Why evolution isn't scientific

[the iconoclast]

I dont care about your feelings one way

Hi champ

So you are a nihilist who does not care?

Im a Pentecostal christian. What type of nihilist are you?

or the other or who is smarter.

Optimus - "I think denying physical reality like you do is stupid and ignorant."

You accept ToE as a physical reality therefore you are not stupid or ignorant. Why did you feel the need to make that statement?

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

So the ToE is supported by much evidence. Nice, what specific evidence convinces you? One example should do for now.

My response is in no way incompatible with Kylies answer.

Cool.

So evolution is not meaningless?

The ToE just is.

Interesting reply. So you dont question ToE, it just is?

Cheers you marvel

 

[DogmaHunter]

So the ToE is supported by much evidence. Nice, what specific evidence convinces you? One example should do for now.

Phylogenetic trees; the nested hierarchy of all living things.

To be fair, that's not "one" example... it's rather a set of ALL morphological, genetic and fossil data mapped out on a gigantic graph. You can also add geographic distribution to that and the converging timelines of geological tectonic activity (ie: why you only find kangaroos in australia).

All those sets of data converge on the exact same phylogenetic tree, which is the result of common ancestry of species and divergence by process of biological evolution.

It's pretty overwhelming how all independent sets of data converge on the exact same answer of evolution. So overwhelming that nobody in his right mind and aware of these sets of evidence, can logically or rationally deny it.

So evolution is not meaningless?

It's a process that happens. It's as meaningfull/less as water freezing into water or h2o forming out of h and o under specific circumstances.

Interesting reply. So you dont question ToE, it just is?

I question the reality of evolution about as much as the reality of germs or atoms.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hi champ

So you are a nihilist who does not care?

Im a Pentecostal christian. What type of nihilist are you?



Optimus - "I think denying physical reality like you do is stupid and ignorant."

You accept ToE as a physical reality therefore you are not stupid or ignorant. Why did you feel the need to make that statement?



So the ToE is supported by much evidence. Nice, what specific evidence convinces you? One example should do for now.



Cool.

So evolution is not meaningless?



Interesting reply. So you dont question ToE, it just is?

Cheers you marvel

As you cant post like a grownup this conversation is over.

 

[xianghua]

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

so if we will find evidence for a 100 my old dolphin fossil it will be ok with evolution too?

 

[xianghua]

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.

so what? its still a peer review paper that support id. and i can give you many others.

 

[xianghua]

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.

a cartoon? so there is no such a thing as flagellum motor?

 

[xianghua]

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.

no. its only show that evolution is a non scientific belief. but you are welcome to believe anything you want.

 

[xianghua]

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

you realy give me a review of non scientific article (an evolutionery blog) against a scientific paper? this is a joke or something?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

a cartoon? so there is no such a thing as flagellum motor?

There is no such thing as flagellum motor. Can we put that to bed now and move on?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if we will find evidence for a 100 my old dolphin fossil it will be ok with evolution too?

No.

But you don't have such evidence, do you?

One can count on @xianghua to argue against reality by pointing to imaginary evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

so if we will find evidence for a 100 my old dolphin fossil it will be ok with evolution too?

Only if there if is evidence that there is a lineage of dolphin evolution going back that far. Finding a modern day dolphin fossil in 100 million year old sediment will wreck the theory of evolution.
Do you understand this?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

so what? its still a peer review paper that support id. and i can give you many others.

Except it's not. The editor's comment clearly says that it's merely a think piece. Nothing more.

 

[RealityCheck01]

so what? its still a peer review paper that support id. and i can give you many others.

You are wrong, xianghua.
There are ID papers that are pathetic attacks on evolution and do not support ID. There is no paper that shows that there is design in any living organization except in the author's imagination as in the paper you cited. There are not "many" papers about ID at all. Read the list you gave us. At best there are 13 papers as opposed to the vast number of papers about evolution. And those ID papers stop in 2013 !

 

[RealityCheck01]

a cartoon? so there is no such a thing as flagellum motor?

Read my post. There is a designed to look like a motor cartoon. There is no motor as in a designed car engine. There is a group of evolved protein molecules that function as a motor and used to have another function.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Same nonsense from xianghua.

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.

Still cannot understand what a peer reviewed scientific paper published in a science journal about the scientific theory of evolution stated.
We already have a group of later transitional fossils between fishes and terapods and the authors of the paper are proposing that there are earlier ones to be found. The range of possible transitional species between fishes and tetrapods needs to be extended.

 

[RealityCheck01]

you realy give me a review of non scientific article (an evolutionery blog) against a scientific paper?

You missed the point, xianghua. You made yet another error.
A citation of the ignorant Stephen Meyer of the creationist Discovery Institute rather pathetically stating that the evolution cannot work (fallacy of false dichotomy), not a peer reviewed paper on ID.

Look at the actual contents of the paper. Meyer's Hopeless Monster

Meyer’s paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized “intelligent design” since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of “intelligent design” presented, just as in all previous work on “intelligent design”. Just as a detective doesn’t have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn’t stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. “An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model.

That the paper is obviously wrong to people who have learned biology is a different matter.
Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design is a Nature news article dubious about the paper. Meyer's Hopeless Monster lists errors obvious to anyone who knows biology in the paper.

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.

An expanded critique of this paper is in preparation.

The citation was the ignorant Stephen Meyer of the creationist Discovery Institute being obviously wrong about biology as listed by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry.

The citation of not even a peer reviewed paper by the ignorant Stephen Meyer of the creationist Discovery Institute - this was published in a conference proceedings !

 

[the iconoclast]

As you cant post like a grownup this conversation is over.

Hey hey he who cares.

Dont worry dogmahunter answered your post for you. The conversation will continue with him, unfortunately you dont seem to have anything to offer.

Cheers

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey hey he who cares.
Dont worry dogmahunter answered your post for you. The conversation will continue with him,

Only on condition that you start posting like an adult.

 

[the iconoclast]

Only on condition that you start posting like an adult.

Please excuse me.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hebrews 4:12 ESV

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.







Hey hey dhunter

Because faith doesn't lead to truth.

You can believe anything on faith, no matter if it's right or wrong..

No matter if its right or wrong... that is a curious detail.

Complete trust or confidence in someone or something - they/it could be correct or incorrect.

So i guess the next step would be to determine if this someone or something is wrong or right - or for a better term - true or false. How would you go about verifying the truth - or falsehood - about the below statement? Or would you like me to examine it?

"You can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ."

Faith, is what you need when you have no evidence but wish to believe anyway.

Well lets look at what the standard definition is. I refer to google and wiki

Faith is a complete trust or confidence in someone or something or a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Wiki on faith.

In the context of religion, one can define faith as confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief,

[1] within which faith may equate to confidence based on some perceived degree of warrant,

[2]in contrast to a definition of faith as being belief without evidence.

The word translated as "faith" in the New Testament is the Greek word πίστις (pístis) which can also be translated "belief", "faithfulness", and "trust".

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Faith in the unseen leads to the proof of God - ask me?

Lets say your child - congratulations by the way - did not know any better and you were trying to explain a more advanced concept to them. If this concept is not understood it could be fatal for the recipient. Why would the child be unjustified to have faith in what you say and acknowledge what you said is truth?

Why do not check the durability of a seat everytime you sit down?

We go to doctors because it has been observed that many people have been remedied of their illnesses. Now this is not faith without evidence, this is a case of trust. We put our trust in the doctor ie faith.

Besides religion, have you ever encountered a situation where you could not see the outcome or situation, and had to trust someones word for it or decision?

Faith can not distinguish accurate beliefs from wrong beliefs.

Faith can be justified by a result either observed or experienced personally.

Faith, is gullibility.

Faith is trust. You have a faith, it is in the conclusions and thoughts of men who reason with facts, and observations. The same men who you believe are extremely prone to error, who are judged by men who are extremely prone to error.

At the end of the day neither you and i can know everything or have the data so we will have to accept an appeal to authority. Dont kid yourself my dear, you are not a free thinker!

Why do you accept the thoughts and conclusions of men who are extremely prone to error? Why are they more convincing than Christianity?

Phylogenetic trees; the nested hierarchy of all living things.

To be fair, that's not "one" example... it's rather a set of ALL morphological, genetic and fossil data mapped out on a gigantic graph. You can also add geographic distribution to that and the converging timelines of geological tectonic activity (ie: why you only find kangaroos in australia).

A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities—their phylogeny (/faɪˈlɒdʒəni/)

Please excuse me. This diagram is not a form of proof! Why should i be convinced of evolution based on this artwork?


Have you got anything else?
Ps one at a time

All those sets of data converge on the exact same phylogenetic tree, which is the result of common ancestry of species and divergence by process of biological evolution.

Well i guess its my time to shine. Could you please give me an example of how this is so?

It's pretty overwhelming how all independent sets of data converge on the exact same answer of evolution. So overwhelming that nobody in his right mind and aware of these sets of evidence, can logically or rationally deny it.

In other words "there must be something wrong with you if you question it". Why should we not question evolution, what makes it so concrete that it is absolutely certain?

It's a process that happens. It's as meaningfull/less as water freezing into water or h2o forming out of h and o under specific circumstances.

So evolution is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end or a natural series of changes. How do you account for so much diversity considering we have only a one single celled organism as our ancestor?

I question the reality of evolution about as much as the reality of germs or atoms.

There you have it peoples Dogmahunter has a dogma and a faith. Evolution is incontrovertibly true he does not question it.

Cheers. I look forward to your reply