Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

some new evidence has been found they named him Ardi, he's trying to get u to do your own research.

 

Ardi is an ape with human-like proportions that walks upright and climbs trees. Dated at 4.4 million years old.

Bacteria that is exposed to anti-biotics will gradually develop a resistance to those same anti-biotics over time.

Organisms that live underground, have phased out the need for eyes and now have honed their sense of hearing.

Organisms that live underwater have gills and have developed methods to understand their surroundings without relying on the sight.

The list goes on and on.

Which part of the theory of evolution are you saying is unscientific?

 

I've seen some new evidence headlined lately, but it was in mass media so didn't bother to click.
There is always some "new evidence" in press that when you go dig in library or real scientific sites turns out to be just another misinterpretation of what it actually is, so I tend not to give much credence to unreliable sources.

But if he thinks it is relevant and credible enough to prove the point then why not present it, along with plausible argument, and try to make a good case?

I am open minded (unlike dogmatic Darwin worshipers) and always welcome fresh evidence, ideas and thoughts on the subject.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

 

Neither. I'm setting the stage for discussion by setting forth some definitions and assumptions that I thought might be useful in kicking things off. I included two definitions of validity, one of which I lifted from one of your posts. I don't think it does differ from your definition--in fact I think it is your definition. If you have anything to add or subtract from it, I'd be glad to consider it.

:cheers2:[/QUOTE]

 

And how does Ardi prove that either he or any human being or any complex organism for that matter is the result of evolution of the most primitive archaic single cell by means of random chance and natural selection?

Prove that bacteria does not inherently possess the capacity to adopt and develop resistance to the antibiotics in the first place , capacity which it simply utilizes when needed, prove that it really "develops" it by random chance and out of the blue and that if so, then this evidence of micro-evolution is also a proof of macro-evolution that has taken place in infinitely grander scale in a matter of few billions of years.

Also, do apply Quantitative analysis and show how it is in accord with Probability Theory , how many random chances and possibilities there are for mutations and what length of time it should or must have taken at least to get from one step of the evolutionary ladder to another.

Don't ambiguously say "hey, here is the gas stove in the kitchen, now since it has basic elements in it found also in your body, it proves that the gas stove and your body are both evolved by random chance through natural selection from single source and few billions of years were just enough of a time for such an event to take place in such a manner since we have no other theory to explain how else it could have happened".

Organisms do live underground. They do not have eyes. They have acute sense of hearing.
Ok, this much is an observable fact.
Now, how does it prove or show the process whereby those organisms became what they are?

See above.

I see list of existing organisms with description of their functions but I don't see how it proves what evolved from what and how.

Which part of the theory of evolution are you saying is scientific?

 

Just what part of the theory of evolution are you saying is unscientific?

I say that the following are valid:
A) The adoption of traits to allow for a better chance of survival
B) The survival of the fittest

My entire argument is going to be based off of what you are saying is unscientific.

 

What you say does not prove anything.
Those are assertions, not a proof.

 

I'll get to the proof if you tell me what part of the theory you think is unscientific.

It's like asking someone to add numbers together and then when they ask what numbers you don't say anything.

 

No-one has answered my post. I gave reasons to why I think evolution is unscientific, backed up with scientists themselves, why is no-one one going to answer that?

 

No one needs to.
You give an ammunition to Darwin worshippers by challenging them to prove that theory is an equivalent of empirically observed fact, which is not what they claim it to be in the first place.

That's not what I ask them to prove and I did address it here:

Okiefreak (and others) brought this up repeatedly in past , assuming I was confused about understanding the differences between Scientifically Valid Theory and Empirically Observed Fact.

I made it clear more than once though that I was not confused about the meaning of the phrase Scientifically valid Theory as opposed to Empirically Observed Event, so it's not clear to me why they keep bringing this up over and over again.
But since I never debated the subject with you, here is the quote from my earlier responce on it to Okiefreak:

All it takes to convince me that the theory is scientifically valid is some relevant evidence and plausible argument to support it.

Take Probability Theory, for instance.
That theory is a pure abstraction, calculated and represented by numbers.
However, there is a strong evidence for it (if you roll dice all day long and take a note of all combinations, the actual sequence of those random events will correspond well with statistical patterns that you can calculate using the mathematical formula).

Little more ambiguous is the Big Bang theory, and frankly I am somewhat sceptical of it , however it does work in terms of math (which ,if not directly representative of manifestations of matter still corresponds well with an actual knowledge about the behavior of same) and accounts for events up to the Plank epoch, beyond which all formulas collapse and stop producing meaningful numbers.
Despite it's shortcomings I consider Big Bang theory to be scientifically valid theory (it is far fetched theory but not entirely improbable or impossible, therefore I consider it to be scientifically valid theory).

It is not so with Darwin's theory about origins of species. The fallacy of it becomes evident the very first instant you examine it with critical mind. I have yet to see anyone who would venture to methodically prove it's scientific validity while addressing all the reasonable critisism aimed against it's fundamental premises.

 

It really seemed to me that you were addressing the confusion that surrounds evolution. How evolution is a theory and not a law, apparently most people confuse the two. Your points are reasonable and I actually agree with most of them. Evolution occurs on two fronts, micro and macro. Micro deals with the bulk of evolution, with organisms developing certains traits that give them a greater or lesser chance of survival within the context of their environment. I do not believe that evolution occurs on the macro scale, but macro takes into account all of the traits and behaviors developed. For me, it is more of a way of keeping track of everything that happens within a species.

You also expose a fundamental problem with evolution, and that is us not having a complete fossil records. Think of fossils and a slide show of species. For example, on slide one we have Species A with traits one and two. We don't have slide two so we do not know what happened then. On slide three we have Species A with traits one, three, and four. Where did trait two go? What caused it die out? We won't know until we have all the slides. Having slide two from Species B and C might give us an idea of what was going on in Species A's life during that time, but it's only a partial print.

 

haha, what did I tell u honeyfugle

 

OK, OK you win...

 

You guys did not let me finish, my comp shut down when I was in the midde of part B.

Updated

 

The theory of evolution works pretty well, as an educated guess based on tons of observable facts: who's got a better explanation for the obvious changes in the biota on this planet?

 

I have repeated it way too many times already, so I won't type it all over again but will copy-paste instead from one of my posts

Let me remind you something


http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=376886&page=9

Below is copy-paste from post # 89 (also see #81, 83, 85, 87 , 91, 93 and 95)

What I have nowdays is the knowledge, including the knowledge of it's limitations.

I don't know about that and not really certain about the process involved in developing of defense mechanisms.
All I see is species and that they have various mechanisms, including defense mechanisms.
Perhaps they already had the capacity to develop such mechanisms prior to actually utilizing them and outer stimuli just played a role of a trigger?
But how did the capacity develop then? And did it reaaly occur in such order or reverse is true?
How do we know?
If you claim to know for sure, then let us know how? Where, by what means you acquired such knowledge (certainly you weren't witnessing the whole process through tens of millions of years, so there must be a method of reasoning employed? Do you mind to share)?

This is an idle specualation, but who knows, sometimes even idle speculation might be correct (after all it's not as improbable as Darwin's theory of evolution of species by random chance).
But I am curious as to what is the exact thought process employed and how does it correspond to observed phenomena and ,most importantly, how the frog's development of resistances to poison in their body relate to the argument that creature as complex as homo sapiens has evolved from a single cell organism by means of random chance, mutations and natural selection in a matter of few billion years?

I didn't ask you to give me a reason why theory of evolution is a theory or why didn't you witness Big Bang in person.

As to fossils, you just lack any so called evidence of evolution in it (contrary to widespread claims of hoax perpetrators) and whenever challenged about it all you say is "but of course we can't have an evidence , as required, because A) fossils are too rare and uniquie in the first place , B) any fossil is transitory anyway", well then why even bother to mention fossils and claim they are "evidence of evolution" ? And yes , every fossil could be transitional , just as any point between point C and D is transitional, but where does the reasoning come from that there is a linear connection between two? What if point C has nothing whatsoever to do with D ? How do you know D has sprung from C or that both have come from common E?
Just where the reasoning, the argument come from?

Why don't you try it instead of telling me how difficult it is?
Am I supposed to believe what you say in absence of convincing proof or argument simply because it is difficult for you to do it?
What if I tell you "Believe me, elephants CAN fly, it's just so darn difficult to show you!" , will you believe me?

No, given that fossil record is so scarce and incomplete (and fossils are impossible to obtain for all periods and species) you can't really use them for the purpose.

But you have to know chemistry, you have to know physics, you have to know how cells operate, you have to know how elements comprising them operate within a system, you have to calculate the number of all the possibilities for all the interactions of cells or elements comprising it, you have to calculate out of how many of those possibilities just one would lead to an advance, to a next step, you have to calculate the lifespan and speed of reproduction and timespan required for each of those advances to actually occure, you have to calculate geometric proportion with wich numbers increase as you move from most primitive to more complex life forms, you have to know statistics, you have to understand the basic concept and principles of the probability theory, you have to do extremely hard math and you have to spend quite a while to do all that and then, once you get the results, you have to comprehend just how long it would take for events to take place as suggested by Darwin, and you have to compare that timespan to an actual time that has passed between whatever point in history of earth you find one or another fossil record and whether few billion years would be enough for a single cell to evolve into who you are.

I did post some quotes here, but apparently you didn't browse a single page nor did you read any of what I have posted so far, yet you so confidently go on to call me a neanderthal who just happen to not understand how he came to learn how to invent and use stone tools and how it proves that Darwin is right.


Well, may be you should read this:

or this:

or this:

Now go ahead and do it, why not?
Don't you claim that theory is scientifically valid?
Where is the proof

It is actually very easy. You can prove it to youself, in practice, by rolling a dice all day long and counting the number of times you roll it and number of times you get one or another combination.
You can use mathematical formula to predict the sequence of random events and within acceptable margin of error it will prove to be accurate.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

It is a real scientific theory, not some hoax that is being presented under guise of science.

We are not talking about aesthetics here.
Point is that the theory is not scientifically valid one unless you can prove it to the contrary.

Another argument is that species , prior to "adapting", already possess capacity to do so ! In another words, they do not advance or develop something out of blue and by random chance , but rather utilize the capacity which is already present and innate in them. And those who either lack or don't utilize such capacity do die.
But the question of how such capacity develops in the first place has never been convincingly explained by Darwinists, nor do they (as far as I know) have a single laboratory confirmed proof of their theoretical claims, even in the scale of the microorganisms.
Or may be you can site the name of laboratory, time such experiment was performed and particular title and name of author where it is described and proven beyond any reasonable doubt?
If so, please leave the references.

I didn't ask you to do that !
I asked lithium once, though (in another thread) and his reaction was similar to what you describe.

Oh, yes, I did make that up.
The magnitute of REAL numbers is far beyond trillions of years (just read above the copy paste from Spetner's exchange with Edward max or his readers comment. Those numbers are truly mind boggling and beyond human capacity to imagine their true vastness).

I have flown to Garren Nebula NGC 604 yesterday, just came back few minutes ago.
I hate when people say they traveled there without actually flying the starship back and forth.

No matter what you call it, it is not scientifically valid theory.

I will not venture to invent yet another theory as to why exactly, for what reason it has credibility within scientific community , but what I know for sure is that evidence is not one of them.

Oh, it was just a hallucination

 

It seems to me you are wasting your time and knowledge on this important subject by asking lay people on Hip Forums to meet such rigorous standards of proof. You need to submit this to a peer reviewed scientific journal so that scholars who might be able to satisfy your needs can have a crack at it--that is, if you're really confident your views can stand the heat. You probably should ask Spetner for copyright clearance first, though.

 

So let me get this correct before I proceed:

You believe that evolution is unscientific because Spetner believes that evolution does not occur by chance?

Nobody ever said debate was easy.

 

I observe that theory of evolution has not been proven to be scientifically valid theory.
Quantitative analysis of Spetner is a further evidence of it's fundamental fallacy.