Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

[klutedavid]

But you only exposed your ignorance of science. That is not the topic of this thread. And accepting scientific evidence,theories and hypotheses is hardly a "belief system". You are merely trying to project your flaws on to others.

So once more, what do you wish to discuss? If you want to change the topic then you need to concede the present argument.

Hello SZ.

Hope you do not mind the abbreviation 'SZ'?

Science is at it's grass roots, a philosophy, the idea that we can understand the universe by staring at the universe. All I have seen is an increasing confusion, an increasing knowledge base, and an increasing set of theories. Science is seriously stretching the intellect of even the brightest scientists.

In the end, science will be left with contradictions, missing evidence, a huge lack of observational criteria. Science began with an idea and science will be left with nothing but uncertainty in the end.

Science has enabled so many nations to gain nuclear weapons.

Science gave the government the power to monitor and profile everyone on the planet.

Science allowed us to destroy the planet much more quickly than we should have.

Science is destroying us all but few see it.

Science cannot prove anything and especially that life has evolved over eons.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Science is at it's grass roots, a philosophy, the idea that we can understand the universe by staring at the universe. All I have seen is an increasing confusion, an increasing knowledge base, and an increasing set of theories. Science is seriously stretching the intellect of even the brightest scientists.

All you've seen from science is increasing confusion? You mean you missed all the extension of human life from about 35 years to >75 years, the harnessing of the atom for power, the ability to put several libraries worth of information on a Si chip the size of a pin, all that?

Science has enabled so many nations to gain nuclear weapons.

Are we really going to start blaming science for every evil now? We've seen this game played out on CF before.

Science is destroying us all but few see it.

And the way you "see" it is by using....you guessed it...science.

Science isn't doing anything like that. It is answering questions. How we use the answers is on us. It isn't science doing the evil.

I highly recommend reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. It's a great read. And it goes into great depth about how the scientists in the Manhattan Project felt as the war came to an end.

Science cannot prove anything and especially that life has evolved over eons.

Who gave you the idea that science had to "prove" anything? Science uses the evidence to draw the most likely conclusions based on that evidence. The more robust the conclusion the more likely it is to be truth. But it's never "proven" 100%.

 

[bhsmte]

Hello SZ.

Hope you do not mind the abbreviation 'SZ'?

Science is at it's grass roots, a philosophy, the idea that we can understand the universe by staring at the universe. All I have seen is an increasing confusion, an increasing knowledge base, and an increasing set of theories. Science is seriously stretching the intellect of even the brightest scientists.

In the end, science will be left with contradictions, missing evidence, a huge lack of observational criteria. Science began with an idea and science will be left with nothing but uncertainty in the end.

Science has enabled so many nations to gain nuclear weapons.

Science gave the government the power to monitor and profile everyone on the planet.

Science allowed us to destroy the planet much more quickly than we should have.

Science is destroying us all but few see it.

Science cannot prove anything and especially that life has evolved over eons.

Opinion.

And opinion regarding the science, you rely on, every minute of everyday to make your life easier and yet you likely take it for granted.

 

[klutedavid]

It is arguably accurate that we cannot discuss the origin of the universe since it means talking about what happened before time.

How do you know that there was an origin of the universe?

Even after the so called universe existed(?), we are lacking information about the early development of the universe anyway. Not just before the often mentioned event, the Big Bang. You said, 'before time', how could you possibly know whether time began at the initiation of the Big Bang, or even just after that event?

But as to the origin of life we actually can discuss it and indeed investigations can move us toward a reasonable hypothesis.

Perhaps you might lean towards some fanciful notion about the origin of life. This topic is way beyond any intelligent conversation, there is no data set available on the first life form. All I have seen is debate, strong debate about what may constitute these early life forms. Life from non life, highly unlikely.

But the chemistry was already in place for about 9 billion years before the earth began, so once we form the earth, cool it, get it to the point where we can utilize the chemistry we can wind up with life.

Mere speculative assertions, there is a lack of the necessary observations to establish that the actual chemistry was that existed 9 billion years ago. I do not buy the assumptions that the speculation is based on. I reject the dates as mere claims, no direct observations available.

There's a lot of interesting and valid data on abiogenesis and there is no reason to assume we can't possibly every understand how life arose.

Seriously Obliquinaut, an alien race could have established life on this planet for all we know. This is one of the problems when viewing anything, without the complete set of the necessary observations, speculation will abound. Oh it sure looks like the events x and y occurred, but because we never directly observed the events,x and y, we cannot establish any certainty about these events.

There is a lot missing in the fossil record, but the fact of the matter is there's a LOT OF INFORMATION THERE.

I thought that the opposite was true, a vast lack of the intermediate forms in the evolutionary tale. See how we view the data differently.

Enough to give us a huge amount of information on evolution and how life has changed over time. It's like seeing a movie but at a much longer frame rate with a few frames missing.

You have been conditioned to accept partial evidence as a huge amount of evidence in the fossil record.

That isn't really how it works. Indeed we would love to have all the data available. Every scientist would. But that isn't always possible.

This is the very heart of the problem, this is where the speculation gets traction. It is not that the fossil record allows any certainty in the evolutionary theory. More to the point it is the lack of the evidence that is the most alarming point in the debate. At least you admit that all the data is not available, yet you will speculate.

In the case of the earth sciences and even biology there are things that may be missing. Sometimes we know they're missing and we can utilize that lack of information to understand what is going on.

You will use the vast lack of information to form a bridge, an intellectual leap between the missing evidence and the partial visible evidence.

Think of the fossil record as a random sample of life's forms.

I cannot accept the idea of a random event. Nor will I accept that the fossil record can be understood according to some speculative theory.

We don't need to see every single brachiopod in a Mississippian Formation to be able to draw significant conclusions on brachiopoda in the Mississippian. So much of science is done using SAMPLES rather than entire POPULATIONS. And it's all just fine.

All the samples will never represent the respective populations, they can never be random samples in the first place. The fossil record is partial, speculative explanations will be inserted to cover vast gaps in the fossil record.

 

[sfs]

I cannot accept the idea of a random event. Nor will I accept that the fossil record can be understood according to some speculative theory.

Meanwhile, scientists will go on doing science, blissfully unaware of your refusal to accept science.

 

[klutedavid]

How is a noting someone uses OBSERVATION to inform their beliefs something that needs to be "exposed"? It actually sounds like a pretty solid basis for a belief system and should be LAUDED.

Just sayin'.

Hello Obliquinaut.

Because science is based on observational criteria, you must have the observations.
If you lack the direct observations of nature, then you are simply speculating. If we lack the direct observation of the initial emergence of life, then we cannot speculate about what may have taken place.

In the fossil record, we have snapshots of various life forms in different time periods. We do not have an ordered trail of evidence for any specific life form. These life forms appear in the fossil record abruptly, then they just disappear. Science is not about filling in the gaps in the fossil record, because these gaps are vast. Science will never be able to find the earliest life form, science will never be able to explain how life started.

Science has been hard at work on this problem for a very long time, but the key evidence is missing.

 

[klutedavid]

Meanwhile, scientists will go on doing science, blissfully unaware of your refusal to accept science.

Hello sfs.

Of course they will continue to pursue the mysterious dark arts, let's turn lead into gold.

No one can stop the acceleration of mankind towards it's predestined destination. Science has been invaluable in this acceleration.

 

[Obliquinaut]

How do you know that there was an origin of the universe?

I don't.

Perhaps you might lean towards some fanciful notion about the origin of life. This topic is way beyond any intelligent conversation

Not really. Take a biochem class. It's actually some really interesting chemistry. Nothing particularly bizarre or "magical".

, there is no data set available on the first life form. All I have seen is debate, strong debate about what may constitute these early life forms. Life from non life, highly unlikely.

Why would it be "highly unlikely"? I mean life is made up only and exclusively from regular non-life chemicals (C,H,N,O,S,P, etc.)

Mere speculative assertions, there is a lack of the necessary observations to establish that the actual chemistry was that existed 9 billion years ago.

What do you mean the actual chemistry that existed 9 billion years ago? How was chemistry different 9 billion years ago than it is today?

Seriously Obliquinaut, an alien race could have established life on this planet for all we know.

Well, except for no actual evidence for that, but that only pushes the origin of life back to how that alien life form started.

This is one of the problems when viewing anything, without the complete set of the necessary observations, speculation will abound. Oh it sure looks like the events x and y occurred, but because we never directly observed the events,x and y, we cannot establish any certainty about these events.

I don't know why some people on this forum seem to think science only works when one can "directly observe" an event. You can then say good bye to "electrons". It also takes out forensic science since I assume not every crime is witnessed directly by the forensic scientist who investigates it.

Again, that isn't how science works.

Take it from a scientist (or several on this thread alone): science comes from observing the data and working out an hypothesis that explains the data reliably and with the fewest factors necessary.

Don't get me wrong: observing an event is great! But it really isn't necessary if the data is there.

I thought that the opposite was true, a vast lack of the intermediate forms in the evolutionary tale. See how we view the data differently.

There are quite a few intermediate forms.

You have been conditioned to accept partial evidence as a huge amount of evidence in the fossil record.

"Conditioned"? Howso? I wonder what your experience is as a working scientist. Perhaps you can tell me how you do your science.

I cannot accept the idea of a random event.

I'm sorry, I forget not everyone has sufficient education in the sciences. What I meant by "random" was a random SAMPLE. Random samples are at the heart of just about every statistical study you will ever see and that makes it at the heart of just about every science article you'll read in one way or another.

It's not a RANDOM EVENT, it's a RANDOM SAMPLE. You should really learn some of this topic.

All the samples will never represent the respective populations, they can never be random samples in the first place.

First off: ALL THE SAMPLES IS the population. The "population" is every member of a set. A SAMPLE is a smaller subset of the set.

As for the true randomness of the sample, well that is indeed debatable. Of course only certain things will be preserved and there may be some particular bias but when you factor in the millions upon millions upon millions of fossils gathered around the world you'd be hard pressed to figure out what a specific bias would yield a finding that somehow comes to a dramatically different conclusion than "evolution".

(You could always say "most life forms that die and can be rapidly buried, ie near water, will be preserved more likely than on dry land, but even then we find enough land animals that are fossilized to let us know this bias isn't necessarily problematic for our sampling.)

 

[Obliquinaut]

Hello Obliquinaut.

Because science is based on observational criteria, you must have the observations.
If you lack the direct observations of nature, then you are simply speculating.

You can observe the data. After the fact! We do it all the time in the lab! When one works as a chemist one normally doesn't see individual molecules reacting, but we can fully characterize that reaction.

If we lack the direct observation of the initial emergence of life, then we cannot speculate about what may have taken place.

Wrong. For the same reason that if I find a glass full of salt water and a vial of HCl and a vial of NaOH I can reasonably assume that HCl and NaOH were added to the water in sufficient quantities to fully neutralize and create NaCl solution.

I can give you examples like that all day long, and if you feel brave enough we can even talk about isotopic compositions to know where things came from in the past!

In the fossil record, we have snapshots of various life forms in different time periods. We do not have an ordered trail of evidence for any specific life form.

Actually we have a pretty good view of life forms as they change.

Here's the evolution of humans:

29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

And that's not the only one! There's evolutionary intermediates between land animals and whales! etc.

These life forms appear in the fossil record abruptly, then they just disappear. Science is not about filling in the gaps in the fossil record, because these gaps are vast. Science will never be able to find the earliest life form, science will never be able to explain how life started.

Another science doesn't do: make universal negative claims about future events.

Science has been hard at work on this problem for a very long time, but the key evidence is missing.

LOL. Science has been working on this for only about 200 years in terms of paleontology. A drop in the bucket. And along the way every single transition fossil that was found was after hearing Creationists yell and scream about how no transitional fossils are there.

And yet more and more transitional fossils are found.

 

[klutedavid]

Opinion.

And opinion regarding the science, you rely on, every minute of everyday to make your life easier and yet you likely take it for granted.

Hello bhsmte.

A healthy skeptism.

I have no real choice with accepting the art of science, modern life is based on science.
This is a very unfortunate situation for us all. The electronic medium that everyone uses in the twenty first century, enables others to know more about ourselves, than what we even know about us.

All the information that you have ever typed on the internet is recorded, all of it. They know everything about you and can even predict your behavior. We will regret this demolition of our privacy in the near future.

 

[pitabread]

It is not that the fossil record allows any certainty in the evolutionary theory. More to the point it is the lack of the evidence that is the most alarming point in the debate.

Even if there were absolutely zero fossils, every other line of evidence (comparative anatomy, genetics, developmental biology, biogeography) all point to shared ancestry. Fossils are a bonus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello SZ.

Hope you do not mind the abbreviation 'SZ'?

No problem.

Science is at it's grass roots, a philosophy, the idea that we can understand the universe by staring at the universe. All I have seen is an increasing confusion, an increasing knowledge base, and an increasing set of theories. Science is seriously stretching the intellect of even the brightest scientists.

But scientists do not just stare. They make observations. They do experiments. They construct hypotheses that make predictions and test those hypotheses. You may be confuse, but I guarantee you that scientists know more and more every year.

In the end, science will be left with contradictions, missing evidence, a huge lack of observational criteria. Science began with an idea and science will be left with nothing but uncertainty in the end.

Though there will always be some missing evidence the rest of your claim here does not follow. You are merely projecting your own lack of knowledge here.

Science has enabled so many nations to gain nuclear weapons.

Science gave the government the power to monitor and profile everyone on the planet.

Science allowed us to destroy the planet much more quickly than we should have.

Science is destroying us all but few see it.

Oh please, enough with the drama and red herrings.



Science cannot prove anything and especially that life has evolved over eons.[/QUOTE]

Wow! You are amazingly wrong especially with this last claim. The fact that life has evolved has been proved far far beyond a reasonable doubt. If you wish to learn people here will gladly help you.

Statements based upon your lack of education in the sciences will not earn you any respect. Attempting to learn will.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I have no real choice with accepting the art of science, modern life is based on science.
This is a very unfortunate situation for us all.

For those of us who went to university for a very long time and incurred years of difficulty while we worked our way to get degrees in science, we sure must feel pretty stupid right now. We did the wrong thing.

Thanks for setting us straight! If only it weren't too late for me and I hadn't blown 20+ years as a research scientist!

All the information that you have ever typed on the internet is recorded, all of it. They know everything about you and can even predict your behavior. We will regret this demolition of our privacy in the near future.

How will they predict this behavior? Oh, right statistics, the thing you want to blow away when it comes to understanding the fossil record you are more than happy to invoke here.

Got it. Science can be so inconvenient when you need it to disappear in one place and not in another!

 

[bhsmte]

Hello bhsmte.

A healthy skeptism.

I have no real choice with accepting the art of science, modern life is based on science.
This is a very unfortunate situation for us all. The electronic medium that everyone uses in the twenty first century, enables others to know more about ourselves, than what we even know about us.

All the information that you have ever typed on the internet is recorded, all of it. They know everything about you and can even predict your behavior. We will regret this demolition of our privacy in the near future.

Unfortunate? You can always choose to give up everything related to scientific discovery and that should make you feel better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know that there was an origin of the universe?

Properly speaking we know that the universe as we know it had a beginning. That is described by the Big Bang theory which is well supported by ..... the thing that you seem to hate ... evidence.

Even after the so called universe existed(?), we are lacking information about the early development of the universe anyway. Not just before the often mentioned event, the Big Bang. You said, 'before time', how could you possibly know whether time began at the initiation of the Big Bang, or even just after that event?

That is correct to a degree. Right now we can only fairly accurately describe the universe up to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang began. That does not mean that scientists will not extend their knowledge in the future. Time may have begun at the Big Bang or there might be a "before". There is still a lot to learn.

Perhaps you might lean towards some fanciful notion about the origin of life. This topic is way beyond any intelligent conversation, there is no data set available on the first life form. All I have seen is debate, strong debate about what may constitute these early life forms. Life from non life, highly unlikely.

Again, no, there is strong research going on in that topic as well. Many of the problems of abiogenesis have been solved, but there are still questions left to be answered.

One thing for sure is that if everyone had your attitude we would still be "in caves".

Mere speculative assertions, there is a lack of the necessary observations to establish that the actual chemistry was that existed 9 billion years ago. I do not buy the assumptions that the speculation is based on. I reject the dates as mere claims, no direct observations available.

Nope, a physicist could explain to you how we know that the laws have been fixed for aeons. What you call "assumptions" is merely information that you do not know. And since you do not know you are in no place to claim that others are speculating.

Seriously Obliquinaut, an alien race could have established life on this planet for all we know. This is one of the problems when viewing anything, without the complete set of the necessary observations, speculation will abound. Oh it sure looks like the events x and y occurred, but because we never directly observed the events,x and y, we cannot establish any certainty about these events
I thought that the opposite was true, a vast lack of the intermediate forms in the evolutionary tale. See how we view the data differently.

Sure, that is possible, but not too likely. So far all of the evidence indicates that there is no problem with life starting on its own.

You have been conditioned to accept partial evidence as a huge amount of evidence in the fossil record.

Oh my!! No. That was the case in Darwin's time. We have found mountains of fossils since then.

This is the very heart of the problem, this is where the speculation gets traction. It is not that the fossil record allows any certainty in the evolutionary theory. More to the point it is the lack of the evidence that is the most alarming point in the debate. At least you admit that all the data is not available, yet you will speculate.

Please can you not use the word "speculate"? You are making a statement about others that you lack the education to support. It is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment on your part. If you cannot support a claim against someone you are bearing false witness, even if you are not lying. The fact is that the fossil record is only a very small part of the evidence of evolution.

You will use the vast lack of information to form a bridge, an intellectual leap between the missing evidence and the partial visible evidence.

Please, since you are the one lacking an education in this topic you are the one that is now speculating.

I cannot accept the idea of a random event. Nor will I accept that the fossil record can be understood according to some speculative theory.

Then all you have is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

All the samples will never represent the respective populations, they can never be random samples in the first place. The fossil record is partial, speculative explanations will be inserted to cover vast gaps in the fossil record.

But that is not needed to support the theory of evolution. Of the hundreds of millions if not billions of fossils found to date all support the theory of evolution. Creationists have no explanation that has not been thoroughly refuted. You are demanding far more evidence for the theory of evolution than you are for your own religious beliefs. According to your standards you should be an atheist, if you are consistent.

 

[sfs]

Of course they will continue to pursue the mysterious dark arts, let's turn lead into gold.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not what we do. We're studying a malaria vaccine, which is kind of a different thing.

No one can stop the acceleration of mankind towards it's predestined destination.

Perhaps not. But that logically has nothing to do with your rejection of the conclusions of science. In fact, if you're right and science is nothing but speculation, then you have nothing to worry about. How can speculation destroy us?

Science has been invaluable in this acceleration.

But much less valuable in that respect than the desire to eat and to make babies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello bhsmte.

A healthy skeptism.

I have no real choice with accepting the art of science, modern life is based on science.
This is a very unfortunate situation for us all. The electronic medium that everyone uses in the twenty first century, enables others to know more about ourselves, than what we even know about us.

All the information that you have ever typed on the internet is recorded, all of it. They know everything about you and can even predict your behavior. We will regret this demolition of our privacy in the near future.

Perhaps but I doubt it. If that were the case you could simply "live in a cave". Avoid any computer technology. Drive old cars. Get off of the electrical grid. Grow your own food. etc. and so on.. I don't think it wold be worth it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am not debating the theories proposed by any individual. The OP is concerning the internal disagreement about neo-Darwinism. To call ID loony is to beg the question and it only shows the narrow thought-life you have.

ID is called loony not because of what we know about evolution, but rather purely on its own merrit.

ID is loony because of what it says. Not because of what the scientific consensus is.
Off course, it doesn't help ID's case either, that the scientific consensus doesn't agree at all.

I am open to the academic theories of many sources.

ID is not academic. It is inherently religious and at best, merely disguised as being academic.

To call people loony in an outright scholastic manner is just pathetic. University literally means unity in diversity (i.e. a diversity of thought), which only survived under Christian academia. Once secularism took over the university the freedom of thought in schools has been non-existent.

You're joking, right?

This is true within the scientific community and morality & ethics where the terms of micro-agression, etc... have been thriving. Seriously, who comes up with this stuff? There is no education in public education anymore. People don't think for themselves. They have been indoctrinated by the masses. I used to be an atheist just like you @Subduction Zone until Jesus set me free. Find your freedom in Him and he will heal you.

See? Eventually you end up with preaching about Jesus. Your stance on this subject is inherently religious - not about evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The universe and everything within is the real evidence that not only, that God exists but also that God created the universe.

How so?

 

[USincognito]

Common decent is not a fact, it is a theory that uses facts. As a matter of fact all of the facts used in my Highschool text book for evolution were later found to be false, deliberate forgeries, or hoaxes.

Balderdash.

Name one of those facts.