Why evolution isn't scientific

[DogmaHunter]

Why is faith erroneous? Why dont you do faith?

Because faith doesn't lead to truth.
You can believe anything on faith, no matter if it's right or wrong..
Faith, is what you need when you have no evidence but wish to believe anyway.
Faith can not distinguish accurate beliefs from wrong beliefs.
Faith, is gullibility.

As Mark Twain (I think) said once: Faith is believing those things that you know ain't true.

What religions make the same claims as Christianity?

There is some overlap, but ultimately all religions make their own unique (fantastical) claims - that's kind of what makes them religions on their own.

If Islam and Christianity would make the exact same claims, then Islam and Christianity wouldn't have different names - they'ld be the same religion.

Seems rather obvious.

Why is faith illogical?

Because it literally is belief without evidence.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hey hey my dear.

Hahaha nice!!, the stupid and ignorant angle - you missed out dishonest and arrogant . It seems that you want to hurt my feelings. Why do you feel the need to mock me?

So evolution is linked to physical reality? How is this so and why are you smarter than me for agreeing with it?

Cheers

I dont want to hurt your feelings, I don care about your feelings one way or the other or who is smarter.

The ToE is incredibly well-supported science that describes physical reality.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hey hey my dear

Kylie replied to my question to you.



Icon - "is evolution meaningless?"

@Kylie - "No. Evolution is a very useful tool for understanding how biological life works."

What do you think about kylies response?

Do you believe there is purpose or reason for evolution?

Cheers

My response is in no way incompatible with Kylies answer.

The ToE just is.

 

[xianghua]

If you can show me evidence for that claim, I would accept it. At least that claim has a bit more factuality for it than your asinine claim about evolution working if you found a 200 million year old bear fossil.

so you agree that evolution will not be in a problem if we will find a 50 my old dolphin fossil. if so we both agree.

 

[xianghua]

An example of one of which is?

this one for instance:

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

 

[xianghua]

You've been shown several times at least that scientists are not claiming what you say they're claiming, and yet you persist on saying they are claiming it. It's gone beyond the point where your responses can be viewed as a misunderstanding.

if you say so.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution isn't random.

who said it is? i actually talked about mutations. read my comment again.

You don't know what you are talking about.

you indeed dont know what you are talking about. read again my original comment.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution is science. It makes testable predictions, which have been tested and verified.

a good joke.

In short, you don't know what you are talking about.

indeed you dont know what you are talking about. bottom line: you was wrong about the claim that we cant push back many species. and you cant even admit this simple fact.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

so you agree that evolution will not be in a problem if we will find a 50 my old dolphin fossil. if so we both agree.

If there is actual evidence for it, sure. And, no, I don't agree with you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

this one for instance:

Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

If you actually read the example you linked, you'd see this opening abstract:

Editor’s Note: This paper presents a different paradigm than the traditional view. It is, in the view of the Journal, an exploratory paper that does not give a complete justification for the alternative view. The reader should not assume that the Journal or the reviewers agree with the conclusions of the paper. It is a valuable contribution that challenges the conventional vision that systems can design and organise themselves. The Journal hopes that the paper will promote the exchange of ideas in this important topic. Comments are invited in the form of ‘Letters to the Editor.
​

So... not really what you think it is.

 

[RealityCheck01]

i already gave here several examples like in the whale case and this tetrapod one:

Still wrong about the disputed tetrapod trackways that can only shift one of many possible transitional fossils between fishes and tetrapods, xianghua, as explained to you before.

This is the evolution of cetaceans and there are no scientific issues. You are wrong about a "whale case".

You are still wrong about your other examples because you have no example of a Precambrian rabbit.

 

[RealityCheck01]

this is the problem. any fossil can be fit with evolution. later or eariler.

That is an ignorant statement when you have been told you about Precambrian rabbits many times, xianghua. One more time: Finding the fossil of a species of mammal before mammals existed cannot be explained by evolution !

If you cannot grasp the Precambrian rabbits example then take it to an extreme limit. Place the fossil billions of years ago when only single celled animals existed! I hope that you understand that evolution could not explain that fossil.

 

[RealityCheck01]

With reference to fossils, Colin ...

Sorry, Roland Pires, but a personal opinion of a single scientist in a letter is not scientific evidence.

If there were any intermediate fossils we should see numerous ones not a few which could be misinterpretations or fakes.

We have maybe millions of "intermediate fossils": Transitional fossils.
We have found a handful of fakes. Misinterpretations would be more plentiful.

A recent study on mitochondria DNA on animal species found that 9 out of 10 species on Earth today including humans came into existence at the same time about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago

This is an erroneous article that has lead to some lies on the Internet, Roland Pires.
Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution misrepresented what the paper stated. The authors stated genetic diversity accumulated over a period of 200,000 years, not that new species evolved.

Homo sapiens are ~315,000 years old, not 200,000.

What did the paper actually demonstrate, and why is it important?

First, Stoeckle and Thaler examined the variation in a 600-nucleotide region of one gene in the genome of the mitochondria for five million individual animals representing 100,000 animal species. They concluded that the genetic diversity of mtDNA is relatively low (about 0.2% differences in the gene they examined, or about a 1 nucleotide difference) within most species. This is true whether that species had a restricted geographical range and/or population size (e.g. African elephants) or if the species had a large population and geographic range (e.g. humans). As we will see, it is this result that has led to the incorrect claim that most species originated about the same time.

Stoeckle and Thaler did not conclude "90% of animal species appeared at same time as humans". They wrote "the genetic diversity observed in mitochondrial genomes of most species alive today can be attributed to the accumulation of mutations from an ancestral genome within the past 200,000 years.".

Another problem for the evolutionary theory is that it depends on invalid extrapolations.

This is not true, Roland Pires.
Human breeding of animals is not evolution. Human breeding of animals does lead to almost species, e.g. a dog is not a wolf, an Irish wolf hounds tend not to breed with toy dogs .

We have observed a new species of finch emerge. We have observed many new species emerge.

In the link below, Dr Lee Spetner...

A creationist author's web page is not a reliable source of biology, Roland Pires.
This is Lee Spetner. He is a physicist who does not believe in evolution because of religious beliefs. That is Ok but has lead to him persisting with ignorant ideas about evolution. He has not published any papers on evolution since 1970.

The Talk Origins news group was a science-based group. They cited scientific literature. For example see 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.
The Evolution of Improved Fitness by Edward E. Max goes through some creationist myths and refutes them with science.

 

[RealityCheck01]

are you saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design?

We are saying that dependence on cartoons rather than real biology and ignorance of design and evolution is what made Intelligent Design not intelligent or design.
That cartoon was designed to look like a motor!
This is the evolution of flagella.
ID is abysmally ignorant about evolution, e.g. Behe's 1996 (and ongoing?) stupidity with irreducible complexity.

 

[RealityCheck01]

actually you showing your own ignorance. you cant just take several parts and mix them to get a new complex system. .

Sorry, xianghua, but you need read the actual citation.
Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex
This is a New Scientist article explaining clearly how ID got irreducible complexity horribly wrong. This is simply that there is a "motor" that drives a protein export system and the same "motor" with the same proteins drives the flagellum.

 

[RealityCheck01]

so?. as you can see here evolutionists have no problem to push back many species at once:

You are still wrong about science and what you cite, xianghua.
Sceince is evidence based. If there is compelling evidence to "push back" species then they are pushed back.
What you cite is nothing to do with this basic fact abut science. Read the title.
If the dispute trackways are verified, what they will do is make 1 species of the many transitional species between fishes and tetrapods into a later transitional species.
Still wrong about the disputed tetrapod trackways that can only shift one of many possible transitional fossils between fishes and tetrapods, xianghua, as explained to you before.

 

[RealityCheck01]

are you saying that these scientists dont claims that their discovery push back these species? (look at figure 5):

Tetrapod Trackways From the Early Middle Devonian Period of Poland

The authors are competent and thus explore the possibility that their discovery is correct . Thus we have

Figure 5 | Phylogenetic implications of tracks. a, Phylogeny of selected elpistostegids and stem tetrapods, based on refs 10, 12, 19 and 20, fitted to Devonian stratigraphy. The grey bar indicates replacement of elpistostegids by tetrapods in body fossil record. b, Effect of adding the Zachełmie tracks to the phylogeny: the ghost ranges of tetrapods and elpistostegids are greatly extended and the ‘changeover’ is revealed to be an artefact.

What they do not say is that this removes the science from the scientific theory of evolution because they know what science and evolution are. All the change does is show that there is a group of later transitional fossils between fishes and terapods and there are earlier ones to be found.

 

[RealityCheck01]

its actually already happened:

Yet another error, xianghua. That was not a peer reviewed article on ID. It was the ignorant Stephen Meyer of the creationist Discovery Institute rather pathetically writing that the evolution cannot work. This is pathetic because this is the well known fallacy of false dichotomy - an attempt to trash theory A does not support theory B unless they are the only 2 possible theories. This is a tactic people interested in science often see from pseudo-scientists. They are incapable of giving evidence for their theory so we see pathetic attacks on established theories.

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design is a Nature news article dubious about the paper.

Meyer's Hopeless Monster

The mistakes and omissions in Meyer’s work are many and varied, and often layered on top of each other. Not every aspect of Meyer’s work can be addressed in this initial review, so we have chosen several of Meyer’s major claims to assess. Among these, we will take up the Cambrian explosion and its relation to paleontology and systematics. We will examine Meyer’s negative arguments concerning evolutionary theories and the origin of biological “information” in the form of genes.

 

[RealityCheck01]

so they basically push back tetrapods and elpistostegids. exactly like I said.

That is not what the word "extend" means here, xianghua. What the figure does is extend the range of transitional fossils between fishes and tetrapods. We already have a group of later transitional fossils between fishes and terapods and they are proposing that there are earlier ones to be found.

 

[RealityCheck01]

these pappers were not published in Discovery Institute but in peer review jornals. the Discovery Institute just gave the list.

Not quite right, xianghua. That is a list of 22 articles from 1985 to 2013 from journals, conferences and books, including the creationist BIO-Complexity "journal" published by a front organization for the Discovery Institution. according to your list, ID has produced only 12 possible peer reviewed papers in 28 years!

IDiocy of a "Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013)." reference (Icarus is a planetary science journal).

IDiotic lie of citing Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

I shall present three arguments for the proposition that intelligent life is very rare in the universe...

IDiocy of "Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985)."

IDoicy of "Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987)."

FYI: A researcher generally publishes at least 1 scientific paper in a scientific journal per year. This is a group of authors who cannot output what half a single researcher should !