Some questions about evolution.

[tumbleweed41]

Show us these challenges to TOE of which you speak. You say they occur daily. How is it tested with discovery of a new fossil? And would that be akin to religion being tested with addition of a new scripture (or newly found ancient scripture)? Are there other ways to challenge TOE than with fossils? If yes, where are links to those ways?

How can it said on one hand, "nothing is set in stone" an on other hand, "TOE is fact, with insurmountable evidence supporting it?"

Biological Evolution is an observable fact.
The Theory of Evolution is merely an explanation backed by testable and predictive evidence.
New evidence often forces a rethinking of certain aspects of the Theory of Evolution.
However, the fact remains that changes in allele frequency result in Biological Evolution.

 

[Acim]

Biological Evolution is an observable fact.

Thus, it can't really be challenged. Not really.
Unless 'observation' and 'fact' are challengeable. Otherwise, this assertion is saying, there is nothing that can challenge this. If you feel differently, I feel very open to hearing what a reasonable challenge looks like, and how much it is actually challenging the idea.

The Theory of Evolution is merely and explanation backed by testable and predictive evidence.

Would seem to me that if 'fact' is there for support, that there is nothing that could undo the theory, even if we really wanted it undone, or even if nature wanted it undone. With 'fact' as supporting idea, theory is locked. If you feel differently, I feel very open to hearing what a reasonable challenge looks like, and how much it is actually challenging the idea.

New evidence often forces a rethinking of certain aspects of the Theory of Evolution.

It seems like a rather small aspect from those outside, less familiar with theory. I realize (and believe me, I do realize) that from within framework, some new evidence is seen as 'huge' in how it might force a rethinking. But is really just asking for tweaking on aspect (subpoint) that was intentionally left vague until further evidence was found to corroborate supposition / hypothesis.

However, the fact remains that changes in allele frequency result in Biological Evolution.

Thus, it is set in stone. When change ceases to exist (in allele frequency) we can start disputing the fact on the grounds we've deemed as reasonable challenge. Until then, it is set in stone, and nothing can (ahem) change that.

 

[outhouse]

Thus, it can't really be challenged. Not really.

either can gravity

If you feel differently

lay down under a apple tree, check that gravity out first hand.

that there is nothing that could undo the theory,

same as gravity, the apple falls

things do and have evolved, PERIOD





Your whole post all you have accomplished is proving you lack education on the subject

That and the ability to not want to learn said material.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Biological Evolution is an observable fact.
The Theory of Evolution is merely and explanation backed by testable and predictive evidence.
New evidence often forces a rethinking of certain aspects of the Theory of Evolution.
However, the fact remains that changes in allele frequency result in Biological Evolution.

Thus, it can't really be challenged. Not really.
Unless 'observation' and 'fact' are challengeable. Otherwise, this assertion is saying, there is nothing that can challenge this. If you feel differently, I feel very open to hearing what a reasonable challenge looks like, and how much it is actually challenging the idea.



Would seem to me that if 'fact' is there for support, that there is nothing that could undo the theory, even if we really wanted it undone, or even if nature wanted it undone. With 'fact' as supporting idea, theory is locked. If you feel differently, I feel very open to hearing what a reasonable challenge looks like, and how much it is actually challenging the idea.



It seems like a rather small aspect from those outside, less familiar with theory. I realize (and believe me, I do realize) that from within framework, some new evidence is seen as 'huge' in how it might force a rethinking. But is really just asking for tweaking on aspect (subpoint) that was intentionally left vague until further evidence was found to corroborate supposition / hypothesis.



Thus, it is set in stone. When change ceases to exist (in allele frequency) we can start disputing the fact on the grounds we've deemed as reasonable challenge. Until then, it is set in stone, and nothing can (ahem) change that.

And...

Gravity is an observable fact.
The Theory of Gravity is merely an explanation backed by testable and predictive evidence.
New evidence often forces a rethinking of certain aspects of the Theory of Gravity.
However, the fact remains that physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass.

 

[idav]

And...

Gravity is an observable fact.
The Theory of Gravity is merely an explanation backed by testable and predictive evidence.
New evidence often forces a rethinking of certain aspects of the Theory of Gravity.
However, the fact remains that physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass.

I'd like to add that anyone who thinks they can fly are quickly proven wrong. Imagination can be an issue when trying to go up against reality.

 

[McBell]

Your whole post all you have accomplished is proving you lack education on the subject

That and the ability to not want to learn said material.

Or they are simply not interested in anything other than how they can "poke holes" in it.

As if winning some random semantics game on the internet is somehow going to change the fact that evolution is an observable fact.

 

[outhouse]

Or they are simply not interested in anything other than how they can "poke holes" in it.

As if winning some random semantics game on the internet is somehow going to change the fact that evolution is an observable fact.

They cannot poke holes in it either, they try and its laughable to see them go through the motions only to get slapped down by knowledge .

 

[McBell]

They cannot poke holes in it either, they try and its laughable to see them go through the motions only to get slapped down by knowledge .

The basis for the thread is nothing more than a silly attempt at poking holes in members knowledge of evolution and then claiming that that is exactly like people who believe in god.

 

[Matthew78]

When creationism comes up with a theory thats testable, observable and makes predictions, not assertions, then you might have a decent challenge.

I think creationism has come up with testable statements. According to creationism, there should exist no transitional fossils of any kind. That's not true. We have, for instance, mammal-like reptiles. Fossils documenting evolutionary change have been discovered. Creationism has, therefore, been tested and found to be false. It's not that creationism is not science; it's bad science. If evolution has happened, we can arrange living organisms in a nested hierarchy. If creationism were true, then living organisms should be arranged some other way than a nested hierarchy. That's what we obeserve in nature; creationism has been falsified.

I would go further than just call creationism bad science. I would go so far as to call it for what it really is: antiscience. It's nothing but Christian apologetics. Creationists, particularly, the YECs, start with the inerrancy of the Genesis creation stories, conduct a scavenger hunt for facts to support the biblical creation stories, and rule out the possibility of contrary evidence. Any facts, observations, or research that establishes contrary inferences or conclusions are ruled out as being sloppy research, stupidity, or dishonesty on the part of scientists who are misotheists and hate Jesus Christ and resent his gospel. The conclusion is the starting point and facts are sought to confirm the conclusion that creationists want and then creationism is declared confirmed.

 

[Acim]

I'd like to add that anyone who thinks they can fly are quickly proven wrong. Imagination can be an issue when trying to go up against reality.

Shhh, don't tell this to anyone on dem aeroplanes.

 

[Acim]

Or they are simply not interested in anything other than how they can "poke holes" in it.

As if winning some random semantics game on the internet is somehow going to change the fact that evolution is an observable fact.

All this, as I had responded to assertion such as the following:

In science, nothing is set in stone, nothing is taken for granted. Results, data, conclusions are routinely challenged and rightly so.

Which is hogwash given latest round of responses that have nothing more to say than the redundant claim of 'tis observable fact it tis and dats all you need ta know. Now go lie under apple tree and let apple hit u in face, so we can laugh at u."

 

[johnhanks]

Show us these challenges to TOE of which you speak. You say they occur daily.

Though you don't say so, I'm assuming this is in response to my #357. When I say ToE is challenged every time a biologist makes a new observation, I mean just that. When protein structures and DNA sequences were first analysed, it was perfectly feasible that they would bear no relation at all to evolutionary relationships as already understood: had that been the case, ToE would have been seriously challenged.

How is it tested with discovery of a new fossil?

If ToE is correct, fossils should occur in the 'right' strata and in the company only of their contemporaries. If creationists are correct, there is no such necessity: mammals and trilobites could and should be found intermingled. As I've already said, it would just take one precambrian rabbit...

 

[rusra02]

Interesting, rusra. There have been numerous people in various threads here saying exactly the same thing. In science, nothing is set in stone, nothing is taken for granted. Results, data, conclusions are routinely challenged and rightly so.

Where do you get the notion that science doesn't operate in this way?

Science is supposed to operate that way. But when it comes to the ToE, it doesn't, as numerous scientists and others have complained. Again, I refer interested persons to Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" for specific examples. The ridicule and contempt heaped upon anyone in this forum who dares challenge the so-called "fact" of evolution betrays the unscientific bias of some of it's adherents.

 

[rusra02]

The theory of evolution is challenged every time a biologist makes a new observation. Certainly, as I've tried to suggest in my last few posts above (admittedly with tongue partially in cheek), it's tested every time someone unearths a new fossil. (If the creationists are right, that whale with trilobites in its stomach has to be out there somewhere!)

What ToE is not challenged by is creationism/ID, on the very simple grounds that these latter have nothing to do with science; you might as well claim that ToE is challenged by the Epic of Gilgamesh. And before you start banging on about why in that case isn't ID allowed to be taught, I'll reiterate that it's excluded only from school science; your local preacher is allowed to indoctrinate kids with it to his heart's content, if their parents wish it.

Science should be a search for evidence. Saying that intelligent design is not scientific is a cop-out, and comparing it to some myth, a specious argument.
Houses and mouse traps don't build themselves. Are you saying that belief in an intelligent designer of a house is unscientific?

 

[rusra02]

When creationism comes up with a theory thats testable, observable and makes predictions, not assertions, then you might have a decent challenge.

Do you really believe that whether a single human cell gives evidence of design is not testable or observable? But, I forget, "We cannot let a divine foot in the door". (Evolutionist Richard C.Lewontin, speaking of ToE advocates among scientists.)

​

​

 

[Valjean]

We've made it clear why ID isn't science.

The mechanisms that produced the complex forms of Nature have been described by science. Great complexity can arise from simple mechanisms.
Houses and watches are not in the same class as organisms.

Science describes the natural mechanisms by which change occurs. ID posits magic as a more reasonable "mechanism," though it's based on no observed or experimental data, it's untestable and, indeed, unfalsifiable.

 

[Noaidi]

The ridicule and contempt heaped upon anyone in this forum who dares challenge the so-called "fact" of evolution betrays the unscientific bias of some of it's adherents.

The reason for the ridicule and contempt is because of the ignorance many display when trying to refute evolution. People are using theology to argue against science. Many don't even grasp what evolution entails.
Some here bang on about a creator / designer as if that were a testable fact, not an assumption, yet they use that assumption as the basis of their argument against science. Can you see why some may not be taken very seriously here?

 

[rusra02]

I think creationism has come up with testable statements. According to creationism, there should exist no transitional fossils of any kind. That's not true. We have, for instance, mammal-like reptiles. Fossils documenting evolutionary change have been discovered. Creationism has, therefore, been tested and found to be false. It's not that creationism is not science; it's bad science. If evolution has happened, we can arrange living organisms in a nested hierarchy. If creationism were true, then living organisms should be arranged some other way than a nested hierarchy. That's what we obeserve in nature; creationism has been falsified.

I would go further than just call creationism bad science. I would go so far as to call it for what it really is: antiscience. It's nothing but Christian apologetics. Creationists, particularly, the YECs, start with the inerrancy of the Genesis creation stories, conduct a scavenger hunt for facts to support the biblical creation stories, and rule out the possibility of contrary evidence. Any facts, observations, or research that establishes contrary inferences or conclusions are ruled out as being sloppy research, stupidity, or dishonesty on the part of scientists who are misotheists and hate Jesus Christ and resent his gospel. The conclusion is the starting point and facts are sought to confirm the conclusion that creationists want and then creationism is declared confirmed.

Evolutionist Francis Hitching writes: “When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there.” (The Neck of the Giraffe p19).
Evolutionist Niles Eldredge states that the fossil record shows, not a gradual accumulation of change, but for long periods "little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species." This in a book entitled "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism"
Carl Sagan admitted "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer" (Cosmos p.29)
While ToE advocates point to the fossil evidence as proof of evolution, the facts show the opposite.

 

[rusra02]

Or they are simply not interested in anything other than how they can "poke holes" in it.

As if winning some random semantics game on the internet is somehow going to change the fact that evolution is an observable fact.

Repeating that a lie is the truth over and over will not make it true. Claiming evolution is an observable fact over and over will not make it so.

 

[rusra02]

We've made it clear why ID isn't science.

The mechanisms that produced the complex forms of Nature have been described by science. Great complexity can arise from simple mechanisms.
Houses and watches are not in the same class as organisms.

Science describes the natural mechanisms by which change occurs. ID posits magic as a more reasonable "mechanism," though it's based on no observed or experimental data, it's untestable and, indeed, unfalsifiable.

The mechanisms described by 'science' have not been proven to exist. Saying great complexity can arise from simple mechanisms doesn't make it so. ToE advocates make claims that have been challenged by scientists who disagree with their claims, and present evidence for their views. Calling intelligent design "magic" is a way to ridicule and misrepresent what ID is. And claiming complex objects that are nonliving cannot arise by chance, but infinitely more complex living things can, is special pleading and without basis.