Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

Speedwell · Jul 28, 2017

Sanoy said:
Ok well Gods constant causal support is guided evolution, not random mutation. Random mutation is going to need God because it isn't enough to produce another species. If God is guiding it, it's not a closed system. Even if he is acting as "Maxwells Demon" it is an open system as Maxwells Demon has been proved an energy in the laboratory. By Christ this world is not a closed system. A closed system is incompatible with Christianity, as it means God does nothing, and did nothing.

No, you miss my point entirely. God is not physically moving molecules into place or tinkering with the probability of chemical reactions. There are other distinct kinds of causality than the natural causality studied by science, the kind involved in the production of random variation. Call it what you will, but God is causally involved without directly "guiding" the random variation of evolution. The "closed system" I am talking about is only closed with respect to the natural causes that science studies. No, I do not believe that God does nothing and did nothing. Nor do I believe in a watchmaker God who winds up the universe and sets it to go of itself without further causal involvement. But that is not the same as requiring God to interfere with the randomness of random variation. In fact, theoretically speaking, evolution would not work if variation was not truly random.

Subduction Zone · Jul 28, 2017

Kenny'sID said:
You 'll have to forgive me for having given up on you for the most part, the very reason I'm just skimming your posts and missed that question.

Please Kenny, you are the one that posts a load of tripe. You know that. You have no excuse.

So you are now saying if I answer in a way that works for you, I understand and if I don't, I do not? and as usual, we are just supposed to take your word for that? Haven't I already accused you of trying to get away with that once? But is doesn't matter, I expect as much by now (or as little). Though the question is easy to answer, with I'd have to know all the details on "The" fossil record first, as I've already questioned one record someone brought up and it didn't pan out to be what is was touted as, but that doesn't matter either, you still have not laid out your proof, but maybe that's all you have, and it all hangs on my answering your question the way you choose for me to answer, and if I don't, I don't understand. Sorry for repeating that but seriously dude, that is one hilarious expectation.

No, I want an answer to a simple question. It will demonstrate whether or not you understand what is and what is not evidence. And don't tell falsehoods please. You are either being very dishonest or very ignorant. The simple question is:

Is the fossil record evidence for the theory of evolution or not?

See, you should have just added that to your line of proof, and then we can discuss it all, but instead you want to get hung up on that, and by design I assume, so you have another excuse to not answer what should be a very simple question the way you go on about evolution being a fact, and prove it already.

Kenny, you don't get any "proof" until you understand the nature of evidence. That you can't understand this is simply amazing. You keep dodging and running away. How do you expect to learn?

Anyway, I did notice how you tried to change the subject there, and are now going to try to prove a theory, what ever the heck that means, and not evolution as I requested. So you are now back peddling on top of everything else. I already know evolution is a theory.

Oops, you are projecting again. I did no such thing. And please, you are the one that keeps asking for "proof" which means that you are in no position to complain about "proving a theory".

That in mind, and after all the trouble I went to in my last post to make my request easy to understand, yet still you spout the same old excuses,...I think it's pretty safe to say you will not be proving evolution.

You mean because I am tired of dishonesty and will not help you until you show just a shred of honesty and decency? You can't really blame me for that. And please, don't tell falsehoods about me. Your actions led me to putting a condition on getting an answer. You continue to run away.

The whole purpose was simply to let others know that when it comes right down to it you fall apart completely when it comes to proof, no matter how hard one might try to get it out of you.

But Kenny, all that people can see is you running away from an obligation that you have. They can see that the "proof" is not forthcoming because you can't even bother to learn about evidence.

Now I have a question, have you proven evolution as you keep claiming you can, and if so, can you show me where you did that?

Nope. No questions from you right now. You are in no position to ask any.

and BTW, did you ever answer my first question, as in...

...or did you realize you were wrong/just talking again, with no walk to back it up, thus you had no answer, and just kind of skipped past it? You wouldn't do that...would you?

Yes, I already proved that long ago. I will do so again for you if you learn what is and what is not evidence.

Funny, due to your former rejection of evidence you are in no position to make any demands and yet I have offered to help you countless times. Instead you run away like a marathoner. All you have to due is to spend far less time that you have spent in running away. But you want to make your rejection of evidence to seem reasonable. You can't learn because then you know that to reject evidence would be a lie. And you can't afford that.

Subduction Zone · Jul 28, 2017

Dirk1540 said:
Is the amount of proof that there is for the general concept of evolution on par with the amount of proof there is for common descent? Let's see how you answer that before we talk about the word honestly, and straw men arguments.

The two are one and the same. Besides your question about proof of common descent was more than adequately answered for you. And creationists should never complain about the word "honesty". The only hope for "honest" creationists is to keep themselves willfully ignorant.

Obliquinaut · Jul 28, 2017

Kenny'sID said:
So you are saying now that if I am not a scientist and Z claims he is

No, not at all. I am merely asking what science you work in. I have seen many posts from SZ which would indicate to me that they are involved in earth science.

, I should bow to what he claims without proof

If you are involved in any debate on evolution (either Creationism v Evolution or ID v Evolution) you should be more than aware of evidence of both sides. If you are only aware of one side's evidence then you are not doing this right or you are very new to the topic.

? If so, you are much to easy. To subscribe to such nonsense would mean you will probably believe about anything told you.

Not at all! Why would you draw that conclusion? I have extensive experience in the sciences and as such I know how they operate. I know how science is done.

Oh and was all that you spouted there, your proof of evolution?

-sigh- Clearly you didn't really read what I wrote. Again: "proof" is a dodgy word in science. Science never actually can prove anything to perfect 100% proof (again, that is mathematics). Science takes all available data and attempts to explain as much of the variability with as few factors as possible in the most parsimonious way possible.

IF you were to actually read a real science journal article you'll note that they often put a little "p-value" on their graphs. This p-value tells you something. It tells your their estimate of making an error in inference. And it is not possible for it to be perfectly 0.0000...0. There is always a chance for error. It is the best possible explanation of the data within limitations of knowledge.

Again, I will ask, what is your area of science?

Obliquinaut · Jul 28, 2017

Obliquinaut · Jul 28, 2017

Dirk1540 said:
Is the amount of proof that there is for the general concept of evolution on par with the amount of proof there is for common descent? Let's see how you answer that before we talk about the word honestly, and straw men arguments.

Can I ask how it would be possible to have less proof of "the general concept of evolution" than for "common descent"?

If you have common descent, pretty much by definition, you have exactly as much proof for evolution in general.

How would it be possible to provide reasonable levels of evidence of common descent but NOT have evolution in general?

Obliquinaut · Jul 28, 2017

Mountainmike said:
But he had no scientific basis for that conjecture about abiogenesis, for which there is not even a conjectured pathway nor any valid hypothesis

I don't know how one could draw that conclusion. Life is made up of specific chemicals (many of which have a chemical affinity to bond with each other) and Miller and Urey showed how those chemicals could spontaneously arise in an early earth setting.

Since that time there has been even more interesting research on catalytic mineral surfaces and selective absorption sites. Even some evidence that early life might have been chemoautotrophic meaning it survived in very harsh environments like black smokers on the ocean floor (hydrothermal vents).

Again: this is evidence to explain the data with parsimonious constraints. And remember humanity has only been working on abiogenesis for about 60 years. Just because we haven't developed a human from raw carbon and hydrogen in the testube does not mean it is impossible.

That's how science works: not all things are solved within 15 minutes and one experiment.

Abiogenesis is a word used to describe a hole in a theory of life, not the existence of a theory!

Sorry to break it to you, but it isn't a "god of the gaps". It is an attempt to explain:

1. Where did life come from?
2. Given that the early earth had a variety of different chemicals, how do you windup with the building blocks that go into life
3. Once formed how do they react with each other (and they DO react with each other...the chemistry of the structure of a DNA molecule or a protein is actually quite straightforward. The secondary aspects like conformation and order of base pairs adds more complexity, but at it's core the chemical reactions between the various bases and amino acids and sugars as well as their hydrogen bonding are pretty straight forward. They can easily be explained in 1 organic chemistry class.)

Thats the thing about atheists. Their standards of acceptable evidence change completely according to whether they "Like" an idea or dislike it. Which is the complete antithesis of science.

Nope. Not even close.

There is far more forensic evidence for life from eucharistic miracles , in the form of detected white cells, so if they are interested in evidence they should study those instead.

Wow. I've not heard that before. Care to share a citation on that one?

In the evidence stakes the score is: Forensic evidence for life from eucharistic miracles 5, abiogenesis big fat 0.

I would dearly love to see evidence of Eucharistic miracle life formation. Oh yeah, and considering I am completely unaware of any way to make eucharists without human intervention, let alone the priest TOUCHING it, I would have to see some pretty stringent controls on that process. But I could be surprised.

xianghua · Jul 28, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
Me too. The problem is that ID is not a theory. It is not even a testable hypothesis. .

are you aware about the fact that evolution isnt a scientific theory because we cant falsified it?

Subduction Zone · Jul 28, 2017

xianghua said:
are you aware about the fact that evolution isnt a scientific theory because we cant falsified it?

Wrong, it is falsifiable. That means that there are reasonable tests that would show if it was wrong. The fact that you can't falsify a theory does not mean that it is unscientific, it has to be unfalsifiable to be unscientific. That may seem to be the same thing, but it is not.

Obliquinaut · Jul 28, 2017

xianghua said:
are you aware about the fact that evolution isnt a scientific theory because we cant falsified it?

Incorrect. It can be falsified. Countless ways. If evolution were not the likely explanation then evidence of common ancestry would not show up. Known phylogenetic relationships can be compared with bootstrapped phylogenetic trees (LINK). A way to falsify this is to understand that it would be possible to FAIL to generate accurate phylogenetic relationships using common descent when compared with known phylogenies.

It would also be possible to falsify evolution if we were to FAIL to find any transitional forms. Yet we find many in the record.

xianghua · Jul 28, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
Wrong, it is falsifiable. That means that there are reasonable tests that would show if it was wrong.

such as?....

xianghua · Jul 28, 2017

Obliquinaut said:
Incorrect. It can be falsified. Countless ways. If evolution were not the likely explanation then evidence of common ancestry would not show up. Known phylogenetic relationships can be compared with bootstrapped phylogenetic trees (LINK). A way to falsify this is to understand that it would be possible to FAIL to generate accurate phylogenetic relationships using common descent when compared with known phylogenies.

i doesnt understand what you refer to. give my a specific example. lets say that we check the phylogenetic tree of lets say a chimp a human and a cat. how can i falsified evolution under that position. if evolution is wrong, what we should find?

Obliquinaut said:
It would also be possible to falsify evolution if we were to FAIL to find any transitional forms. Yet we find many in the record.

not realy. in this case we can just say that we still need to find more fossils, like in darwins time.

Subduction Zone · Jul 28, 2017

xianghua said:
such as?....

There countless tests that would falsify the theory of evolution. When Darwin first made it genetics as a science did not exist. Darwin made a falisifiable prediction that traits were conserved, could change, and that those changes were passed on. The science of genetics confirmed that and DNA proved it beyond a doubt. There are many examples like that of predictions made and confirmed all of which could have falsified the theory.

It could still be falsified today if a species was found grossly out of order in the fossil record. The old "Precambrian Bunny Rabbit" for example.

Obliquinaut · Jul 28, 2017

xianghua said:
i doesnt understand what you refer to. give my a specific example. lets say that we check the phylogenetic tree of lets say a chimp a human and a cat. how can i falsified evolution under that position. if evolution is wrong, what we should find?

I am not an expert on bootstrapping phylogenetic trees. There are examples in the link I provided. My apologies for not being able to show more in-depth detail on this. There are also a variety of references sited as well.

not realy. in this case we can just say that we still need to find more fossils, like in darwins time.

But we DO find transitional forms. That is one of the key complaints that Creationists have against Evolution. They want transitional forms...and we FIND THEM IN THE FOSSIL RECORD.

More forms between those transitional forms won't change the fact that the transitional forms are transitional forms. It will just provide more detail.

Sanoy · Jul 28, 2017

Speedwell said:
No, you miss my point entirely. God is not physically moving molecules into place or tinkering with the probability of chemical reactions. There are other distinct kinds of causality than the natural causality studied by science, the kind involved in the production of random variation. Call it what you will, but God is causally involved without directly "guiding" the random variation of evolution. The "closed system" I am talking about is only closed with respect to the natural causes that science studies. No, I do not believe that God does nothing and did nothing. Nor do I believe in a watchmaker God who winds up the universe and sets it to go of itself without further causal involvement. But that is not the same as requiring God to interfere with the randomness of random variation. In fact, theoretically speaking, evolution would not work if variation was not truly random.

I think I understand better what you mean but I'm still not sure it would be closed. Lets take the maxwells demon experiment as a model. In the laboratory experiment you have a device that randomly rolls forward or backwards (think random mutation). It sits on a slope, facing the incline. An observer watches the ball and if it is going to roll backwards he presses a button to stop it. If it is going to roll forward the observer does nothing. The ball will gain potential energy via the slope. The energy of information is converted into potential energy. Even though the energy of information is non naturalistic, the mechanism that stops it from rolling backwards is naturalistic. So if you look back at the original Maxwells demon thought experiment, you can get the ethereal demon for free, but you still need a physical door. I don't know how to get around it unless you remove the demon and maybe put a material consciousness or algorithm in the cell that mechanically operates the "door" and prevents or allows certain mutations. That is actually something, according to the video, that is being hypothesized these days. The "door" operator, so to speak, has to be in the closed system I think.

But beyond just the naturalistic processes, I think Christianity entails the direct and whole violation of the closed system of naturalistic processes. Christs miracles violate that system directly.

Cearbhall · Jul 28, 2017

ExodusMe said:
I would agree to an extent. Scientists have always had doubts about evolution. It is whether they want to accept or state those doubts as there is too much at stake for voicing their concerns. Many professors lose their jobs just for stating doubts & criticism towards evolution.

Well sure, if they're practicing bad science and have demonstrated that they aren't a useful teacher or researcher.

However, criticism is not inherently frowned upon. Quite the opposite. Like any other discipline, it's literally all about collaborating, peer-reviewing, and critiquing. No one is more critical of a discipline than the members of that discipline.

xianghua · Jul 28, 2017

Subduction Zone said:
It could still be falsified today if a species was found grossly out of order in the fossil record. The old "Precambrian Bunny Rabbit" for example.

not realy. in this case we can claim for convergent evolution (mammal evolve twice) or claiming that somehow its get to the wrong layer by an unknown geological process and so on. so no, such a fossil cant falsified evolution. even wikipedia admit it:

Precambrian rabbit - Wikipedia

"Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas"-

very unscientific.

dmmesdale · Jul 28, 2017

They have not found a last common ancestor (LCA) between apes and man according to this. What they do have is artists renditions.

BBC - Earth - We have still not found the missing link between us and apes

So how are we to find the LCA between a banana and a cockroach or a worm and a dolphin? Science proof? An artists rendition?

What Ardi may have looked like. There is your definite maybe. ^^^

xianghua · Jul 28, 2017

Obliquinaut said:
More forms between those transitional forms won't change the fact that the transitional forms are transitional forms. It will just provide more detail.

but the problem here is that it doenst prove any evolution. we can arrange vehicles in hierarchy: a car, a jeep and a truck. but this order doesnt prove any evolution. even if vehicles where able to reproduce with variations over time, the best explanation will remain that those vehicles created by a designer and not evolve by a natural process.

pitabread · Jul 28, 2017

Sanoy said:
Yes, all of the major ones were. All that remained were the "transitional" hominids, which we now have far less off. Darwinism lives by force of mouth.

I'm going to have to ask for specifics.

The only deliberate hoax I know of that might have been in a textbook would have been Piltdown Man. Beyond that, I'm highly skeptical of your claim that "all" the evidence for evolution turned out later to be false or a hoax of some kind.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is in trouble INSIDE the scientific community

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Сделайте Америку прекрасной

Сделайте Америку прекрасной

Сделайте Америку прекрасной

Сделайте Америку прекрасной

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Сделайте Америку прекрасной

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Сделайте Америку прекрасной

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency