Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #9]

For a start, they study genetics too, even if they start with kinds in the Bible, they need to relate to the whole World eventually.

The keyword is description of where you want to go. If a description of a scientific kind can be created and seem more plausible than the theory of evolution with Darwin's Morphology in it, then Baraminology wins, simply!

It isn't true that Baraminology uses only the Bible as source for its descriptive efforts against Theory of Evolution. Therefore, Difflugia misrepresents Baraminology as competing fledgeling theory of science.

The other issue is demonstration that also Darwin's Theory struggles with. Of all the "stress" (torture?) they put on flies and other "fast evolving" organisms, they haven't been able to create a significant change in any one organism on earth.

2nd: Let's say it's possible to obtain a falsehood story of how people come across the fossils, that is, by abusing/torturing children to make them morph into fossils and then retrieving the fossil as "evidence" for Darwin's theory of evolution. This falsifies Darwin's Theory of Evolution in my view! And I think in many other people's views as well.

There can be tons of shame under the lieu of Theory of Evolution as well, yet some people "brag" about the knowledge of it as if they then pass as scientists themselves.

No, no, no!

[brunumb]

The keyword is description of where you want to go. If a description of a scientific kind can be created and seem more plausible than the theory of evolution with Darwin's Morphology in it, then Baraminology wins, simply!

Could you please elaborate on that as I can make no sense of it. What criteria are used in baraminology to classify living things?

Let's say it's possible to obtain a falsehood story of how people come across the fossils, that is, by abusing/torturing children to make them morph into fossils and then retrieving the fossil as "evidence" for Darwin's theory of evolution. This falsifies Darwin's Theory of Evolution in my view!

That makes even less sense to me than the previous statement. Could you please elaborate once again.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to brunumb in post #12]

The keyword is description of where you want to go. If a description of a scientific kind can be created and seem more plausible than the theory of evolution with Darwin's Morphology in it, then Baraminology wins, simply!

It isn't true that Baraminology uses only the Bible as source for its descriptive efforts against Theory of Evolution. Therefore, Difflugia misrepresents Baraminology as competing fledgeling theory of science.

The other issue is demonstration that also Darwin's Theory struggles with. Of all the "stress" (torture?) they put on flies and other "fast evolving" organisms, they haven't been able to create a significant change in any one organism on earth.

2nd: Let's say it's possible to obtain a falsehood story of how people come across the fossils, that is, by abusing/torturing children to make them morph into fossils and then retrieving the fossil as "evidence" for Darwin's theory of evolution. This falsifies Darwin's Theory of Evolution in my view! And I think in many other people's views as well.

My emphasis.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Aetixintro in post #13]

Basically all you've down is add dressing to your word salad.

[Difflugia]

For a start, they study genetics too, even if they start with kinds in the Bible, they need to relate to the whole World eventually.

What's the method? One can "study" something all day long, but it's not science without a method.

The keyword is description of where you want to go. If a description of a scientific kind can be created and seem more plausible than the theory of evolution with Darwin's Morphology in it, then Baraminology wins, simply!

There's more to science than just a description and in order for something to "seem more plausible" in a scientific sense, "plausible" needs to be quantifiable. The baraminologists have just made up definitions of things that boil down to "I know it when I see it," but there's no objective analysis.

Though this is often lost on creationist audiences, cladistic and molecular phylogenetic studies have already falsified baraminology. One of the prime tenets of baraminology (and creationism in general) is that there's no relationship between baramin. The wolf baramin should have no identifiable relationship with the bear baramin, raccoon baramin, or horse baramin. The fact that there are identifiable relationships between clades that are robust across multiple lines of very different kinds of data (cladistic data from living animals, cladistic fossil data, molecular phylogenies from both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA) in and of itself falsified baraminology before it even left the gate.

It isn't true that Baraminology uses only the Bible as source for its descriptive efforts against Theory of Evolution. Therefore, Difflugia misrepresents Baraminology as competing fledgeling theory of science.

Nobody said the Bible was the only source, so Aetixintro has misrepresented what Difflugia wrote.

There can be tons of shame under the lieu of Theory of Evolution as well, yet some people "brag" about the knowledge of it as if they then pass as scientists themselves.

On the other hand, far too many people "brag" about a lack of knowledge, as though being underinformed can somehow render their opinions more trustworthy.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #15]

What's the method? One can "study" something all day long, but it's not science without a method.

The method? Recording and drawing. What's the difference between Darwin setting sail for his voyage in the World in order to make the Theory of Evolution and an expedition to the jungles of Africa to describe the biological life there? There's no special scientific method other than to record your findings.

As such, Darwin appeals to our ability of association and coherency while expeditions to the jungles of Africa merely rely on our being in the World and at that point in time, new land discovered on spherical earth with new botany and zoology of Africa, the well-known continent by then.

[Miles]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #15]

What's the method? One can "study" something all day long, but it's not science without a method.

The method? Recording and drawing.

Which isn't worth the bytes it took to say it. Far better is the actual scientific method (This is just one among several flow charts---a simplified one---explaining the steps of the scientific method. If you need something more comprehensive or explanatory Google is waiting to help you out.)




.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to Miles in post #17]

Also known as the HDM, Hypothetico-Deductive Method. How is it relevant to Charles Darwin and his Theory of Evolution?

Scientific method, HDM: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothe ... tive_model.

[bluegreenearth]

The method? Recording and drawing. What's the difference between Darwin setting sail for his voyage in the World in order to make the Theory of Evolution and an expedition to the jungles of Africa to describe the biological life there? There's no special scientific method other than to record your findings.

The difference is that Darwin's idea was potentially falsifiable, and he set out to test if his idea was false by making novel testable predictions. By mitigating for confirmation bias in this way, Darwin's conclusion was more demonstrably reliable than any other conclusion that was proposed by people who failed to demonstrate where their own claim was potentially falsifiable yet survived every test designed to try and disprove it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Aetixintro in post #18]

How is it relevant to Charles Darwin and his Theory of Evolution?

See post #17 from Miles. Darwin didn't set out on the Beagle at 22 years old specifically to "make the Theory of Evolution" (post #16). He spent 5 years observing, collecting fossils, wondering about geology issues, etc. He returned to England with a large number of fossils, measurements and copius notes. It was in trying to answer questions in subsequent years that had popped into his head as a result of his observations and measurements that he eventually organized his thoughts on TOE and formulated his hypothesis concerning evolution by natural selection. He followed the scientific method, and his hypothesis was eventually shown to be valid and became a theory after sufficient evidence had been obtained to support it. It has been refined over the decades as any complex scientific theories usually are, but it has yet to be falsified and remains the best explanation for how life diversifies on this planet. It is a very good example of the scientific method at work.