Denial of evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by river-wind, Jul 23, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,522
    Evolution is not proved by just one piece of evidence. It is the accumulation of many different lines of evidence that proves the theory beyond doubt.

    If you're really interested, I suggest you start at the beginning and read Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If it was somehow established that water didn't have an approximate boiling point of 100 degrees, it would be difficult to understand how we have been smelting metals for the past few thousand years (amongst other things).

    If it was somehow established that evolution didn't have the capacity to move one genus into giving rise to subsequent different genera, what hard empirical findings (as opposed to cerebral propositions) would be turned on their head?

    If you can do this, you can provide an argument for evolution not merely being a theory.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,522
  8. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    What is that supposed to mean?

    A theory is the highest attainable status for a scientific concept
     
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I believe light gigantic has been told this on several previous occasions. He either cannot or will not understand it. That places further discussion on the topic on a par with trying to explain the sub-text of Hamlet to a pineapple.
     
  10. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    Which I've done. It's not very fulfilling, and I don't recommend it.
     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    You make the mistake all laymen make, and the fault lies with science for not developing better terminology. A theory in a hard science, math or a related discipline is not like the theories in a soft science (e.g. psychology or economics) or in detective work: those theories are just hunches or educated guesses. A hard scientific theory is an explanation for something that is observed (or detected by means of some other type of evidence), and this explanation has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt by the rigorous application of the scientific method.

    No scientific theory can ever be proven 100% true (although mathematical theories can because they are based entirely on abstractions), therefore "true beyond a reasonable doubt" is the highest achievement possible. "Merely a theory" is an oxymoron when used in a scientific concept. There is nothing less mere, as it were, than a scientific theory.

    That said, it needs to be pointed out that you've been a member for quite a while and have participated in a number of scientific discussions here. Like most of us, you are probably not a career scientist, but by now you should have at least graduated from "layman" status and you should no longer be committing the blunders of a layman in your misunderstanding of scientific terminology.

    To see someone who is not a newbie toss out the word "theory" like he doesn't know what it means in context, and then use that misunderstanding to denigrate science in case any impressionable newbies happen to be reading this thread, smacks of disingenuous discourse.

    A word to the wise? We are paying attention.
     
  12. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    As Ophiolite pointed out, LightGigantic is quite aware of the actual definition of theory as used in science and, particularly in the context of evolution.

    Given that fact, we are left to conclude that LG is either 1) dishonest, deliberately obfuscating the issue to satisfy his own anti-science agenda; 2) unintelligent, at least to the degree that his comprehension and ability to rationalize things outside of his superstitious beliefs; 3) an intellectual coward, afraid to concede to a logical point and revise his position in the slightest lest he be forced to consider other preconceived notions and conclusions he cannot bear to change.

    There is, however, one final option that I can think of. 4) actually correct in that science makes an exception for evolution by giving theory a meaning somehow different than atomic theory, electrical theory, theory of gravity, The molecular network theory of elastomer elasticity, germ theory, theory of molecular bonds, theory of plate tectonics, etc.
     
  13. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    If that is LG's point, then he did not state it. As an extraordinary assertion, the hypothesis that science and its millions of practitioners use the word "theory" in a unique way in one single instance needs to be supported by extraordinary evidence. This is required by the Rule of Laplace, before we are obligated to treat the assertion with respect. Absent that evidence, and particularly with Ophi's point taken that LG is clearly familiar with the terminology of science, SW's disrespectful rant is appropriate. Although in the future propriety might guide him into focusing his disrespect a little more on the assertion and a little less on the person making the assertion.

    Science is more about ideas than people and the scientific method is applied to hypotheses, not hypothesizers. Even a dishonest, cowardly, superstitious, anti-scientific person can be correct occasionally.

    At this point it should be noted that there is no need for science to make an exception in its definition of the word "theory" when it comes to evolution. As is reiterated with some frequency even on this website of tertiary and quaternary research, evolution is one of the most solid, well-substantiated theories in the scientific canon. It is supported by a wealth of evidence from two independent sources: paleontology and DNA analysis.

    Furthermore, it cannot be stressed often enough that the objections of the religious right to evolution are almost invariably based on a muddling of evolution with abiogenesis. The former is a canonical scientific theory; the latter is a hypothesis. The existence of the first living thing was not the result of evolution. We don't yet have a complete explanation for how it came into existence, but abiogenesis is the leading candidate by default: the only competing hypothesis is unscientific due to the fallacy of recursion. "The first living thing was created by a living thing that already existed." Duh.
     
  15. flameofanor5 Not a cosmic killjoy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    351
    Evolution

    I was reading over some notes from class a few days ago and came across these: What's your opinion on them?



    The following must be assumed by evolutionists for evolution to make sense:

    1) Spontaneous generation.
    2) Spontaneous generation only happened once.
    3) All living this must be related for evolution to be true.
    4) Single cells evolved into multi cells.
    5) Certain invertebrates are related.
    6) Somehow, invertebrates evolved into vertebrates.
    7) Within vertebrates: Fish gave rise to amphibians
    Amphibians to Reptiles
    Reptiles to Birds
    Birds to mammals


    The above must be assumed by evolutionists.
    But, what is real is verifiable. In fact, that’s the scientific method.

    Observe, then you speculate, then you form a hypotheses, you experiment, then you make a conclusion. All science is tested against these five steps. But not evolution, it CANNOT be tested. Evolution is not science, it’s faith.

    1) Science has never produced a single case that one type of plant or animal actually evolved into another.
    2) Evolutionists have never found a law in science that explains evolution.
    3) Evolution has never discovered a force in nature that can bring about evolution.

    The summary of these three points is that there is no cause in nature, but, all phenomena in nature MUST have causes. In face 2 primary laws of the universe refute evolution.
    4) 1st law of thermodynamics: neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, this means the universe can’t create itself.
    5) 2nd law of thermodynamics comprehendable version: Orderly things are slowly moving towards disorder.
    6) There is lack of evidence for evolution there are no examples of one organism evolving into another. Darwin admitted that this was his weakest point. For 130 years science has searched for transitional forms, but they have given up.
     
  16. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720

    “Class notes”, eh?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I don’t think so. You’ve simply copy and pasted the usual nonsense from some creationist website, the same tired old strawman arguments that are woeful misinterpretations of evolutionary biology (and science as a whole), if not completely wrong from the outset.

    It won’t be any harder to find the refutations of these strawman arguments than it was to find them. Google is your friend. You can start here.
     
  17. flameofanor5 Not a cosmic killjoy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    351
    No, they really are my class notes. Though I do not doubt that you can find this information on any "creationist" website.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,299
    That is false.

    None of those things are assumed by "evolutionists".
    They have found, and refined over many years, a very good theory that explains evolution, though. It's called the Darwinian Theory Of Evolution - have you heard of it?
     
  19. flameofanor5 Not a cosmic killjoy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    351
    Why does the "theory of evolution" contridict laws of science.
     
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,299
    It doesn't.

    Are you paying anyone money for this class?
     
  21. stereologist Escapee from Dr Moreau Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    685
    Some of your notes are simply wrong. Cross out the birds to mammals. Not true.

    Vertebrates are members of phylum chordata, subphylum vertebrata. Invertebrates are everything else. Most animal forms are invertebrates and unrelated to vertebrates.

    Certain invertebrates are related. Sure. All mollusks are related. All insects are related. All annelids are related. All corals are related. ...

    Spontaneous generation is an old theory that was replaced years ago, like hundreds of years ago.

    OK. Not trying to pick on you. What I do want to point out is that this is a complicated subject with lots of wonderful things to learn. Don't try to make a judgement too fast. Give yourself some time to learn more, lots more, and see why people that spend decades studying the material conclude that evolution is correct.
     
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Spontaneous Generation
    As stereologist has pointed out spontaneous generation has long been abandoned. This was the notion that simple life forms - and mice were thought to be simple life forms - could arise spontaneously.

    I have observed that Creationists are often loose in their use of terms. I have never determined whether this is deliberate, to make their argument appear stronger, or accidental as a by product of ignorance.

    Spontaneous generation was a sub-category of life from non-life. It has been replaced, in scientific circles with abiogenesis - another form of life from non-life. The difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is that abiogenesis produces very simple life forms; probably simpler than anything existing today on the Earth.

    So, spontaneous generation has been long discarded. Do evolutionists require abiogenesis for evolution to make sense? Absolutely not. One could believe that God created the first prokaryotes by miraculous intervention and thereafter evolution kicked in.

    Now since most scientists follow a methodologically naturalistic paradigm (i.e. they work on the presumption that - until demonstrated otherwise - the universe can be explained without resorting to the supernatural) it follows that nealry all of them do accept that abiogenesis occured. But is is not a necessary condition for evolution to make sense.
    Conclusion: point 1 is incorrect.

    2) Spontaneous generation only happened once.
    We shall assume that this is misapplication of the term and that the authors of your notes meant to say abiogenesis.

    The current consensus of opinion is that we are all descended from a single ancestor. Does this mean that abiogenesis happened only once? Of course it doesn't. I am at a loss to see how a thinking person could make such a simple error of logic.

    Life may have arisen through abiogenesis on multiple occassions, but all the other versions may have died out. Why would they die out? Survival of the fittest, or just plain bad luck. There is a nice little colony of life forms breeding away in a warm lake, when Wham! Bam! one of those pesky little bolides that were so common back then (look at the craters on the moon) slams into them and they are gone ........... for ever.

    Conclusion: point 2 is incorrect.

    3) All living this(sic) must be related for evolution to be true.
    I smell another logical inconsistency. There is substantial evidence that all liing things are related, but this is not a pre-requisite for understanding evolution, or for it to make sense.

    Some researchers have speculated that there might be another line of life, microscopic, from another common ancestor, arising from a separate abiogenesis event. They have considered ways in which we might identify such a life form. The balance of probabilities is that there is not. If there is it will exist in a very specialies, possibly isolated niche. However, its existence would in no way undermine evolution. Indeed it would likely support it, for it would show that multiple lineages, from different common ancestors, would still be subject to evolutionary pressures.

    Conclusion: point 3 is incorrect.

    4) Single cells evolved into multi cells.
    Absolutely true.

    We see single cells develop into multi-cells all the time, so there is a hint there. (You did start out as a fertilised egg, didn't you?)

    We see transitional states between single celled organisms and multi-celled organisms. Slime molds are the classic example. They exist as single celled forms until the going gets tough. Then they form into a single entity, that produces fruting body that generates spores for the next generation.

    Conclusion: point 4 is correct, but so what?

    5) Certain invertebrates are related.
    All invertebrates are related. We are all related. We all came from the same common ancestor. (Stereologist has given a rather confusing answer here when he says that invertebrates are unrelated to vertebrates. Frankly, rather than trying to interpret what he has said it will be much simpler to say 'Stereologist you are completely wrong', then let him clarify his intent.) So, what's the problem if invertebrates are related? Some are more closely related than others, but so what? This evidence for, not evidence against evolution.

    Conclusion: point 5 is correct, but so what?

    6) Somehow, invertebrates evolved into vertebrates.
    Absolutely correct. And we have a pretty good idea of when and how thos occured and what organisms were involved.

    This sounds like an Argument from Incredulity. (I can't see how that could have happened!)

    Conclusion: point 6 is correct, but so what?


    7) Within vertebrates: Fish gave rise to amphibians
    Amphibians to Reptiles
    Reptiles to Birds
    Birds to mammals

    Sterologist has pointed out the foolish claim that birds gave rise to mammals. That gave me a chuckle. Who ever wrote these notes hasn't studied biology beyond sixth grade.
    For the rest, correct. So?

    Conclusion: point 7 is correct, but so what?

    Flamofanor5, I'll let you query my responses before I deal with the other nonsense you had in your first post. Looking forward to your response.
     
  23. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,720
    Mod note: I doubt flameofanor5 will respond; his/her “class notes” have been well and truly dealt with. So this seems like a good time to close this thread before it becomes too huge and unwieldy.

    A fresh denial of evolution sticky thread, Denial of Evolution II, has been opened to deal with such subject matter. Keep fighting the good fight.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page