Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

But the New Sythesis includes other mechanisms as well. To go those that can be just brushed aside in doing your calculations is ridiculous. Spetner's critique of NeoDarwinism is invalid, because it's based on the faulty premise that randomness is the essence of the theory. As you have acknowledged, he accepts evolution and natural selection. His criticism is limited to mutation and whether or not random mutation can account for the "sweep of evolution". So he is criticizing one aspect of one mechanism in the New Synthesis and doing calculations to show that that aspect can't account for a phenomenon few evolutionary biologists thought it could anyhow. [/Quote]

This " other breed' happens to make up most evolutionary biologists in the country today. If you and Spetner are interested in critiquing a fossil theory, that's fine, but why is it important? The term "Darwinist" is usually used by Creationists who either haven't heard of the New Synthesis or want to muddy the waters for propaganda purposes.[/Quote]

As far as I'm concerned, I never had a "case", other than the one you made out of a remark I made on a thread that had nothing to do with Darwin--that, by the way, being a possibly tasteless joke that I made with reference to ID Founder Philip Johnson's remark that his stroke was a sign from God that he needed to spend more time with his family. I said it could have other explantions, as well, e.g., God smiting him for dissing Darwin. That's all it took to set you off. Your comeback was (the assertion): "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory". To back that up, we've had scads and scads of Spetner, with an insistence that we must prove the validity of evolutionary theory from the ground up to retain a belief in evolution. But it turns out all the fuss was about randomness of mutation and whether or not that alone could account for the process of evolution in the time we think was available. There have been similar challenges to evolutionary theory since Darwin published Origin of the Species. Most have been refuted. Some have been successful, and incorporated into the New Synthesis. Most recently, Lynn Margulis won acceptance for of endosymbiosis, which shows that besides the competition which everyone thought was central to Darwin, there were important areas of co-operation and symbiosis among species that were critical to the evolutionary process. Her work won somewhat grudging approval even from Richard Dawkins, high priest of the classical model. She hasn't gone around trumpeting the destruction of Darwinism or calling Neo-Darwinism a fairy story. Spetner hasn't played by the rules of science. He published his thesis in a popular outlet instead of a scientific journal, thereby sidestepping the established channels of peer review. But scientists are on to him now and are examining his claims. It remains to be seen whether he will be one of the rejects, or whether his NREH hypothesis will be incorporated into the New Synthesis. As a Christian, I wouldn't be particularly distressed to discover that the process isn't "all random", and that it got some help along the way.

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]

 

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.

 

But the New Sythesis includes other mechanisms as well. To go those that can be just brushed aside in doing your calculations is ridiculous. Spetner's critique of NeoDarwinism is invalid, because it's based on the faulty premise that randomness is the essence of the theory. As you have acknowledged, he accepts evolution and natural selection. His criticism is limited to mutation and whether or not random mutation can account for the "sweep of evolution". So he is criticizing one aspect of one mechanism in the New Synthesis and doing calculations to show that that aspect can't account for a phenomenon few evolutionary biologists thought it could anyhow.

This " other breed' happens to make up most evolutionary biologists in the country today. If you and Spetner are interested in critiquing a fossil theory, that's fine, but why is it important? The term "Darwinist" is usually used by Creationists who either haven't heard of the New Synthesis or want to muddy the waters for propaganda purposes.[/Quote]

I don't waste my time jumping though hoops for assholes.

 

Beautiful , call me names, what else can you do in absence of any serious argument or evidence to back up your own baseless assertions?

 

BTW, look up and edit your posts as it is all messed up and not plainly distinguishable as to what parts are quotes from my posts and what parts are your responces to it.

Don't get so nervous, it's nothing personal. Just back up your claims and make a plausible argument if you have any or suspend the judgement instead and admit you were ignorant of subject all along and go study it before making any claims in future.

 

Sorry, pal. In the category of making a fool of oneself, I think you hold the world class title, which I won't begin to dispute. You started this game on the Mindfuck thread, and as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what you're doing. The purpose of the game is to make others look like fools, which you've said most of us are anyhow, and make yourself seem superior by quoting Spetner and avoiding any independent thought by claiming that others have the burden of proving well-established theories. I'm willing to discuss the topics with others whom I think have something to say, but I haven't seen anything intelligent out of you.

 

Even if I was an undisputed champion of the world in making fool of myself, it still wouldn't make an iota of difference in proving that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid one.

Now, I will say it once again (I AM CAPITALIZING IT SO YOU CAN FINALLY READ IT, NOW GET IT) :

I AM NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE NON-EXISTENCE, YOU ARE OBLIGED TO PROVE EXISTENCE IF YOU BELIEVE IT EXISTS.


As far as I am concerned, all I have is benefit of doubt which I enjoy and it is one who MAKES THE CLAIM who also has burden of proof.
It has nothing to do with me holding a UFC belt in fools category or what not, but it has everything to do with someone making a claim and having an obligation to prove it.

If I was Creationist and asserted that God created this Universe and all the things in it then I would be obliged to prove it or admit I had no claim to begin with, but I made no such a claim.
If I was a Neo-Darwinist and claimed that all species in Universe evolved from single primitive archaic cell to more complex by means of random chance and natural selection, I would again be obliged to prove it or admit I had no claim to begin with, but I didn't make this claim either !

What am I supposed to prove now?

If you assert that you can become Pope tomorrow my assertion that you can't IS NOT THE SAME as yours that you can.
I don't have to PROVE that you can't become a Pope tomorrow to show that you can't.
You must back up your assertion that you can become a Pope tomorrow to prove you can.

If I doubt your assertion and assert my doubt (Lack of belief) in it it is NOT the same as you making a positive assertion and having to back it up.


Simple as that!

There is no way around it, no matter how hard you try to twist it around and make it appear as if we are making equally valid or invalid claims and are equally obliged to prove either.

Now, if you believe that modern theory of evolution of species (based on Darwin's theory and Medels discoveries) is Scientifically Valid Theory then go ahead and prove it.

Either that or you have no claim to begin with.

End of story. Next!

 

But you made the claim. The assertion was yours. If you read my previous posts, I recounted how an offhand reference to Darwin in a joke on a site unrelated to evolution became the target of your reply: "Evolution is not a scientific theory." You supported that with copious quotes from an un-peer reviewed book which accepts evolution but challenges randomness. That isn't satisfactory in my opinion. That was on another site. On this site you made the assertion that natural selection and randomness were the central elements of evolutionary theory, and I asked you if you had taken account of the other aspects of the New Synthesis, which Spetner had not. That is not an assertion. It's a question. Can I assume the answer is "No". Then you challenged me to make a fool of myself. When someone does that, I don't respond, because I know they're not interested in serious discussion. If you read my earlier post, I explained that I do not believe that complete randomness in mutations is the essence of evolutionary theory. I suspect divine help somewhere in the process, but will leave it to others to prove that. As for a previous reference to editing my posts, my computer froze up and I had to close out in the middle of the post for a few minutes, and re-edit. This happens a lot on Hip Forums, and it must have happened at the time you were posting your reply. As for your previous reference to my nervousness, that's a classic Mindfuck tactic. I wasn't aware of being nervous. People who are into manipulation make statements like that to make others insecure. End of story. I remain open to discussing this subject with other people, but you've already wasted far too much of my time.

 

No, I did NOT make a claim, I merely LACK THE BELIEF in the claim (Claim being that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Scientifically Valid one).

You simply don't read what I write or lack ability to comprehend such a simple concept as Lack of Belief / Assertion of Doubt vs Positive Assertion

Regardless, whether you want to duck your obligation to prove your Positive Assertion or not , you haven't proven anything so far except that you have no real knowledge of subject upon which you make a claim and that ad hominem argument is all you can respond with when seriously challenged to back up your claim.

 

Spetner did not prove that it does not happen by chance because his fundamental analysis of how speciation occurs is wrong. He argues in his 500-step process that it has to happen in a row and be successful each time. He multiplies the probability 1/300,000 by each step (500) and arrives at 2.7x10-2739. The problem is the process is not perfect, it is very gradual. Species might get an incorrect mutation, they might get a correct mutation. Factors in their environments might lead them to split up, leading to isolation of two sets of the species and then eventual divergence of those two species.

Spetner allows us to see the weak parts in evolution, but he doesn't challenge what we know about it already.

 

If you are disputing Spetners argument then here is what he specifically says in support of his views:

 

You expect us to prove our points when you're using faulty points to counter them.

Spetner's idea of speciation is wrong, which completely throws out his calculation of the chance of a new species being born.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Your+...+reverses+coil,+makes+new+species-a0110459320

The above is documented case of single-gene speciation.

Guess how long it took? A dozen generations, aww shucks, sorry Spetner

 

Ok, you are right Spetner is wrong.

What next?

To be honest I have no vested interest in this subject so I couldn't care less either way. I did it more for amusement and fun than real scientific debate to disprove an entire evolutionary theory.
I am sceptical of it, to be sure, but not in possession of knowledge and keen desire required to disprove it.

First of all to fundamentally disprove a theory like that 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.

Second, it would be very risky venture even if I knew how to do it, since if anyone seriously succeeds in destroying this theory to it's very foundation one would also leave tons of people involved in the field of studying and dedicating their lives to it jobless, without benefits, prestige and all that comes with it. Those people probably have families, friends and emotions and I wouldn't want to make such an army of enemies for myself even if I knew I was trillion times right. It's just not practically sound thing to do.

But it was fun having this discussion with you guys about this subject

And in final note, I have to say that even though it was not my goal to seriously disprove this theory (for reasons mentioned above), the proponents of it on this forum did more damage to it by defending it without real clue about subject than any of my arguments ever could.

If you realy believe it and wish to be able to defend it, no matter what - then learn it, and learn it well.

:cheers2:

 

Jumbuli you proved me wrong (about you) and you're absolutely correct.

 

How so? You said he was a troll, and he just confessed!

 

You should learn how to make plausible argument but first you need to get a clue about subject of discussion.

 

My holding off in saying much of substance was a result of my having him pegged early on and figuring that anyone who went down that rabbit hole would expend a great deal of time and energy to (as the man said) "make a fool of" oneself. Besides, it would be kind of incongruous to assign the role of defender of Darwin to a born again Christian on an atheist site. As I explained at the outset, I created this site in hopes of getting him off others which he was disrupting with his persistent baiting. But if anyone would like to continue this discussion in good faith, I'd be happy to join you. (that leaves troll boy out).

 

Isn't it right

 

Hi, Honey. I hope you understand the delay in responding to your post. We had a troll to deal with. You've asked some thoughtful questions that deserve a serious response. I've followed your postings on the Christian sites, and know you're a person of good faith and sincere conviction.

I think you're right that its a problem when people uncritically accept anything as absolute truth, including science. We've seen too many instances in which the "wisdom" of today became the folly of tomorrow, a classic example being Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory and plate tectonics. His theory was scoffed at at first because it didn't fit prevailing theories of geology, but eventually it came to be accepted. This is not surprising. Science is a human enterprise, and although it offers norms and rigorous methods designed to counteract bias, it's not perfect.
In the modern age, the theory of evolution is seen and taught in many cases as "absolute fact".

In science, the terms "fact" and "theory" have a somewhat different meaning from the way they're used by non-scientists. The term theory doesn't mean just a conjecture. A scientific theory is a coherent, well-substantiated set of interconnected propositions that best explains the data and observations and provides the basis for testable predictions. According to the National Academy of Science (U.S.): "Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong".

Obviously, no scientist has been able to observe the sweep of evolution, although there may be recent species changes that fit the theory. The theory of evolution is based largely on circumstantial evidence from several sources:genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, island biogeography, comparative physiology and biochemistry, antibiotic and pesticide resistance, speciation, interspecies fertility, etc. The fact that some scientists are not convinced doesn't destroy the validity of the theory. It's rare to find a theory that all scientists agree on.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was persuaded that evolution should be taken seriously after reading books by two distinguished scientists and devout Christians; Dr. Francis Collins' The Language of God and Dr. Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God. As I also said, I'm not a scientist, don't pretend to be an expert on anything, and certainly don't claim to be proving anything. I'm a Christian who accepted Jesus after a religious experience involving Genesis 1:26, as a result of which I've never since been able to look at a human being without seeing God. I don't feel threatened by Darwin or the latest attempts of Spetner to challenge Neo-Darwinism. I think the deck must be stacked somehow to produce the end result that we see before our eyes every day.

 

Hehehehe, what a crook