Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Little child... Is that all I am seen as?

 

In the eyes of an old worldly man such as myself, I would say yes.
That's more of a confirmation of my belief in total sincerety of all your posts.

 

Great questions here.

As far as macro evolution goes, there may indeed be "leaps," where contribute to a rapid evolution, or quantum evolution. I was reading an interesting article today which reconsidered a lot of the assumptions behind DNA and evolution, considering the possibility that quantum potentialities may be at the core of evolution, not "random chance," but probabilities. Genes of a child are not the result of the parent, but by quantum states of probability.

This also goes into what we know about consciousness, thought, and information. Many scientists are considering that at heart, the universe may operate from more mind-like states, quantum potentialities. The material universe is in other words, at heart, governed by immaterial "quantum" realities. This is just a brief summary so far. I find this to be interesting, because DNA is a physical, chemical interaction, and as we learn more about the quantum properties of matter, we may have to reconsider the basics of evolution. Is it the case that, maybe, the universe is beyond what we see here and now? And that the evolution of the universe, especially biological, is playing out quantum probability, it's interesting to note this phenomenon: that it seems the universe is favoring more complexity, more consciousness, a greater unity.

This may lead some to believe that this is a result of God, the Divine or Spirit, and that may be true. I think this will transcend the notion of both intelligent design and Dawkins "blind watchmaker," both are still somewhat fragmented. If there is some scientific knowledge that expands our reality, and helps use connect the physical with the mental and spiritual, I think this is worth investigating.

It is for this reason among many others that I feel that 7-day creation stories, or other literal interpretations are at best, glimpses that there is a greater reality, a Divinity or Spirit at work. I don't think these stories will turn out to be literally true. But I think that's a good thing, it means we as religious, spiritual and scientific people are challenged to know God, and the universe in deeper ways, beyond our assumptions.

 

shaman sun but your post is drifting us from main subject of this thread.


And it seems to me you are actually contemplating physics of nature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRn23dQ_uJA
But that's a whole different subject, not in any way connected to obligation of Darwinists to prove the claim they make.

As to claims of Wholeness, Divine, Spirits and etc.
You know, what makes me highly suspicious is that too many of these ideas, even when espoused by renown and undisputably bright scientists like David Bohm ,are still way too Anthropomorphic and reflective of ones indidual background, religious and individual philosophical views , interpretation of those existed generations past and etc. than what is actually observed out there (if you approach it with unassuming mind, to the degree it is possible for human mind to be unassuming).

But all this fancy talk about quantum physics, although could make a fun subject to discuss on another thread, is drifting our attention from the main subject of THIS thread, which is the obligation of Darwinists to prove that they have scientifically valid theory to explain origins and evolution of species, or else they must suspend their judgement and admit they have no claim to begin with.

 

And what understanding might be called upon to conceive that there are no stated sequential, "days of creation". That seven days are a spectral expression of the way things are, creation being extension of this underlying fabric. Might then to remember the sabbath to keep it holy move from a ritual observance to the comprehension that our mammal brain rides on the back of our lizard brain and we are are beheld of one another.

 

Jumbuli vs Darwinists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buPRU02T0fU

Is there anyone else who claims that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution has anything to do with Science?

 

Here's an example of an observed speciation event brought about by chromosomal fusion and genetic drift. One species of mice may have evolved into 6 over a 500 year period.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml

 

The physics of nature are at the heart of chemistry, and so they are directly pertinent to biology and, well, evolution.

I really don't think that Divinity or Spirit or God fits into any one culture or creed. Not to delve into that, so...

But to be totally on topic: I believe the traditional Darwinist theory of evolution is incomplete and there is room for redefining how evolution occurs. I guess this is directed more to those who would claim the opposite, but I do think there is some worth delving ideas of "quantum evolution," and so forth. I can't really get into the details just yet. Still informing myself too, but I thought it'd be interesting to mention as an alternative to the traditional darwinist theory.

 

Incredible find. I had a very good read over it. Would this not be an example of micro-evolution?

 

I don't dispute that.
Just saying it's irrelevant to obligation Darwinists have to prove their claim that modern evolutionary theory is a scientifically valid theory.
That's what the topic really is about.

This is irrelevant to subject matter of discussion.

Not that it is incomplete, no. Einstein's special theory of relativity is also incomplete.
But he or his followers didn't make outrageously improbable inferences like Darwinists do and claim "Evrika! We found out what the gravity is and now chew it, people"

Unfortunately there is nothing to support your theory that there is such a thing as "quantum evolution" the way you describe it.
To make a claim such as that is to give an ammunition to Darwinists who will then attack you for making equally unprovable inferences while holding them to higher standards and requiring a proof of their claim.

I think you can start another thread and make a claim and have them challenge you there if you wish, but as far as this thread concerned it's irrelevant.

The truth is there is no alternative theory, as of yet at least.
To claim there is is to by default create a straw man argument.

I am not going to be one doing that.

 

Glad you liked it. What struck me about this example is that they have a different number of chromosomes. If they have indeed become different species and are unable to breed it would be macro-evolution.

 

I see you as the only one making a serious effort to uphold the affirmative side in this debate. I'd like to respond to one of your points in an answer that may do double duty for some of the others until my houseguests leave.

In your initial post and at least one of the others you mentioned that scientists disagree about evolution and even suggested that the media perception that most scientists support evolution may be incorrect. I'd like to present some thoughts and facts bearing on that point.

In disputes over controversial science issues, it's becoming a favorite tactic to produce lists of "scientists" who support a position. There are some things that need to be considered in evaluating these lists. First, who qualifies as a "scientist". In disputes over global warming, for example, both sides have been caught claiming graduate students, high school science teachers, social scientists and local weathermen as "scientists". Even if they have Ph.Ds in recognized natural sciences, we need to ask: are they from a field relevant to the subject, what is their stature in the discipline, and have they ever themselves studied the specialized subject that they are giving their opinion about. I'm particularly impressed by their opinions if they're specialists in the area and have published peer reviewed research in that specialty.

The most thorough recent study I know about on scientists' opinions on evolution was conducted last July 9 by the Pew Research Center, a respected survey research center. The survey was based on a random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, including members from all scientific fields. The findings were that 87% believed in evolution. In the Dover school board textbook trial, Kitzmiller v, Dover, the court heard extensive expert testimony on the status of scientific opinion toward evolution. The court concluded (p. 83) that evolution including common descent and natural selection is "overwhelminlgy accepted by the scientific community and that every major scientific association agrees. A petition supporting teaching of evolution in the schools was signed by 72 prestigious Nobel Prize winners. The national academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society, has issued a statment supporting evolution, as has the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.

On the other side, the Creation Science Institute published a list of "Twenty One Scientists Who Believe in Creation". But on closer inspection, these included five with engineering degrees, three with degrees in education, one hydorologist, one chemist, one psycholinguist, one food science techician, one geophysicist and only a minority of scientists in the biological specialties most relevant to the subject. A larger list issued by the Discovery Institute came up with over 700 scientists in support of Intelligent Design--but that accounts for only about 1% of the total. On the basis of that evidence, I think we can say the weight of scientific opinion favors the theory of evolution.

 

.

 

Unlike you I am not playing word games here.

Let me break it down so your futile attempt to confuse the reader can once again fail.

First of all the topic is "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory".
It is not "Argument is or isn't a valid scientific metric."

Second, I would actually note in the context that "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory" is not a proper name for the thread as it implies that one has obligation to prove non-existence.
Opposite is true.
One who makes Positive Assertion is obliged to prove it.
One who doubts such assertion isn't similarly situated to be obliged to prove anything.

Therefore I would say the proper name for this thread should be "Evolution IS a Scientifically Valid Theory".

Given that the OP himself is a devout believer that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid, naming this thread "Evolution IS a Scientifically Valid Theory" would be so much more plausible.

But what plausibility can we expect from a man who resorts to name calling and ignoring his opponent at the first opportunity just to free himself of obligation to prove his baseless ,arbitrary assertions and tall tales ?

Munchausen would be proud of him !

It is tehrefore understandable that his naming this thread "Evloution is not a valid scientific theory" was a ploy devised in hopes of misguiding the reader into thinking that those who doubt his baseless and arbitrary Positive Assertion are also the ones obliged to prove non-existence and absurdity of his claim.

While the motivation of OP is clear, it doesn't quite achieve the purpose he may have had in his head.

And I hereby call his bluff and once again challenege him to prove his claim by presenting a relevant to the theory he defends evidence and plausible argument to back up his assertion that it is Scientifically Valid theory.

Either that, or he has no claim to begin with and someone else should take his place instead, if there is any.

 

Sorry. I couldn't help it.

 

Ah, now I didn't say all scientists have disbelief in evolution. I was only making the point that there are and have been scientists who don't buy into Evolution.

Ah, Okie, whoever said a weatherman couldn't make a good scientist?

Yes, I suppose you are right on that so I take my (non-existent) hat off to you. But my original claim was only that there are scientists who believe in creation and clearly there are some. So in that sense I am still right.

 

Alright, so this thread has been mostly for the Darwinist-supporters. That's fine. You are also correct about there being no major theory. It's something new and emerging. I suspect this may become more thoroughly researched in the future. Check out the following links if you or anyone else is interested:

"Quantum Reality, the Emergence of Complex Order from Virtual States, and the Importance of Consciousness in the Universe."

Taking a look at evolution from quantum reality.


This may become more relevant to future discussions.