Why evolution isn't scientific

[sfs]

The idea that the universe is such that life, as we observe it, isn't just random, but likely. So rather than rely on pure randomness the state of matter is a significant driving force acting congruently with evolution.

Whose idea is this, and what does the probability of life have to do with evolution?

 

[Steven Wood]

The idea that the universe is such that life, as we observe it, isn't just random, but likely. So rather than rely on pure randomness the state of matter is a significant driving force acting congruently with evolution.

Dumbed down and abridged I think shes trying to say that even the simplest of universal "coincidences" let alone the random construct of a single atom is mind numbingly impossible. The chances of anything happening by happenstance is one in a number too big for any mind to comprehend.

 

[Sanoy]

The aliens that have been pulling the strings all along finally reveal themselves.

Panspermia, or actual direct alien creation would work but I think evolution would just move back a step and apply to them/it. Though it would answer a lot of hard questions.

 

[Steven Wood]

Whose idea is this, and what does the probability of life have to do with evolution?

Its a good question. Honestly the way I've always thought about it is that if there is and creator and intelligent design, why would it cause his creation to be subpar to the point that it has to lose what it doesn't need or gain what it doesn't have.

 

[pitabread]

so where is the limit that we can push back creatures evolution?

There's no specific "limit" since it entirely depends on what organisms and what time lines you are talking about. Just in the article you linked, it refers to sauropods evolving at least 200 Mya with large sauropods evolving 160 Mya. This is simply a refinement showing certain kinds of sauropods evolving 174 Mya. No falsification of evolution here. It's all in the article you linked.

 

[Sanoy]

Whose idea is this, and what does the probability of life have to do with evolution?

Well for instance how does deterministic matter arrange to produce non deterministic consciousness? Consciousness being the core of behavior drives a large portion of the selection process. There is also a point before evolution, and during evolution where the state, forces, and conditions of the universe must be such to causally arrange the body from which selection can occur. Natural force is begining to be called on to account for what selection and mutation cannot.

 

[Steven Wood]

Well, no, but if you're seriously suggesting that virtually all of the world's scientists are lying about evolution, then yes, I'm saying that's completely nuts. (Why would they be doing this, anyway? The same scientists are the ones deciding who gets grants -- why would they devote their lives studying something they know is a fraud?)

My belief -- formed based on decades of watching people attack evolution -- is that most of those doing the attacking have no idea what they're talking about.

I can answer hypothetical questions, but not hypothetical questions that you haven't asked (which would make it a hypothetical hypothetical question, I guess).

I never assume and always ask permission lol. If you look at a house or any building for that matter, would you say that the materials and the exact length and quantity of each material needed spontaneously came together over time and the building happened all on its own, or would you say common sense would prevail over nonsense and there was a blueprint, the material was cut and ordered, and someone built it? it may sound like a very absurd question but if you really break it down and think about it, it is the explanation of evolution, just simplified and made to sound dumb and obvious . Which would you say was more likely though?

 

[sfs]

Well for instance how does deterministic matter arrange to produce non deterministic consciousness?

Matter isn't deterministic, as far as we can tell, and we have no way of knowing whether consciousness is deterministic. Again, I don't see what this has to do with adding teleological forces to evolution, nor does it tell me who is doing whatever it is you think they're doing.

 

[sfs]

If you look at a house or any building for that matter, would you say that the materials and the exact length and quantity of each material needed spontaneously came together over time and the building happened all on its own, or would you say common sense would prevail over nonsense and there was a blueprint, the material was cut and ordered, and someone built it?

Sure, I'd say that it was designed. (Although with some houses, there clearly wasn't a single blueprint. Rather, it's been added to repeatedly over time. If you're looking for an analogy for life, that's the direction you should be looking in.)

it may sound like a very absurd question but if you really break it down and think about it, it is the explanation of evolution, just simplified and made to sound dumb and obvious .

Well, no. I've thought about evolution quite a lot (studying it is one of the things I do for a living), and I'd have to say that living things look nothing like houses that have been built according to a plan.

 

[AV1611VET]

lets take something even more simple: a human with a dino.

I think what would happen in that case is that scientists would be tied up for years in think tanks, and discussion groups, and peer reviews, and writing journals, and Darwin knows what all; finally ending up claiming the human was really a Homosaurus or something.

 

[Sanoy]

Matter isn't deterministic, as far as we can tell, and we have no way of knowing whether consciousness is deterministic. Again, I don't see what this has to do with adding teleological forces to evolution, nor does it tell me who is doing whatever it is you think they're doing.

Matter isn't deterministic, but we might be? What? If your consciousness does not have free will then you are not having a rational conversation with me. Your words would merely be the result of a biochemical reaction with 0 directed truth value.

You have to levy natural forces on evolution because part of the selective process is behavior which is contained in the consciousness which must have an ontological explanation either in the natural state of the universe or evolution. Since evolution requires behavior, people are looking toward natural forces to assist evolutionary theory. This much is non controversial.

 

[Steven Wood]

Well, no, but if you're seriously suggesting that virtually all of the world's scientists are lying about evolution, then yes, I'm saying that's completely nuts. (Why would they be doing this, anyway? The same scientists are the ones deciding who gets grants -- why would they devote their lives studying something they know is a fraud?)
Why did doctors use leeches, believe that bleeding someone would reduce a fever? Because the believed it until science caught up with them and I bet that there were many that discredited the ones that disproved it simply because of pride. Another reason. Why would people travel from town to town selling "tonics and elixirs" they knew were bogus? Money and fame.


My belief -- formed based on decades of watching people attack evolution -- is that most of those doing the attacking have no idea what they're talking about.
I will be the first to say that I am not a scientist and I don't understand half of the jargon they speak to explain things, I truly think its for the same reason that catholics used to preach and only translate their bible in latin, the common man didn't have a clue what they were saying and it made them sound more intelligent, like they knew what they were talking about and couldn't prove that they were pulling their leg. I am not classically versed in the once upon a time that is evolution but i will say that the father of the crackpot teaching lost couldn't even hold true to his own theory. I mean seriously. Dude was constantly sick because his family were avid inbreeders and for the guy who dreamed up survival of the fittest he didn't really prove it by learning from his frailty. I mean dude married his cousin, had 3 kids die, just about the same amount were left barren (which I guess could be an argument for natural selection) and the rest were deathbed sick they're whole lives. If that isn't proof that the fading out of the weakest and dumbest isnt real I don't know what is. I've always been a very firm believer in occam's razor, also if I close my eyes and here hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. And I've never had much faith in theories that have to change their idea about how things happen, growing more and more difficult because they can't ever prove their ideas. Like string theory for example

 

[AirPo]

The idea that the universe is such that life, as we observe it, isn't just random, but likely. So rather than rely on pure randomness the state of matter is a significant driving force acting congruently with evolution.

Well that's just a bunch of nonsense. Random and likely are not mutually exclusive, it can be both. And matter in not random, it just is. Forces and not random either, they just are. Randomly mix them together and stuff happens.

 

[Sanoy]

Well that's just a bunch of nonsense. Random and likely are not mutually exclusive, it can be both. And matter in not random, it just is. Forces and not random either, they just are. Random mix them together and stuff happens.

I agree, I'm not excluding one for the other. It is the inclusion of both deterministic natural forces and neo darwinism that I have been talking about.

 

[AirPo]

Matter isn't deterministic, as far as we can tell, and we have no way of knowing whether consciousness is deterministic. Again, I don't see what this has to do with adding teleological forces to evolution, nor does it tell me who is doing whatever it is you think they're doing.

Sounds like the new creationist snake oil.

 

[AV1611VET]

but as you can guess- they just push back the evolution of the creature and dont claim that evolution is false.

Natch.

Why do you think Paul refers to evolution as ...

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

 

[drich0150]

a scientific theory is a theory that we can test. mean it can be falsified. the problem with evolution is that it cant be test. for instance: some evolutionists (like dawkins and others) claiming that if we will find even a single out of place fossil- evolution will be false. but we actually found many such fossils like this one:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180801182438.htm

but as you can guess- they just push back the evolution of the creature and dont claim that evolution is false. the problem is that in this way any fossil will not falsify evolution. other evolutionists claimed that if we will find more shared ervs with far species than close species evolution will be false. but in this case they can just claim for convergent evolution or convergent loss or even ils. so even such a case will not be a problem for evolution, and therefore its not a scientific theory by definition. as a general note: english isnt my native so i may not understand some words here and there in general. thanks.

The counterargument is evolution is found to be false all the time... but that is the process which the makes the scientific method so great! in that once we learn something new/some thing old was wrong in the theory we change taking us one step closer to the 'truth.' For 'those guys' being found false or having found fault in the theory is proof that it is a working theory..

Yeah I know garbage.

Here's the thing you guys need to press. that there are two primary forms of 'science and scientific theory. applied sciences are the real word sciences that have proven uses and applications, that make things like computers and cell phones work. then you have fringe or speculatory science. this is the black hole dark matter time travel (use to be called science fiction a few decades ago) even darwinism, anything that did not have a practical real world application. use to be anything speculatory in science was segregated so as not to be mixed with known/ appliblical science. So as not to give any undue legitimacy to the theoretical sciences. for what ever reason sometime in the 90 push to combine all science into one category. Now you will even hear people say the same science behind darwin is the same science behind your computer... No! do not let this stand. Rather than say darwinism is unfalsifiable, say it is just one of several scientific explanations of the fossil record. and then show it takes faith to believe in darwinism over say: Devolution. It states that life here was transplanted/seeded here at some point in the past, and everything lived together all at once, and as the climate changed species began to die off, rather than evolving the species who died could not keep up with planetary change or exposural/elemental change. Which is why we have these huge extensional events and why not all species from certain eras SURVIVED! Devolution fills in far more scientifically than evolution ever did. This would also explain why certain older species of plants work better with augmented/hydroponic light than the real thing!

Again a real theory based in 'science' but this one is laughed at while the other isn't? show the triviality in it all how one's legitimacy is held on by a thread and shw what holds it all together is faith in fact which is, not truth.

 

[Steven Wood]

Well that's just a bunch of nonsense. Random and likely are not mutually exclusive, it can be both. And matter in not random, it just is. Forces and not random either, they just are. Randomly mix them together and stuff happens.

true but there are basic principles to everything. Not everything mixed together causes things to happen. 2 things must have the law of interaction to create volatility for anything to happen. In my opinion that law alone is an argument against evolution. Different particles at a sub atomic level would have to had interact with other particle and incalculable amount of times before there was a positive reaction that formed atoms which had to interact with other atoms an incalculable amount of time to form a genome and so on and so forth.How many different sub atomic particles would had to have been next to each other to fail that many times before it just randomly created even the simplest of organisms?

 

[Turkana]

so where is the limit that we can push back creatures evolution? give me a specific number. if you cant- then you prove my point that evolution can explain anything.

Dinosaurs? The first ones appeared 243 million years ago.
Also your question is partly flawed due to a lack of understanding of cladistics and phylogenetica.

 

[Steven Wood]

Good gracious yet another antiscientist who is gonna tell the scientists how to do science.

And who is also swindles the whole company, like "a scientific theory is a theory that we can test. mean it can be falsified".

Evolution not falsifiable? Really? Did nobody taught you to get acquainted with the things you feel entitled to assess in advance?

You should ask you fellow creationists, who also say that evolution is not falsifiable but, NEVERTHELESS, manage to come up with HUNDREDS of refutations of evolution. Here are only a tiny number of different ways to falsify evolution:

• a static fossil record, showing that biodiversity does not change throughout the natural history of the earth.
• scientific observations of organisms or biological structures being created by divine hand.
• the earth is too young to allow evolution by means of gradual adaptation to account for the observed biodiversity.
• evolution theory predicts a hierarchical fossil record where certain life forms are ancestral to later ones. For instance, evolution states that amphibians evolved from bony fish. The prediction then says that bony fish precede amphibians first in the fossil record. When we would find amphibian fossil preceding the appearance of bony fish, that part of evolution theory has been falsified.
• organisms with identical DNA having different genetic traits.
• mutations do not occur.
• mutations do not lead to genetic variation.
• beneficial mutations do not occur (all mutations are harmful or neutral).
• natural selection is not weeding out harmful mutations.
• beneficial mutations are not fixed in species' genomes.
• any mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating.
• mutations are not passed down the generations.
• mutations that are passed down the generations cannot produce the sort of phenotypic changes.
• natural selection does not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• environmental pressures do not affect the way natural selection favors the reproductive process of better adapted individuals.

Good gracious, this endless blab all the time - and, above all, this constant deceit.

I think that the OP saying that english isn't the native tongue might explain some things. The way I took it they were Saying that it CAN be falsified, I think you are arguing the same side. Unless you were fight for evolution, I kind of got a little lost. If you were I'll say this. Some of the things said about genetic mutations, if you were saying the claims you listed could not be lied about....aare lied about. I have first hand knowledge of a spontaneous genetic mutation, that has never ran in the family, that caused harmful mutations. And since it is my grand child I would appreciate it if noone made any comments about the weakest and smallest and survival of the fittest on his behalf.