A definitive reply to Evolutionist Propaganda

[XXXAnother PersonXXX]

Re: re;

Er, I simply chose the first Google result that contained the type of diagram to which I referred earlier that's all.

That's fine. I wasn't trying to attack you personally, just the link.

If you can't accept that evolution is accepted as orthodox scientific theory, is backed up by the available (palaeontological and genetic) evidence and are not willing to do a bit of independent research and background reading then you are unlikely to be convinced by amateurs like myself or others here addressing individual points/issues to the best of our ability and consequently this discussion is probably best terminated now to save us all time and effort...

I have already done a great deal of independent research. I once believed evolution to be a fact. I thought it crazy that people could think differently what about the fossil record, genetics etc?. It's my research into evolution and opposing theories that have shown me how flawed the theory actually is.

Evolution is not a scientific theory. From dictionary.com, science is defined as:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

You can't do 'evolution experiments' unless you have a few million years handy, and there is no way to observe animals evolving. Evolution is more of a religion than a science.

You also have failed to show me any palaeontological or genetic evidence.

Here are some quotes from leading evolutionists:
[broken link removed]

 

[XXXAnother PersonXXX]

Re: re;

Since you have an idea of the amount of time since these animals diverged and you have examples of the gene from both species, you can extrapolate the rate of genetic change in the gene per year.

You are assuming that the animals actually diverged. What if they didn't? What if they just happened to be similar?

 

[househunter1]

Re: re;

Evolution is more of a religion than a science

Darwins theory is unalterable unlike a religion. Note numerous evolutionary theories have been rejected, but not the central one of Darwin.

Many of the theories on evolution raised in recent years are not actually in conflict with Darwinism, which one are you referring to?


According to Earnst Mayr (what evolution is) here are the main reasons to believe evolution is a fact;
1) Answers can very often be predicted and the actual findings confirm them.
2) The answers can be confirmed by several different lines of evidence
3) In most cases, no rational alternative explanation can be found

 

[docks]

Hmmmmmmmm Ney and thrice Ney

"Househunter"

According to Earnst Mayr (what evolution is) here are the main reasons to believe evolution is a fact;
1) Answers can very often be predicted and the actual findings confirm them.
2) The answers can be confirmed by several different lines of evidence
3) In most cases, no rational alternative explanation can be found.

If you applied the same lpowers of deduction as above you might also start to believe in UFO's , Crop Circles and Tax Rebates.


Darwinism is a Theory and cannot be catagorically proved, this is the great seperation between Religon and Science and the belief that Science can explain everything and i do not expect this messabge board to solve the great debate.

Anyone who thinks that we developed from Apes,Monkeys needs to seriously look within themselves , I believe that we are a unique creation , well i certainly am.

 

[piggy]

Re: Hmmmmmmmm Ney and thrice Ney

Anyone who thinks that we developed from Apes,Monkeys needs to seriously look within themselves , I believe that we are a unique creation , well i certainly am.

We are unique. However, it's very arrogant to think we were specially put here for some reason in my opinion (if that's what you're saying?). We know so little about the universe. Our evolution (if you believe it) happened over millions of years. That's a hell of a long time.

Even if you didn't believe that we evolved from ape-like creatures, the missing link wasn't all that clever. Humans weren't as evolved as they are now a few million years ago. Cro magnon man???!!! We've only become these unique creatures because we've evolved beyond other animals.

 

[Investor]

Investment considerations

This is a financial website after all.

I think the prospect of humans evolving super transportional skills is a serious selling signal for such sectors as the aerospace and automibile industries.

On the other hand, Defence stocks have a robust future for no matter ho much we elvolve we will always want to zap each other.

 

[househunter1]

Re: Hmmmmmmmm Ney and thrice Ney

If you applied the same lpowers of deduction as above you might also start to believe in UFO's , Crop Circles and Tax Rebates.

Thats a throwaway comment and it brings down the tone of this debate. Please refrain

 

[Guest]

Re: re;

> I have already done a great deal of independent research. I once believed evolution to be a fact. I thought it crazy that people could think differently what about the fossil record, genetics etc?. It's my research into evolution and opposing theories that have shown me how flawed the theory actually is.

Fair enough, but in this particular discussion you are simply picking individual points out of context, claiming that they are flawed and thereby discarding the theory as a whole. I too find that there are some things that I can't easily understand or accept at face value but it does not lead me to dismiss the theory of evolution and the current refinement of the model that exists today. Maybe if I was in a position to read the detailed academic papers on these matters rather than simple popular science books which of necessity only scratch the surface then I would gain more insight.

> Anyone who thinks that we developed from Apes,Monkeys needs to seriously look within themselves , I believe that we are a unique creation , well i certainly am.

Actually, as far as I can see, it is the people who HAVE seriously looked at themselves - as well as the world around them, the palaeontological and genetic evidence available etc. - who have come to the conclusion that what you believe is just not correct. Is your belief based on some scientific evidence or is it merely a gut instinct?

 

[Telor]

Evolution

Since you have an idea of the amount of time since these animals diverged and you have examples of the gene from both species, you can extrapolate the rate of genetic change in the gene per year.


You are assuming that the animals actually diverged. What if they didn't? What if they just happened to be similar?

The fossil evidence and the characteristics shared by each would indicate whether or not they have diverged. Going back to an example cited earlier, having vertebrae indicates that you are a a member of the family chordata.

Pikaia is regarded as the earliest known primitive chordate. It was about 40 mm in length and swam above the sea-floor. Pikaia may have filtered particles from the water as it swam along. Only 60 specimens have been found to date.
This is Pikea




Pikaia is not a vertebrate - no one can say if this particular creature is our direct predecessor. Nevertheless, Pikaia is a representative member of the chordate group from which we undoubtedly arose. It resembles a living chordate commonly known as the lancet.

This is an artist's impression of its mode of life. Pikea is in the very middle

[broken link removed]


For a highligt of the evolution of vertebrates see:

[broken link removed]

There is alot of evidence to show that all species that have a notochord shared a common ancestor at some time point in the past. However this is science, not faith. There are people that disagree, and thats fine. It is necessary to be open to other ideas and to be capable of discussing and weighing up the evidence provided for science to be rigorous. The link above has plenty of information that has been distilled from even more evidence. This is physical evidence, not theoretical evidence.

To reply to those that say that evolution is untestable. There have been many times where a theory has been formed about the relationships shared by species, without the phyisical evidence to demonstrate it. In these cases the test of the theory has been that there should be some fossil evidence of a common ancestor of these species (a missing link). An classic example was the theory that birds were modified reptiles, similar to those reptiles found in the late Jurrasic period. There was no evidence to prove this at the time, but the testable hypothesis was that a species of reptile should have existed that had feathers and other characteristics shared by modern-day birds. It was decades later that a fossil was disovered that proved this theory. This is the fossil:

[broken link removed]

Heres more information on this :
[broken link removed]

There is plenty of evidence to show how evolution has progressed, its pretty difficult to distill it all into a message board like this, but the above are just examples. The popular science books a good, but contain little evidence. For more detailed information (which I think some people here need) get hold of an undergraduate textbook. They will contain the evidence known to-date about evolution are much more elequent and than I could ever be.

T.

 

[XXXAnother PersonXXX]

Re: Evolution

Why are you so insistant that evolution is scientific? I can demonstrate that pure water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade at sea level. I can do this experiment again and again, with the same results.

The example you gave, archaeopteryx, isn't conclusive proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Even Prof. Witmer, who leans toward the belief that dinofuzz is a form of proto-feather, himself admitted, "We're looking at stuff strewn about on a rock, and consequently a lot of it is open to interpretation." Dr. Olson noted that those who interpret dinofuzz as evidence for bird evolution do so because they have already reached pre-determined conclusions: "They want to see feathers…so they see feathers. This is simply an exercise in wishful thinking."

So, even leading evolutionists have admitted that the "evidence" for dinosaur-to-bird evolution is unhelpful. First, alleged proto-feathers ("dinofuzz&quot are more recent than fully developed, modern feathers, negating the possibility that dinofuzz is an evolutionary step toward true feathers. Second, dinofuzz itself is too vague and too far open to interpretation to be held up as incontrovertible evidence for bird evolution. Those who claim that it is are basing their conclusions on their own pre-determined theories, not on hard science.

We can go on like this for ages. You post a picture of 'evidence', and I post a contradiction. If, however, you can demonstrate evolution, I be very interested in seeing your experiment. (Like real science)


(source:[broken link removed])

 

[Guest]

Re: Evolution

> If, however, you can demonstrate evolution, I be very interested in seeing your experiment. (Like real science)

To be fair this is a valid point and one that I mentioned in my second contribution to this topic - the fact that it is impossible to predict outcomes and illustrate the soundness of these predictions in the context of the theory of evolution due to the timescales and randomness involved. I'm not sure that this necessarily invalidates the theory completely or undermines its scientific credentials sufficiently to require it to be discarded or discredited. On the other hand I'm not sure how this criticism of evolutionary theory is addressed but would imagine that somebody has raised it before and that somebody has rebutted it. Does anybody know anything more about this offhand?

 

[househunter1]

Re: Evolution

Those who claim that it is are basing their conclusions on their own pre-determined theories, not on hard science.

This is quite true and also necessary. In the absence of the ability to conduct experiments, evolutionary biologists use the best tool available to them; historical narratives. They pick a historical scenario as a possible explanation and then test it thoroughly for the probability of its correctness. So in the case of dinosaurs with fuzz a scenario is proposed and then opened up to scrutiny. From your quote this theory seems to be discredited, fine, move on to the next one.

Remember the central theories of Darwinism have not yet been discredited (while the probability of its correctness is very high), so until we have something better to believe......

 

[Telor]

evolution

We can go on like this for ages. You post a picture of 'evidence', and I post a contradiction. If, however, you can demonstrate evolution, I be very interested in seeing your experiment. (Like real science)

You're right that this can go on for ages, I'm sure that this debate would have been settled a long time ago otherwise.

For me there is evidence everywhere, but that is just me. An example of evolution in our time is the peppered moth.
[broken link removed]

Recent research has identified the gene that controlled the production of melalin in the moths and statistical analysis has shown that this gene was under positive selection for change.

I'm sure there must be a link out there that contradicts this, but as much as you are convinced that this is not an example of evolution, I am convinced.

This really comes down to the different views of science, how it should proceed and what you think is meant by scientific study and evidence.
Whether you are a Inductive scientist, a niaive Inductivist, an Observational scientist, a falsificationsit, a sophisticated falsificationist a rationalist , Objectivist, anarchist or realist or hybrid of these (all of which are philisophical categories of scientific theory much of which are not considered "modern day" scientific methods) you are going to have different views on what you consider evidence. In some of these views, the experiment you quote about boiling water repeatably is not evidence.


I think we're not going to convince each other here, but it is fun trying


T.

 

[househunter1]

Re: Evolution

the fact that it is impossible to predict outcomes and illustrate the soundness of these predictions in the context of the theory of evolution due to the timescales and randomness involved

This is true, neverthless, a knowledge of the potential of a genotype and of the nature of constraints permits in most cases a reasonably accurate prediction

 

[darag]

Re: Evolution

blank, it's a complete red herring. there are many scientific theories which are not testable by experiment. many of the theories from the social sciences including economics, linguistics and archaeology, as well as meteorology, cosmology, biology, geology, geography, etc. cannot be tested by experiment but are still very useful from a predictive point of view and are fully accepted as being scientific. this list is just off the top of my head.

this discussion is just weird. i look forward to ap decrying the unscientific nature of the theory that smoking causes lung cancer or the theory that the moon causes tides, for example. however, i doubt that the lack of experimental validation is ap's problem with the scientific nature of the theory of evolution even though this demand for experimental evidence seems to be repeated in every message.

ap, do you reject all these other branches of science as being unscientific because many, most or all of their theories cannot be tested by experiment? or does evolution offend you in some special way that the theory of plate tectonics, for example, does not?

 

[househunter1]

Re: Evolution

I think AP is genuinely interested in hearing arguements for evolution. I don't mind if AP posts arguments against evolution, so we can take at look at them and debate. Please don't bring in the god thing at this stage
(we're not allowed talk about God on this web-site anyway right?)

 

[piggy]

Re: Evolution

(we're not allowed talk about God on this web-site anyway right?)

I think we're allowed talk about God/god as long as we don't talk about religions

 

[XXXAnother PersonXXX]

.

i look forward to ap decrying the unscientific nature of the theory that smoking causes lung cancer or the theory that the moon causes tides, for example.

Experiments have been done to show the statistical significance between smoking and lung cancer. It is possible to run experiments and compare distributions. We still can't say that smoking 'definitely' causes lung cancer. We can say that we are at least 95% sure that it does. This is a scientific approach because experiments were run.

As for the moon causing tides, we can easily observe this. In addition to the observation, Newton performed experiments to show the nature of gravity.

I have tested by experiment various hypothesis concerning social sciences, economics and biology.

Most of the others can be observed.

The moth experiement mentioned above is covered biomedical statistics, and is unrelated to evolution.

 

[Telor]

evolution

The moth example shows how selection causes the fixation of characters in a population. This is central to evolution.

 

[darag]

Re: .

ap. what exactly were the experiments which proved the link between lung cancer and smoking? please describe them. i assume in involved getting a random selection of people to smoke for 20 years and then measuring the incidence of lung cancer. unless they were done in north korea or somewhere like that, there is simple no way any medical scientist would perform such an experiment. this is the case with many medical theories.

and yes we can easily observe the tides and their synchronicity with the phases of the moon. we can also theorise about a likely underlying mechanism (gravity) and form predictions based on this theory. unfortunately we cannot do conclusive experiments to prove this theory unless we work out a way of parking the moon around mars for a month to see what happens. yet, despite the lack of experimental verification, no sane person would reject the theory "that the moon causes tides" as being unscientific or being "bad science" in your words. unless of course they were a members of some imagined religion which claimed that god causes the tides.

i did not claim that no theories in the social sciences or economics or biology could be tested by experiment. i claimed that most theories in those fields are not verifiable by experiment. how do you experimentally prove that growing up in a socially deprived background means you are more likely to commit a crime?

Most of the others can be observed.

of course they can. just like fossils can be observed. i presume you are referring to plate tectonics here? like evolution, it is a scientific theory which postulates an underlying mechanism to explain what we observe in the world around us. nothing sinister or unscientific about this.

basically, your claim that a theory is "bad science" if it cannot be verified by experiment is bogus. in many scientific fields it is simply not possibly to perform repeatable experiments.