Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I admire your patience and willingness to help here. The points you make seem very reasonable. I confess I have not tried to read the poster's "paper", as from his previous form I decided it would not be worth it. He does not understand science at all, in my opinion - but, sadly, does not realise this, due to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

But you are right that he would need to produce observational evidence that contradicted the theory and also, in view of the theory's success, would need an alternative that explained the observations as well as evolution does. This would need to cover not only the observations from palaeontology but also the genetic relationships revealed by DNA analysis, and the real-time observations of evolution that we see with viruses, bacteria, cancer cells and so forth. Quite a tall order.

I provided the evidences, but you are denying real science. You did not even read real science articles.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Why is it that some people who consider themselves to be intelligent can't seemingly understand that the ToE is not only supported by massive amounts of evidence but also that it stands to basic common sense that as material things appear to change over time and life forms are material things?

WHAT? Can a stupid worker make a good item? No, thus, dead. Evolution too. I hope you get it.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

So I read what you have written (Assume you wrote it?)

First of all, im not a biologist or expert in evolution by any means, but will at least give you my opinion and then you can ignore it, if you want.

You start by telling how you have send this to several scientific journals which have all rejected it and you suspect that it might be due to your religious beliefs? After which you slander them asking for "real" scientists to peer review what you wrote. I don't think that is a great way to start to be honest.en think it got rejected due to the topic of ID, but because it contains nothing tangible, nothing new is being presented, no experiments besides the egg one, which I don't understand what is suppose to demonstrate anyway and how that could lead to an intelligent agent?

My personal advice, again as a normal person, would be to design your paper around your own theory with supporting experiments and present it as such and don't focus on ranting against TOE. If your theory is correct, TOE will ultimately fail as the best explanation, but it will never fail from people just ranting at it.

WHY ARE you looking for a designer? Are you trying to support your religion?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I admire your patience and willingness to help here. The points you make seem very reasonable. I confess I have not tried to read the poster's "paper", as from his previous form I decided it would not be worth it. He does not understand science at all, in my opinion - but, sadly, does not realise this, due to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

But you are right that he would need to produce observational evidence that contradicted the theory and also, in view of the theory's success, would need an alternative that explained the observations as well as evolution does. This would need to cover not only the observations from palaeontology but also the genetic relationships revealed by DNA analysis, and the real-time observations of evolution that we see with viruses, bacteria, cancer cells and so forth. Quite a tall order.

Have you ever tried demolishing a house? Or uprooting a tree? How you do it? You are doing them by uprooting or destroying the root or foundation. I hope you get it.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Ok, I read this paper. Here are my comments.

1.

7. There are many more issues with this paper but as I stated in point 1. No where is there any refutation of the actual good evidence that supports evolution, it just states there is not any. I would recommend to look at the ways to falsify the ToE and work on that. Such as:

Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Falsifiability of evolution - RationalWiki

OK, it is very simple.

Here is the prediction that you never know since nobody told you. It will be your first time to see and learn, you need to thank me for this.

Evolution is change of frequency alleles that will lead to new generation.

So, if there is no change, then, there is no allele or new generation, right? A prediction, major prediction.

Now, since the change is intelligence, then, there is no change that could make new generation I explained that in my OP (as linked), thus, no Evolution. Thus, there are NO

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

-------------------------------
You don't have to cut all branches of the tree (Evolution) if you want that tree to be uprooted. All you have to do is uproot the main root... simple. Thus, you can see that I am a clever and a genius, and correct...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

This will never be considered a science paper unless you gather philosophers of science and change science from the foundation. So obviously this will not enter a review panel.

Also, maybe you should make it a philosophy paper, not call it a science paper.

Why should I follow your criteria? Who are you? Are you a discoverer like me? If not, what are you saying?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I understand. And its true I have never seen any of his videos. I dont want to anyway.

What I meant to say is that this guy is talking about intelligent design when he says intelligence in this post. Not human intelligence.

Cheers.

WHAT?? I think that before you post or comment, study your opponents first. You are insulting scientist like me. I hope that you do not do it again, for you will be banned.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never understood why South Park is funny.

I thought the same back in the day.

Then, at college, my friends wanted to go see the movie.
I was aware of south park but never really "watched"-watched it. I zapped through it sometimes, watched a minute or two, didn't get it and moved on.

Then we went to see the movie, mega-high on pot.

I nearly pissed my pants. In fact, I did pis my pants a little bit
I literally had stomach ache from laughing.
That opening song with Terrance and Philip.... my god.

I don't remember ever having laughed as hard as in that theater.
I'm guessing the pot had a hand in it though.

But dude seriously....... I even missed plenty parts of the movie, simply because I was laughing that hard.
It totally blew my mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay okay. I think you have a different understanding of intelligence to what the OP is using it as.

I think that goes for most words the OP is using.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thus, you can see that I am a clever and a genius, and correct...

You might want to engage in the christian virtue of "humility".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

WHAT?? I think that before you post or comment, study your opponents first. You are insulting scientist like me. I hope that you do not do it again, for you will be banned.

Be serious. You are not a scientist.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Are you sure? What do you mean by intelligence in your post?

That everything in nature has life, it is a living breathing organism

 

[firedragon]

Why should I follow your criteria? Who are you? Are you a discoverer like me? If not, what are you saying?

No no. You are a superior God. You are God yourself so I have no chance in being "like you".

 

[firedragon]

WHAT?? I think that before you post or comment, study your opponents first. You are insulting scientist like me. I hope that you do not do it again, for you will be banned.

Do please complain to the admins and get "me" banned.

So are you saying that you didnt mean Intelligent design but only human intelligence? So when you speak of Intelligent Design, do you mean human intelligence like Logic?

Please explain.

 

[Nimos]

WHY ARE you looking for a designer? Are you trying to support your religion?

What? Why would I look for a designer?

As far as I see it, evolution is not a process guided by intelligence. You claim that evolution require intelligence, so only find it natural to ask who or what you think is behind this intelligence and how you demonstrate it.

Have you ever tried demolishing a house? Or uprooting a tree? How you do it? You are doing them by uprooting or destroying the root or foundation. I hope you get it.

But this is what you are misunderstanding, you don't have to demolish anything, you simply built something better by demonstrating that you can.

It doesn't seem like you really care or understand this idea.

Now, since the change is intelligence, then, there is no change that could make new generation I explained that in my OP (as linked), thus, no Evolution. Thus, there are NO

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

-------------------------------
You don't have to cut all branches of the tree (Evolution) if you want that tree to be uprooted. All you have to do is uproot the main root... simple. Thus, you can see that I am a clever and a genius, and correct...

But you haven't done this.
I assume that it is macro evolution you have an issue with right?

You still have to come up with a better explanation for what we are observing than what TOE is currently providing.

 

[exchemist]

WHAT?? I think that before you post or comment, study your opponents first. You are insulting scientist like me. I hope that you do not do it again, for you will be banned.

One thing you are most certainly not is any kind of scientist.

 

[exchemist]

I provided the evidences, but you are denying real science. You did not even read real science articles.

But that's just the point: I do read real science articles. What I don't read is bonkers and badly expressed crankery.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

OK, it is very simple.

Here is the prediction that you never know since nobody told you. It will be your first time to see and learn, you need to thank me for this.

Evolution is change of frequency alleles that will lead to new generation.

So, if there is no change, then, there is no allele or new generation, right? A prediction, major prediction.

Now, since the change is intelligence, then, there is no change that could make new generation I explained that in my OP (as linked), thus, no Evolution.

It sounds as if you are simply relabeling gene mutation from "alleles" to "intelligence"? This doesn't actually change anything about the Theory of Evolution. It would be like taking all Pepsi bottles and changing the labels to "Coke" instead and saying Pepsi doesn't exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought the same back in the day.

Then, at college, my friends wanted to go see the movie.
I was aware of south park but never really "watched"-watched it. I zapped through it sometimes, watched a minute or two, didn't get it and moved on.

Then we went to see the movie, mega-high on pot.

I nearly pissed my pants. In fact, I did pis my pants a little bit
I literally had stomach ache from laughing.
That opening song with Terrance and Philip.... my god.

I don't remember ever having laughed as hard as in that theater.
I'm guessing the pot had a hand in it though.

But dude seriously....... I even missed plenty parts of the movie, simply because I was laughing that hard.
It totally blew my mind.

Maybe my problem is excessive sobriety?
(Don't tell @Wu Wei. I have an image to maintain.)

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

OK, it is very simple.

Here is the prediction that you never know since nobody told you. It will be your first time to see and learn, you need to thank me for this.

Evolution is change of frequency alleles that will lead to new generation.

So, if there is no change, then, there is no allele or new generation, right? A prediction, major prediction.

Now, since the change is intelligence, then, there is no change that could make new generation I explained that in my OP (as linked), thus, no Evolution. Thus, there are NO

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

-------------------------------
You don't have to cut all branches of the tree (Evolution) if you want that tree to be uprooted. All you have to do is uproot the main root... simple. Thus, you can see that I am a clever and a genius, and correct...

What you have done is ignored my points 2-6 which state reasons that some of your conclusions are incorrect and then you just assert your conclusions are correct so I am wrong. Can you address my points 2-6 so we can start discussing your actual "proof" for your conclusions?

Seems like all you have done is say since birds fly then gravity cannot be true.

If you want people to understand your ideas you need to have an honest back and forth discussion with them and address their objections.