does evolution exsist

[leopold]

It's possible for a scientist to believe there is no god. Scientifically speaking, he knows he doesn't know, but he can believe one way or they other what he sees as most likely.

correct. yes, that's the point i was trying to make in 548

Besides, you haven't answered the question again.

You can't disregard every question put to you as a moot point.

yes i have, in 548.
in short i said science knows of no other way except a natural one.

all of this stuff should be spelled out to our students. who knows? some bright young lad hearing all of this just might come up with an answer for ALL of us.

 

[wellwisher]

Evolutionary theory can not make predictions. For example, what will be the next state of humans using evolutionary theory? it does not fully qualify as a theory since, part of being a theory is the ability to make predictions. The reality is evolution is a correlation that can explain historical data but it does not fit the definition of a theory due to it lacking predictive power.

The problem that seems to happen, due to the false status as a "theory", when it does not meet that standard, is it treats all alternatives like they are religion, even one's that attempt to make predictions; closer to being a real theory and not just a pretend theory.

There are scientific aspects of intelligent design, which look for logic than might allow prediction, upgrading evolution to a real theory. But the illusion of evolution already being a theory creates a difficult predicament for all.

This smoke and mirrors with evolution calling itself a theory, is why it is the only science target shot at by religion. The smoke and mirrors that gives evolution an exemption from science protocol.

Religion does not attack chemistry, since chemistry is not pretending to be more than it is using the rules of science. If science downgraded evolution theory to the evolutionary correlation, until it can make predictions, this may help. This would open the door for science to try new ways to make predictions, so it can become a real theory. Now the dogma of evolutinary "theory", has to fight even positive challenges, since politics is needed for the illusion to stand.

I am not a creationist just a science purist. Evolution is not a theory since it can't make predictions. If a new theory can make predictions it should supersede evolutionary theory. But not the way the game is fixed to perpetuate an illusion of a theory, calling it a theory.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Evolutionary theory can not make predictions.

And now you're simply trolling.
You have been shown that you are wrong on this - posts 486 and 494 for example.

The rest of your post is equally false.

 

[spidergoat]

Evolutionary theory can not make predictions. For example, what will be the next state of humans using evolutionary theory? it does not fully qualify as a theory since, part of being a theory is the ability to make predictions. The reality is evolution is a correlation that can explain historical data but it does not fit the definition of a theory due to it lacking predictive power.

The problem that seems to happen, due to the false status as a "theory", when it does not meet that standard, is it treats all alternatives like they are religion, even one's that attempt to make predictions; closer to being a real theory and not just a pretend theory.

There are scientific aspects of intelligent design, which look for logic than might allow prediction, upgrading evolution to a real theory. But the illusion of evolution already being a theory creates a difficult predicament for all.

This smoke and mirrors with evolution calling itself a theory, is why it is the only science target shot at by religion. The smoke and mirrors that gives evolution an exemption from science protocol.

Religion does not attack chemistry, since chemistry is not pretending to be more than it is using the rules of science. If science downgraded evolution theory to the evolutionary correlation, until it can make predictions, this may help. This would open the door for science to try new ways to make predictions, so it can become a real theory. Now the dogma of evolutinary "theory", has to fight even positive challenges, since politics is needed for the illusion to stand.

I am not a creationist just a science purist. Evolution is not a theory since it can't make predictions. If a new theory can make predictions it should supersede evolutionary theory. But not the way the game is fixed to perpetuate an illusion of a theory, calling it a theory.

There is no scientific aspect of so-called intelligent design, which is really creationism. The Theory of Evolution does make predictions, those predictions don't have to be predictions of future events. Evolution can predict what sort of fossils we will discover, such as transitional species. It predicted there should be a transition between fish and land quadrupeds, and that was indeed recently found. It's not only a theory, it's the most powerful one in biology, and perhaps all of science.

I'm glad you don't call yourself a creationist, few of it's defenders have the balls to say they believe it.

 

[wellwisher]

I believe in evolution in the sense that life began in simple ways and progressed over long periods of time. Where I differ is the current theory correlates after the fact, but can not make predictions before things happen. There is a difference.

For example, say I developed a theory for gravity. What it can do is tell you how the balls I threw fell, yesterday. But it can't tell you what the ball will do now after i release it from my hand. But in the past I can tell you with great detail. That is the predictive power of evolution.

Prediction is different from correlation. If you use the past as the gold standard, this can become self forfilling. All you need to do is tailor to the data. Predicting the future is where the illusion is broken.

Let me give evolutionary theory a problem to solve, to see how good it can do at making a future prediction. It would be like saying, OK you have your gravity theory here is a future problem to solve. I am not interested in the explanation for the rock falling yesterday. After the prediction we run the experiment, and I expect the ball to land where you tell me. If it is not close, the theory is not a theory but a correlation of the past.

Here is the problem, what is the future of humanity? Evolution is not set up, as is, to be able to solve the problem and hit the bull's eye of the target. There is something missing.

If I set the problem up in the past, one can find a way to attach this to the trends within the correlation. That is not prediction.

 

[leopold]

Evolutionary theory can not make predictions. For example, what will be the next state of humans using evolutionary theory? it does not fully qualify as a theory since, part of being a theory is the ability to make predictions. The reality is evolution is a correlation that can explain historical data but it does not fit the definition of a theory due to it lacking predictive power.

that can be due in part of insufficient data, which in itself says not a lot of testing has been done. this is possibly due to the time scale involved.
anyway . . .
the following site just might make it easy for evolutionists to make some predictions:
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

The problem that seems to happen, due to the false status as a "theory", when it does not meet that standard, is it treats all alternatives like they are religion, even one's that attempt to make predictions; closer to being a real theory and not just a pretend theory.

what really gets me is how evolutionists are perfectly willing to accept extremely small odds while totally dismissing something they have absolutely no proof of, it's laughable.

I am not a creationist just a science purist.

exactly the kinds of people evolution needs.
someone that will say "why is that man naked?".

 

[spidergoat]

I believe in evolution in the sense that life began in simple ways and progressed over long periods of time. Where I differ is the current theory correlates after the fact, but can not make predictions before things happen. There is a difference.

For example, say I developed a theory for gravity. What it can do is tell you how the balls I threw fell, yesterday. But it can't tell you what the ball will do now after i release it from my hand. But in the past I can tell you with great detail. That is the predictive power of evolution.

Prediction is different from correlation. If you use the past as the gold standard, this can become self forfilling. All you need to do is tailor to the data. Predicting the future is where the illusion is broken.

Let me give evolutionary theory a problem to solve, to see how good it can do at making a future prediction. It would be like saying, OK you have your gravity theory here is a future problem to solve. I am not interested in the explanation for the rock falling yesterday. After the prediction we run the experiment, and I expect the ball to land where you tell me. If it is not close, the theory is not a theory but a correlation of the past.

Here is the problem, what is the future of humanity? Evolution is not set up, as is, to be able to solve the problem and hit the bull's eye of the target. There is something missing.

If I set the problem up in the past, one can find a way to attach this to the trends within the correlation. That is not prediction.

The future evolution of humanity is an extremely complex question involving knowing where specific mutations will occur, the entire state of the gene pool now, and every future factor that would affect us like politics, geology, future scientific discoveries, and culture.

It can predict that a bacteria will develop resistance to anti-bacterial agents, that the AIDS virus in all it's variations will be able to avoid efforts to kill it, that urban species will adapt to their relatively new environments (such as developing alternate mating signals in a noisy place). There are other more technical predictions that are cited here.

 

[Dywyddyr]

but can not make predictions before things happen.

Repeated lie. Reported.

 

[wellwisher]

Rational models do a better job at prediction, since the cause and effect, can be repeated over and over. For example, Newtonian mechanics for projectile motion can future predict or past predict the paths of arrows, missles and balls, of all shapes and sizes, since the same cause and effects apply. This is a good theory.

Say we applied this theory to predict when the missle will land but the prediction wasn't even close. There is something wrong with the theory. But the person who came up with the theory, goes down to where it landed and figured out a fudge factor to put this result in the context of his theory. The theory is still voided since adding fudge factors will never equal a good future prediction.

But since we are opened minded we allow another try fudge factor and all. We shoot the missle and he makes a prediction. It is still off. He goes back and alters the fudge factor again showing it still meets the trends of the past based on his theory. So we do it again and he still can't do predict the future.

One way to deal with this is to stop trying to mak future predictions and do what the theory is able to do; fudge factor the past. We will call it a theory even if we skip the tough part.

 

[leopold]

Evolution can predict what sort of fossils we will discover, such as transitional species. It predicted there should be a transition between fish and land quadrupeds, and that was indeed recently found.

the real question is "does this mean anything"?
i am positive you will find a half man half plant if you look hard enough and fudge the data a little.

the platypus is a spendid example of what i said, this thing can be seen as half duck and half rat.

the predictions need to predict future events in order to be valid.

 

[wellwisher]

I believe that evolution can be upgraded to a theory. But I also believe that the bias of already being a theory, makes this harder. One is not suppose to fix the machine if it is not broken. That makes you a creationists.

Bacteria will develop resistance to anti-bacterial agents. This reflects a cause and effect with the anti-bacterial agent setting the potential for change with the adaptation specific to the agent used. In other words, if we add agent A, the bacteria will not develop resistance to agent B, that is still sitting on the self. Evolution is not as random as assumed but appears to be a function of potentials.

For example, after the asteroid hit earth dinosaur went extinct. This was expected since the environmental potentials changed with dinosaurs genetically adapted and optimized for different potentials. This example is a correlation of the past, which allows fudge factor room. But potentials can be used for predictions; past and future.

 

[leopold]

That makes you a creationists.

didn't you know? anyone that questions evolution is a creationist.

 

[spidergoat]

the real question is "does this mean anything"?
i am positive you will find a half man half plant if you look hard enough and fudge the data a little.

the platypus is a spendid example of what i said, this thing can be seen as half duck and half rat.

the predictions need to predict future events in order to be valid.

You will never find a half human half plant. That is a prediction of evolutionary theory, they evolved from a common ancestor that was neither. Accurate predictions confirm the theory.

ToE does predict future events, even if that future event is the discovery of a long-buried fossil.

I believe that evolution can be upgraded to a theory. But I also believe that the bias of already being a theory, makes this harder. One is not suppose to fix the machine if it is not broken. That makes you a creationists.

Bacteria will develop resistance to anti-bacterial agents. This reflects a cause and effect with the anti-bacterial agent setting the potential for change with the adaptation specific to the agent used. In other words, if we add agent A, the bacteria will not develop resistance to agent B, that is still sitting on the self. Evolution is not as random as assumed but appears to be a function of potentials.

For example, after the asteroid hit earth dinosaur went extinct. This was expected since the environmental potentials changed with dinosaurs genetically adapted and optimized for different potentials. This example is a correlation of the past, which allows fudge factor room. But potentials can be used for predictions; past and future.

That's a bunch of gibberish.

 

[wellwisher]

An interesting observation is that we can tell the family tree of life on earth, by examining common genetics. We can tell human and ape based on most of the genes being the same.

The question becomes, how and why does life maintain this commonality of ancient genes, over billions of years, if genetic change is random. Wouldn't random make it difficult to define the family tree of life since no gene would be conserved very long? Since many are conserved does that mean genetic order is blended with only partial randomization?

 

[spidergoat]

Genetic change is not random.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I believe that evolution can be upgraded to a theory.

It already is a theory.
Stop trolling.

 

[leopold]

You will never find a half human half plant. That is a prediction of evolutionary theory, they evolved from a common ancestor that was neither. Accurate predictions confirm the theory.

i disagree.
the venus flytrap can indeed be seen as half human half plant.
i guarantee you that if evolution needed such a sample it would jump all over it.

evolution has NEVER predicted what an organism will evolve into.
yes, it predicts adaptation but only because the genes are already there.
if evolution was given an organism AND the future environment it CANNOT predict what the organism will become.

 

[Billy T]

... the predictions need to predict future events in order to be valid.

How stupid can you be? All predictions are validated by the predicted event being true. Thus there is no prediction about future events which is known to be valid now.

Further more more than 90% of evolution's predictions, made 100 or more years ago have subsequently been found to be true. None have been been shown to be false! I.e. fact that some "missing link" has not been found does not prove it never existed.

When a "missing link" with some details about it was predicted back then it was a prediction about what more FUTURE research / exploration for fossils WOULD FIND. Many of these predictions have now been found in the fossil record.

I have made a prediction, about the continuing evolution of a land creature, now in the "whale stage" which will not be confirmed for at least 10,000 year here:494 Fortunately, that land creature only returned to the sea very recently on an evolutionary time scale, so fossils of all the intermediate stage have been found. You can see three of them at that link which show how that large strong hind legs of the land creature slowly have been reduced to just tiny calcium deposits, floating in the flesh - not even attached to the rest of the skeleton now.

Also it is useful to compare evolution's predictions with those who support an ID (or creationist, if there is any difference, which I doubt as ID was just the trick creationists used to get around the legal prohibition between government support of any religion like in schools.) For example, IDers / creationists, have dinosaurs, birds, and men all created at essentially the same time (and dying in the same decades, to have their bones found in the same geological strata, which is a false prediction as they are not).

Evolution in contrast predicts what is observed without exception: Dinosaur bones, when in undisturbed strata, NEVER have bird or man bones in that same layer. Furthermore the layers with bird bones do not have dinosaur bones as birds evolved from dinosaurs, nor are there any bones of men in the oldest layers with bird bones. (Man evolved later than the birds.)

SUMMARY: Not only has evolution made MORE THAN a MILLION confirmed predictions* but Evolution predicts correctly. In contrast IDers, ONLY make false predictions (unless they are the same predictions as evolution has made).

*For example there are 10 differ evolutionary orders of the trilobites and more than 20,000 distinguishable trilobite species. They are found in fossil bed layer stacked upon each other in complete agreement with their sequence of evolution which is based on their fossil shapes shapes alone. Thus in trilobites alone there are many more than 10,000 confirmed predictions (about the sequence of layers they will be found in) evolution theory has made, JUST ABOUT TRILOBITES FOSSIL LAYER ORDER LOCATIONS !!!!

 

[spidergoat]

i disagree.
the venus flytrap can indeed be seen as half human half plant.
i guarantee you that if evolution needed such a sample it would jump all over it.

evolution has NEVER predicted what an organism will evolve into.
yes, it predicts adaptation but only because the genes are already there.
if evolution was given an organism AND the future environment it CANNOT predict what the organism will become.

So not only do you demand that ToE make predictions, you insist that it make only the kind of predictions you wish (as a person who has shown evidence of not understanding it at all). Get lost.

 

[drumbeat]

Can someone put this kid out of his misery and ban him? He's kept this trolling up for nearly 20 pages now.