Evolution is a valid scientific theory

Most importantly check out their arguments and see if they are valid.

If someone says that college textbook has one page describing an ancestral specie as 57 million years old (while explaining why it's believed to be ancestral specie) then goes to next page talking about descendant specie that turns out to be 4 million years older(! While explaining once again why it's descendant on one described on previous page), well, how do you explain such discrepancy ?
Is it mere typo?
What if there are way too many typos like that and all conveniently serve to shoehorn found fossils into pre-existing picture to support the theory?
What then?

You may say that the person bringing those quotes is distorting original ones.
Well, that's acceptable objection.
There are references and one should go check those. Unless you do there is no knowing who distorts what.

But to dismiss the critical argument merely because one who wrote it is a Creationist, well, call it as you wish but doing so is nothing short of engaging in ad hominem argument (you say the assertion is wrong merely because of characteristics of one who made it, all the verifiable facts irrelevant).

 

Ok, jubulli.

Cease to double post on two forums at the same time or I'll break my own rule and report you, spammer.

 

Mr Tall Tale: There is lots of evidence in support of theory of evolution. Ergo it's a scientifically valid theory
Sceptik: Where is it?
Mr Tall Tale: Oh, it's everywhere. There are mountains !
Sceptik: Can you show me at least one?
Mr Tall Tale: Why do I need to when there is such a huge mountain of it! Who do you take me for? Let those who doubt show mountain of evidence why you shouldn't believe me

 

If you debunk their argument by saying they have blown their credibility, that is ad hominem. Because it does nothing to engage what they have actually said.

As far as legitimate goes, it is up to you, i dont think ad hominem arguments are unreasonable in that we dont all have the time to hear every crack pot out. But we must accept that an ad hominem attack does nothing to disprove an argument or assertion.

 

Chill, let him do what he wants. I dont think he is breaking any rules.

 

He is breaking a rule by spamming a thread.
In any case, he renders this forum near usless.
He's a selfish prick and coddling him is the worst thing you can do for Him. He needs to man up.

 

Sounds like you need to "man up", i think you're the only one here not having any fun. If this all becomes too upsetting, try clicking the "x" in the top right corner of your screen

 

What if someone who believes in Toothfairy decided to argue, applying laws of physics, that Baron Munchausen couldn't possibly fly to the Moon on cannonball , while also quoting parts of the book where Munchausen claims he was able to do so?

Would it then be a reasonable argument to suggest that Munchausen indeed flew to the Moon on cannonball [or that he never claimed to do so], just because one who disputes and quotes a book is believer in Toothfairy?

 

Okay. Where do we go from here? How do we get to evolution and the New Synthesis? And do you think the relation to an adequate explanation of life and evolution is incontrovertible fact, scientific theory, or just your opinion based on scientific principles that could explain evolution?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/14/darwinopterus.dinosaur.fossil/index.html

Hot of the press-- I haven't had time to digest it yet.

Back in a day or two

 

The guy who originally posted it is a Darwinist dogma worshiping troll.
He knows what he presents is what is called pseudo-science if incorporated into the subject of evolutionary theory as we know it to be.
Ergo, it's obvious that he is setting up a "straw man" argument in hopes to suck into it those who may be critical of Darwinism while too ignorant to distinguish it from other branches of sciences .

This thread is not about Quantum Nature of Universe, nor about Physics per se, nor about Chemistry (although the particles, quantum waves and chemical reactions studied in those sciences play fundamental role in biological processes, just as any atom and chemical reaction has fundamental place in anything that exists in Universe).

But our topic of discussion here is neither Physics nor Chemistry per se.

It's "Evolution is Valid Scientific Theory" which by default implies that the Modern Theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid.

It is an obligation of anyone who makes such claim to prove that it is indeed scientifically valid and clearly demonstrate what premises it is based on, or else they have no claim to begn with.

Anything else is mere digression and deserves nothing more than a dismissal.

Now, does anyone here still claim that Darwinism is a Scientifically Valid Theory?

If so please proceed with your argument.
If not then it must be concluded that there is no claim to begin with.

Simple as that.

 

While waiting for Geopelli to provide a more thorough scientific defense of the New Synthesis, maybe I could share a few thoughts. I am admittedly not a scientist, and he was up on science before I was old enough to wipe my own ass. But I have read a number of books and articles about evolution, and followed with interest the 2005 textbook trial in Dover, Pa.(Kitzmiller v. Dover) in which experts on both sides gave testimony and underwent thorough cross-examination. On this basis, I think evolutionists have made a prima facie case on behalf of the New Synthesis.

To be valid, a scientific theory doesn't have to be proven to be true, but it does have to be refutable, consistent with the available evidence, and supported beyond a reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of editors of peer reviewed journals of relevant disciplines. I think the New Synthesis has done this. As I said earlier, transitional evidence for rabbits is lacking, but at least, so far, no rabbits in the Cambrian. As I've also said, star scientists of the Intelligent Design school concede much of the previously disputed case for evolution by agreeing on such matters as development of humans from other species, common descent of humans and apes, and emergence of one species from another over a period of billions of years.ts of "scientists" who support a position.

I'm also impressed by the the fact that the weight of scientific expert opinion is on the side of evolution. 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.

Furthermore, I'm impressed by how much of the New Synthesis has been conceded by the star scientists for the opposition. 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.

I think Xac has given a good explanation for why defenders of the New Synthesis haven't provided a thorough proof of the theory. It wouldn't be worth our time to do so on Hip Forums, because as Jumbuli pointed out on another site, to do so "one would need to spend great deal of time studying it, getting into all details and intricacies of it. And it doesn't come easy, one would probably need to spend quarter of a lifetime to do just that." I have the impression what we are being asked to do is reinvent the wheel by "proving" on our own an established scientific theory. Would that mean digging up the missing link?Even I have enough of a life not to try that. Over to you, geckopelli.

 

Evolution's smoking gun would be a group of animals evolved to the point that they are unable to produce fertile offspring with their ancestral parents. It would be an observed speciation event that proves macroevolution happens. So far I've been unable to find such a case. There are some cases that are thought to be on the cusp of such an event.

 

In this particular case Judge "issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision ruling that the Dover mandate which required the statement to be read in class was unconstitutional and barring intelligent design from being taught in the Dover school district's public school science classrooms".[4]

^ Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al.

Looks like Judge was saying Intelligent Design is NOT a science.
And who claims it is ?

My contention is that Darwinism , just like ID or Creationism, also is NOT a scientifically valid theory.
I don't claim any theory is valid as far as mechanism responsible for emergence of species is involved.

That wasn't part of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District et al
They didn't set out to really scrutinise whether Darwinism itself is a science, instead all parties almost apriory accepted it is.

They only argued ID wasn't the science and Judge made the only reasonable ruling - which was to affirm.

So, please don't make this into a case against Creationism or ID.
I do not argue in favor of either.
But I ask you to show what makes you believe that Darwinism is a science.

I agree with that.
I repeatedly confirmed that it was never my intention to ask anybody for slow-motion videotaped evidence of evolutionary processes as they occured.
Just as I wouldn't expect Hawkins to travel 20 billion years back to videotape Big Bang to accept it as a scientifically valid theory.

If you keep repeating it ,as if I don't understand what theory is, then I must conclude that you either:

1) You do NOT comprehend what I write
2) You DO comprehend what I write but conveniently ignore parts where I repeatedly explain what the definition of scientifically valid theory is and what do I expect when asking for proof that Darwinism is a scientifically valid theory.

In fact it does have to be "consistent with the available evidence".
Just as Big Bang theory is (even though all the math collapses beyond Plank epoch, but at least until then it works!)

This , in fact, doesn't matter for the purposes of the argument.
History has abundant evidence of "peers" who erred gravely and stubbornly for decades, if not centuries, before the more accurate theory was accepted as scientifically valid or older one officially debunked, even after enough evidence was presented to show fallacy of previous theory.

When you say New Synthesis I hear mere words.
What do you mean when you pronounce those words?
And what exactly has it done?

Not only transitional evidence for rabbits is lacking.
What is lacking is any plausible argument as why should we belive there was to be any.

Be specific.
Forget "other star scientists". Focus on what you claim to be scientifically valid theory and show how it is so.

I am least of all impressed by that.
It's not about politics where you let majority decide the course of affairs.
It's about science.
In science the accurate answer has nothing to do with who or how many people belive it to be so.

See above

The Judge, understandably, relied on the conclusion of other scientists that Darwinism IS the scientifically valid theory.
The Judge is someone who has to make his ruling in accord with law and Constitution.
It is not the job of Judge to learn science of evolutionary biology in a matter of short time required to make decision [to the degree that would enable him to issue a definite decree as to whether it is a science or not].
Judges may have thousands of cases per year to review , ranging through very wide spectrum of issues. Inevitably they must rely on expert testimonies before making a ruling.
So there is nothing wrong with Judges ruling and opinion and he made only rational decision anyone in his place could.

But just because many scientists out there accept evolutionary theory to be scientifically valid one doesn't mean it really is.

After all, scientists for 2000 years also belived that Ptolemaic model was correct and that whole Universe rotates around planet Earth.
Didn't mean they were correct though.

You keep saying how impressed you are.
Well, it doesn;t impress me so far.

I am least of all concerned about those things.
I do have some relatives in a genealogical tree that I would prefer apes to. And so do many of people. And of course I am not the one who would be shocked about universe not being 6 days old.

Why is this subject argued between Darwinists and Creationists as if those two are only possible positions?
I don't belong to neither.
I think both are invalid, as far as definition of scientifically valid theory is concerned.

See my earlier comments above..

What exactly do you mean when using word "evolution"?
If you think I am one of those who thinks Universe is 6 days old or became what it is in such a period of time, then I don't know what you are reading when I post here.
As to broad definition of word "evolution", I sure understand that since Universe is billions of years old and is what it is now, it must have somehow came to become what it is and since I accept Bing Bang theory as scientifically valid one I must also assume it all started from something very simple before it got to be what it is.
If this qualifies me as "evolutionist" then sure I am one.
But I do not belive it happened the way Darwin thought it did, not do I think there is any convincing , scientifically valid theory to explain the mechanisms responsible for emergence of species.

I already conceded to Skizm that Spetner is probably wrong (Skizm did a good job in arguing his point).
So, let's leave Spetner out of it.

What was conceded? By whom?

Then why are you bothering to argue ?

Lots of time subject itself is simple. But it takes lots of labor to get through and clarify things.
Like those manuals that they write about how to use a dial phone and all it's options. You must spend considerable time reading & figuring it out, if you go by instructions. So terribly complicated they make all those things sound.
In the end you find out all they had to do was to tell you precisely to press this, hold that, go there and you would be over with it.

Same with evolutionary theory. Not that it is so difficult to grasp, but how terribly complicated those who write textbooks make it sound.

And yes, it would take quite a while to study all the details and intricacies of it. How else are you going to deal with newspaper articles headlined "Yet another scientist came up yesterday with defining discovery confirming New Synthesis to be 100% accurate theory !".
The logical fallacy set aside (if it is already confirmed to be 100% accurate how come they come up with yet another confirmation on newspapers every other day), you actually need to get into subject and analyse each claim , lest they say you are engaging in ad hominem argumentby dismissing some argument due to your opinion of source.

Besides, I am not evolutionary biologists. Admittedly I would have to be one before anything argued by me could be taken as a serious challnge to Modern Theory of Evolution (this, btw, applies to proponents of theory as well).

To the Life !
May we have enough of it to enjoy it before it's over !

:cheers2:

 

Well let me put it this way, you can call them a crackpot, how reasonable that is, is up to you but it does nothing to prove them wrong.

Also, i think that the claim "Baron Munchausen can't fly to the moon on a cannon ball" is quite a reasonable claim, though probably stated better if "cannon ball" was completely defined.

And as you probably already know, just because some one believes in the toothfairy doesnt mean that they're wrong about Baron Munchausen being able to fly to the moon on a cannonball.

If some one told me they believed in the lochness monster and they believed that George bush was a real person, doesn't make the latter false.

So to answer your question, no, someones belief (or any other characteristic about them) has no bearing on the validity or soundness of their argument. And while I'm on a roll teaching you more i might as well explain the genetic fallacy.

The genetic fallacy is to attempt to debunk an argument based on how that argument was concieved. That is to say, it doesn't matter where an idea comes from, a dream or meditation, or while studying. All that matters is the argument itself.

Any more questions? :cheers2:

 

You can read my opinion in reply to Okiefreak above.

Any more questions?

 

Reply to okiefreak by jumbuli:
"Besides, I am not evolutionary biologists. Admittedly I would have to be one before anything argued by me could be taken as a serious challnge to Modern Theory of Evolution (this, btw, applies to proponents of theory as well)."

Are we to conclude then that you have conceded the argument?

 

But to get here, the judge made numerous finding of fact, one of which was that evolution by process of natural selection is accepted by most scientists. That means that most experts who know what they're talking about, unlike you (as you seem to have admitted) seem to think it's a sound theory.

There is no Darwinism, and my point was, as you've said, that all parties accepted it. The fact that the top guns on both sides accept practically all of the theory would indicate to me that there must be something to it.

That wasn't my intention. You miss the point.

I just did.

Ah, yes, but I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt until that evidence is presented.

The New Synthesis consists of natural selection and five other mechanisms that neither Darwin nor Spetner consider: genetic drift, genetic linkage, sexual selection, pleiotropy, heterochrony, and genetic linkage. What it's done, among other things, is to render meaningless many of the attacks on "Darwinism" or (in Spetner's terminology) "Neo-Darwinism", since the critics seldom take those other processes into account.

Are you saying scientific consensus is all politics?

Yes, judges make decisions based on the expert testimony presented to them in court and subjected to testing by the adversary process. The process isn't infallible, but it isn't chopped liver either. You should read the transcript, especially the compelling testimony by Dr. Kenneth Miller. Better yet, read his book, Finding Darwin's God. In my opinion, it's one of the best books I've read defending the New Synthesis, and it should convince all but the most obdurate skeptic that the theory is valid.[/Quote]

All scientific theories are tentative and refutable. That's what makes them scientific. As I've said before, the New Synthesis is one rabbit fossil away from extinction. Geckopelli thinks the theory would simply be revised, but too much of that would destroy its scientific status, because it obviously would be irrefutable.

Technically, there are three positions, since Intelligent Design is distinguishable from Creationism. But to my knowledge, those are the most widely accepted theories out there--in fact the only ones that I know of. Do you know of others?

I think ID is invalid. In fact, it strikes me as less a theory than a hypothesis, accompanied by an extensive critique of natural selection.

Is that what they call the argument from ignorance?

L'chaim!

:cheers2:[/QUOTE]

 

I don't have to do squat. I was just keeping the conversation going until Geckopelli gets back. He's the science whiz, and he said on the other site proving this is something he can do easily, pretty much off the top of his head. Oh Geckopelli!!!

 

Thats what I've been trying to say, talking about evolutionism and Darwinsim, are two different things!

Wait, are we back to Darwin again? in one post...

Well as I've pointed out, I have no desire to actually get into the evolution side of this debate, just like talking about logic.

But would it be fair then, if some one to make an acceptable argument to appeal to authority? That is appeal to the conclusion of some one established in the scientific community as evidence?

Or is it that you are looking for a professional to show you the science?

If it is the latter your hopes are too high