Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

The fossils are evidence.

Irreducible Complexity cannot even offer that.

Dna testing, anatomy & physiology comparisons, are evidence.

Again, Irreducible Complexity have nothing new to offer.

There are no evidence and no experiments to support Irreducible Complexity, which makes iC unfalsifiable and untested, so what you said about Irreducible Complexity bring “is not so far-fetched”, is really only your personal opinion, and that’s unsubstantiated claim, YoursTrue.

Any hypothesis should be at least falsifiable.

Falsifiable means “testable”. This is what make a hypothesis “scientific”. And the way to do that is that a scientist must include 2 essential things to make the hypothesis “falsifiable”:

1. Must include predictive model - some predictions of what to expect evidence to be, should the evidence ever be “discovered”.
2. Must include instruction on HOW to find TO TEST the predictive model.

In point 1, the prediction is like a baseline of whether the hypothesis “succeed” or “fail”.

It would only succeed, if the evidence support the prediction. But the evidence can be something very different from what was predicted, which mean the evidence refuted the prediction.

In point 2 - the testing of the predictive model, a scientist must include instructions on ways to test the hypothesis through observations, and there are 2 main ways to do this tests:

1. in the lab, like instructions on HOW one would set up an experiment
2. in the fields, like instructions on HOW, WHERE & WHEN to find the evidence, hence fieldwork

There is a 3rd option - do both points 1 & 2.

Lab experiments are obvious ways to find evidence. Scientists have more control over the environment and the variables.

So I don’t need to explain this. Finding evidence in the field, scientists would have less control.

Michael Behe provided no such predictive models, hence Irreducible Complexity is unfalsifiable.

And since Behe has never discovered any evidence, nor has he supported his concept with test results of some experiments, so Irreducible Complexity untested.

Behe even admitted in 2005, during being cross-examined in the Kitzmiller v Dover case, that he has never submitted Irreducible Complexity to be "peer-review" by any scientific publishers, and that IC & in his book, Darwin's Black Box, there were no original research, experiment & data for them...the lack of evidence for IC HAVEN'T CHANGED, TODAY. There are still no evidence and data to support Irreducible Complexity.

Without verifiable evidence/experiments & data, Irreducible Complexity isn't science.

Your personal view about Irreducible Complexity, don't make IC anymore plausible, YoursTrue.

You may think the fossils are evidence. They are not. I used to think they were evidence because I believed the theory of evolution. But now I see and realize the fossils are evidence only of organisms that were alive, but these do not demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate organisms that once were alive. Anyway, have a nice evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

The fossils are evidence.

Irreducible Complexity cannot even offer that.

Dna testing, anatomy & physiology comparisons, are evidence.

Again, Irreducible Complexity have nothing new to offer.

There are no evidence and no experiments to support Irreducible Complexity, which makes iC unfalsifiable and untested, so what you said about Irreducible Complexity bring “is not so far-fetched”, is really only your personal opinion, and that’s unsubstantiated claim, YoursTrue.

Any hypothesis should be at least falsifiable.

Falsifiable means “testable”. This is what make a hypothesis “scientific”. And the way to do that is that a scientist must include 2 essential things to make the hypothesis “falsifiable”:

1. Must include predictive model - some predictions of what to expect evidence to be, should the evidence ever be “discovered”.
2. Must include instruction on HOW to find TO TEST the predictive model.

In point 1, the prediction is like a baseline of whether the hypothesis “succeed” or “fail”.

It would only succeed, if the evidence support the prediction. But the evidence can be something very different from what was predicted, which mean the evidence refuted the prediction.

In point 2 - the testing of the predictive model, a scientist must include instructions on ways to test the hypothesis through observations, and there are 2 main ways to do this tests:

1. in the lab, like instructions on HOW one would set up an experiment
2. in the fields, like instructions on HOW, WHERE & WHEN to find the evidence, hence fieldwork

There is a 3rd option - do both points 1 & 2.

Lab experiments are obvious ways to find evidence. Scientists have more control over the environment and the variables.

So I don’t need to explain this. Finding evidence in the field, scientists would have less control.

Michael Behe provided no such predictive models, hence Irreducible Complexity is unfalsifiable.

And since Behe has never discovered any evidence, nor has he supported his concept with test results of some experiments, so Irreducible Complexity untested.

Behe even admitted in 2005, during being cross-examined in the Kitzmiller v Dover case, that he has never submitted Irreducible Complexity to be "peer-review" by any scientific publishers, and that IC & in his book, Darwin's Black Box, there were no original research, experiment & data for them...the lack of evidence for IC HAVEN'T CHANGED, TODAY. There are still no evidence and data to support Irreducible Complexity.

Without verifiable evidence/experiments & data, Irreducible Complexity isn't science.

Your personal view about Irreducible Complexity, don't make IC anymore plausible, YoursTrue.

There are things in this world that we, in our rather short lifetimes now, can observe, but as long as humans are believed to have been around (by many scientists) there is simply no record of any animal evolving. By slow and 'natural selection.' Period. Now I am sure there will be excuses (perhaps called reasons), but these made up reasons show only that scientists figure what they want. According to their precepts.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm looking forward to the answers to your posts. I don't know why because I'm sure I'll be disappointed.

Someone asked earlier something along the lines of do you hope to change anyone's mind.... I don't want to change anyone, I'd just like to see a sensible discussion and maybe learn a few things myself.

Some people just won't see lack of proof as absolute refutation of the theory of evolution because they think somewhere in between the fossils must be miniscule changes. But it's never been found. To really believe the process of evolution (from abiogenesis on) is truly blind faith. Because otherwise -- (then what?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are things in this world that we, in our rather short lifetimes now, can observe, but as long as humans are believed to have been around (by many scientists) there is simply no record of any animal evolving. By slow and 'natural selection.' Period. Now I am sure there will be excuses (perhaps called reasons), but these made up reasons show only that scientists figure what they want. According to their precepts.

What are you talking about? You simply do not know what evolution is. We can see life evolving all of the time.

What do you think that evolution is? Please give us your understanding of the topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some people just won't see lack of proof as absolute refutation of the theory of evolution because they think somewhere in between the fossils must be miniscule changes. But it's never been found. To really believe the process of evolution (from abiogenesis on) is truly blind faith. Because otherwise -- (then what?)

Once again you are simply wrong. What makes you think that this is so?

 

[John53]

I was reading through my response to you and see that I was responding with a more general and rather vigorous expansion on your points that was not directed at you, though I worry that it may have looked that way.

Sorry if it even looked that way.

No worries. I believe I understood your intent. I also understand your frustration.

 

[YoursTrue]

No worries. I believe I understood your intent. I also understand your frustration.

Wonder who it might have been directed to.

 

[John53]

Some people just won't see lack of proof as absolute refutation of the theory of evolution because they think somewhere in between the fossils must be miniscule changes. But it's never been found. To really believe the process of evolution (from abiogenesis on) is truly blind faith. Because otherwise -- (then what?)

It's not blind faith, their is evidence. Fossils as you stated then you can throw in DNA, genetics, vestigial structures.

As for minuscule changes that should be obvious if you have kids. Do your kids look exactly like you? Do you look exactly like your parents?

 

[John53]

Wonder who it might have been directed to.

I don't think it was you but I guess it could apply because I gave up any chance of a friendly sensible discussion with you long ago but I will see how you respond to my last post. Surprise me.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not blind faith, their is evidence. Fossils as you stated then you can throw in DNA, genetics, vestigial structures.

As for minuscule changes that should be obvious if you have kids. Do your kids look exactly like you? Do you look exactly like your parents?

You can say what you want according to the theory. It does not show and obviously doesn't prove evolution. What I can't quite understand is how a person who claims to know anything about genetics can say that evolution involves different skin colors or shapes of noses or lips on a human. That's so simple, it's sad to see someone deluded like that as if it means "natural selection" per the process of the theory of evolution. But that's my opinion, obviously not yours. Have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't think it was you but I guess it could apply because I gave up any chance of a friendly sensible discussion with you long ago but I will see how you respond to my last post. Surprise me.

Let's be honest. You think I'm making sense? (I doubt it.) But I know I am. And these discussions have helped me to see the other side of the issue or other sides. For instance, many people go to church, claim to believe in Jesus somehow along with the idea that he believed myths, etc., yet uphold the theory of evolution as if it's absolutely true. It is not. And then of course there are those who embrace the theory of evolution who do not go to church or profess any form of worship or adherence that might purport Christian faith.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not blind faith, their is evidence. Fossils as you stated then you can throw in DNA, genetics, vestigial structures.

As for minuscule changes that should be obvious if you have kids. Do your kids look exactly like you? Do you look exactly like your parents?

DNA does not prove evolution either. To say that someone doesn't look exactly like their parents is denying the beauty of genetics. NOT EVOLUTION. As i said, the more I think about it, the more unrealistic as well as untrue the theory of evolution becomes. It's kind of sad, but -- that's the way it is with many. And I thank you all for your opinions, your put-downs, excuses for what's not there. When I say all your put-downs, I am not specifying any one person, but it's there. It's been a very good trip. More, perhaps, later. It's just been amazing.

 

[John53]

You can say what you want according to the theory.

What does that even mean?

It does not show and obviously doesn't prove evolution.

However it is evidence for evolution as I said.

What I can't quite understand is how a person who claims to know anything about genetics can say that evolution involves different skin colors or shapes of noses or lips on a human. That's so simple, it's sad to see someone deluded like that as if it means "natural selection" per the process of the theory of evolution. But that's my opinion, obviously not yours. Have a good one.

You say there are no minuscule changes then name call when shown there is with a simple example. Which says it all.

 

[John53]

Let's be honest. You think I'm making sense? (I doubt it.) But I know I am. And these discussions have helped me to see the other side of the issue or other sides. For instance, many people go to church, claim to believe in Jesus somehow along with the idea that he believed myths, etc., yet uphold the theory of evolution as if it's absolutely true. It is not. And then of course there are those who embrace the theory of evolution who do not go to church or profess any form of worship or adherence that might purport Christian faith.

Gives me hope that even Christians can be honest which is a refreshing change from what I'm used to.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does that even mean?



However it is evidence for evolution as I said.



You say there are no minuscule changes then name call when shown there is with a simple example. Which says it all.

To see the miniscule changes moving from one form to a subsequent form (such as fish to landroving animals) would obviously require a long time of observation. There isn't any record of these tiny changes over the many, many years observed. Not with emerging changing ever so slightly forms or DNA. Naturally fish and the first land-roving animals didn't write so nothing could be written down as far as their observations, if they even cared or observed any changes. I am beginning to think that the whole idea as continuing is preposterous.

 

[YoursTrue]

What does that even mean?



However it is evidence for evolution as I said.



You say there are no minuscule changes then name call when shown there is with a simple example. Which says it all.

Name call? I hope not. I'm not bothering to read some comments from posters who do an under the line name-calling and other things, but that is overlooked. Yes, have a good one. I have concluded from my reading here and elsewhere that whereby there are chemicals, cells, DNA, animals, these do not demonstrate or evidence the process of evolution as defined by many. Furthermore, it makes me wonder why someone would say that combination of man and woman producing a child would mean evolution. Anyway, I'm stopping here right now. Although I can imagine what the reasoning could be. (Lots of time -- little changes -- maybe who knows -- ah, later maybe...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Name call? I hope not. I'm not bothering to read some comments from posters who do an under the line name-calling and other things, but that is overlooked. Yes, have a good one. I have concluded from my reading here and elsewhere that whereby there are chemicals, cells, DNA, animals, these do not demonstrate or evidence the process of evolution as defined by many. Furthermore, it makes me wonder why someone would say that combination of man and woman producing a child would mean evolution. Anyway, I'm stopping here right now. Although I can imagine what the reasoning could be. (Lots of time -- little changes -- maybe who knows -- ah, later maybe...)

No one has ever used name calling against you. You merely get angry when everyone else can see your errors. Corrections are not name calling.

 

[John53]

To see the miniscule changes moving from one form to a subsequent form (such as fish to landroving animals) would obviously require a long time of observation. There isn't any record of these tiny changes over the many, many years observed. Not with emerging changing ever so slightly forms or DNA. Naturally fish and the first land-roving animals didn't write so nothing could be written down as far as their observations, if they even cared or observed any changes. I am beginning to think that the whole idea as continuing is preposterous.

Google mudskippers. Here I'll save you the trouble Mudskipper - Wikipedia

 

[John53]

Name call? I hope not. I'm not bothering to read some comments from posters who do an under the line name-calling and other things, but that is overlooked.

So I should not bother with your posts when you insult me? I'll keep that in mind, it will make life easier.

 

[blü 2]

He saw life much as we see consciousness; as a black box problem that can be factored out of change in species.

He was wrong as we are.



Of course! There's a great deal of truth and science in Evolution.

It is still wrong.

So what in your view is the correct view? And is it evidence-based and rigorously demonstrable?