Why evolution isn't scientific

[Steven Wood]

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.

I understand you now. The problem I have believing much about darwinism, over say adaptation is that most of the researchers or so adamant that it is a real thing, that they are not willing to admit that they may be wrong, like other respectable theoretical fields. Not all but most will come up with another excuse as to why there beliefs aren't working but still true.

 

[46AND2]

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.

No...the OP specifically said that in order for something to be science, it has to be falsifiable, and that evolution is not science because it is not falsifiable. It was the thesis of the OP.

 

[46AND2]

...so adamant that it is a real thing, that they are not willing to admit that they may be wrong, ..

Hmm, why does this sentiment sound so familiar?

 

[Steven Wood]

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.)

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.

Not looking for a life analogy. Actually thinking of a relation to the explanation of evolution that sounds just as absurd.I can tell that you are well educated in what you believe and far more educated that I will ever or really care to ever be. I respect that because I cannot stand people that believe something purely because they heard it once and sounded about right. Belief without extensive research is not a valid belief. Since you do study it for a living I have a question for you. Please bare with me as I haven't read about it in a long time and have done no search about it. You actually just reminded me as I am typing about something I heard about Years ago.There is a cactus (the name escapes me) In maybe Arizona I believe. It has a symbiotic relationship with a beetle of the same name. The blooms on the cactus or something close to that is the only thing that the beetle can it and if I remember correctly the beetle is the only way that the cactus gets pollinated and can reproduce or something close to that. How are symbiotic relationships like that explained with the evolution theory? I can see how the beetle evolved into eating only that after so many years but how is the dependency on the beetle for the cactus explained? They couldn't have evolved and adapted at the same rate at the same time

 

[Steven Wood]

Hmm, why does this sentiment sound so familiar?

There are many Christians along with any believers in anything with that mentality. I'm not a hypocrite. I just do not respect those types of people or even consider the as real Christians if they aren't willing to see that they could possibly be wrong and learn from it.

 

[Steven Wood]

No...the OP specifically said that in order for something to be science, it has to be falsifiable, and that evolution is not science because it is not falsifiable. It was the thesis of the OP.

I was mistaken then. I've been defending an opinion I don't agree with.

 

[46AND2]

There are many Christians along with any believers in anything with that mentality. I'm not a hypocrite. I just do not respect those types of people or even consider the as real Christians if they aren't willing to see that they could possibly be wrong and learn from it.

You realize you said this directly after a post in which you have no interest in researching evolution, right?

 

[Steven Wood]

You realize you said this directly after a post in which you have no interest in researching evolution, right?

I said I don't care enough to research it as much as they did. If you are going to infer that I'm a hypocrite get it right.

 

[46AND2]

Not looking for a life analogy. Actually thinking of a relation to the explanation of evolution that sounds just as absurd.I can tell that you are well educated in what you believe and far more educated that I will ever or really care to ever be. I respect that because I cannot stand people that believe something purely because they heard it once and sounded about right. Belief without extensive research is not a valid belief. Since you do study it for a living I have a question for you. Please bare with me as I haven't read about it in a long time and have done no search about it. You actually just reminded me as I am typing about something I heard about Years ago.There is a cactus (the name escapes me) In maybe Arizona I believe. It has a symbiotic relationship with a beetle of the same name. The blooms on the cactus or something close to that is the only thing that the beetle can it and if I remember correctly the beetle is the only way that the cactus gets pollinated and can reproduce or something close to that. How are symbiotic relationships like that explained with the evolution theory? I can see how the beetle evolved into eating only that after so many years but how is the dependency on the beetle for the cactus explained? They couldn't have evolved and adapted at the same rate at the same time

Symbiosis is not an issue for evolution. The simple answer is that they weren't always symbiotic. You said yourself that you can see how a beetle can become dependent on the cactus...why is it harder to accept that the cactus became dependent on the beetle? And who says it had to have been at the same rate at the same time?

 

[Steven Wood]

Symbiosis is not an issue for evolution. The simple answer is that they weren't always symbiotic. You said yourself that you can see how a beetle can become dependent on the cactus...why is it harder to accept that the cactus became dependent on the beetle? And who says it had to have been at the same rate at the same time?

As I said it had been a long while having read about it and I was asking a legitimate question. The beetle is easily explained as adaptation to food availability but there is something special about the beetle that the cactus relies on and without it would not last past 1 generation. This leaves me to believe there has been no other way for the cactus to reproduce without the beetle which means the rate of evolution had to be the same for both to depend so heavily on one another. I really would like an explanation that isn't condescending.

 

[46AND2]

As I said it had been a long while having read about it and I was asking a legitimate question. The beetle is easily explained as adaptation to food availability but there is something special about the beetle that the cactus relies on and without it would not last past 1 generation. This leaves me to believe there has been no other way for the cactus to reproduce without the beetle which means the rate of evolution had to be the same for both to depend so heavily on one another. I really would like an explanation that isn't condescending.

It's no different than the food availability. I'd have to read about the specific situation, but I think it would make sense that the beetle, being drawn directly to the cactus as its only food source became the primary source for what the cactus needed. And either the other sources for the cactus died out, or, since the beetle was so prevalent, the cacti which which utilized the beetle better in some way became the fittest of the cacti population, and eventually it led to dependence on the beetle.

 

[46AND2]

I said I don't care enough to research it as much as they did. If you are going to infer that I'm a hypocrite get it right.

But it's no different. You argue (in a debate kind of way) that the people who HAVE done that kind of research are wrong, without having done adequate research on your own. How do you know they are wrong instead of you, if you haven't spent the time studying it?

 

[Steven Wood]

But it's no different. You argue (in a debate kind of way) that the people who HAVE done that kind of research are wrong, without having done adequate research on your own. How do you know they are wrong instead of you, if you haven't spent the time studying it?

I see your point and agree with you in a way but I'm not explaining myself correctly. I have researched, just not to the extent that it sounds like many others have. Just like I see a direct correlation between micro and macrocosm, I do not need to now all of the scientific terms to get the gist of it. The same with how quantum entanglement can ultimately explain how prayer works and how the observer effect can prove the existence of God, in theory. I understand what is being said whether I understand the scientific wording or not.

 

[VirOptimus]

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?

Common sense is just another way to write ”what I think”. It has no weight and no explanatory power.

Try again, and learn some facts.

 

[Steven Wood]

Common sense is just another way to write ”what I think”. It has no weight and no explanatory power.

Try again, and learn some facts.

What facts would you like me to learn? something that backs you up or me. Is it common sense that if you stick a fork in an outlet you'll get shocked or is it just my opinion? Maybe you might want to rethink your choice of words and try again

 

[46AND2]

I see your point and agree with you in a way but I'm not explaining myself correctly. I have researched, just not to the extent that it sounds like many others have. Just like I see a direct correlation between micro and macrocosm, I do not need to now all of the scientific terms to get the gist of it. The same with how quantum entanglement can ultimately explain how prayer works and how the observer effect can prove the existence of God, in theory. I understand what is being said whether I understand the scientific wording or not.

Well, I haven't read enough of your posts to know if you do indeed understand what is being said or not, but honestly, most evolution deniers who say that, really don't understand what is being said, scientific jargon or not. It's why you see proponents of evolution saying so often that deniers are making strawmen arguments. They are literally arguing against a caricature version of evolution, not evolution itself.

As for hypothesizing quantum entanglement explaining prayer and the observer effect, god...it seems to me that it is more hopeful thinking that things we don't yet fully understand will somehow be the proof of god's existence. History is full of this thinking, and EVERY time we have actually come to understand the phenomenon, it has been a natural, rather than supernatural, explanation.

I'd be happy if these were the exception to the rule. If there is a god, I want to know. But the track record has not been good.

 

[VirOptimus]

What facts would you like me to learn? something that backs you up or me. Is it common sense that if you stick a fork in an outlet you'll get shocked or is it just my opinion? Maybe you might want to rethink your choice of words and try again

No I really dont need to rethink anything. You are trying to argue against observed physical reality as you dont know and understand the facts and data. Thats very ignorant.

That you also dont understand the meaning of the phrase ”common sense” is pretty expected.

 

[Turkana]

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.

Ok I can live with that, I took "the problem with evolution is that it cant be test as "the problem with evolution is that it cant be tested". But when it was poor wording due to languages issues, I acknowledge your interpretation.

Still my post was worthwhile because there are many creationists who actually think that evolution theory is unfalsifiable, it's one of their main talking points, so my post wasn't wasted.

I also fully understand and sympathize with your feelings about bad mutations and how they affect your grand child. We have a similar case in our family. It's a raw deal and full of hardship.

BTW evolution theory is not about natural selection of the "weakest" or "smallest". It says that when the environment an organism is dwelling is changing, this organism will have to adapt - or get extinct or migrate. Genetic mutations happen and provide genetic variation. The ones that happen to bring new traits that correspond to the new living conditions are selected for because under such new circumstances they lead to better chance of survival and/or reproduction. The mutations though that lead to consolidation of the existing traits are not favorable because they don't match anymore with the new living conditions.

Example. Say, we have a semi-aquatic animal that lives in a wet environment. Any mutation that might affect its ability to deal with and strive in wet conditions will lead to less fitness (in this case the ability to live in wet conditions). Any of such disadvantageous mutations will lead to less survival and/or reproduction chances. But when due to climate change the environment gets more arid, the organism will suffer selective pressure to adapt to the new arid conditions. In such circumstances mutations that originally were disadvantageous, now became beneficial and are selected for. This way the organism starts to gradually change to become a less aquatic animal.

That's all there is to natural selection.

Nature is cruel. I know.

 

[pitabread]

Since you insult the intelligence of the OP and count her opinion as worthless

The OP has a history of posting erroneous claims, getting into prolonged discussions whereby it is carefully and patiently explained why the claim is erroneous, and then reposting the same claims like the prior discussions never happened.

Myself and many others have had such discussions with the OP and I have no more patience for it. Their claim is wrong and that they are incapable of learning why it is wrong isn't my problem. But if they are going to keep posting in this manner, I will call them out on it.

 

[pitabread]

yet another comment wich dealing with the writer instead of dealing with the facts. if you can show why im wrong- be my guest.

You've had this explained to you dozens of times in the past (see here for example). Why not just revisit those prior discussions instead of making the same incorrect claims over and over again?