Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Why exactly?

Spetner's claim that there isn't enough time for species to evolve?

Spetner agrees with the theory of evolution. Just not in neo-darwinism idea that it is random. Organisms do evolve and change, how and why is what Spetner disagrees with.

 

If you think so then why did you start this thread in the first place?

 

Go to the link I provided and read the referenced posts where I already addressed your questions (apparently you never read what I write , and I see no point in typing it all over again if you don't).

Spetner proves that it didn't happen by random chance.
That it all happened by random chance and natural selection is the fundamental premise of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Origins of Species.

 

No, he found that it was unlikely. With his calculation of a new species emerging being 2.7x10-2739.

 

Rather too unlikely, to put it mildly.
So unlikely that he titled his book "Not By Chance".

 

The problem with that is, Spetner is a physicist. He believed that species emerge at a certain point. For example, at species with 500 mutations is still the same species, but at 501 they split.

It's actually a process. and not a point.

 

You are actually the one trolling now.

 

You can't ignore the problems with Spetner's theories and then present him as correct. All Spetner did was show that the theory of evolution isn't complete and that the defense of it is also incomplete. Beyond that, not much.

 

That it did not happen by random chance and natural selection is what Spetner has proved.
Thus, he proved that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is scientifically invalid theory.

As far as general application of word "evolution", of course I must concede that we must have evolved one way or another, considering that the age of universe is finite and things weren't always the way they are today.

Fundamental question is HOW?

I say that based on what is known so far and applying strict logic to it all we can state is that we don't know.

Darwinists claim to know , they assert that it all happened by random chance through natural selection.
And I challenge them to prove so in light of valid criticism of their theory.

 

I thought you should be given a chance.

 

Chance to do what?

I don't claim that the theory in question is valid nor do i claim that any other known theory is correct as far as explanation of biological phenomena is concerned.

 

To show your stuff.

 

But that's not true. The New Synthesis that most evolutionary biologists now accept embraces five other mechanisms that neither Darwin nor Spetner consider: genetic drift, genetic linkage, sexual selection, pleiotropy, heterochrony, and genetic linkage. Also well established is endosymbiosis. Since Spetner doesn't touch any of those, would you like to enlighten us as to their deficiencies.

 

epigenetics?

 

You have already seen the reason for my reservations under other threads (since the same questions are being brought up I simply copy-paste what was already posted).

 

As noted earlier, unlike Darwinists I am not a dogma worshiper and accepting any reasonable ideas.

Why don't you present your case (since you are the one obliged to do so) and let us see if it is fundamentally different in it's premises from Darwinian theory and makes any more sense than what has already been debunked.

What you posted above is a band-aid patch of just another assertion without anything shown to back it up.

But I now give you a chance to do better than that.

Let's see what you've got to show.

 

"Darwinists claim to know , they assert that it all happened by random chance through natural selection." That's an assertion. You asserted it. I pointed out that the assertion wasn't true, because it doesn't addresss the other processes in the New Synthesis that neither you, nor Darwin, nor Spetener had taken account of (Darwin can be forgiven, since they came after his time. ) If you don't care to address them, fine, but they make your critique somewhat hollow, and your efforts to hide behind the burden of proof transparently lame.

 

This is not a baseless assertion.
Darwinists claim that evolution has happened by random chance through natural selection. If they didn't I would have nothing to doubt.

When I say this is what Darwinists claim it's not like some arbitrary inference drawn from an obscure fossil found in Himalai or something, it's written in all the textbooks you can find, that this is what Darwinists beleive to be the mechanism responsible for evolution of organisms from most simple to most complex: random chance and natural selection.

There is no "you asserted watermelon is a watermelon, which is just an assertion hence you didn't prove it, or else my earlier claim that UFO's are real is Scientifically Valid one and has equal merits" kind of argument.

It's undisputable fact.

No you didn't.

What you imply is that aside from Darwinists (whom I addressed in my post you replied to) there are also new breed of evolutionary biologists in New Synthesis who "embraces five other mechanisms that neither Darwin nor Spetner consider: genetic drift, genetic linkage, sexual selection, pleiotropy, heterochrony, and genetic linkage".

Inference is that neither I nor Spetner in his book ever spoke about these new biologists with their new ideas and thoughts about evolutionary process and that their views are so fundamentally different from those of Darwinists or Neo-Darwinists whom Spetner mentions in his book, that it merits hearing of the case De novo.

To which I replied unlike Darwinists I am not a dogma worshiper and accepting any reasonable ideas.

So, why not present your case?

Which is NOT the same case, btw, if it is fundamentally different in it's premises from Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian view, but just a case for another (if logic be applied to your claim) Evolutionary theory unheard of in Spetner's book and my posts.

Now, go ahead and clarify your position.

P.S. I am actually aware of that stuff and am gleefully waiting for you to make a fool of yourself while presenting your case

http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/eltsite/lectures/beyondnatsel.html

No, no, I do care , it's just I don't see anything yet to address

 

No you didn't.

What you imply is that aside from Darwinists (whom I addressed in my post you replied to) there are also new breed of evolutionary biologists who "embraces five other mechanisms that neither Darwin nor Spetner consider: genetic drift, genetic linkage, sexual selection, pleiotropy, heterochrony, and genetic linkage".

Inference is that neither I nor Spetner in his book ever spoke about these new biologists with their new ideas and thought about evolutionary process and that their views are so fundamentally different from those of Darwinists or Neo-Darwinists whom Spetner mentions in his book, that it merits hearing of the case De novo.

To which I replied unlike Darwinists I am not a dogma worshiper and accepting any reasonable ideas.

So, why not present your case?

Which is NOT the same case, btw, if it is fundamentally different in it's premises from Darwinian or Neo-Darwinian view, but just a case for another (if logic be applied to your claim) Evolutionary theory unheard of in Spetner's book and my post.

Now, go ahead and clarify your position.

P.S. I am actually aware of that stuff and am gleefully waiting for you to make a fool of yourself while presenting your case

http://www.geol.umd.edu/~jmerck/eltsite/lectures/beyondnatsel.html




No, no, I do care , it's just I don't see anything yet to address [/QUOTE]

 

What two quotes from my posts have to do with your responce to it