies that make sense compared to phylogeny studies.

Hence, you will never find humans with dino's.
Or rabbits with trilobites.
Or mice with Tiktaalik.
etc etc etc etc.

Find me one mammal in a layer with trilobites and evolution is in crisis.

The predictions go a lot futher of course. Every single new genome that we sequence MUST fall into nested hierarchies that make sense. Every single new genome that we sequence can potentially falsify common ancestry and evolution theory. Every single one.

Find me a creature other then a primate with which humans share more ERV's and evolution is in crisis.

Find me a reptile with which we share more ERV's then with lions, tigers or any other mammal and evolution is in crisis.

These are extremely straight forward predictions that expose evolution theory to potential falsification. This is how science works.

So, can you give me a single example of any of the above?
If not, I suggest you dive into science books and try to discover one yourself. You'll become instantly famous, receive a nobel prize and your name will be remembered hundreds of years from now just like the names of Darwin, Newton, Einstein, etc.

Posting a bunch of empty assertions on an internet forum will only earn you the title of scientific illiterate religious fundamentalist.

Evolution theory makes zero predictions as to why major mammal groups could not have begun evolving simultaneously or even before the rise of dinosaurs

Geee, could it perhaps have something to do with the fact that the earth was populated with a bunch of these giants:

Mammals had their niche during that time. Nocturnal, small creatures, largely ignored by these magnificent beasts. Once dino's dissappeard during that mass extinction some 65 million years ago, the doors were opened for mammals to move in and occupy new niches (with accelerated evolution as a result).

Of course evolutionists can now "predict" that certain patterns will hold, but this is not a prediction of ToE.

Except that it is.

If the patterns were different, then evolutionists would be "predicting" the continuation of the different ones.

No, because different patterns (as in: NOT nested hierarchies) would not support evolution theory from common ancestry.

How can you not get that?

Lifepsyop: 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.

If those patterns showed nested hierarchies, perhaps. If not, no.

Um, are you even aware that Phylogenetics includes comparing morphological traits? It doesn't sound like it.

Can I please hear a rebuttal from someone who knows what they're talking about and not these pseudo-experts?

Well... no.
No, DogmaHunter... just no... all sorts of considerations including subjective weighting of character traits goes into phylogenetic studies, and different studies done by different authors are frequently at odds with each other, because they interpret character traits differently.

Did you perhaps think that geneticists amuse themselves with manually counting and comparing DNA strings?

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia