Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

I have no intention of reading these 8 pages of shit but I'll add my own two turds to it.

I think Evolution VS Creation is like this picture:




On the left, evidence for evolution: we don't have all the pieces but the evidence fits solid and the overall picture is clear. It can not be denied or disproven.

On the right, "evidence" for creation: Thousands have tried to piece it together with circular logic, pseudoscience and flat out ignorance and it just doesn't fit together. Much of the "evidence" HAS been disproven.

 

But what real evidence is there for macro-evolution? It's as much guess-work as anything else, so I disagree, it does not fit together like a puzzle does. You say the Creation theory is "circular logic, pseudoscience and flat out ignorance and it just doesn't fit together.", but the exact same thing could be said for the Evolution theory. Perhaps not micro-evolution, of which I am a believer, but macro-evolution certainly. As I've shown from my own post before, even scientists can't prove it! How is this a jigsaw fitting together?

 

Perhaps intent is the psyches' interpretation of the intuitive apprehension of gravity, the interstellar matrix upon which matters coalesce.

 

This thread needs to be put in the pure bull section.

I would agree. Creationists seem to believe that if they just keep arguing, they can then assert that the matter is still debatable. In the scientific world, this matter was settled once and for all generations ago, and its predictions have been confirmed literally daily in countless peer-reviewed studies. The number of scientific observations and measurements that are consistent with evolutionary theory probably number in the hundreds of thousands per day.

I wouldn't compare that to anthropogenic climate change. Most workers in earth sciences such as meteorology, oceanography, etc., believe the data confirms climate change to be related to human activity. However, this is a relatively recent development, not one that's been tested and confirmed many thousands of times consistently and over the course of multiple generations of scientists. And it's also somewhat controversial among those most specialized in its study (climatology).

But evolution? That's been settled beyond any dispute for longer than any of us has been alive, and it's re-confirmed literally every day.

 

The theory of evolution is based largely on circumstantial evidence. No human was around to witness most of it happening. Circumstantial evidence is still good evidence. People have gone to the chair or the gas chamber based on it. But it always involves inference which is a matter of judgment/intuition--not, strictly speaking, direct observation and logic. I think macroevolution is a reasonable inference. There are a large number of fossil remains of plausible transitional species for the horse, the whale, the bird, etc. Since inference and judgment are involved, these examples can always be disputed by determined Creationists. Was archaeopteryx a transitional creature between dinosaur and bird, or just a funny looking bird with teeth and a lizard's tail? Or maybe a funny looking reptile with wings and feathers? An evolutionist could argue with Duane Gish until the cows come home on that subject, but I still think the arguments for transitional species are plausible.

I don't think there is a Creation Science. Creationists have done little or nothing to develop testable, refutable theories. They spend their time thinking up new ways to challenge evolution. The theory of evolution fits far more of the pieces together, and is the best explanatory theory for speciation we can come up with. There are gaps in the puzzle. Transitional evidence for rabbits is lacking, but at least, so far, no rabbits in the Cambrian. Unlike Creationism, evolution is a refutable theory, and so far has not been refuted, although Creationists continue to try their darndest. Evolution can explain many things creationism can't, such as: the fossil record, biogeography, the existence of vestigial organs and pseudogenes, and elements of suboptimal design.

What you've shown from your posts is that a couple of scientists aren't convinced. There are many more you could have added to the list. There are still scientists who dispute the Big Bang theory. But there is still an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting both evolution and Big Bang. It's a reasonable inference and the most adequate scientific theory we have. That, of course, doesn't mean it's true.

 

Don't waste your time , there are no advocates of evolutionary theory on this site who have a clue about what exactly theory they defend claims let alone how to plausibly prove it's validity.



In general, I would say that the real evolutionists ( I mean those who work in labs , get PhDs and what not ) should do a better job in convincing more sceptical minds of validity of the theory.
They have not succeeded in doing that yet.

As much as I tried to get a real grip of the theory , whenever I tried to find a hardcore argument in it's support it usually got too fuzzy (well, may be I didn't look in the right places. I have only libraries , bookstores and internet at my disposal. Or may be I was not knowledgable enough to truly understand it).

My impression was that they basically get a tiny bit of an evidence or perform some lab experiment, then they try to make it sound as big and complicated as possible [knowing that great majority of people not in a field won't comprehend what much of it implies anyway and will get confused in the process of information processing, to the degree that they(readers/public) will lose their own train of thought and ability to critically judge and apply strict rules of logic to the argument],
then based on that bit of an evidence evolutionists draw some very far reaching conclusions that sound almost arbitrary (I say arbitrary because there is no place you can find reasoning and logic behind conclusions elaborated in very detailed and convincing fashion as you would expect from the scientific theory. There are just tiny bits of evidence and very far reaching conclusions based on each one of those evidences).
Among scientists in evolutionary biology there is apparently no need of convincing proof or strong evidence since they all accept the validity of theory apriory and hold it to be agreed upon truth and thus declare it to be valid by definition.

This being said, you can't really challenge it if you yourself are not highly aware of all the details and intricacies of the theory , evidence and all lab results performed so far.
If you argue against it they will go in spiraling circles, getting the argument more and more complicated until you get to the point where you lack further academic knowledge of subject to dispute it.

And that's where most of those who attempt to seriously challenge it fail.


The challengers themselves don't know the theory well enough to be able to fundamentally challenge it.
Spetner, even though PhD in physics from MIT, has no background in evolutionary biology.
He took what evolutionists claimed yesterday, using the math of probability theory made some calculations based on his understanding of evolutionists assumptions (random mutation + natural selection = evolution in progress) and shown it couldn't work the way evolutionists claimed.
Next day evolutionists came up with another, newer interpretation of theory and some additional evidence which they claim Spetner did not address in his calculation and now Spetner or anyone else has to come up with a new challenge to what new evidence and interpretation is claimed to be there or they have to show that it was already addressed and there is nothing new to address.
This can continue ad infinitum.

As long as challenge does not come from within the ranks of evolutionary biologists themselves any challenge to it will be an opportunity for them to show how their theory can function in practice, by providing ever more complex evidence and newer, even more complex interpretation of it to support their general assumption.
And it is very unlikely for the challenge to come from within because you have to accept the premises of the theory to get in the field in the first place and once you are IN it is self-defeating and practically unsound thing to destroy it, since your livelyhood and that of all around you depend on it.


As to Creationists or ID advocates I don't know what those guys hope to achieve by challenging the evolutionary theory from religious standpoint.

Why do you think Evolutionists got it wrong?
Because God or Intelligent Designer has created universe.
But that's a religious assumption?
I can prove it scientifically.
Where do you get the premise of your argument?
In Bible.
How do you know it's so?
Because it's a word of God.
How do you know that?
Because I feel so.

That will never be taken seriously by anyone except those who share those feelings. And when it comes to assumptions based on feelings it is no longer scientific activity anyway. You are in effect trying to prove that the other theory lacks scientific grounds while your own is based on religion.


As I said earlier there are no advocates of evolutionary theory on this site who have a clue about what exactly theory they defend claims let alone how to plausibly prove it's validity.

I could add that there are no serious challengers of the Evolutionary theory either, on this site or elsewhere.

So it's basically a waste of time to discuss it , unless you want to do it for the sake of having a fun which I always approve of :cheers2:

 

I don't think we need to waste time arguing these points as it's a clear stale mate

To be fair, this is a thread to dispute evolution... I don't sit around thinking of ways to disprove it. I'm only thinking of it now because the topic is up.
Bones, as it happens can be used to prove either way. There are, in a quick Google search, many a Creationist site that claims it's proof from fossils. Creationists can call upon the rapid petrification and fossilisation of materials under certain conditions. Indeed, a hat or a boot can be completely petrified in a rate of just years and not thousands or millions of years. Fossils can easily be made to be a Creationist proof as well as not.
Also, as you might or might not be aware, organs thought before to be vestigial organs, we are starting to realise may have more of an importance in the body then we thought. The appendix for example, was thought to be useless in the body but new studies show it plays a role in our immune system, harbouring and protecting friendly bacteria, and also can restore friendly bacteria after a bought of diarrhoea.
Suboptimal design is what I would consider, beauty in the eyes of the beholder. What would constitute an organism to be suboptimal? An organism can be optimal for one time, one purpose and one environment, but not another, but I would not say it is suboptimal. What examples would you give of something you consider "suboptimal"?
On another point. if every living creature was "optimal" in every single way, nothing would ever die, food supplies would vanish and we would starve.
But, tell me if I am mistaking it at all, the idea of "suboptimal" is not something i have come across before so I have made my research just now for this debate.

Evidence really counts on what you choose to believe. A believer in Creationism tends to read over Evolution and write it off as junk before he even starts. Same for vice versa. There is a mass of "evidence" to prove the Creation theory as there are for the Evolution theory, it just depends on who you listen to. Both sides skewer the truth to their own benefit.

 

When Darwin first announced his theory, the things about it that Victorians found most shocking were the notion that we were related to apes and the idea that creation took billions of years instead of six days. At the textbook trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2005, advocates of Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinism duked it out in the courtroom in front of a judge. The star witnesses were Dr.Michael Behe, for I.D., and Dr. Kenneth Miller, for Neo-Darwinism. It's interesting how much they agreed on, besides both being devout Christians. Behe, like Miller, accepts common descent for humans and apes. Behe, like Miller, believes that evolution did happen, and happened over billions of years instead of six days. The principal area of disagreement was over whether or not it could have happened by chance. Behe argued no, because of the irreducible complexity of organisms, citing as an examples the blood clotting cascade and the flagella of certain bacteria. Miller argued that simpler forms of these could and did occur, and was able to produce evidence of that that convinced the court, which found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large". Lee Spetner, the most recent star on the ID horizon, also accepts evolution over billions of years and common descent, but disputes that the process could have happened by chance alone. Whether his contention survives scientific scrutiny remains to be seen, but it is interesting how much has been conceded to the Neo-Darwinists, and how narrow the issue has now become. DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

 

I agree to the moot point. I see neither position to be invalid nor are they truly in opposition. They are equal in their capacity to shape our world view. Perhaps reverse engineering is inadequate of itself in that the past emerges from the present, not the other way round.

 

I'm a troll for participating in a thread designed to dispute evolution? Well thought, my friend, well thought.

 

No, Honey, I didn't mean you. I meant the guy who posted before you, Jumbuli, who confessed to jerking us around on three different threads for his amusement and is still trying to sucker us in . Your own contributions have been sincere, thoughtful and vital to our discussion. That's why I'll reply to your posts, never his.

 

This guy named Okiefreak is the most incongruous and outrageously deceitful of all the trolls I have ever encountered on public forums, his tactic being to troll around more than anyone else while accusing anyone who calls his bluff of trolling and what not. Better ignore him.

 

Don't waste your time , there are no advocates of evolutionary theory on this site who have a clue about what exactly theory they defend claims let alone how to plausibly prove it's validity.



In general, I would say that the real evolutionists ( I mean those who work in labs , get PhDs and what not ) should do a better job in convincing more sceptical minds of validity of the theory.
They have not succeeded in doing that yet.

As much as I tried to get a real grip of the theory , whenever I tried to find a hardcore argument in it's support it usually got too fuzzy (well, may be I didn't look in the right places. I have only libraries , bookstores and internet at my disposal. Or may be I was not knowledgable enough to truly understand it).

My impression was that they basically get a tiny bit of an evidence or perform some lab experiment, then they try to make it sound as big and complicated as possible [knowing that great majority of people not in a field won't comprehend what much of it implies anyway and will get confused in the process of information processing, to the degree that they(readers/public) will lose their own train of thought and ability to critically judge and apply strict rules of logic to the argument],
then based on that bit of an evidence evolutionists draw some very far reaching conclusions that sound almost arbitrary (I say arbitrary because there is no place you can find reasoning and logic behind conclusions elaborated in very detailed and convincing fashion as you would expect from the scientific theory. There are just tiny bits of evidence and very far reaching conclusions based on each one of those evidences).
Among scientists in evolutionary biology there is apparently no need of convincing proof or strong evidence since they all accept the validity of theory apriory and hold it to be agreed upon truth and thus declare it to be valid by definition.

This being said, you can't really challenge it if you yourself are not highly aware of all the details and intricacies of the theory , evidence and all lab results performed so far.
If you argue against it they will go in spiraling circles, getting the argument more and more complicated until you get to the point where you lack further academic knowledge of subject to dispute it.

And that's where most of those who attempt to seriously challenge it fail.


The challengers themselves don't know the theory well enough to be able to fundamentally challenge it.
Spetner, even though PhD in physics from MIT, has no background in evolutionary biology.
He took what evolutionists claimed yesterday, using the math of probability theory made some calculations based on his understanding of evolutionists assumptions (random mutation + natural selection = evolution in progress) and shown it couldn't work the way evolutionists claimed.
Next day evolutionists came up with another, newer interpretation of theory and some additional evidence which they claim Spetner did not address in his calculation and now Spetner or anyone else has to come up with a new challenge to what new evidence and interpretation is claimed to be there or they have to show that it was already addressed and there is nothing new to address.
This can continue ad infinitum.

As long as challenge does not come from within the ranks of evolutionary biologists themselves any challenge to it will be an opportunity for them to show how their theory can function in practice, by providing ever more complex evidence and newer, even more complex interpretation of it to support their general assumption.
And it is very unlikely for the challenge to come from within because you have to accept the premises of the theory to get in the field in the first place and once you are IN it is self-defeating and practically unsound thing to destroy it, since your livelyhood and that of all around you depend on it.


As to Creationists or ID advocates I don't know what those guys hope to achieve by challenging the evolutionary theory from religious standpoint.

Why do you think Evolutionists got it wrong?
Because God or Intelligent Designer has created universe.
But that's a religious assumption?
I can prove it scientifically.
Where do you get the premise of your argument?
In Bible.
How do you know it's so?
Because it's a word of God.
How do you know that?
Because I feel so.

That will never be taken seriously by anyone except those who share those feelings. And when it comes to assumptions based on feelings it is no longer scientific activity anyway. You are in effect trying to prove that the other theory lacks scientific grounds while your own which counters it is based on religion.


As I said earlier there are no advocates of evolutionary theory on this site who have a clue about what exactly theory they defend claims let alone how to plausibly prove it's validity.

I could add that there are no serious challengers of the Evolutionary theory either, on this site or elsewhere.

So it's basically a waste of time to discuss it , unless you want to do it for the sake of having a fun which I always approve of :cheers2:

 

Sending him to blank himself does not long cool his passion. The man that you embrace has a hard time landing a blow on anyone.

 

Thanks for your comments. I hate to be considered a troll for anything. It's a pretty horrid image to have IMO

 

Good post. And debate is always good fun for me. It gives me an opportunity to think critically which in real life scenario, we as people don't get a lot of chance to do.

 

Yeah, debate is always good fun.
Just too many imbeciles you have to ignore along the way

 

The micro scale evolutionary process is hard to over look. Though for the sake of science, i believe it is hard to prove that we came from fish. Though genetic traits can be traced far back.

Anyone recall the name of the species of mammal scientists were saying was the closest/oldest relative of hominids??

This is a place for discussion related amusement. Not the amusement of people that really do not have anything better to do but sit at their computer and troll around and piss people off on purpose. Especially ruining good threads.

 

It's impossible to overlook.

They don't claim that we came from fish seen in aquarium today (they are smarter than making a claim like that) but that both fish and us are coming from the same source (which is reasonable inference, considering age of universe is finite and things are identical on elementary level) and that we are all what we are due to random chance and natural selection, which they claim to be the sole mechanism responsible for the entire process of evolution.
It has later got more complicated [with Mendel's genetics kicking in and all that followed after] than the original theory invented by the Darwin, but there is a basic premise in a nutshell, as far as I can tell.

Did they find that creatures birth certificate too?

I wholeheartedly approve of that statement !

 

All the mechanisms for for macro-evolution have been scientifically proven. It is ridiculous to argue that the whole million year process can not be be proven because it simply can not be witnessed in one scientists lifetime. Science has witnessed the components and the mechanics and it all fits perfectly, evolution is rock solid.