Login

Join for Free!
118870 members


Evolutions unsolved questions!

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby Excalibur » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:56 am

Well then how come you still believe in evolution?

Even though the theory is incredibly wrong and proven to be so!
Excalibur
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:50 am

Postby canalon » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:29 am

Excalibur wrote:Well then how come you still believe in evolution?

Even though the theory is incredibly wrong and proven to be so!


What proofs?
For teh moment I am still waiting to find something slightly more convincing that the "It's complicated to figure out so it must be designed" that serves as Intelligent design motto. Use the search engine of teh forum, and you'll see that the subject has been extensively treated.

As for going on this thread, religions and science are dealing with different aspects of life, so they shouldn't be mixed, that is why we would prefer to put a stop to this.
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

Postby mith » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:54 am

Excalibur wrote:
What has time scale got to do with the first life form coming into existence, when this is most likely to happen by a second!

Any way you look around it 4.6 billion years starts looking awfully restricted when you look at how advanced even the most simple single celled organism looks under an electron microscope!


See my first post. The simplest organism we can see today does not equate to the simplest organism possible or even the one that started it all.
As for the time limit, who is to say what is enough or not enough time for evolution to happen. Granted it can't happen in saya couple thousands of years but when you're talking about billions, who can be certain? Again refer to my first post on positive feedback. I will be happy to explain this point if you wish.
Excalibur wrote:Mithrilhack why should this thread be deleted, when the so called Evolution theory has more holes in it than a sieve :shock:

It is the theory of evolution. And you should differentiate between the vernacular meaning of theory and the scientific definition of theory. And of course there are things that aren't well explained within the current framework as you pointed out, but what model doesn't have weaknesses? As Patrick pointed out before, its simply a matter of picking the best available model. And calling evolution the best current model isn't simply our personal opinions.

Excalibur wrote:I think this post should stay open for as long as possible, because science and scientists should benefit from analyzing the problems of a theory to the point of concluding wether its correct or not, therefore we can move on to giving more explanations hence developing our ideas and eventually coming closer to the truth.
Remember we humans have only been here for a little while, therefore lets not restrict our ideas!!!!


Lol, I'll be the first to admit that I have not done any research at all I don't doubt that I lack credentials to make any claim. But who here can? Other than Patrick and Jelanen (and maybe Kyle) who have done graduate research work, none of us here have opinions that really matter scientifically speaking. We can only use the supporting statements from other sources reputable sources. Speculation on which is more probably without even providing the math involved, well that's just speculation.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN


Postby Poison » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:07 pm

First of all, we have evolution&creationalism topic for discussions. No need to open a new one. Just go on discussing there. We are not restricting anything. Some SEARCH in the forum won't hurt.

For teh moment I am still waiting to find something slightly more convincing that the "It's complicated to figure out so it must be designed" that serves as Intelligent design motto.


I completely agree with Patrick. I usually say the similar thing to people who want to prove(?!) me that everything is created.
PS: Some extra things to add: nearly none of the people who wanted to discuss this tread with me, are biologists or studying biology. They even don't know about DNA. So I stopped discussing this long time ago.
It matters not how strait the gate
How charged with punishment the scroll
I am the Master of my fate
I am the Captain of my soul.
User avatar
Poison
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: Turkey

Postby Excalibur » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:20 pm

Its not good to jump to conclusions about the specific area of study for certain individuals.

I myself actually study Geology and in this course we are taught the theory of evolution quite extensively.

Note I did not once mention that I was a believer in creationism, but my friend Mithrilhack jumped to this conclusion all by himself.

What does this tell you about evolutionists???? :?


Have you seen the recent stirr in America about evolution and creationism?


Anyway Ill get back to you guys when I have some more time.
Excalibur
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:50 am

Postby mith » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:37 pm

oh excalibur, i'm sorry for jumping to that conclusion but in my experience, only creationists or really ignorant biologists would use statistics from sir fred hoyle. If you read the wikipedia entry, hoyle's assumptions have already been discussed and the flaws revealed.

If not evolution what do you propose? I'm sure everyone would love to hear your flawless theory.
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Postby Springer » Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:29 pm

Canalon wrote:
Excalibur wrote:Well then how come you still believe in evolution?

Even though the theory is incredibly wrong and proven to be so!


What proofs?
For teh moment I am still waiting to find something slightly more convincing that the "It's complicated to figure out so it must be designed" that serves as Intelligent design motto. Use the search engine of teh forum, and you'll see that the subject has been extensively treated.

As for going on this thread, religions and science are dealing with different aspects of life, so they shouldn't be mixed, that is why we would prefer to put a stop to this.


This is a common defense of evolution... the skeptic is expected to just accept the fact that everything evolved, regardless of how illogical it is to conceive. "Incredulity" is viewed as a fault. We should just believe that evolution created everything, despite the fact that the mechanisms are not conceivable to the human mind. Thus, evolution must be rejected as science because, according to their own reasoning, anything that is not "falsifiable" cannot be admitted as science. Evolution is not falsifible by your definition, because any flaw in the theory will be interpreted as a need for more research until someday we figure out how evolution caused it.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby canalon » Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:35 pm

Springer wrote:This is a common defense of evolution... the skeptic is expected to just accept the fact that everything evolved, regardless of how illogical it is to conceive. "Incredulity" is viewed as a fault. We should just believe that evolution created everything, despite the fact that the mechanisms are not conceivable to the human mind. Thus, evolution must be rejected as science because, according to their own reasoning, anything that is not "falsifiable" cannot be admitted as science. Evolution is not falsifible by your definition, because any flaw in the theory will be interpreted as a need for more research until someday we figure out how evolution caused it.


Evolution makes some predictions about:
- gene sequences found in different organisms
- Protein sequences
- Organisms structures
Plenty of data are congruent with the predictions made by evolutionnary theory. There are indeed still quite some things that we canno figure out, but we are working on it, and ready to improve or modify the theory accordingly to fit data. Reverse transcriptase was at first a blow to what was known as the central dogma of the genetic evolution, but it has now been integrated. BUT it did not change the main framework, the one proposed by Darwin, just the details of the mechanisms.

But All alternative to evolution are just non-scientific, that is they require things that cannot be proved wrong, or some kind of mysterious external factors. So nothing convincing.

I would be curious to know what alternative you would suggest, anyway?
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

Postby Springer » Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:53 pm

Canalon wrote:
Evolution makes some predictions about:
- gene sequences found in different organisms
- Protein sequences
- Organisms structures


These are not "predictions". They are observations that have been interpreted within the evolutionary paradigm.

Plenty of data are congruent with the predictions made by evolutionnary theory. There are indeed still quite some things that we canno figure out, but we are working on it, and ready to improve or modify the theory accordingly to fit data. Reverse transcriptase was at first a blow to what was known as the central dogma of the genetic evolution, but it has now been integrated. BUT it did not change the main framework, the one proposed by Darwin, just the details of the mechanisms.


You're verifying my contention... everything, including all hostile evidence, is interpreted only within the evolutionary framework. Thus, scientific objectivity disappears. Evolution will never be "falsified", because people can always come up with a post hoc alternative explanation of the facts.

But All alternative to evolution are just non-scientific,...


There is no edict that sets limits as to what science can or cannot investigate.

...that is they require things that cannot be proved wrong, or some kind of mysterious external factors.


Evolution cannot be proved wrong, for the above reasons I've stated. Evolution requires acceptance of mysterious external factors, such as DNA spontaneously self-organizing and other cellular components somehow coming together to form the first single cell life.

I would be curious to know what alternative you would suggest, anyway?


Evolution needs to be subjected to scrutiny just as any discipline of science. Intelligent design fits very well into the facts of nature. However, disproof of one theory does not proof of another one, even though that other theory may be the only alternative.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby canalon » Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:11 pm

Springer wrote:These are not "predictions". They are observations that have been interpreted within the evolutionary paradigm.


No these observations allowed us to make predictions. About antibiotic resistance, gene diffusion. And they fit data. Read about Lenski's work.

You're verifying my contention... everything, including all hostile evidence, is interpreted only within the evolutionary framework. Thus, scientific objectivity disappears. Evolution will never be "falsified", because people can always come up with a post hoc alternative explanation of the facts.


Nope. It just proves that your hostile evidence are just not hostile. A theory that can absorb new data without being turned over or with ad hoc exception is solid, not flawed.

There is no edict that sets limits as to what science can or cannot investigate.


There is a common definition of what is scientific or not. Intelligent design and creationnism do not fit with this definition.

Evolution cannot be proved wrong, for the above reasons I've stated. Evolution requires acceptance of mysterious external factors, such as DNA spontaneously self-organizing and other cellular components somehow coming together to form the first single cell life.


Evolution can be proved wrong, just show me a pattern of reproducing organisms that do not follow the set rules of evolution...
And as I stated somewhere else, evolution has nothing to say about the apparition of life. It just state something about what is happening after this first spark.

Evolution needs to be subjected to scrutiny just as any discipline of science.


It is... and yet no convincing flaw has been brought to attention.

Intelligent design fits very well into the facts of nature. However, disproof of one theory does not proof of another one, even though that other theory may be the only alternative.


Problems with intelligent designs:
- Still require an external intelligence which nature still remain to be explained. And I am curious to know what would fit in the laws of chemistry and physics...
- The life design still need to be proven intelligent. J. Monod was talking about tinkering with reason. SJ Gould example of the Thumb of the Panda bear is one, but just look at the our excretory and reproductive system, this is really bad plumbing. And if you think how our back are designed, I'd be happy to sentence the designer to live with it for ever!
Disproof of intelligent design, old style creationnism or all the other myth of life creation indeed tell us nothing about how life works but as already told evolution fits the data and resist Occam's razor, that's the only one.
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

Postby Springer » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:25 pm

Canalon wrote:
No these observations allowed us to make predictions. About antibiotic resistance, gene diffusion. And they fit data. Read about Lenski's work.


Antimicrobial resistance is microevolution and has nothing to do with molecules to man evolution. You're using wreckless extrapolations, which are always necessary to defend evolution.


There is a common definition of what is scientific or not. Intelligent design and creationnism do not fit with this definition.


It is illogical to exclude a theory under the pretext that it's not "scientific", especially if that theory is the only viable alternative to evolution. Evolutionists artibrarily excude ID as a possibility... they assume it's non-existent.
If ID is not evaluable by science, then why do Gould and Dawkins point to "scientici evidence" that organs were not "designed" (panda's thumb and vertebrate eye". On what are they basing their arguments?

Evolution can be proved wrong, just show me a pattern of reproducing organisms that do not follow the set rules of evolution...

The innumerable examples of irreducible complexity in nature defy evolutionary explanations. You will say, "we don't know all the details, but some day evolution will explain how it happened." There is always a pre-drawn conclusion.

And as I stated somewhere else, evolution has nothing to say about the apparition of life. It just state something about what is happening after this first spark.

Proclaiming that abiogenesis is not a part of evolutionary theory doesn't prove anything. Abiogenesis is impossible. Therefore, ID is necessary. Therefore, natural selection suffers a fatal blow.


It is... and yet no convincing flaw has been brought to attention.


As I stated, that is because every "flaw" is written off as a lack of knowledge that will someday be forced into the framework of evolutionary thinking.

Problems with intelligent designs:
- Still require an external intelligence which nature still remain to be explained. And I am curious to know what would fit in the laws of chemistry and physics...
- The life design still need to be proven intelligent. J. Monod was talking about tinkering with reason. SJ Gould example of the Thumb of the Panda bear is one, but just look at the our excretory and reproductive system, this is really bad plumbing. And if you think how our back are designed, I'd be happy to sentence the designer to live with it for ever!
Disproof of intelligent design, old style creationnism or all the other myth of life creation indeed tell us nothing about how life works but as already told evolution fits the data and resist Occam's razor, that's the only one.[/
quote]

It's interesting that evolutionists, not creationists, use philosophical/ideological arguments to defend evolution. You are supposing how a designer would or would not conduct the creative process. You assume that God would be constrained by certain laws that you think are reasonable from your limited perspective.
Springer
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:20 am

Postby mith » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:30 pm

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sh ... hp/id/1152

Table 1. Predictions of Design:
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Actually, intelligent design proponents are also assuming that God is constrained by certain principles and laws that they think are reasonable. If none of our assumptions about laws/principles of design can be applied to Godly creation, how can you postively say anything is designed?
Living one day at a time;
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
~Niebuhr
User avatar
mith
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5345
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests