The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[YoursTrue]

There you go admitting that evolution is correct again.

Once in a while I see your posts and realize you are on the same ridiculous twisting rants you usually sign yourself in as.

 

[YoursTrue]

We've been through this many many times before, so your bringing it up after it has been repeatedly explained to you by many of us here makes 0 sense. At least the CC recognizes the reality of things changing even if you don't, and your position is the same as the fundamentalist church's position that I left decades ago because of it being anti-science and even anti-common sense.

I'm beginning to think based on your comments that the theory of evolution is about on the same level as the dogma of the eternal virginity of Mary. Among other things.

 

[anotherneil]

I'm beginning to think based on your comments that the theory of evolution is about on the same level as the dogma of the eternal virginity of Mary. Among other things.

The theory of evolution isn't dogma at all; it's science and one of the greatest and most plausible of theories in biology that I know of.

Religion has nothing on the theory of evolution by natural selection, and religious zealots can't stand it because they know it ruins their narrative & that's just too bad for them.

 

[YoursTrue]

The theory of evolution isn't dogma at all; it's science and one of the greatest and most plausible of theories in biology that I know of.

Religion has nothing on the theory of evolution by natural selection, and religious zealots can't stand it because they know it ruins their narrative & that's just too bad for them.

It's like true in the unassailable scientific sense. You believe the theory of evolution, don't you? If the Pope says evolution is true, one must come to terms that he also says the eternal virginity of Mary is true beyond question. Although the theory of evolution is not, I suppose many might think, is without question, yet the Pope believes it. So on a level of truth, it's as good as the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. If you don't accept that they are parallel doctrines, even if you don't believe the theory of evolution is a doctrine or dogma, that's ok, it's up to you. The End.

 

[YoursTrue]

The theory of evolution isn't dogma at all; it's science and one of the greatest and most plausible of theories in biology that I know of.

Religion has nothing on the theory of evolution by natural selection, and religious zealots can't stand it because they know it ruins their narrative & that's just too bad for them.

Well, the point someone made is that the theory is "OK" with the Pope. But then so is the eternal virginity of Mary, plus other things. So that the Pope puts his stamp of approval on the theory of evolution doesn't count for much in the way of logical thinking since he also asserts the perpetual virginity of Mary, among other things.

 

[Argentbear]

It's like true in the unassailable scientific sense. You believe the theory of evolution, don't you? If the Pope says evolution is true, one must come to terms that he also says the eternal virginity of Mary is true beyond question. Although the theory of evolution is not, I suppose many might think, is without question, yet the Pope believes it. So on a level of truth, it's as good as the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. If you don't accept that they are parallel doctrines, even if you don't believe the theory of evolution is a doctrine or dogma, that's ok, it's up to you. The End.

if it were unassailable then it would not have changed many time in the last couple centuries, New information and discoveries would have no effect on something unassailable.

 

[Argentbear]

Actually, that is not what you initially said, so I commend you for changing your remarks to an extent. At any rate, the theory of evolution is still undemonstrable, unprovable.

Just like gravity, the atom and germs

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once in a while I see your posts and realize you are on the same ridiculous twisting rants you usually sign yourself in as.

This is projection on your part. It is a pity that you are too afraid to learn the basics of science or evolution. Because you do not understand evolution you keep confirming that it is a fact in many of your posts. Blame yourself, do not blame others.

 

[YoursTrue]

The theory of evolution isn't dogma at all; it's science and one of the greatest and most plausible of theories in biology that I know of.

I do not deny your reasons to believe it as it stands. That does not mean that I go along with it. I used to go along with whatever I read by scientists. Until I began to realize so much of it was based on conjectural reasoning. There is so much left up to the scientific imagination. That is another reason I won't be on a jury. Because while evidence presented may seem to lead to a proclaimed conclusion, it does not mean the jury's decision is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not deny your reasons to believe it as it stands. That does not mean that I go along with it. I used to go along with whatever I read by scientists. Until I began to realize so much of it was based on conjectural reasoning. There is so much left up to the scientific imagination. That is another reason I won't be on a jury. Because while evidence presented may seem to lead to a proclaimed conclusion, it does not mean the jury's decision is correct.

There you go with your apparently false claim of "conjecture". You still do not seem to understand that when you make such an accusation that the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[Valjean]

The Theory of Evolution does not begin until the first replicators. Whereas, Creation tries to begin before Abiogenesis; from dust. This latter is much more challenging from a conceptual POV. The ancients did not take the easy road and take crap for trying.

The ancients took the simplistic road, though they had few, evidenced alternatives

In terms of the current science model, the math does not appear to add up, starting with the theory of the first replicators. Conceptually, that starting point, to work, would need a large stockpile of nearby raw materials, to make copies, or the first replicators would just run out of food, steam, and then decompose.

What raw materials do you think would have been needed? Why a huge stockpile? What sort of "food" does a self-replicating molecule need, that wasn't available for it, itself to be made? And again, why would it be in short supply?

There is faith involved in the first replicators immersed in easy to get nutrient soup. How much soup would you need to randomly progress the genetic material until, the cell is self sufficient and can provide for itself? Every time it divides the soup is eaten twice as fast. Where would the soup come from?

The first replicators almost certainly were not cells, and the nutrient chemicals may well have been abundant. Black smokers and hydrothermal vents vent for millennia. Montmorillonite and hydrogel clays are common enough, as are "warm little ponds" of mineral-rich water.

We don't know where life, or lifelike vesicles, or protocells first appeared. But appear they did, at some point. The most likely 'explanation' is a chemical one. The proposed alternative, magic poofing, is an unevidenced and fantastical claim; never witnessed and with no known mechanism.

The alternative is you will need an enzymatic source of monomers, first, which then needs an enzymatic source of sub materials, etc, etc., Essentially you need almost all the parts of a cell, with everything, but the replicator, so when the replicator appears the replicator can be supplied.

Natural, prebiotic chemistry provides abundant compounds that might form monomeric molecules, lipids, carbohydrates, amino acid and nucleic acids.

The needed food source; supplies, needed by the replicators, so they can do their thing, almost suggest the replicators were reversed engineered from the enzymes, so not only can the enzyme provide supplies to replicate, but also genes needed to expand the soup supply source for the daughter cells.

You're several chemical or biological steps ahead of the process. You describe later biochemical processes.

That aside, the biggest practical problem, of the current science model, is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Cells are very ordered and to start from simple molecules and form an ordered cell, the chemical entropy has to decrease from more complexity to order. This path appears to violate the 2nd law, especially if you use an organic centric approach. Textbooks still show isolated DNA, while isolated DNA packing with packing protein, goes against the 2nd law. Condensed chromosomes are less complex than stretch out DNA.

We need a way to reverse the 2nd law, based on a valid free energy balance that the organic centric approach lacks. This is done with water and surface tension. The water can pack the DNA, due to the surface tension; free energy gain, created by the oily packing protein in water. The DNA is the perfect place to bury these protein, and lower the global water's surface tension, with the net result being a lowering of the generic entropy against the 2nd law.

Condensed chromosomes are helpful when separating mother cell DNA into two, without getting all tangled. But to do this, we need to violate the 2nd and condense them. This is where water comes in, with all organics in water causing a water and oil effect; free energy gain, that can end up going against the 2nd law as a way to lower this free energy.

The current model of evolution, even with dice snd cards, cannot perpetually cause the structural entropy lowering needed for evolution, using only the organics. Why is that still called science? I just debunked it. That path is impossible and dice and card cannot hide it.

My water model is how real science is done, since the water and organics together offer a free energy source, than can reverse entropy; order from chaos and simplicity from molecular complexity. This is useful to life since the lowering of structural entropy also creates an entropic potential; enzymatic potential. The entire cell is poise for change toward higher complexity; duplication.

Here you've gone completely off the rails with your misrepresentation of the 2nd law and it's application. This is just wrong.

 

[anotherneil]

It's like true in the unassailable scientific sense.

I'm not sure what you mean, by this; unlike religion, science is falsifiable - thus making it totally assailable.

You believe the theory of evolution, don't you?

I "believe" the theory of evolution in the same sense or context that I "believe" Earth is a globe, 1+1=2, water is wet, etc.

If the Pope says evolution is true, one must come to terms that he also says the eternal virginity of Mary is true beyond question.

Not everyone subscribes to the Pope; generally, Roman Catholics subscribe to the Pope & anyone who is not a Roman Catholic does not subscribe to the Pope.

Although the theory of evolution is not, I suppose many might think, is without question, yet the Pope believes it.

Whether or not the Pope or any other religious leader or spokesperson believes it is irrelevant and inconsequential to science.

You seem to be incorporating a mixture of fallacies - appeal to authority, straw man, false cause, and others I may have missed - in order to create some sort of a complex faulty argument thing.

Whatever the deal is, based on your logic, 1+1=2 is perfectly fine, until one day the Pope comes along and says "I believe 1+1=2", then suddenly as if 1+1=2 is like a balloon, it popped because the Pope had to open his mouth and say that - meaning that from now on, everyone needs to reject or dismiss 1+1=2. If this makes things obvious, then I think you ought to be able to realize that this isn't how things work.

So on a level of truth, it's as good as the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. If you don't accept that they are parallel doctrines, even if you don't believe the theory of evolution is a doctrine or dogma, that's ok, it's up to you.

Science isn't a dogma or doctrine, at all, and if something is dogma or doctrine, then it's not science.

The End.

(Speaking of being unassailable - well, there you have it folks.)

If you wish to attempt to falsify anything from science, please, by all means, go for it! If you want to be effective in your presentation, though, you'll have to do so by taking the tests, experiments, findings, observations, discoveries, generalizations, arguments, etc. that have led to a theory and showing what, where, or how there is a problem with them leading to the theory (because there's a different possible explanation, or there's something that fails to repeat, or there's a logical error being overlooked, etc.), not by talking about the Pope saying this or the Bible saying that.

 

[anotherneil]

Well, the point someone made is that the theory is "OK" with the Pope. But then so is the eternal virginity of Mary, plus other things. So that the Pope puts his stamp of approval on the theory of evolution doesn't count for much in the way of logical thinking since he also asserts the perpetual virginity of Mary, among other things.

More fallacies that may be involved, here: false association, bandwagon, and faulty generalization (about why people are accepting or rejecting something, etc.).

 

[anotherneil]

I do not deny your reasons to believe it as it stands.

I suspect you may be making some assumptions about me that are not necessarily true, but let's explore this a little bit.

I myself have never been on any paleontological digs for fossils, so it might be one thing if you or any evolution naysayer were to make the assertion that all reports and documentation of fossils are a fabrication, or that some group with an agenda had the resources to manufacture fossils and go around the world burying them to deceive scientists, but as far as I know, that's not what's being claimed.

I'm accepting, without digging & directly observing and discovering fossils for myself, that such evidence which is foundational to the theory of evolution really was found and does exist.

It's not a matter of belief in the same sense as a belief in God, an afterlife, or in creationism (or "intelligent design", or whatever you want to call it); it's a matter of trust, reliability, and confidence.

When I'm driving towards a bridge, it's not me thinking "I believe there's a bridge there", it's me making a decision about whether I trust the soundness of the construction of the bridge, or am confident about the bridge design by the engineers, the quality of what the construction workers produced, the bridge inspectors' competence, and maintenance on the bridge to keep it in good condition; it's also about me deciding whether or not I think bridges are reliable.

From time to time people make mistakes, bridges fail, and people get harmed as a result. The point is that when it comes to the theory of evolution, my acceptance of it has to do with my willingness to trust, rely, and have confidence in those who literally dig and go into a trench, make observations and discoveries, and document & report on them.

If the point of contention is about that, then that's one thing, but I've driven over all kinds of bridges I don't know how many times, and they've always been reliable to me. I think the scientific community has been very reliable when it comes to their observations, discoveries, findings, documentation, and theories they've come up with based on them.

There is so much repetition of finding fossils, and the geological and paleontological studies by many teams of scientists in many places around the world, that it's hard to imagine that it's all a fabrication; at some point someone's bound to call them out if they're banding together to create a lie.

But this doesn't even matter anyways when it comes to the evolution vs. creationism debate anyways, because that's not the point of contention with creationists (at least not that I'm aware of). All I come across from creationists is them referencing their religious texts, or making poorly constructed arguments with flawed reasoning skills that appear to be scientific, but aren't; flat earthers are way better at this, without making references to religious texts for their claims, and despite this, even they reach a point where they fail at it as well.

That does not mean that I go along with it.

You don't have to go along with anything just because I or someone else does. Science, unlike religion, isn't about imposing a belief; this is something you can't seem to grasp. When I worked on my college degrees in scientific and engineering fields, I took many lab courses. In all of those lab courses, no one was preaching to me what to believe or accept; I was only assigned an experiment to conduct, whether it was in a chemistry lab, a physics lab, or engineering lab constructing an electronic circuit, and to report on my findings. I observed the results of these lab experiments on my own, and these results did not care what I believed or didn't believe.

If you're skeptical that there are fossils in sedimentary rock strata - and there's nothing wrong with being skeptical - then I suggest going on a paleontological digging expedition so you can see for yourself whether or not there's anything to find, someday.

If it's something else you're skeptical about - same difference.

One thing I'd personally like to do one day is something that shows me the results of the speed of light; this is something I've never done, but don't need to do, given that things work out when the speed of light plays a role in a system & that system works as expected.

I used to go along with whatever I read by scientists. Until I began to realize so much of it was based on conjectural reasoning. There is so much left up to the scientific imagination. That is another reason I won't be on a jury. Because while evidence presented may seem to lead to a proclaimed conclusion, it does not mean the jury's decision is correct.

Well, be that as it may, I'm a bit more inclined to go along with something supported by evidence (e.g. the fossil record) than a book of religious folklore and fairy tales (but hey - maybe that's just me, IDK).

 

[YoursTrue]

Here you've gone completely off the rails with your misrepresentation of the 2nd law and it's application. This is just wrong.

Why is it "just wrong"?

 

[YoursTrue]

I suspect you may be making some assumptions about me that are not necessarily true and fairy tales (but hey - maybe that's just me, IDK).

It's certainly a choice...let me put it this way...if a person says he believes in evolution (the theory of) and also the perpetual virginity of Mary, that's his choice to say he believes that, wouldn't you think so?

 

[Pogo]

Why is it "just wrong"?

The beginning of the problem is that the segment of thermodynamics that he is invoking is only applicable to what is called a closed system where energy neither enters or leaves. However the applicable system for the earth includes the sun which provides energy into the system. Simply if there was no sun then his complaints might have value, but there is a sun.
It doesn't get any better from there and so just wrong is appropriate.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm beginning to think based on your comments that the theory of evolution is about on the same level as the dogma of the eternal virginity of Mary. Among other things.

Your trying to think to hard, and you do not comprehend the definition of dogma.

dogma

1. a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are…

dictionary.cambridge.org

a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts

The sciences of evolution are not expected to be accepted without objective evidence and subject to skepticism and change with new research and information.

The belief in " the eternal virginity of Mary." is a belief people are expected to accept without evidence and not subject to change with new information.

 

[anotherneil]

It's certainly a choice...let me put it this way...if a person says he believes in evolution (the theory of) and also the perpetual virginity of Mary, that's his choice to say he believes that, wouldn't you think so?

Yes, but that's not my choice. I'm for freedom of religion & if someone wants to have a belief about the perpetual virginity of Mary, then that's their business or whatever. Having a "belief in" evolution is like having a "belief in" 1+1=2; if someone wants to do that, then I suppose I have to be consistent if that's something they're doing as a religion and be for freedom of religion - it's their business or whatever to have a "belief in" those things. For me, it's not a "belief in" evolution or 1+1=2; it's a matter of science.

Do you actually know of anyone who has a belief in evolution, as though it's some sort of religious thing, rather than a matter of science?

If not, then this discussion is moot anyways, and may even be a strawman argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

The beginning of the problem is that the segment of thermodynamics that he is invoking is only applicable to what is called a closed system where energy neither enters or leaves. However the applicable system for the earth includes the sun which provides energy into the system. Simply if there was no sun then his complaints might have value, but there is a sun.
It doesn't get any better from there and so just wrong is appropriate.

Why is that? If you can't explain, that's ok, I understand. But since you said it, you might want to consider explaining your viewpoint in detail as to how and what scientists found out. Thanks. And have a good evening.