Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Hi,

Evoutionist are constantly attempting to force other to explain that their theory is false.
That's not the way it works, evolution has to prove their premise, not the other way around. The fact is obvious, they cannot do it.

You started a thread attacking evolution using claims that you have been shown are false. How are you being forced to falsify evolution?

Scientists have shown that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory. You publicly declare that you disagree. It is up to you to support that disagreement.

 

[blü 2]

Hi,

Evoutionist are constantly attempting to force other to explain that their theory is false.
That's not the way it works, evolution has to prove their premise, not the other way around. The fact is obvious, they cannot do it.

Please tell me ─

1. How do the opponents of the modern Theory of Evolution account for the origin of species? (I've asked you that twice before. Are you afraid it will sound very silly if you say it out loud, or do you simply have no idea about the answer?)

2. What's an actual example from science of the ToE being wrong in a way that casts doubt on the basic premise of the ToE (that all species have evolved from a single original source)?

 

[Neuropteron]

You started a thread attacking evolution using claims that you have been shown are false. How are you being forced to falsify evolution?

Scientists have shown that the theory of evolution is a valid scientific theory. You publicly declare that you disagree. It is up to you to support that disagreement.

My premise is that scientist have not shown that evolution is a valid theory.
For years people believed that evolution is a scientific fact.
It is because of it being repeatedly questioned by a minority that it is least acknowledged to be only a "theory"now.

I don't support the notion that scientist are God's and that I have to believe them unquestionably.

I don't agree with your logic that I have to prove a claim that a person makes,regardless who he is, since It is not possible to prove that something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist, it is illogical.

If evolution existed it could be explained and proven in simple terms, but it cannot, because it doesn't exist.
We've been lied to.

 

[sayak83]

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple.
He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the illusion that life could appear spontaneously under the right conditions.
Based on this ignorance, he crafted an explanation for variation within a species, and formulated a theory explaining the process whereby life could arise from nonliving matter and mutate to the variety of living entities we see today.

It is postulated that this narrative has been overwhelmingly accepted in educated circles for more than a century even though the basic mechanisms of organic life remained a mystery until several decades ago- as a convenient alternative to belief in a creator.

After 1950 biochemistry has come to understand that living matters is more complex than Darwin could ever have dreamed of.

So, in view of this, what happened to Darwin allegedly elegant and simple idea ?
Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Lynn Margulis a distinguished University Professor of Biology puts it this way:
"History will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon biology"
She asks any molecular biologists to name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge to date is still unmet.
She says " proponents of the standard theory [of evolution] wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin..."

I am going to make a general point.

Can you read through a college level textbook on evolution (take it out from a library), go chapter by chapter and state the objections or difficulties you have to the statements and claims made in that textbook? Several of us can read together a single book if necessary (provided I and others can find it). I am tired of this whack-a-mole discussion and debate using internet pages. Internet pages are horrible places to get your science from (unless you are reading scientific papers). You have to read college level books at least, and then technical monographs when needed to understand what the science actually says. K12 and K10 level books are also not reliable as to the science (one usually have to forget and unlearn a lot of misconceptions from school level simplified ideas when one starts learning the real stuff in college).

 

[Valjean]

Hi,

Evoutionist are constantly attempting to force other to explain that their theory is false.
That's not the way it works, evolution has to prove their premise, not the other way around. The fact is obvious, they cannot do it.

Evolution has supported its premise. It's one of the most strongly and widely supported theories in all science. If you're unaware of this supporting evidence, that's on you.

You propose magic as an alternative to chemistry, physics, &c. Magic explains nothing, it's a cop-out.

Do you believe there was a time when no life existed on Earth? Do you believe life currently exists? Do you believe there have been countless different species than once existed, but are no more?

So.... by what mechanism did life arise? By what mechanism did al the countless, extinct species come to be? It sounds like new species are popping into existence all the time, but by what mechanism, and why? Why has nothing like this ever been observed?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My premise is that scientist have not shown that evolution is a valid theory.

And you think making up statements about what Darwin believed is a way to do that? Or by conflating the origin of life with the evolution of life?

That may have been your motive, but you aren't achieving it.

For years people believed that evolution is a scientific fact.

Evolution is a fact. Species are seen to change over time. The theory explains this observation.

It is because of it being repeatedly questioned by a minority that it is least acknowledged to be only a "theory"now.

It has been a theory since it was formulated. Being challenged by people that do not like it on a basis outside of science and evidence doesn't invalidate it.

I don't support the notion that scientist are God's and that I have to believe them unquestionably.

So what? Why even make such an irrelevant, off topic and erroneous statement. No one says that you have to believe them, but if you are going to deny them it is expected that you do so with factual statements and not things you admit you just made up. If you are going to make things up, then you should be rejected by more than a minority.

I don't agree with your logic that I have to prove a claim that a person makes,regardless who he is, since It is not possible to prove that something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist, it is illogical.

I didn't say you had prove the claims of another, so I am not surprised you would not agree that I did. You have to prove your claims. You claim that the theory is invalid. You need to show why or accept that you cannot and that it remains valid. So far, you have been thwarted at every turn.

You think the theory of evolution doesn't exist? That doesn't make any sense. What is it that you think doesn't exist and why are you against this non-existent thing?

If evolution existed it could be explained and proven in simple terms, but it cannot, because it doesn't exist.

Evolution is observed to occur. It is explained and I think as simply as it can be by the theory. How much more simple does it need to be than a change in the allele frequency of a population over time?

We've been lied to.

I think you have been lied to, but not by scientists. Or perhaps it is just that you are more willing to listen to and accept erroneous claims about science in order to maintain personal doctrinal stances.

 

[Heyo]

I often wonder how these apparently functional adults managed to get through high school biology without an iota of it sinking in.

You are assuming that they had high school biology.

 

[blü 2]

Can you read through a college level textbook on evolution (take it out from a library), go chapter by chapter and state the objections or difficulties you have to the statements and claims made in that textbook?

High school, to a fair extent. Tertiary, no.

I am tired of this whack-a-mole discussion

In this case there's nothing to object to. That's why I'm asking for a specific example "refutation" from @Neuropteron.

Modern creationism ─ the wave launched by Whitcomb and Morris with their book The Genesis Flood (1961) ─ has had more than sixty years to make a reasoned case against its hated foe the ToE, but hasn't managed to inflict even one tiny scientific scratch in that period. If our friend Neuropteron is actually arguing in favor of magic, let's have that on the table too.

and debate using internet pages.

Not guilty.

 

[sayak83]

High school, to a fair extent. Tertiary, no.
In this case there's nothing to object to. That's why I'm asking for a specific example "refutation" from @Neuropteron.

Modern creationism ─ the wave launched by Whitcomb and Morris with their book The Genesis Flood (1961) ─ has had more than sixty years to make a reasoned case against its hated foe the ToE, but hasn't managed to inflict even one tiny scientific scratch in that period. If our friend Neuropteron is actually arguing in favor of magic, let's have that on the table too.
Not guilty.

Sorry, it was meant for neuropteron only. Cellphone typing effect

 

[Heyo]

Hi,
This sadly does not support evolution, rather it shows the lenght evolutionist will go to support their narrative because of the following:
The recent claims that the London specimen of the Archaeopteryx is a hoax have been clarified and there would seem to be grounds for suspicion. The published work on the Berlin specimen shows that it has every indication of being a hoax of the same kind, that is, a modified genuine fossil of the Compsognathus. All four of the more recent "discoveries" are shown to be nothing more than reclassification of genuine fossils of the same small dinosaur..

And what about DNA and Tiktaalik?

Or better, what about you tell us about your epistemology. What would you accept as evidence?

But I think we won't convince you anyway and I think we have shown your ignorance about the matter and irrationality in discussing it that there is no chance your ideas will be taken serious by anyone reading this. So, our work is done.

The only thing you should consider for your sake (and the budget) is, that delusions like yours lead to misinterpretations of other things as well, like tax codes, as former inmate #06452-017 can tell you. With your attitude you are headed for prison.

 

[blü 2]

Sorry, it was meant for neuropteron only. Cellphone typing effect

C'est la vie!

 

[LIIA]

Although not a single sector of Darwinic evolution can offer uncontested proof that it is nothing more than a imaginative theory it is acclaimed by mainstream scientists as a science.

Absolutely correct, it is an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it.

It’s important to understand that the claimed evolutionary process is not linear. In other words, it’s not a purposeful gradual plan to give a species specific heritable advantageous traits over the course of many generations with an end goal for one species to evolve or transform to another species. Assuming the process is linear, then we should find a very large number of hypothetical extinct creatures in the evolutionary line from species A to species B, but the process is not linear. It’s not trying or wanting an end result. Variants may emerge randomly in every possible way whether advantageous or not without a specific purpose, but only more advantageous variants would be able to leave more offspring in the next generation than other variants and gradually becomes the dominant variant, all other variants would eventually go extinct, and over the generation, the process is repeated many times and eventually the accumulation of advantageous variants would lead to speciation. Mathematically, the number of hypothetical extinct creature in the evolutionary line of a single species as predicted by this process, has to be enormous beyond belief. The fossil record should keep millions of extinct links not only for the advantageous successful links but also for the non-advantageous ones that went instinct.

This prediction of the theory is not manifested in the fossil record. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Rather than the predicted millions of transformations, the fossil record shows sudden appearance of fully formed species as confirmed by paleontologists such as Robert Lynn Carroll and Stephen Jay Gould “In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of it’s ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.”

Darwin himself stated in his book the Origin of Species “But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

The sudden appearance is not an exception, but as stated by Stephen Jay Gould, it’s a fact in any local area. One major example of the sudden appearance of species is The Cambrian explosion, “The Biological Big Bang” approximately 541 million years ago with a sudden appearance of all major animal phyla in the fossil record.

The Cambrian explosion is known as ‘Darwin’s Dilemma’. He was aware of it and mentioned it in his book the Origin of Species. So far, preceding the Cambrian period, no fossils were found other than microscopic fossils of microbial life, but no intermediate varieties of the Cambrian explosion species were found.

The two fundamental principals of the ToE have been already collapsed long time ago, neither mutations are random, since Non-Random Directed Mutation was Confirmed, nor the fossil record proves the predictions of natural selection. Evidence of the real world are against the theory. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution should be an obsolete theory. It’s inadequate to today’s evidence that have been accumulated against it along the last 100 years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi,

Where and more importantly how did it get confirmed ?

When we started to sequence genomes and plot out genetic matches, the family tree of life was revealed.
And it pretty much matched the trees we already had from comparative anatomy and geographic distribution of species. It all fell into place. Comparative genomics confirmed evolutionary history once again - and this time in a way so solid that common ancestry of species became nothing short of a genetic fact.

Can you give just one example of peer review that confirmes Darwin's theory?

Well, let's back up a bit here.
"darwin's theory", as in what he formulated 200 years ago, isn't exactly what evolution theory is today. While Darwin's core ideas stand tall (descend with modification followed by natural selection leading to speciation), we've learned a lot since then including many other mechanisms and aspects of how it actually works like genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, etc.

Evolution theory is big and like in every big theory, there is no single paper that confirms the entire thing. Instead, studies tend to focus on aspects of it.

An experiment tests a specific prediction or a couple, not "all predictions".

So having said that, all papers support the core ideas, and thus confirm it, and no data contradicts it.

Have you and others that make claims that Darwinism is confirmed really made sure that its true ?

Yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi,

A basic "proven by test" science is the 3rd law of thermodynamics, that states that no element can come into existence without a cause and that everything with time degenerates not ameliorates.
This scientific law dissproves the theory of Darwin.

Your grasp of thermodynamics clearly isn't much to write home about.
But assuming you are trying to make the PRATT argument of creationism that entropy somehow is a problem for evolution:

Go out, look up. See that giant ball of nuclear infernus? That ball is called the sun and it feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7. It's how plants grow.

The earth is not a closed system.

Since there are six million evidences, I have difficulty in understanding that no one can give me just one example.

Tiktaalik.
Found by prediction.

Phylogenetic trees. Family trees revealed by plotting out genetic matches obtained through comparative genomics. These trees match with those revealed by plotting out matches in comparative anatomy (both extant and extinct species).

Btw: these 2 alone account for thousands upon thousands of papers.
Each with their own evidence confirming the predictions of the theory.

Simply saying "there is so much evidence" does not answer my question.

Ignoring the evidence, won't do you any good either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi,
You should know what I'm talking about,

although I'm just talking in lay-mens term, what I said is correct concerning the 2cd and 3rd law of thermodynamics.

I propose evolutionist should consider other things than just support for their unprovable theory.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time.

Again, the earth is not a closed system.

I propose you stop brainwashing yourself with creationist propaganda and start reading up on some science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi,
The fact is since the Archaeopteryx fossil is considered controversial it cannot be used as proof for evolution.

The only reason your creationist sources find it controversial, is because it is devastating to their beliefs.

 

[Valjean]

Absolutely correct, it is an imaginative theory that many choose to accept at face value regardless of evidence against it.

what evidence against it? If there were any empirical evidence against the theory, scientists would not be defending it. They'd be looking for alternative explanations.

It’s important to understand that the claimed evolutionary process is not linear. In other words, it’s not a purposeful gradual plan to give a species specific heritable advantageous traits over the course of many generations with an end goal for one species to evolve or transform to another species.

This is true. There is no goal, purpose or intent in evolution, but I don't understand what you mean by "linear," and how this figures into the process.

Assuming the process is linear, then we should find a very large number of hypothetical extinct creatures in the evolutionary line from species A to species B, but the process is not linear. It’s not trying or wanting an end result. Variants may emerge randomly in every possible way whether advantageous or not without a specific purpose, but only more advantageous variants would be able to leave more offspring in the next generation than other variants and gradually becomes the dominant variant, all other variants would eventually go extinct, and over the generation, the process is repeated many times and eventually the accumulation of advantageous variants would lead to speciation. Mathematically, the number of hypothetical extinct creature in the evolutionary line of a single species as predicted by this process, has to be enormous beyond belief. The fossil record should keep millions of extinct links not only for the advantageous successful links but also for the non-advantageous ones that went instinct.

Fossilization is rare, and dependent on factors that leave many fossils of some species, and few or none of others. As far as gradual evolution appearing in the record, it does, but speciation is usually a gradual process of small changes not readily apparent in the record. We don't have, wouldn't expect, and don't need a complete yearly sampling to see the changes.
There is no reason a foundational species should go extinct just because new variants emerged. As long as it remains reproductively successful within its niche, it should continue. Likewise, one new variant doesn't preclude other variants becoming successful.

I'm not understanding what you're arguing here. Do you believe organisms evolve, or do you believe they pop into existence out of thin air?

This prediction of the theory is not manifested in the fossil record. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Rather than the predicted millions of transformations, the fossil record shows sudden appearance of fully formed species as confirmed by paleontologists such as Robert Lynn Carroll and Stephen Jay Gould “In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of it’s ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.”

Where are you getting this false information? The fossil record shows what we'd expect it to show. If it didn't support evolution, why do scientists still believe in it?

Darwin himself stated in his book the Origin of Species “But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

Why quote Darwin? What did Darwin know about evolution? -- Almost nothing, compared to today's knowledge.
In Darwin's time there were very few known fossils, and the process of fossilization was not clearly understood. The fossil record shows what we would expect it to show; a spotty record of rare events, indicating gradual change over time.

The sudden appearance is not an exception, but as stated by Stephen Jay Gould, it’s a fact in any local area. One major example of the sudden appearance of species is The Cambrian explosion, “The Biological Big Bang” approximately 541 million years ago with a sudden appearance of all major animal phyla in the fossil record.

"Sudden" is a relative term. Is the 40 million year Cambrian explosion a sudden event, or should we reserve 'sudden' for the emergence of "Nylon eating" or antibiotic resistant bacteria?
Some species persist for tens of millions of years. Others emerge and disappear quickly. This is a known and understood phenomenon that doesn't disturb the ToE.

The Cambrian explosion is known as ‘Darwin’s Dilemma’. He was aware of it and mentioned it in his book the Origin of Species. So far, preceding the Cambrian period, no fossils were found other than microscopic fossils of microbial life, but no intermediate varieties of the Cambrian explosion species were found.

Again, what did Darwin know about evolution, fossilization or the Cambrian period? Why do you keep quoting him? Why not quote Pasteur, Queen Victoria, or Sitting Bull?
There is no 'dilemma'.

The two fundamental principals of the ToE have been already collapsed long time ago, neither mutations are random, since Non-Random Directed Mutation was Confirmed, nor the fossil record proves the predictions of natural selection. Evidence of the real world are against the theory. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution should be an obsolete theory. It’s inadequate to today’s evidence that have been accumulated against it along the last 100 years.

Non random mutation does not disprove evolution or any of its mechanisms. It's simply the latest observation in a complicated field.
If you read the actual Nature article and commentaries, you'll see that this differential mutation rate is perfectly understandable. Mutation is faster in non-essential sequences, and slower in the more essential ones. It's not surprising that essential sequences are more robust than non essential ones.

If you're going to sling science at evolution, please understand what you're slinging. Don't just read sensationalistic headlines.

The more evidence accumulates, the more strongly evolution is supported. Any statements to the contrary are creationist propaganda, and easily debunked when examined more closely.

Question: What alternative mechanism of change and diversity would you propose, and what evidence, save folklore and mythology, would support it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

what evidence against it? If there were any empirical evidence against the theory, scientists would not be defending it. They'd be looking for alternative explanations.

This is true. There is no goal, purpose or intent in evolution, but I don't understand what you mean by "linear," and how this figures into the process. Fossilization is rare, and dependent on factors that leave many fossils of some species, and few or none of others. As far as gradual evolution appearing in the record, it does, but speciation is usually a gradual process of small changes not readily apparent in the record. We don't have, wouldn't expect, and don't need a complete yearly sampling to see the changes.
There is no reason a foundational species should go extinct just because new variants emerged. As long as it remains reproductively successful within its niche, it should continue. Likewise, one new variant doesn't preclude other variants becoming successful.

I'm not understanding what you're arguing here. Do you believe organisms evolve, or do you believe they pop into existence out of thin air?

This prediction of the theory is not manifested in the fossil record. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Rather than the predicted millions of transformations, the fossil record shows sudden appearance of fully formed species as confirmed by paleontologists such as Robert Lynn Carroll and Stephen Jay Gould “In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of it’s ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.”

Darwin himself stated in his book the Origin of Species “But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”

The sudden appearance is not an exception, but as stated by Stephen Jay Gould, it’s a fact in any local area. One major example of the sudden appearance of species is The Cambrian explosion, “The Biological Big Bang” approximately 541 million years ago with a sudden appearance of all major animal phyla in the fossil record.

The Cambrian explosion is known as ‘Darwin’s Dilemma’. He was aware of it and mentioned it in his book the Origin of Species. So far, preceding the Cambrian period, no fossils were found other than microscopic fossils of microbial life, but no intermediate varieties of the Cambrian explosion species were found.

The two fundamental principals of the ToE have been already collapsed long time ago, neither mutations are random, since Non-Random Directed Mutation was Confirmed, nor the fossil record proves the predictions of natural selection. Evidence of the real world are against the theory. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution should be an obsolete theory. It’s inadequate to today’s evidence that have been accumulated against it along the last 100 years.

[/QUOTE]
Just to add onto your fossilization is rare comment. Larger animals are more readily fossilized because they are big. Small ones can be eaten by almost anything, including the bones. That is why, though there were probably far more small dinosaurs, we see mostly large dinosaurs preserved.
At any rate a group at Berkeley tried to estimate the number of T Rexes that existed over their 2.5 million year history and they came up with 2.5 bilkion:

How many T. rexes were there? Billions.

 

[Polymath257]

Hi,
The fact is since the Archaeopteryx fossil is considered controversial it cannot be used as proof for evolution.

There are *several* fossils of Archeopterix. The question was about *one* of them. And it was resolved and it is now not controversial at all: it is not a fake.

 

[Polymath257]

Hi,
You should know what I'm talking about,

although I'm just talking in lay-mens term, what I said is correct concerning the 2cd and 3rd law of thermodynamics.

I propose evolutionist should consider other things than just support for their unprovable theory.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time.

Jastrow went on to say, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream(God and the Astronomers, p. 116.) It seems the Cosmic Egg that was the birth of our universe logically requires a Cosmic Chicken...

Nope.

The first law of thermodynamics is the conservation of energy. It has since been modified to take into account that mass is a form of energy (which was not known when the first law was first stated).

The second law of thermodynamics is the law of entropy. But you stated it incorrectly. First, entropy can spontaneuouly decrease in some situations. Second, the second law is a statistical law, not an absolute one. Third, entropy and decay are not closely connected.

For example, another *correct* statement of the second law is that heat does not spontaneously flow from a cold region to a hot one. No need to mention deterioration at all.

The third laws is that the entropy of a crystal at absolute zero is zero.

Next, your understanding of the Big Bang is faulty. There was no 'cosmic egg'. Also, in the standard Big Bang theory, there was no time before the BB. Without time, there is no causality.