Evolution is a valid scientific theory

This thread is a sequel to the previous: Evolution is not a valid scientific theory. I created it in response to an objection that the other topic was improperly worded and the resulting discussion was fruitless ( although I recommend reading it; it has a surreal aesthetic that is unparalleled on Hip Forums. With threads like that, who needs mind altering substances! Anyhow, I've done my civic duty, and I invite you all to participate in a lively discussion of the issue. Enjoy!

 

OK.
Let's start at the begining:

1) At the moment the universe came in to existence, the basis for ALL forms of energy began losing organization.
Energy evolves from usable energy to un-usable energy as an overriding "natural motive" of the Universe. This is called the 1st law of Thermodynamics: In a closed system, entropy tends to increase. Another words, the Universe is wearing out with the passage of time.

2) Uncertainty.

Uncertainty dictates that a particle cannot be pinned down to a time/space coordinate that signifies a single theoretical point. In other words, atoms are “Fuzzy”, and you can’t, not even theoretically, pinpoint where in the fuzz the atom is at any given time. So Atoms ALWAYS, even at absolute zero, remain in motion (called “Brownian Motion”), which mean they contain energy as energy and not only as mass, which in turn means they are ready to enter into combinations with other atoms when the opportunity arises. It also demonstrates the Probabilistic Nature of Existence.

3) The Universe is Quantum in Nature.

This means the universe is Dynamic, because, since Entropy MUST increase overall, Energy levels fluctuate and, any given moment, some number of particles are under going a Quantum Change and Evolving into to different particles.


4) The physical difference between life and not-life is degree of complexity.

A rock may contain 100 types of atoms, arranged into 54 compounds or whatever, all solidified together. A single RNA molecule, (not to mention DNA), is many orders of magnitude above such a 50 ton boulder in complexity.
It is possible for a rock to contain all the atoms necessary to create life, and yet not be alive. Complexity of order is lacking.

5) When energy is added to a system, complexity increases.

When a single molecule of Carbon (C) “meets” with a stray oxygen atom (O) , the addition of energy will cause the two to combine, Evolving into CO, carbon-monoxide, giving off energy in the process (some of which is lost to entropy) and at the same time increasing complexity and energy content of the original molecule.

These are some of the basic principles of existence. They apply to EVERYTHING.
----------------------------
Are you with me?

 

If someone stated that the world was flat in the forums would you go to nearly as much trouble trying to convince them otherwise as you have with the anti evolution quacks who have trolled the shit out of you guys in other threads?

 

Evolution is actually more up in the air than I thought. I've learned a lot from these threads. For example, what type of evolutionary mechanism produced the Cambrian explosion? Have they figured that out yet?

 

Actually, I have zero interest in educating anti-science wackos. Fanatics are beyond education.

But I have great interest in defending Science itself against misrepresentation by those same wakos.

Some people may look at this forum expecting to learn something. But all they see is cut and paste, cut and paste, framed in bull shit. endless arguments about usless details. It gives science a bad name.

Science is exciting and thought provoking, and should be presented as such.

And every once in a while, I encounter someone who forces me to think, and occassionally, I even get to learn a thing or two.

 

Don't dare to question this theory or else get used to be labeled a fanatic, lunatic, quack, donkey hole and what not.

As to me I don't care what names they call me.
This subject is not about me but about scientific validity of theory that almost everyone accepts for fact apriory.

It is interesting question as to what type of evolutionary mechanism produced Cambrian explosion, among other evolutionary processes.

Somehow this all came to be what it is.
We aren't kids anymore and know there is no bearded magic man in the skies who did this.

And those who claim that Evolution is a valid scientific theory sure must present a case in favor of such claim if they are serious about it at all.

 

So we have moved on from Darwinism to Evolutionism?

 

Monkey Boy,
The Mechanisms of Evolution are still open to debate. But Evolution itself is completly accepted by the scientific establishment.

Those who question the validity of the concept invaribly believe (without cause) that evolution is moving toward something-- a goal.
And it is. Only the goal is survival.

The evolutionary mechanisms that shape life are inevitable. Life response to it's environment is inevitable.

It seems that primary evolution occurs in spirts. Life evolves to fill the available niches. With respect to the Cambrian period, it is possible that life had temporarily reached a period where it was relatively in sync with the enviroment and thus rapidly filled those niches. It is also possible that the level of sophistication of organisms had finnally, for the first time, become efficent enough to thrive in what was, relatively speaking, a benign enviroment.

Look how fast the proliferation of mammals followed the passing of the dinosaurs. the enviroment was relatively benign (most of the predators were dead), and food was plentiful, (all the herbavoires were dead), and BINGO! Evolution city!

 

Xac,
There is no darwinism accept in the minds of creationist.
We have moved on to a discussion of Reality, sans cut and paste.

Please ignore jumbulli5 and let's have a real disscussion.

 

Here's the catch 22 on that one, i'm sure any member of this forum that cares for this issue enough to actually research and source an argument probably isn't going to waste their energy writing it up for Hipforums.

Jumbuli55, if you really want a proper debate you may do much better to find another forum, this site really is about opinion and not about evidence. You can't expect people to put effort into a subject they don't care about to "win" an argument with some one they don't know.

 

Jonathan Wells, Moonie and author of Icons of Evolution, and Duane Gish, Young Earth Creationist, both with Ph.Ds in scientific fields, argue that the Cambrian explosion happened too fast to allow the large scale morphological changes to occur by natural selection. Paleontologist Alan Gishlick argues, on the other hand, that the Creationists mistakenly view the Cambrian as a single event,rather than a 15 to 20 million year peroid, and that the organisms preserved become gradually more diverse . Wells makes an even more egregious blunder in not explaining that the "explosion" of the middle Cambrian is preceded by the less diverse "small shelly" metazoan fossils. In other words, Gishlick argues that the anti-evolutionists misstate the fossil record and the rules of taxonomy. In a previous post on another site, I presented evidence that Wells made Henry Gee, a strong advocate of evolution by process of natural selection, into a critic by quoting him out of context. Gee writes:"Darwinian evolution by natural selection is a theory in the formal sense that it is a hypothesis that has been tested, repeatedly, and found to be consistent with all the evidence that we can throw at it. Much of this evidence, from the fossil record and from genetics, did not exist in Darwin’s time, and it is a testament to Darwin’s prescience and the elegance of his theory of evolution by natural selection that it has proved so robust, so all-encompassing, so right." The publications of Wells and Gish are riddled with these kinds of misleading facts and figures, which is why I don't trust them. Most evolutionary biologists consider the Cambrian Explosion to be an interesting scientific puzzle to be solved, rather than evidence against evolution.

 

Below are some fragments from my earlier posts.
I don't have dispute with Skizm on the subject of Spetners claims and deleted some parts from copy-paste concerning it.
I hold on to most of the other things I have stated earlier, especially concerning my exchanges w/Okiefreak ( some fragments copy-pasted below)

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.

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?


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?


======================================================

From exchange w/Okiefreak

Please elaborate on these. Sounds interesting . Now it would be great if you could back it up with anyting other than usual The ___________ is valid because it proves that during __________ the process called __________ happens which leads to __________, in another words I have already proven my case"(fill in blanks with obscure and unknown to general public words).

Of course! Why don't you do the proper calculation and show it to us instead? Let Spetner twist in his chair with hard steam coming out of his ears as you present more sophisticated and realistic calculation of processess described. I will then embrace your view with no reservations!

If randomness is not the fundamental premise of Neo Darwinism then what is ?
What mechanism they claim made the most primitive first archaic cell to become a more complex organism , how it went through those beginning stages that it must have passed through before coming to a more advanced stages involving a more complex choices and performances ?

And what is the aspect, what is the mechanism that New Synthesis biologists claim to have been responsible for an advance of most complex biological organisms from the most primitive archaic single cell?

Please elaborate.



========================================================


General Conclusion



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:

 

How true! But there are characters like me who like to do a little of it--within reason--as a learning experience. It's obviously a complex, technical subject, and Creationists and ID advocates never sleep in their efforts to discredit "Darwinism". But i think we learn something about both sides by our posts and counter-posts.

 

(Jesus, now jumbulli is reposting and talking to himself... )

Very good, Okiefreak.
I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

And what did I say before?
[Hint: read final 6 lines of Post # 12 , right above Okiefreaks post]

 

You mean what did you say after?
[Hint: the post of mine you qouted i wrote before then one you claimed you made "before"]

 

Yeah i understand, i might take this thread seriously in the holidays, but the truth is, if i am going to pick up some resources and start studying something, it's going to be my uni assignments and not just for some debate on Hipforums.

Having said that, i will chime in quickly just to say one thing about this debate. Why the fuck are you guys arguing about Darwinism? Don't you guys know that the evolutionary claim has come along way since then? I think now days people are "evolutionists" and not "Darwnists" the difference being the former includes all the scientifc revisions to Darwins theory over the years.

 

Only the fanatic is talking about "Darwinisim". It's a cheap attempt to lower science to the level of religion.
An old creationist practice. Ignore it.

 

Jumbulli is frustrating, annoying and a little bit silly. But he is interesting and at the very least i think he is trying to raise the standards of the debate on this site.

Which is what is frustrating and annoying about him and it is what makes him a little silly, it's like walking into a kindergarten and expecting a stimulating debate on evolution, it isnt going to happen.

Not that i compare us to kindergarten kids (although maybe some of the posters could be compared as such) but at the same time, it is just as futile to pretend this is where we put the best of our mental abilities to work.

I'm not even sure that Jumbuli55 is even against evolution, I think he just wants to debate with out assumptions and see who gets it.

But yeah, you're all wasting your time if your not having fun

 

No, I copy-pasted it from much earlier post.