Login

Join for Free!
117125 members


Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AstraSequi » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:01 am

These are the questions I was talking about.
Now - if such an experiment was repeated in a laboratory, what would you think had been demonstrated?

Or suppose some different criterion were met instead:
- if the experiment showed that a self-replicating but non-cellular entity had been produced?
- if the experiment showed that all the components found in living organisms could be produced spontaneously?
- if the experiment was run, and it was clear that it would work if it were done enough times, but it would take lots of repetitions (costing enough money to be infeasible to actually carry out)?


Also, when I ask
I will add another question: is there any evidence that would convince you that you are wrong, in part or in whole? If not, then your position is unfalsifiable.

I am not asking for evidence supporting your position. I am asking what evidence, if it existed, would prove your position partially or completely wrong.

For example, it is not enough to predict something like it is impossible to create life (without hybridization, etc). You also have to be able to say how your position will change if your prediction is actually incorrect.
AstraSequi
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:14 am

Postby herb386 » Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:36 am

I tried really hard not to get involved in this debate but there is just one thing I really want to point out....

I had a look at the arguments against evolution on the christianstrategies website and part of the argument seems to come from the fact that reproduction of the AIDS virus or E. coli doesn't lead to the development of a new species.

There are two points that I want to make about these examples:

1: The definition of a species (although it varies a bit depending on where you look) always requires that members of a species can sexually reproduce with each other but not with members of another species. Have a look at any decent dictionary or encyclopedia for the definitions. Neither bacteria nor viruses reproduce sexually and therefore the definition of a species does not apply to them. People generally refer to strains of bacteria or viruses rather than species as this only requires changes in traits rather than reproductive compatibility.

This means that viruses and bacteria can never produce a new species so stating examples where they have not been shown to speciate cannot be used as evidence that speciation does not occur in sexually reproducing organisms.

2. Speciation is much more likely to occur when individuals of a single species are sexually isolated and experiencing different selective pressures. That means that members of the same species that cannot or do not reproduce with each other are more likely to diverge into different species. Therefore, even if viruses and bacteria could speciate, they would be unlikely to when they are all together in the same environment (e.g. the AIDS virus is in a human body) as in the examples you give on your website.

If you're interested, there are examples of the evolution within recorded history. One is the myxomatosis virus, which was introduced by humans to cull rabbit populations. This evolved to become less virulent in order to increase its reproductive success before killing the rabbit, an event that has been recorded by scientists. Also, probably the most famous example of evolution is the peppered moth. A quick internet search will give you plenty of information about both of these.
herb386
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:23 am
Location: UK

Postby JackBean » Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:20 am

Christian: you see, you were so sure about the faster-than-light neutrinos you have immediately implemented them into your theories. Now they have been proven wrong (some bad cable). How is your theory doing now?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5669
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm


Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:12 pm

JackBean wrote:Christian: you see, you were so sure about the faster-than-light neutrinos you have immediately implemented them into your theories. Now they have been proven wrong (some bad cable). How is your theory doing now?


Hello, Jack.

1. Definitevely, they're not interested in matter travelling quicker than light speed. The justification is very suspicious: the GPS and the computer card caused an advance in time of ~60 nanoseconds... when normally, they should cause a delay... OK, officcially remains non proofed... but new experiments still have to be done... this conclusion is not yet definitive neither...

2. Our Lady confirms the existence of teleportation: she comes from paradise to earth, Medjugorje in less than one second. Paradise is in the space 3D, after the farthest star, according to her declarations in New York (site www.tldm.org). Please note that teleportation is possible also for humans, like us, before the death: it is foresseen that Jesus and His angels shall take some elected (those in grace state) to paradise, through possibly a form of teleportation, to spare them to the tribulations of the apocalypse. The remaining must be tested by trial. The press shall speak, at the time, of "people kidnapped by extra terrestrials", said Our Lady or Jesus in NY.

3. I don't believe any more all that comes from the scientific world: just to remember, modern man, able to do doctor degrees remained 90.000 to 190.000 years in caves: he really loved it and insisted in not building houses in wood or stone... or he had to wait the return of the ices to start agriculture in Holland... no, in the Nile, in Africa! The return of the ices was not really necessary to start agriculture in the Nile, isn't it?

4. Jesus in www.apparitionsmariales.org confirms the 6.000 years old for mankind, but says also that the moon travels around the earth since "millions of years". If these messages are true (I have some doubts about the million of years), then the timeline during the the first 5 days of the creation, speccially the Big Bang, in the Bible, are not to take literally. I had to correct completely my reasoning about old dates in the Big Bang section of my web site because of these declarations.

5. probably the UFOs that appear near the earth and contain a race of demons (demons with a kind of biological body and must use the bus/UFO to travel), are able to travel also quicker than the speed of the light (sources www.tldm.org and www.apparitionsmariales.orgà

Conclusion: neutrinos able to travel quicker than the light remain for the moment a non proofed question. But that doesn't mean that is not possible to travel at speeds higher than the light. Sooner or later Einstein shall be forced to review his relativity equations: it shall come a time when it shall be proofed that it is possible to travel quicker than light without having infinite masses.
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:31 pm

herb386 wrote:I tried really hard not to get involved in this debate but there is just one thing I really want to point out....

I had a look at the arguments against evolution on the christianstrategies website and part of the argument seems to come from the fact that reproduction of the AIDS virus or E. coli doesn't lead to the development of a new species.

There are two points that I want to make about these examples:

1: The definition of a species (although it varies a bit depending on where you look) always requires that members of a species can sexually reproduce with each other but not with members of another species. Have a look at any decent dictionary or encyclopedia for the definitions. Neither bacteria nor viruses reproduce sexually and therefore the definition of a species does not apply to them. People generally refer to strains of bacteria or viruses rather than species as this only requires changes in traits rather than reproductive compatibility.

This means that viruses and bacteria can never produce a new species so stating examples where they have not been shown to speciate cannot be used as evidence that speciation does not occur in sexually reproducing organisms.


Hello,

I agree partially with you. The criteria to distinguish among two species of bacteria (or two types of virus) are quite ambiguous. But concerning the superclasses this reasoning is not valid anymore: a virus is clearly different from a bacteria or from a fungus.

So, you can take my reasoning as:

E. Coli after 50.000 generations didn't evolve enough to become a fungus
or
the Aids virus didn't evolve enough to become a bacteria,

despite the ability of those microbes to suffer favorable mutations (for them) making them able to resist to medicines.

herb386 wrote:2. Speciation is much more likely to occur when individuals of a single species are sexually isolated and experiencing different selective pressures. That means that members of the same species that cannot or do not reproduce with each other are more likely to diverge into different species. Therefore, even if viruses and bacteria could speciate, they would be unlikely to when they are all together in the same environment (e.g. the AIDS virus is in a human body) as in the examples you give on your website.


I don't agree with you. The E. Coli experience and the Aids virus in a patient are the target of selective procedures: E. coli was able to survive after 30.000 generations in citric acid and the Aids virus in people has to fight the antivirus drugs the patients use. They're thus, under selective pressures, they evolve and mutate. But don't change of specie.

herb386 wrote:If you're interested, there are examples of the evolution within recorded history. One is the myxomatosis virus, which was introduced by humans to cull rabbit populations. This evolved to become less virulent in order to increase its reproductive success before killing the rabbit, an event that has been recorded by scientists. Also, probably the most famous example of evolution is the peppered moth. A quick internet search will give you plenty of information about both of these.


That kind of evolution doesn't mean change of specie: they're examples of genetical mutations of adaptation to the environment. Positive and negative mutations (ex. a cancer) are an evidence. But they don't trigger changes of specie. Only with a conceiver: God or a genetic engineer.
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby christianstrategies » Mon Feb 27, 2012 8:53 pm

AstraSequi wrote:These are the questions I was talking about.
Now - if such an experiment was repeated in a laboratory, what would you think had been demonstrated?

Or suppose some different criterion were met instead:
- if the experiment showed that a self-replicating but non-cellular entity had been produced?
- if the experiment showed that all the components found in living organisms could be produced spontaneously?
- if the experiment was run, and it was clear that it would work if it were done enough times, but it would take lots of repetitions (costing enough money to be infeasible to actually carry out)?



Hello, I'm going to try to answer to your questions, although I find they fall in the absurd. They're questions of the style:

1. "if you would see yourself the Father Christmas falling in the chimney to put gifts in the socks, would you be definitively convinced he exists and would stop believing in baby Jesus, as the master of Christmas?" I hope you understand what I mean...

2. Even if it would be possible to proof in labo that life could be generated "spontaneously" from void in the earth, we have already the proof that life can always be created alternatively through the intelligence of a creator: geneticist have already proofed they can create synthetic virus in labo (I'm afraid for mankind, if this weapon falls under the hands of Al Qaïda, but that's another story). Even so, you could not generalize darwinism for the whole nature: what would be proofed would be a local proof: it should be done similar tests for all species in nature.

3. concerning money, you sould not worry: when science and governments want, there's money: money for searching life in other planets doesn't miss, despite the declarations that life doesn't exist in other planets (behalf a race of demons that use UFO's to travel, near the earth). Implementing such a experience: try to create life from void in a disinfected environment should not be so expensive...

AstraSequi wrote:Also, when I ask
I will add another question: is there any evidence that would convince you that you are wrong, in part or in whole? If not, then your position is unfalsifiable.

I am not asking for evidence supporting your position. I am asking what evidence, if it existed, would prove your position partially or completely wrong.

For example, it is not enough to predict something like it is impossible to create life (without hybridization, etc). You also have to be able to say how your position will change if your prediction is actually incorrect.


Normally my position in that point doesn't change, because Jesus Himself confirms that through mutations ("spontaneous" evolution, even in an environment under stress seletive conditions) it is not possible to evolve to a higher specie, although mutations of adaptation to the environment may occur. Even if it would be demonstrated the evolution of a specie into another, that phenomena couldnot eclipse the alternative phenomena of creation of life through a conceiver. Generalisation of evolutionism could not be claimed. Just to give an example, clonage could be considered an alternative way of generation of life: however, this procedure can not be claimed in the origine of life for all species in the nature...

P.S. Jesus contradicted me in the question of the age of the moon or in the question of the dinossaurs, which forced me to change my point of view in such subjects... confirming now the scientific points of view in such matters... sometimes, I, also, have to change my point of view, although there's a small risk of falsification of the messages of God...
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby oCShxckzZ » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:57 pm

I can't come up with any but he can. Please don't shun the article because it has the word Bible in it.
http://www.bibleprobe.org/objection.html
A Christian
oCShxckzZ
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:16 am

Postby canalon » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:43 pm

Just shun it because it is 100%facts-free with a wonderful chery(picked) flavour. Go buy some Cherry Garcia from Ben & Jerry's, i might hurt you waist ine, but will hurt your brain much less.
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AstraSequi » Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:11 am

christianstrategies wrote:
AstraSequi wrote:These are the questions I was talking about.
Now - if such an experiment was repeated in a laboratory, what would you think had been demonstrated?

Or suppose some different criterion were met instead:
- if the experiment showed that a self-replicating but non-cellular entity had been produced?
- if the experiment showed that all the components found in living organisms could be produced spontaneously?
- if the experiment was run, and it was clear that it would work if it were done enough times, but it would take lots of repetitions (costing enough money to be infeasible to actually carry out)?



I'm going to try to answer to your questions, although I find they fall in the absurd. They're questions of the style:

1. "if you would see yourself the Father Christmas falling in the chimney to put gifts in the socks, would you be definitively convinced he exists and would stop believing in baby Jesus, as the master of Christmas?" I hope you understand what I mean...

Not really. If the question we were answering is whether Santa exists, then observing him falling down the chimney (or at any other time) would most definitely be a relevant observation. (If you also claimed that Santa and Jesus were mutually exclusive, I suppose that then the observation of one would be evidence against the other, but I don't see how that's related.)


2. Even if it would be possible to proof in labo that life could be generated "spontaneously" from void in the earth, we have already the proof that life can always be created alternatively through the intelligence of a creator: geneticist have already proofed they can create synthetic virus in labo (I'm afraid for mankind, if this weapon falls under the hands of Al Qaïda, but that's another story). Even so, you could not generalize darwinism for the whole nature: what would be proofed would be a local proof: it should be done similar tests for all species in nature.

So you are saying, if life could be generated, then it would prove nothing about past history, because it could not be generalized?

But even if I agree to that, then why did you claim that not creating life is evidence against evolution? You have just said that the ability to create life can demonstrate nothing. If so, then failing to demonstrate it is inconsequential.

If you say that evidence X is predicted by claim Y, then observing not-X weakens the case for claim Y. If you cannot provide any prediction for which this is the case, the claim is unfalsifiable.


3. concerning money, you sould not worry: when science and governments want, there's money: money for searching life in other planets doesn't miss, despite the declarations that life doesn't exist in other planets (behalf a race of demons that use UFO's to travel, near the earth). Implementing such a experience: try to create life from void in a disinfected environment should not be so expensive...

This is the only one of the questions that you tried to answer directly, and your answer was that it wasn't possible for the situation to occur.

Nobody has an unlimited amount of money. All you have to do is raise the amount of money required - if necessary, until the price is more money than exists on the planet. Nobody is going to spend that level of resources for something that does not directly save lives - I don't think that I should need to point that out.


AstraSequi wrote:I will add another question: is there any evidence that would convince you that you are wrong, in part or in whole? If not, then your position is unfalsifiable.

I am not asking for evidence supporting your position. I am asking what evidence, if it existed, would prove your position partially or completely wrong.

For example, it is not enough to predict something like it is impossible to create life (without hybridization, etc). You also have to be able to say how your position will change if your prediction is actually incorrect.


Normally my position in that point doesn't change, because Jesus Himself confirms that through mutations ("spontaneous" evolution, even in an environment under stress seletive conditions) it is not possible to evolve to a higher specie, although mutations of adaptation to the environment may occur. Even if it would be demonstrated the evolution of a specie into another, that phenomena couldnot eclipse the alternative phenomena of creation of life through a conceiver. Generalisation of evolutionism could not be claimed. Just to give an example, clonage could be considered an alternative way of generation of life: however, this procedure can not be claimed in the origine of life for all species in the nature...

I've only ever been talking about evolution, not religion...I agree that observing evolution does not prohibit life from being created, but I don't think that is relevant to whether evolution occurs.

It looks like you essentially said, "Jesus confirms that evolution cannot occur. Even if evolution occurred, that would not prove anything." In other words, your position is unfalsifiable.


Again, if your argument is unfalsifiable, this discussion doesn't really have a point.
AstraSequi
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:14 am

Postby animartco » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:51 pm

Hi Futurezooloist and commenter. There is an explanation for the acts of man, but it is a rather disturbing one. A. We have arguably the greatest intelligence in the animal kingdom. B. we have a consensus on what we are doing wrong in the world, and a knowledge of the probable consequences if we continue.
C we are doing nothing immediate about putting things right, despite the obvious necessity for haste.
In evolutionary terms this rather suggests that too much intelligence is a 'blind alley', and what happens to species that go up blind alleys?
animartco
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:56 pm

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby christianstrategies » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:30 pm

AstraSequi wrote:
I'm going to try to answer to your questions, although I find they fall in the absurd. They're questions of the style:

1. "if you would see yourself the Father Christmas falling in the chimney to put gifts in the socks, would you be definitively convinced he exists and would stop believing in baby Jesus, as the master of Christmas?" I hope you understand what I mean...


Not really. If the question we were answering is whether Santa exists, then observing him falling down the chimney (or at any other time) would most definitely be a relevant observation. (If you also claimed that Santa and Jesus were mutually exclusive, I suppose that then the observation of one would be evidence against the other, but I don't see how that's related.)


Just go a little bit further in this "fiction", you may assume somebody disguised as Santa Claus, with beard and a red jacket... would proof what? And if you see a hare, than have you the proof the rabbits and the eggs are the masters of Easter and not the ressurection of Jesus, a lot more difficult to proof?

AstraSequi wrote:
2. Even if it would be possible to proof in labo that life could be generated "spontaneously" from void in the earth, we have already the proof that life can always be created alternatively through the intelligence of a creator: geneticist have already proofed they can create synthetic virus in labo (I'm afraid for mankind, if this weapon falls under the hands of Al Qaïda, but that's another story). Even so, you could not generalize darwinism for the whole nature: what would be proofed would be a local proof: it should be done similar tests for all species in nature.

So you are saying, if life could be generated, then it would prove nothing about past history, because it could not be generalized?

But even if I agree to that, then why did you claim that not creating life is evidence against evolution? You have just said that the ability to create life can demonstrate nothing. If so, then failing to demonstrate it is inconsequential.

If you say that evidence X is predicted by claim Y, then observing not-X weakens the case for claim Y. If you cannot provide any prediction for which this is the case, the claim is unfalsifiable.


What I'm saying is that, parallel ways of creating life like proofed clonage and non proofed darwinism, in order to be correctly considered as one of the possible ways (among others: creationism of course) to create the whole nature, have to show evidences that:

-they could create all species of the world, one by one. Evolution, I mean, change of specie, in only one specie is not enough to be generalized to whole nature. Darwinism fails both tests here:
1. there's no evidence of one change of specie through mutations without a conceiver
2. because step one fails, not even imaginable to do the same test for all species in the nature.

However, artificial cloning and creationim with a conceiver(God/ genetic engineer) have the potential to satisfy steps 1. and 2. Concerning artificial cloning, nobody dares to claim this artificial reproduction technic as in the origin of life. Only creationism have the potential to create the whole nature from void. We have already evidences of step 1 (creation of a synthetic virus from void), and with the technological evolution of genetics, the geneticists will be normally able to generalize the technical to create the whole species of the nature.

Just following the claim of the "million of years" of darwinists:

- I'm able to become a superman (have X ray vision, become hyperstrong, to fly), but it takes millions of years... meanwhile, I'm waiting for the mutations to occur... we have to be patient, right? ;-)

AstraSequi wrote:
3. concerning money, you sould not worry: when science and governments want, there's money: money for searching life in other planets doesn't miss, despite the declarations that life doesn't exist in other planets (behalf a race of demons that use UFO's to travel, near the earth). Implementing such a experience: try to create life from void in a disinfected environment should not be so expensive...


This is the only one of the questions that you tried to answer directly, and your answer was that it wasn't possible for the situation to occur.

Nobody has an unlimited amount of money. All you have to do is raise the amount of money required - if necessary, until the price is more money than exists on the planet. Nobody is going to spend that level of resources for something that does not directly save lives - I don't think that I should need to point that out.


Don't come with excuses of money: they have money to build the CERN or to put HUBBLE in the space, right? That's not really an excuse not to do such a test... it is rather the free mason plot to pollute the brains of the young children at schools with the "logic" of darwinism... when they will, there's money... not all the money in the world is required to do an experience to try to reproduce on earth life from void in a disinfected environment... they don't do it, because it is loose of money: I learnt at school that it was proofed that the ancient "theory of spontaneous generation of life" was considered as false in the scientifical environments (note: unless it takes "millions of years" to occur, like me, to become superman).

AstraSequi wrote:
I've only ever been talking about evolution, not religion...I agree that observing evolution does not prohibit life from being created, but I don't think that is relevant to whether evolution occurs.

It looks like you essentially said, "Jesus confirms that evolution cannot occur. Even if evolution occurred, that would not prove anything." In other words, your position is unfalsifiable.


Again, if your argument is unfalsifiable, this discussion doesn't really have a point.


1. Observing evolution? You/science observe mutations of environmental adaptation, not changes of species... Try to observe the 23 chromossoms of human specie to evolve in 24...(reasoning from Jesus self in http://www.apparitionsmariales.org)

2. creation of life with a conceiver/geneticist proofs, even if it would be possible to create life without a conceiver only by darwinism, that several ways to create life from void would have to be taken into account. Indeed, we have presently three possibilities
2.1. darwinism (theoretical, non proofed): one day, I'll become superman, within millions of years, with pacience and many mutations...
2.2. artificial cloning (local proofs available)
2.3. creationism with a conceiver (local proofs available)

Finally, yes, I believe in this matter (I mean, darwinism and not big bang), my position is unfalsifiable, beccause I'm sustained not only with some scientific evidences, but also, the bible, and all different apparitions of Jesus and Mary claim creationism as the way the nature was created (by God),in the beginning. It is hard for the science to accept it, they try to find solutions without God/a creator, but afterwards, the incoerences begin to appear (missing links in the fossils, absence of proofs etc.)
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Postby NickT » Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:25 pm

I'm a bit of a newb in regards to biology so correct me if I'm wrong but is Lucy not the only link we have found between the current human and other primates? This seems like a gaping hole in the theory.

In case you're wondering, I do believe in the current scientific theory on evolution. I'm just... playing devil's advocate for the giggles. :)
NickT
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron