What are the dumbest attempts to find fault in the theory of evolution you've heard?

Flores said:

I know of no such rule concerning evening hours, particularly since when the sciforums clock says 10:30PM it's about 4:30PM here.

This is a nice argumentum ad hominem and all, (except for the ASSUME part, I've read that about 15 times today already) but you missed on a couple of important points.

1) I wasn't talking about you. I imagined up until now that you had adopted at least some of the terms of our discussion here, namely that evolutionary theory was either acceptable for a reason, or unacceptable for a reason, and that the purpose of the discussion was to determine one reason or the other. (Q) was asking about someone who does not agree to any of the terms of discussion and does not permit any possibility of agreement, which I hope does not characterize you.

2) I have ASSUMEd that you are here to give input to the same domain of discourse as I am, that is, whether evolutionary theory has merit as a description of a natural process. If I am wrong, and this is not the case, then I am only an ASS for paying attention to U.

So, enough with the cheap shots.

What do you think the moth example is? Why do you think I bothered to mention it?

Your belief in the power of humankind is strong indeed if you think that our laboratory techniques actually invented selective breeding. At best, by breeding selectively we are putting pressures on organisms which could have come from a natural environment. Certainly the development of corn from its initial grass-like state didn't happen in a laboratory.

At the very least, as a hydrologist you cannot possibly think that the natural environment has always remained the same, forever sacrosanct and unchanging, until the first tread of human beings. We may be good at building stuff, but we don't control the world.

Who cares about man? Why would a human example of selective breeding be less confusing? For the most part, the human examples are more confusing.

There are other examples, such as the recent increase in tuskless elephants in Africa. I understand that in Scotland they bred sheep to have shorter legs so they wouldn't have to build their fences so high. I use the moth example because the effect was not intentional on the part of human beings; most people are willing to accept that artificial selection by human beings will result in a genetic change in a population of organisms.

I don't believe that I have ever once on sciforums implied that any field of scientific study produced infallibly accurate results of ANY kind. Generally I am one of those people who describes scientific study as an attempt to incrementally improve a world view which we know to be distorted and splintered. Perfection of our world view was never even an option and we should not pursue science in any sort of misapprehension that we will derive ultimate Platonic truth from any set of observations, no matter how complete or well-made we may flatter ourselves to think that they are.

I apologize, I don't know what moon behaviour is, so I'll take this as being a general argument against extrapolation.

My answer is this. If I want to demonstrate that glass jars break, I don't have to break them all, I just have to break one of them.

If I want to demonstrate that selective breeding is possible, I don't have to demonstrate with every species by the same token. Your general injunction "For every species selective breeding is not possible within that species," cannot reasonably be amended to "For every species except peppered moths selective breeding is not possible within that species," when the counterexample of peppered moths is given. You might as well say "It is not possible to break any glass jar except for that one you just broke."

Instead we have to consider the broken jar as a proper counterexample, a demonstration that the original conjecture "It is not possible to break any glass jar" is not the truth.

Then we come up with the next reasonable theory, "It is possible to break some glass jars." We can't inductively divine that all jars are breakable from the single example, but we can predict that the broken jar is not unique, and that others probably share its properties.

So, it may still be the case that selective breeding does not act upon some species. But we DO know that it does act upon one from this example, and that this property is probably not unique to one species of moth.

Okay, first - the peppered moth is a species.

Second, there is a variety of answers as to how heredity and adaptation interact and how they can be described. Of those that I have studied, the combination of genetic material as a mechanism of heredity, and natural selection as an explanation for how populations adapt, present to me the most compelling evidence of how the process is to be described.

Lastly, to accuse me of a lack of imagination is not justified, since so far you have sought to deny others' ideas and offered no alternatives.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have been genuine with my input, perhaps you are not trained to communicate with some one whoes expertise is different than yours, but shit happens, our world is not compose of little nerdy biologists. So take this advice from an experienced mother, if you can't explain things clearly to a classroom of 2 year olds, dogs, chimps, fish, ect....then you don't understand the concept yourself. Don't stand there like a hypocrite and tell me you know everything about the moth, yet you have never communicated with a moth.....You know nothing about Moth...You know nothing. Say I'm an idiot 20 times, and I might start having respect for you. If you ever wonder what Theists pray about, I'll let you in on a secret. We say we are idiots fifty times a day and before every meal, that's our official prayer and it's more accurate than any of your assertions.. We are all idiots compared to the powerfull orderly force that created nature, and we don't mind knealing down to an imaginary and saying that we are idiots...because we are.

Get out of the lab for a change and test your knowledge againest the real world. The acid test of your understanding is not how much you can divide the ecosystem into bits and peaces, but how you can put the bits and peaces together, and I haven't seen anything put together so far in this forum.....just a bunch of breaking things apart.

Again, more decoy from showing us how you really understand the big picture. You are breaking the problem down too much.....Fancy details of your knowledge doesn't fool me. Would you like to hear about Manning, Darcy, and Weisbach formulas? I wrote a book on reliability based design that can kick your butt with equations after the other, I don't think you want to get technical with me, because they're hydrology terms that don't mean crap to you.....They are very important to me though, just like moth seems to be very important to you.....Elevate yourself my dear, cross the boundaries, if you really seek to understand things better.

Yes it is. Our same labs have created nuclear powers, hydro power, built bridges and dams, covered the surface of our earth with impervious crap. Nature have never done these awefull things. I guess biologists are not above other disciplines in screwing up the universe and they effectively do it with their selective breeding crap, just like I do it when I pave the universe thinking that I'm providing better transportation.

I don't know buddy, you're speaking to an environmentalist and putting pressures and stresses on the environment is my baby..... That's what I do in the name of fixing things and research. Do I know shit....Yes...I know that I'm an idiot, and with every new finding, I diminish further in the eyes of those that think they know it all. Human have impacted the environment in ways that puts billions of years of natural management to shame....Or perhaps we aughta be ashamed of screwing up billions of years of development in hundreds of misley years.

Do you have the violin going right now, because you are singing to the choir.

It got worse. I believe that stable conditions are ONE and the SAME. Things transform to establish this given stable condition. If you can talk to me under this premise, then I'm all ears, but to without a datum or base of normality for this discussion, and to tell me that drastic change can happen becuase things breed selectively, then we'll keep testing each other's use of ad Hom.

Perhpas because you are a man and don't know anything but the prespective of man. The day you can question an animal about their opinion, then we'll place less emphasis on man..

Decoy me with more detail will ya? Comeon...my technical terms can put your simple ones to shame, but oh well, I'm decent enough not to use them with you.

You haven't prayed the Theistic way yet....You must repeat, I'm an idiot 50 times and don't know shit. I proclaim to know all the species, yet I can't even talk to the bastards. There is an all powerfull force that puts order to this universe that knows it all. I'm an educated idiot...and nomatter how much I'll know, I'll remain an idiot.

That's correct, so explain to me why the title of this thread is meant to redicule the outside world from ever attempting to find a fault in the theory....nomatter how dumb..... I haven't forgot the title of the thread, have you?

The moon, the planets, and the stars are in general larger organisms, and thus you must be ready to describe their behavior including rotational speed using your evolution theory.... Elevate yourself my friend...leave the moth for a second and think big, small, fat, tiny, wet, ect.....

That's where you are absolutely wrong. We can never produce two glass cups with the same exact characteristis, and perhaps if I have enough time, I can show you that glass jars don't have to break.

When we are all made of glass jar, then we can take your weak argument in a grain of salt, for now, NONE of us is a glass jar, and thus your argument have no stand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Flores said:

And with that I leave this thread. Dr. Lou - you asked what the dumbest attempt to find fault with evolutionary theory I've heard? Here it is: Evolutionary theory is wrong because it doesn't explain PLANETARY MOTION.

Thank you and good night.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

BigBlueHead

I hate to say, "I told you so."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dam that is pretty dumb,

You see Flores the thread was not about if there are good argument against evolution the thread only specifies what the most stupidest. If you wish you should make a thread specifying good arguments against evolution so that it would no long be right to laugh at you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Flores we are talking about the theory of evolution, which is used to explain the diversity of life on the planet earth.
Clearly you think it is your religions competition.
A common misconception, which is quite telling when you think about how evolution was discovered.
Evolution was noticed first, and then it was realised that truth contradicts religious litterature.
No one set out to screw religion over, or replace it.
All evolution has done is shown us that the religions weren't accurate. It is not its own religion, it means we need to start over on trying to figure out what the hell this universe is, no big deal.

 

You forgot to mention that you attempted to explain why glass jars break using evolution.....?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If it aint too late, I suggest you change careers, because I having only two biology courses in college have just put your sorry ass to shame from all angles. I hate to see you getting a peer review.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I see, so you completely separate life from the environment. You wish to study the diversity of life on a planet that you don't know shit about....Typical.

No, That's what you think, afterall, you are bringing up the discussion right now.

Discovered, I thought evolution always existed. How can you discover something that always existed. You must be one of those Lounatics that think that Columbus discovered America.

 

Flores said:

Actually I was trying to use the breaking of glass jars to explain the concept of the negation of a "for all" quantification - a logical concept, not a biological one. Congratulations for being a complete retard.

By the way, you sure assume a lot for someone who pulls the ASSUME jibe out of their ass so quick.

 

How can we understand what a stupid argument againest evolution is unless we know what is the correct argument againest evolution. Is Dr. Lou suggesting that there are no argument againest evolution and any attempts to criticize the theory is deemed dumb? If that's not true, I'd like to see Dr. Lou present us with good arguments againest evolution so we can start to comprehend the jokes he present us in this thread....Dr. Lou just told us, here are stupid arguments, yet he never told us what is the right questions, apart from his.....Evolution Akbar infaliable accurate can't be touched words of wisdom.

 

Actually, you can only discover something that already existed, otherwise its inventing.
And even if I used the wrong word(which i didn't) you aren't retarded so you would know that i am not trying to debunk myself in my own post.
So what are you doing? Beating around the bush maybe?

 

So who is the complete fucktard idiot now....The one that uses glass jars to explain the concept of the negation of a "for all", then tells us that you are quiting the discussion because you are not willing to discuss planet motions. Hypocracy and contradictory views at their best.

Do you suffer headaches....If I were you, I would check both sides of the brain to see if an imbalance exist, it seems that you are piling info on only one side of your brain (storage unit), Your processing unit is not keeping up with your storage unit, and the contradictions within your brain are at a maximum level and preventing you from making productive arguments..
Process my friend...Process....It will get rid of your headaches.

 

Whatever.

 

maybe we should make new thread discussing the merits of the theory of evolution. This thread seems to have gone slightly off topic.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Really... well I think only some of us are off topic here.

It is not hard to tell what an invalid or stupid argument is, you don't need to compare to a valid argument. For example many arguments are logical fallacies like: "Evolution is wrong because evolutionist agree with homosexuality" this is an Ad Hominem because you can not prove something is wrong based only on the qualities of the person(s) who agree with it, Also it is a generalization fallacy because its doubtful all evolutionist agree with homosexuality.

Dr. Lou may or may not be suggesting there are no good arguments against evolution, you could only prove this if he makes that claim, because all he has said is “What are the dumbest attempts to find fault in the theory of evolution you've heard?” He does not say “What are the dumb attempts to find fault in the theory of evolution” thus he worded it so that he does not definitively say all attempts to disprove evolution are stupid, tricky.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also he tell us little he is asking us to tell him.

 

Absolute last comment on this thread

Blue Baby,

I hope the following theory in bio-assessment presented by Barbour, et al. (1991) helps in clarifying what is wrong with Evolution theory.

Mr. Barbour stated that:

"One function of classification is to increase the resolving power or sensitivity to biological survey to detect impairment by partitioning variation within selected envionmental parameters or among sites. The importance of minimizing variation....Clearly it is easier to distinguish impairment if the parameters have low variability. Formal statistical tests (parametric and nonparamatric) indicate greater resolution and power exist if there is low variance within elements being compared. Effective classification leads to improving resolving power by partitioning or accounting for variability. A coarse classification yeilds higher variance and therefore lower resolving power; vice verssa for finer classification".

You see Blue, the purpose of Cladistics is clearly to partition variataions within selected environment so as to be able to study these seperate entites with higher resolving power. Evolution theory tries to group or connect all variations and thus it's so inaccurate as they get and any result jumping to the conclusion that evolution is correct have an incredibly low resolving power and can never be proofed.

Hope that helps make my case againest the evolution theory. In a nut shell, evolution is incredibly weak scientifically and can never be proofed statistically due to the immense variation in parameters that are being grouped..Questions regarding evolution will never cease, but bear in mind that none of the questions are dumb, perhaps funny, but certainly not dumb.

 

As their are no credible alternatives to explain the emergence of life, I'll stick with evolution.

 

That's fine Repo man, Ancient civilizations also stuck to the conclusion that the earth is flat because it seemed to be the only available solution. The question is :

Is there any urgent need to adopt an evolution theory at this point in our scientific quest?

The answer is no...Evolution theory is useless finding, and while it might help explain the past, it has no bearing on our current performance as it relates to scientific discoveries.

When the evolution theory could be proofed with absolutely no doubt, just like the earth was proofed to be round and not flat, then we'll be ready to harvest the fruits of evolution, at the moment, people working on evolution need to shut the fuck up and work quitely to proof or disprove this theory that may go down in history as one of the most "waste of time" endeavors.

 

Biogenisis and evolution are not related subjects. Evolution only observes that life changes and adapts over time, it does not say how life started (biogenisis). I have heard the common fallacy from anti-evolutionist that evolution is flawed because the lack of data in biogenesis, this is a Guilt By Association fallacy.

I though you said you were going to stop posting

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How this for definitive proof:

refrance (edit will add more):
http://virtual.class.uconn.edu/~terry/Common/3domains.html

 

Most excellent.

This is an incredibly important clarification of the definition and limits of the evolution theory..I'm not sure other evolutionist agree with you though....in specifics, Dr. Lou and Wesmorris.

If I would make a tiny change to your definition, I would say:

Evolution Theory:
"Some life forms on planet earth are observed to change in varying degrees over varying time frames. The change is due to diverse causes ranging from environmental adaptation, breeding, and other unknown species developmental specifics."

I think the above statement is general enough and could be proofed without a doubt.