Why evolution isn't scientific

[drich0150]

I'm surprised no one has addressed this post, although maybe that's due to the fact that your impenetrable writing style (I'm being polite there by the way).

no you are not (being polite).. you are telling me you don't understand what I am saying because your mind has been pre programmed to only accept information in a specific format. This is a big obstacle to over come when one has been conditioned to close their mind to anything not already predigested and accepted by the masses. You were telling me that even though I did not meet your preformatted requirements for what you have been indoctrinated to think is a 'intelligent conversation' you were going to stoop so low if for no other reason than to teach me a thing or two...

this will be fun!

(and you will find out why your peers are not so quick to pile on/address this post. )

I'm afraid that that just isn't true, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are speaking from a position of ignorance rather than dishonesty. I suggest that you have a look at these websites which describes some of the practical applications you claim don't exist.

http://www.scottcarroll.org/_dbase_upl/EvApp_2011_3.pdf

Evolutionary principles sport... not familiar with the difference between the concept of a principle and a theory? A theory is a working guess, while a principle is a truth. You own paper says thevolutionary principles are being used which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution the difference? you own paper point them out genius!
It is the difference between one species morphing into another completely, verses weed grow immune to herbicides or bacteria becoming immune to certain antibiotics. the truth in this paper only point to what at best can be described as interspecies microevolutionary changes of state.

where an existing species or orgnism takes on a slightly different trait like an imunity or a resistance to a toxin, but otherwise remains the same organism it was before.. that is the extent where 'evolution' is being practically applied here. there is no inter species mutation as your THEORY Demands! it even says so in the abstract!
Within each theme, we present several key evolutionary principles and illustrate their use in addressing applied problems. We hope that the resulting primer of evolutionary concepts and their practical utility helps to advance a unified multidisciplinary field of applied evolutionary biology

Do you see it smart guy??? let me embolden it for you!
We hope that the resulting primer of evolutionary concepts and their practical utility helps to advance a unified multidisciplinary field of applied evolutionary biology

Do you see that?

This paper is clearly trying to bridge the span between theoretical nonsense and legitimacy by using word games to compare at best an "interspecies micro evolutionary change" or what adults with common sense call an immunity, as a stop gap measure to bridge the nonsense of the theory of interspecies evolution into the real world by showing what could be call an evolution, from being subject to a toxin, and then being immune to said toxin! this is not evolution on the scale of what darwin purposed and you know it! this is weak minded cannon fodder..

What else you got sport??

http://www.evmeded.org/core-concepts/

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]..
are you learning disabled?
or did you just do a google search with the key words being evolution and practical application?

The above article has less to do with interspecies evolution (the topic at hand) and simply uses the word evolution as a blanket statement that describes changes in medicine for the same reason the first page quotes...

Tell me, as smug and as brash as you started out was it your hope i would not read the links you provided completely? or did you simply not understand the discussion?

Can wait to see what the next one says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation
Spechless....
...
...
Computer software evolution...
This is all I should have to say if you were 1/2 as smart as you pretend to be. seriously. but no you legitimately used this page to refute my statement that there isn't any real world applications for theoretical science. because for you it seems because the article uses the word evolution and says software evolution is Like... LIKE... the theory to you it means that biological interspecies evolution is proven here in the real world...

good glob. you guys must go unchecked all the time to think you can get away with such sloppy proofing of concept. no primary source material not even a secondary source! which is enough to shoot you down and leave this subject face down. All you provided was links to blogs and personal feelings of people legitimately trying to do the very thing I said they were trying to do!

and that is make interspecies evolution on par with practical science. SO OF COURSE THERE WILL BE Papers DUH! That is the proof of what I just told you! If you want to proof there is a legit link then I need a primary source not a blog, personal thoughts or a summary from some crap source. I need a primary source an acting example, something tangible something real, everything you want in the way of proof of God I now demand you provide for legitimizing this theory into the realm of applied science!

No, I won't, this has been addressed elsewhere in the thread.

maybe you want to try again seeing how hard you just failed!

No, I won't say that either. There are NO other viable explanations of the fossil record, scientific or otherwise.

no... there are no other popular theories... in fact there are many 'viable theories.' One of the biggest has been made into the alien's prequal in that the earth was seeded by master race. that everything existed at once and is dying off as the planet and it's resources degrade. which makes a lot more sense that spontaneous 'science did it' life. andlife evolves while the planet is perpetually degrading! which btw is no more viable or takes any less faith to say "science did it" than it takes to say "god did it." So welcome to the club sport!

No it wouldn't explain anything, it's pure fantasy, a ten year old child glancing at a simplified representation of the fossil record would immediately perceive the flaws in this argument.

a ten year old doesn't understand that the dinosaurs he sees in museums (specifically the stegosaurus/do you own google search) has never been found complete. that the first was compiled from literally tens of thousands of bones from over 100 different dig sites. that most of the 'fossil record' is found this way and is compiled by people 100 to 150 years ago who had no idea of what they were looking at or for. they just wanted darwin to work. which means the standard in which you judged another theory 'flawed.' is in fact corrupt itself. meaning your foundations are weak and flawed themselves, and truly are in no position to judge another theory based on yours. as you do not represent truth you represent fact just like the other theory. in fact the same fact can be use in any number of ways, and not one need be true... Again which points to the faith you have in your almighty science... or at least your denomination's version of it!

Not to mention the fact that we can observe evolution in action in real time..

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/12/feed-bird-split-species

are we allowed to say...(checking) apparently not. what if I call you a german bag (fyi german name for german is deutsche)

So to you... an real world example of interspecies change is a bird who eats oats in the uk rather than worms or grubs in spain? same bird just 10% of them have a taste for oats..Add to that we just noticed this taking place 20 or so years ago? bruh, please. nothing changed! if I feed my chickens only chicken feed all of their lives and then switch to spaghetti for a month then offer them both some will eat the feed and the others will like the spaghetti.. It's call individuality even in birds. I didn't create a new species of chicken because a few bird would rather eat spaghetti than feed!!!

How can one be so condescending and be this... 'obtuse?' to try and paint me as a fool, but allow common sense to elude him?

So now you can see that the Theory of Evolution has real world applications, that work, are you willing to reconsider your view?

fixed it for you:
So now you can see that the Theory of Evolution has real No Real world applications, that work, are you willing to reconsider your view?

 

[Aman777]

I wonder how many times you've asked, and received an answer to this question?

Maybe if you would actually answer his question. It's better to light one candle than to question the intelligence of other board members. Are you implying that his problem with English means he's not intelligent? Are you mocking him to his face with your innuendos? Be nice.

 

[pitabread]

if we already discussed this point- what was the answer then?

Why don't you remember the answer? You've only had this discussion at least a dozen times already on this forum.

Again, I don't understand why you keep asking the same things over and over and over again.

 

[Aman777]

Again, I don't understand why you keep asking the same things over and over and over again.

Maybe he likes to see you squirm since he sees evolution the way you see creation. To me, that means both of you are wrong. Amen?

 

[Heissonear]

many are called but few are chosen and the foolish will never gain wisdom. To take a page from their beliefs. trying to explain the truth to the blind and ignorant is like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a monkey.its a waste of time because God will never open the eyes of the wicked.

Ive seen many posts by xianghua and know he dilivers light in a very dark place.

I agree with you overall view of trying to turn the blind. Very true. It is if God permits. It will be by Grace from above.

Xianghua's content is abused by bias opponents. Light is often offensive to darkness.

In this thread Xianghua is spot on how evolution is not science. It is based on conjecture-based claims and conclusions.

In my review of geologic and evolutionary biology journal, and within Nature and Science magazines articles, evolution is always trying to prove itselt - promotions that show evolution is true. May I say from witnessing this for decades that evolution does not and and one or more definitive proofs that scientifically proves evolution happened. The more time goes on the more I see the mechanisms shift and the data is on even more thin ice.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe he likes to see you squirm since he sees evolution the way you see creation. To me, that means both of you are wrong. Amen?

I have no idea how he sees evolution. After all, he's the one who used to post about self-reproducing cars.

You guys should get together and write a sci-fi novel. You're both very imaginative.

 

[pitabread]

In this thread Xianghua is spot on how evolution is not science.

You mean by linking an article he didn't appear to read? I guess you didn't read it either...

 

[Strathos]

So let me see if I can get the argument straight:

1. Scientific theories must be falsifiable
2. Every creationist attempt to falsify it has come up short, due to being based on lies or ignorance
3. Therefore, scientists would not accept any falsification whatsoever
4. Hence, evolution isn't falsifiable and is not a legitimate scientific theory

 

[DogmaHunter]

can you explain why?

Plenty of people have already answered that question to you in the past.
Why would I bother again? You're just going to ignore it and repeat the same falsehoods within 3 posts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Maybe if you would actually answer his question.

It's been answered countless times already.

It's better to light one candle than to question the intelligence of other board members. Are you implying that his problem with English means he's not intelligent? Are you mocking him to his face with your innuendos? Be nice.

English is not his problem. Ignoring answers is.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

can you explain why?

More to the point, can you? You've been given the answer multiple times. There are only 2 reasons why you are asking this again:
1. You have refused to try to understand the answers given.
2. You are unable to understand the answers given.

Please let us know which of those it is.

 

[mark kennedy]

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

I admit I just skimmed the article, still unsure how this fossil is out of place. Dinosaurs are not my thing, what should we be seeing and how is this out of place?

 

[Jimmy D]

no you are not (being polite).. you are telling me you don't understand what I am saying because your mind has been pre programmed to only accept information in a specific format. This is a big obstacle to over come when one has been conditioned to close their mind to anything not already predigested and accepted by the masses. You were telling me that even though I did not meet your preformatted requirements for what you have been indoctrinated to think is a 'intelligent conversation' you were going to stoop so low if for no other reason than to teach me a thing or two...

Right, right, "sheeple" etc.

I was actually commenting on your ability to construct a legible post.

this will be fun!

(and you will find out why your peers are not so quick to pile on/address this post. )

I look forward to it.

Evolutionary principles sport... not familiar with the difference between the concept of a principle and a theory? A theory is a working guess, while a principle is a truth.

I know what a scientific theory is, it seems that you don't though.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

or

In science, an unproved idea or a mere theoretical speculation is regarded as a hypothesis rather than a scientific theory. However, in science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation or a set of statements that have been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments.

Just to be clear, you are utterly mistaken about what a scientific theory is. The closest thing to a "working guess" would be a falsifiable hypothesis, which would then be tested through experiment and observation.

You own paper says thevolutionary principles are being used which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution the difference? you own paper point them out genius!
It is the difference between one species morphing into another completely, verses weed grow immune to herbicides or bacteria becoming immune to certain antibiotics. the truth in this paper only point to what at best can be described as interspecies microevolutionary changes of state.

where an existing species or orgnism takes on a slightly different trait like an imunity or a resistance to a toxin, but otherwise remains the same organism it was before.. that is the extent where 'evolution' is being practically applied here. there is no inter species mutation as your THEORY Demands! it even says so in the abstract!
Within each theme, we present several key evolutionary principles and illustrate their use in addressing applied problems. We hope that the resulting primer of evolutionary concepts and their practical utility helps to advance a unified multidisciplinary field of applied evolutionary biology

Do you see it smart guy??? let me embolden it for you!
We hope that the resulting primer of evolutionary concepts and their practical utility helps to advance a unified multidisciplinary field of applied evolutionary biology

Do you see that?

This paper is clearly trying to bridge the span between theoretical nonsense and legitimacy by using word games to compare at best an "interspecies micro evolutionary change" or what adults with common sense call an immunity, as a stop gap measure to bridge the nonsense of the theory of interspecies evolution into the real world by showing what could be call an evolution, from being subject to a toxin, and then being immune to said toxin! this is not evolution on the scale of what darwin purposed and you know it! this is weak minded cannon fodder..

What else you got sport??

It's all the same theory chief... reproduce>mutate> survive>reproduce, be it viruses, finches or humans.



And where do you suppose these "evolutionary principals" derive from? The Theory of Relvativity?


The aim of the paper is to...

"Explore these fundamental concepts under four main themes: variation, selection, connectivity, and eco-evolutionary dynamics. Within each theme, we present several key evolutionary principles and illustrate their use in addressing applied problems. We hope that the resulting primer of evolutionary concepts and their practical utility helps to advance a unified multidisciplinary field of applied evolutionary biology"

Yep, "Variation, selection, connectivity" what could that possibly have to do with the Theory of Evolution? LOL

Besides, that's just one paper out of many thousands of scholarly articles online that deal with practical applications of the TOE. I'm not responsible for your education

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]..
are you learning disabled?

That is offensive and childish. If you can't conduct a discussion in an adult manner this will be my last response.

The above article has less to do with interspecies evolution (the topic at hand) and simply uses the word evolution as a blanket statement that describes changes in medicine for the same reason the first page quotes...

It seems that you are wrong.

From the link...

"All evolutionary processes, including natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, migration and non-random mating, are important for understanding traits and disease."

"Natural selection maximizes reproductive success, sometimes at the expense of health and longevity."

"Tracing phylogenetic relationships for species, populations, traits or pathogens can provide insights into health and disease."

"Coevolution among species can influence health and disease (e.g. evolutionary arms races and mutualistic relationships such as those seen in the microbiome)."

Tell me, as smug and as brash as you started out was it your hope i would not read the links you provided completely? or did you simply not understand the discussion?

Judging by the core principles of evolutionary medicine I quoted above seems that you didn't.

Although I notice that you've started using the term "interspecies evolution" as if that's somehow separate from the theory that explains "changes in medicine" as you put it.

They are both explained by the Theory of Evolution. And it is that theory that has practical applications in medicine.

From the webiste....

"About Evolutionary Medicine
Evolutionary medicine is the discipline that uses evolutionary biology to understand disease and improve health. It is not a special kind of medical practice, it just applies evolutionary biology to medicine the same that genetics and physiology are applied. Darwinian medicine is identical but the term is used less. The field is growing fast with a scientific society, many books, a journal, an online review, and classes on the topic offered in many universities. Medical education, however, remains mostly isolated from these advances. EvMedEd should make it easier to incorporate evolutionary principles into health professional education."

Why you think that you, a laymen who doesn't even seem to be aware of what a scientific theory actually is, knows better than healthcare professionals, scientific institutions, universities etc is baffling.

Spechless....
...
...
Computer software evolution...
This is all I should have to say if you were 1/2 as smart as you pretend to be. seriously. but no you legitimately used this page to refute my statement that there isn't any real world applications for theoretical science. because for you it seems because the article uses the word evolution and says software evolution is Like... LIKE... the theory to you it means that biological interspecies evolution is proven here in the real world...

good glob. you guys must go unchecked all the time to think you can get away with such sloppy proofing of concept. no primary source material not even a secondary source! which is enough to shoot you down and leave this subject face down. All you provided was links to blogs and personal feelings of people legitimately trying to do the very thing I said they were trying to do!

and that is make interspecies evolution on par with practical science. SO OF COURSE THERE WILL BE Papers DUH! That is the proof of what I just told you! If you want to proof there is a legit link then I need a primary source not a blog, personal thoughts or a summary from some crap source. I need a primary source an acting example, something tangible something real, everything you want in the way of proof of God I now demand you provide for legitimizing this theory into the realm of applied science!

I just posted that link as an example to draw your attention to another area in which ideas derived from the Theory of Evolution are used.

Do you deny that evolutionary algorithms, derived from The Theory of Evolution are used in design and programming?

https://towardsdatascience.com/introduction-to-evolutionary-algorithms-a8594b484ac
https://www.solver.com/genetic-evolutionary-introduction
https://becominghuman.ai/understanding-evolutionary-algorithms-58f7a2845537
https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1244h/1244 (Hornby).pdf

maybe you want to try again seeing how hard you just failed!

LOL

 

[Jimmy D]

no... there are no other popular theories... in fact there are many 'viable theories.'

You claimed that there are "several scientific explanations of the fossil record".

One of the biggest has been made into the alien's prequal in that the earth was seeded by master race.

How does that explain what we observe the fossil record? You appear to be describing an alternative for abiogenesis.

that everything existed at once and is dying off as the planet and it's resources degrade.

How is that consistent with what we observe in the fossil record? I thought you were offering "scientific explanations", not vague guesses that are either nothing to do with the fossil record or inconsistent with the observable evidence.

which makes a lot more sense that spontaneous 'science did it' life. andlife evolves while the planet is perpetually degrading! which btw is no more viable or takes any less faith to say "science did it" than it takes to say "god did it." So welcome to the club sport!

What has this got to do with the fossil record?

I'm starting to think that you don't know what you're talking about, you're all over the place.

a ten year old doesn't understand that the dinosaurs he sees in museums (specifically the stegosaurus/do you own google search) has never been found complete. that the first was compiled from literally tens of thousands of bones from over 100 different dig sites. that most of the 'fossil record' is found this way and is compiled by people 100 to 150 years ago who had no idea of what they were looking at or for. they just wanted darwin to work. which means the standard in which you judged another theory 'flawed.' is in fact corrupt itself. meaning your foundations are weak and flawed themselves, and truly are in no position to judge another theory based on yours. as you do not represent truth you represent fact just like the other theory. in fact the same fact can be use in any number of ways, and not one need be true... Again which points to the faith you have in your almighty science... or at least your denomination's version of it!

How does this nonsense address what I wrote?

You claimed that every species, alive and extinct originally lived on Earth at the same time, to which I replied that anyone can look at the fossil record and see that that is utter fantasy.

Here's a simplified illustration...

How does that support your claims?

(edit: The image doesn't seem to be showing, it's this one, but any illustration would suffice really)

You also asserted that "Devolution fills in far more scientifically than evolution ever did".

Can you cite any papers that support this claim of devolution?

are we allowed to say...(checking) apparently not. what if I call you a german bag (fyi german name for german is deutsche)

So to you... an real world example of interspecies change is a bird who eats oats in the uk rather than worms or grubs in spain? same bird just 10% of them have a taste for oats..Add to that we just noticed this taking place 20 or so years ago? bruh, please. nothing changed! if I feed my chickens only chicken feed all of their lives and then switch to spaghetti for a month then offer them both some will eat the feed and the others will like the spaghetti.. It's call individuality even in birds. I didn't create a new species of chicken because a few bird would rather eat spaghetti than feed!!!

What is this childish nonsense? it has nothing to do with evolution or speciation.

I didn't mention "interspecies change" it seems to be a term you've introduced to move the goal posts because you nonsense has been easily refuted.

The change in behavior of the Blackcaps led to reproductive isolation, which led differences in phenotypic traits in a relatively short time.

This is exactly what the Theory of Evolution describes and is just one example of the beginnings of the process of speciation.

 

[xianghua]

Why don't you remember the answer? You've only had this discussion at least a dozen times already on this forum.

Again, I don't understand why you keep asking the same things over and over and over again.

as i said: if the answer is so simple why you cant give it again? maybe i miss it or something. unless there is no such answer. am i right?

 

[xianghua]

You mean by linking an article he didn't appear to read? I guess you didn't read it either...

i actually mentioned that they push back the creature in time. so why are saying that i didnt read it? (or at least the main claim of the article)

 

[xianghua]

Plenty of people have already answered that question to you in the past.
Why would I bother again? You're just going to ignore it and repeat the same falsehoods within 3 posts.

meanwhile you repeat this about several times without any real answer. so last time: can you give a simple answer for my question or not? you can even link me to the answer in the other discussion if you want.

 

[xianghua]

So let me see if I can get the argument straight:

1. Scientific theories must be falsifiable
2. Every creationist attempt to falsify it has come up short, due to being based on lies or ignorance
3. Therefore, scientists would not accept any falsification whatsoever
4. Hence, evolution isn't falsifiable and is not a legitimate scientific theory

im not sure what you are trying to say. i just said that since we cant falsify evolution- evolution isnt a scientific theory. do you agree?

 

[xianghua]

Maybe if you would actually answer his question.

you can see that so far no one in this thread was able to give an answer. isnt it weird? i begin to believe that im right and evolution is indeed non- scientific .

 

[xianghua]

More to the point, can you? You've been given the answer multiple times. There are only 2 reasons why you are asking this again:
1. You have refused to try to understand the answers given.
2. You are unable to understand the answers given.

Please let us know which of those it is.

again: a comment with no real answer to my question. inseatd of repeating this again and again why not just give a simple answer?