[W:926]The central evolution problem

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

There is more evidence of Evolution than nearly any scientific theory. Saying otherwise is completely stupid. It has held up to all the new technologies, carbon dating and increased fossil record, knowledge of heredity and genomic sequencing that maps out the history of evolution.

There is no evidence against it. That's just religious people being dishonest because it flies in the face of what they believe, ironically, void of any evidence what so ever.. There really is no point in trying to debate this with people who believe in things with absolutely no evidence and then make dishonest claims about evolution not having evidence

Claims being the operative words. Evidence, no. ID consists of one sentence. A god did and does it.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: The central evolution problem

I am not trying to replace science. I like science.


Again, I am not trying to replace science. I like science.


Evolution is NOT science; it is a religion. It too requires faith. It too is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

Ok so you say that you are not trying to replace science. Yet in the same post you assert that evolution is not science. What is the basis of that assertion?

What do you propose to replace evolutionary theory with?


And how do you feel about The Cell Theory, Gene Theory, or Homeostasis?

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Re: The central evolution problem

Claims being the operative words. Evidence, no. ID consists of one sentence. A god did and does it.

And that's an easier concept to grasp for simple minded people than the complexities of evolution

 

[Visbek]

Re: The central evolution problem

My claim? I said that your claim has no evidence. And there is evidence, which I already mentioned several times, that cells modify their DNA purposefully. Therefore, it is INCORRECT to state that all genetic mutations are accidents.

Cells do not think, they do not decide. (There is also zero evidence that there is an undetectable force which decides for them.) We describe them as having a "purpose" for our own convenience, but cells don't have any sort of inherent sense of "purpose." Cells are more like tiny organic robots, doing what they do.

I.e. You're just taking a metaphor too far.

Meanwhile, there is tons of evidence of speciation as a reaction to natural selection. That was the whole point of the data that Darwin gathered by observing phenotypes among organisms on the Galapagos Islands. Even before DNA, it was rock-solid enough to largely supersede competing theories such as Lamarckism.

The discovery of DNA, now combined with the ability to decode entire genomes, makes it very clear that species are dividing and merging over time, and the survivors/flourishers have mutations that adapt better to an environment. Usually this is slow -- tiny changes over thousands of years, that accumulate and eventually form a new species; as a result, evolution is usually happening too slow to observe during a human lifespan. However, there are cases where this can happen quite rapidly, and we see speciation in the wild, in reaction to natural selective pressures. E.g.:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Sorry dude, but your claims are a total bust. I know you won't accept the truth, but that's just how it is.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: The central evolution problem

No, it has not...

Yes it has and we have evidence for it and we have seen it work.

We know evolution exists. What is not clear is how evolution works.

Similarly we know gravity exists...what physicists seek if how gravity works

...no science nor religion can ever be proven....

Evolution is not science. It is a process. The science is understanding how it works

...there is evidence both for AND against Evolution....

There is NO evidence against evolution (no scientific evidence that is)

Evolution is a fact, like gravity

...religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it....science doesn't make use of supporting evidence; only CONFLICTING evidence....

Religion is a belief system with no evidence

Science is not a belief system. It is based entirely on evidence. Science uses supporting and conflicting evidence.
But to entertain anyone reading, what do YOU think would be an example of supporting evidence with regard to the theory of evolution. And why would a scientist not use it ?

Then again you're not a justice of the US Supreme Court but you claim to know more about the USSC than the justices of the Supreme Court do so why would anyone be surprised that you claim to know more about science than scientists do ?

...science is a set of falsifiable theories....

Based on evidence

...correct. One deals with falsifiable theories while the other deals with non-falsifiable theories...

Religion doesn't have any theories

Religion claims knowledge

A scientist will claim he/she believes something to be correct/true based on evidence...a theist will state that he/she KNOWS something to be correct/true.


Religious beliefs ARE falsifiable

For example Noah's flood has been disproved.

...I'm not going to watch a video...

No surprise there, you never listen to any evidence except your own opinion.

It's not exactly a long video and I've even given you the time to pay attention to.

It states exactly how the theory of evolution could be disproved or falsified. You say the theory evolution can't be falsified...that video shows how it could be. But you won't watch it.

You just don't want to admit you're wrong....but go ahead, remain ignorant.
After all you're convinced you know more about the US Constitution that the USSC does and refuse to believe the USSC own web page that refuted your opinion.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

There is more evidence of Evolution than nearly any scientific theory. Saying otherwise is completely stupid. It has held up to all the new technologies, carbon dating and increased fossil record, knowledge of heredity and genomic sequencing that maps out the history of evolution.

There is no evidence against it. That's just religious people being dishonest because it flies in the face of what they believe, ironically, void of any evidence what so ever.. There really is no point in trying to debate this with people who believe in things with absolutely no evidence and then make dishonest claims about evolution not having evidence

This is NOT a post against evolution. I said evolution has evidence. But you can't read I guess?

 

[Quag]

Re: The central evolution problem

You see no reason why it can't. But you have never seen it happen. No one has. I see all kinds of reasons why it can't. This is a matter of opinion, not science. If science ever shows evidence of a new more complex species being created by a long series of accidents, that would be different. But it hasn't.

Speciation has been observed
Observed Instances of Speciation
https://scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/04/24/evolution-watching-speciation
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Draft:Observed_instances_of_speciation

Please explain your reasons why life a new complex feature or species cannot evolve in tiny incremental steps.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

This is NOT a post against evolution. I said evolution has evidence. But you can't read I guess?

We can read. What we have not read is any evedence from you. Drop the insults please, they make you look childish.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: The central evolution problem

This is NOT a post against evolution. I said evolution has evidence. But you can't read I guess?

To be clear, are you saying that Intelligent Design is a factor in evolution ?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

To be clear, are you saying that Intelligent Design is a factor in evolution ?

He seems very coy about saying that.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: The central evolution problem

Ok so you say that you are not trying to replace science. Yet in the same post you assert that evolution is not science.

Correct.

What is the basis of that assertion?

Philosophy, since it is what defines Science and Religion.

What do you propose to replace evolutionary theory with?

Nothing. It can still exist as is, but the theory is not falsifiable, so it is religion instead of science.

And how do you feel about The Cell Theory, Gene Theory, or Homeostasis?

It doesn't matter how I feel.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Re: The central evolution problem

This is NOT a post against evolution. I said evolution has evidence. But you can't read I guess?

There are many people posting in this thread , and many idiots making stupid claims about evolution. you are no the only person who posted here

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

There are many people posting in this thread , and many idiots making stupid claims about evolution. you are no the only person who posted here

Many people providing evidence of evolution and natural selection. Get your facts right please.

 

[ataraxia]

Re: The central evolution problem

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all Science is...


Correct. One deals with falsifiable theories while the other deals with non-falsifiable theories...

This seems like an oversimplification of the scientific method. How are you going to falsify Hubbell‘s observation of an expanding universe, and the constant associated with the mathematical formula used to describe it? After all, we do not have an alternate universe to use as a control. It is just an observation, and the model used to describe it.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

Many people providing evidence of evolution and natural selection. Get your facts right please.

My original post said there is evidence for evolution, and that natural selection has to be true.

My disagreement is with the false assertion that all genetic mutations are accidents.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

My original post said there is evidence for evolution, and that natural selection has to be true.

My disagreement is with the false assertion that all genetic mutations are accidents.

So what is the purpose behind non-accidental mutations? ID? Or are you suggesting that cells can think? What are you suggesting?

 

[Visbek]

Re: The central evolution problem

My original post said there is evidence for evolution, and that natural selection has to be true.

My disagreement is with the false assertion that all genetic mutations are accidents.

Yeah, thing is? It's not a false assertion. We've had evidence of random genetic mutations for decades.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

In turn, there is no evidence whatsoever that mutations are directed. For example, any sort of supernatural force that would cause a mutation in a string of DNA, but has no physical properties (i.e. has no physical extent, and cannot be observed using any physical methods) is a violation of conservation laws -- because in order to do something as simple as "change a DNA replication" needs to be physical.

And, of course, no one has even the tiniest bit of evidence of genuinely non-random DNA.

We should note, by the way, that if DNA is controlled by some supernatural entity, then that entity apparently doomed millions upon millions of children to incalculable suffering and death via genetic diseases. There is no ethical excuse for doing so, either. You sure that's the road you want to go down...?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

Yeah, thing is? It's not a false assertion. We've had evidence of random genetic mutations for decades.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

In turn, there is no evidence whatsoever that mutations are directed. For example, any sort of supernatural force that would cause a mutation in a string of DNA, but has no physical properties (i.e. has no physical extent, and cannot be observed using any physical methods) is a violation of conservation laws -- because in order to do something as simple as "change a DNA replication" needs to be physical.

And, of course, no one has even the tiniest bit of evidence of genuinely non-random DNA.

We should note, by the way, that if DNA is controlled by some supernatural entity, then that entity apparently doomed millions upon millions of children to incalculable suffering and death via genetic diseases. There is no ethical excuse for doing so, either. You sure that's the road you want to go down...?

He has yet to prove that it is a false assertion. Merely stating something does not make it true.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: The central evolution problem

So what is the purpose behind non-accidental mutations? ID? Or are you suggesting that cells can think? What are you suggesting?

I said, several times, that James Shapiro's research on natural genetic engineering shows that cells can modify their DNA. Very little is known about this, and most of what goes on within cells is still too complicated for scientists to understand.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

I said, several times, that James Shapiro's research on natural genetic engineering shows that cells can modify their DNA. Very little is known about this, and most of what goes on within cells is still too complicated for scientists to understand.

I posted a link about Shapiro's flawed reasoning.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: The central evolution problem

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/cell.htm

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: The central evolution problem

Correct.


Philosophy, since it is what defines Science and Religion.


Nothing. It can still exist as is, but the theory is not falsifiable, so it is religion instead of science.


It doesn't matter how I feel.

Is The Cell Theory, Gene Theory, or Homeostasis falsifiable?

How is evolutionary theory not falsifiable? I mean evolutionary theory is a sceintific theory; do you know what a sceintific theory is?

Ill help: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

In other words evolution has already been established through scientific method and yes evolution is falsifiable. Quit living in Darwins age and come to 2018 where we can actually observe evolution in its process. But hey you probably have a lot of catching up to do so ill wait.

 

[William Rea]

Re: The central evolution problem

Is The Cell Theory, Gene Theory, or Homeostasis falsifiable?

How is evolutionary theory not falsifiable? I mean evolutionary theory is a sceintific theory; do you know what a sceintific theory is?

Ill help: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

In other words evolution has already been established through scientific method and yes evolution is falsifiable. Quit living in Darwins age and come to 2018 where we can actually observe evolution in its process. But hey you probably have a lot of catching up to do so ill wait.

One day, a Crocoduck will turn up. I know it will.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: The central evolution problem

Yes it has

No it hasn't.

and we have evidence for it

Correct.

and we have seen it work.

No, we haven't... It is a past unobserved event. We can't go back in time to see what actually happened... It remains a religion.

We know evolution exists. What is not clear is how evolution works.

No, we don't "know"... We have evidence for it. That's it.

Similarly we know gravity exists...what physicists seek if how gravity works

Gravity is a fundamental force, not a theory.

Evolution is not science.

Correct.

It is a process.

Wrong. It is a religion.

The science is understanding how it works

Wrong. Stop trying to make religion into science...

There is NO evidence against evolution (no scientific evidence that is)

Yes, there is.

Evolution is a fact, like gravity

Not a fact, a religion... And gravity is not a fact nor a religion, it is a fundamental force.

Religion is a belief system with no evidence

Wrong. Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

Religion regularly makes use of supporting evidence. Evidence is any statement that supports an argument. Evidence is NOT synonymous with proof. Proof is an extension of foundational axioms. Proofs only exist in closed functional systems.

Science is not a belief system.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is.

It is based entirely on evidence.

Wrong. It is based on falsifiable theories. Conflicting evidence is used in Science, NOT supporting evidence.

Science uses supporting and conflicting evidence.

Wrong. Only conflicting evidence is used.

But to entertain anyone reading, what do YOU think would be an example of supporting evidence with regard to the theory of evolution.

Mutations and adaptations of life forms? I'm not bashing the theory. I'm just being precise in correctly recognizing it as a religion instead of attempting to masquerade it as being scientific.

And why would a scientist not use it ?

Because supporting evidence is not proof of anything.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: The central evolution problem

...continued...

Then again you're not a justice of the US Supreme Court but you claim to know more about the USSC than the justices of the Supreme Court do so why would anyone be surprised that you claim to know more about science than scientists do ?

Yes, I know more about what constitutes the role of SCOTUS than SCOTUS does, and I know more about what constitutes science than scientists do...

Based on evidence

No, science is not based on evidence. It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is.

Religion doesn't have any theories

Ummmm, yes, it does... It has many theories...

Religion claims knowledge

Based on supporting evidence for religious theories.

A scientist will claim he/she believes something to be correct/true based on evidence...

WRONG. That is what RELIGION does... Scientists, rather, believe something to be correct/true based on the NON-EXISTENCE of CONFLICTING evidence... That is how a theory of science remains standing (by continuing to withstand null hypothesis testing).

Please stop trying to make Religion into Science... This leads to paradoxes... Religion and Science are two COMPLETELY different things...

a theist will state that he/she KNOWS something to be correct/true.

Theists faithfully believe in particular non-falsifiable theories based on supporting evidence for those theories.

Religious beliefs ARE falsifiable

No, they are not.

For example Noah's flood has been disproved.

No, it has not. There are no functional time machines in existence today...

No surprise there, you never listen to any evidence except your own opinion.

I thought that I wasn't a source, according to you... Paradox noted...
1) gfm7175 is NOT a source.
2) gfm7175 IS a source.

Which one is it?

But yes, I make use of plenty of evidence from outside my own mind.

It's not exactly a long video and I've even given you the time to pay attention to.

I don't care how long or short the video is; I'm interested in your arguments, not the arguments of some video...

It states exactly how the theory of evolution could be disproved or falsified. You say the theory evolution can't be falsified...that video shows how it could be. But you won't watch it.

Then articulate the positions of the video, as you understand them...

Evolution can't be falsified. There are no functional time machines in existence today...

You just don't want to admit you're wrong....but go ahead, remain ignorant.

I've many times admitted my errors on these boards...

After all you're convinced you know more about the US Constitution that the USSC does

I know more about the role (powers) of SCOTUS than SCOTUS does.

and refuse to believe the USSC own web page that refuted your opinion.

False Authority Fallacy. SCOTUS is not an authority over the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the proper authority, and nowhere in Article 3 does it state anything about SCOTUS having interpretive powers...