Evolution is Bunked!

[acehighinfinity]

No real scientific evidence or whatsoever.

Maybe that's why your thoughts come from an ape-type?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 5:

I have a hard time believing there is ZERO evidence; I have zero difficulty believing the evidence is far less substantial than boisterous proponents like Dawkins would like to lead us to believe. But zero evidence...?

Indicative of one who can accept the beliefs of others are genuine and not contrived.

As well, I concede to the theist they have their evidence, I just disagree on their conclusions.

However, the more I look into it, the less I understand it to be a science, placed beside physics.

Ultimately, we're all bound to our confidence in our data and our conclusions. As a life-long amateur student of the ToE, I find it quite elegant in it's ability to predict and explain.

I expect the theist is able to make predictions based on their beliefs, but again, would question their conclusions.

The sciences proceed by experiment; no one has replicated evolution in a laboratory.

Sure they have, only not to the level that'd convince so many others.

Beyond that, we see evolution occurring when we create new "superbugs" by our use / misuse of antibiotics and weed killers and such. This is true even if no new species are created. The idea is that given time, and two non-mating populations, we can predict with some certainty that there may (often, sometimes) be new species formed.

Evolution exists primarily as a theory attempting to explain not even phenomenon, but artifacts.

Where those "artifacts" are new species. Look up "ring species" for excellent examples of speciation.

In fact, evolution seems more a like a soft-science, very comparable to history. Historians look at data, and try to reconstruct a history based on that data.

Close enough I'd only argue against you 'cause this subforum is dedicated to science. But yeah, a lot of the ToE relies on looking at the historical / geological / fossil record. This doesn't count though the more modern forms of research, like DNA analysis and such.

What distinguishes them from evolutionists?

Historians ain't got a clue what's a DNA?


I find your position here plenty reasonable, if a bit misinformed. I fully accept the responsibility "us evolutionists" have when we declare evolution is a fact.

I propose that evolution has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur until something steps in to stop it.

The ToE then is based on reasonable conclusions borne of mountains of data / evidence.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 9 by Kenisaw]

liamconnor wrote:

[Replying to post 1 by acehighinfinity]

I have a hard time believing there is ZERO evidence; I have zero difficulty believing the evidence is far less substantial than boisterous proponents like Dawkins would like to lead us to believe. But zero evidence...?

There's no other way to take that comment than to realize you think there is some kind of conspiracy afoot. As someone who is just now getting around to taking a look at evolution, your beliefs on the matter aren't very informed or accurate, so your comments on its validity are dubious. Boisterous or not, Dawkins isn't telling you anything that you can't go and verify yourself. Universities and colleges, museums and libraries, did sites and creek beds. The information is out there for someone who's goal is to learn. I don't see that as being your goal however...

Wouldn't it be a little strange for a person who believed in some conspiracy theory to admit that there was even "some" evidence, as my reply obviously did?

I have not read Dawkin's scientific work, only his popular stuff. But as a reader of biblical and historical literature, both popular and scholarly, I know that scholars will sometimes publish to the public statements with a degree of conviction they would never dream of submitting to a scholarly journal. I would not be surprised if Dawkins is far more modest and cautious among his colleagues.

But the real Fact of the matter is, you don't know me, apparently don't like reading posts with the purpose of understanding them, and are dead wrong about my position.

I have no problem with evolution per se. In fact, I find the idea even attractive--from an aesthetic point of view. I would be happy if science could prove it (DID YOU READ THAT? I'll repeat it, I WOULD BE HAPPY IF SCIENCE COULD PROVE IT...digest it a bit).

My problem is entirely with its scientific credentials.

I am not yet aware of a scientist getting us from a single cell amoeba to a full grown human being; or even a mammal to a human being. I'll settle for a beetle to a horned beetle.

Quote:
However, the more I look into it, the less I understand it to be a science, placed beside physics. The sciences proceed by experiment; no one has replicated evolution in a laboratory. Evolution exists primarily as a theory attempting to explain not even phenomenon, but artifacts. In fact, evolution seems more a like a soft-science, very comparable to history. Historians look at data, and try to reconstruct a history based on that data. What distinguishes them from evolutionists?

Evolution has happened in a lab. Evolution has been shown in the examination of genomes. Evolution has been shown in a study of the fossil record.

I am willing to look at any literature. The literature I have looked at does not confirm evolution in a scientific (laboratory) manner.

Fossil records do not prove evolution or even demonstrate them. They are artifacts, and evolution is a theory about them. I am not saying it is a bad theory. But it is just a theory. And it is precisely here that evolution belongs in the category of history, alongside the analysis of documents and archaeology. As a lover of both the latter, obviously I cannot be prejudiced against evolution. But it does not provide the same certitude as mathematics or physics.

History and science can often be similar. Both fields rely on data and empirical evidence. Science has to have it, sometimes history proceeds without it. But both historyists and evolutionists have one thing in common - the overwhelming majority don't consider supernatural myths as plausible explanations for anything...

Have no idea why you brought "supernatural myths" into this. I thought this was about science...?

Maybe your vehemence against religion is interfering with your ability to assess the sciences from a calm, objective point of view?

Of course the OP title may have led to that. But my post should not have.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 11 by JoeyKnothead]

First, thank you for a courteous, objective reading of my post.

liamconnor wrote:

The sciences proceed by experiment; no one has replicated evolution in a laboratory.

Sure they have, only not to the level that'd convince so many others.

Beyond that, we see evolution occurring when we create new "superbugs" by our use / misuse of antibiotics and weed killers and such. This is true even if no new species are created. The idea is that given time, and two non-mating populations, we can predict with some certainty that there may (often, sometimes) be new species formed.

Correct me if I am wrong, and I may very well be. The theory of evolution does not involve uses or misuses of antibiotics, since these are late inventions. The theory states that over time organisms, unaided or hindered, will themselves undergo mutations on the cellular level. Some of these mutations will actually lead to a functional creature (very few, of course, the variable mutations that would lead to what might be called mutants--and not in the x-men fashion--is overwhelmingly higher than those which lead to a functioning creature.

These functioning creatures are either well-equipped or not to their environment. so even now, "functioning" is not necessarily an advantage. Natural selection is ruthless; and most are not well-equipped.

So then, it is truly pure luck--odds greater than being struck by lightening or winning the lotto-- at every step along the way.

Evolutionists understand this; and hence they have had to date the beginnings of life to allow enough time (4 billion years?) for all of this to occur.


That is my understanding. I will be the first to confess this is not my arena. Since the theory presents zero challenges to my religious convictions, I simply have not taken the time to investigate it very closely.

Polite corrections are invited.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 12 by liamconnor]

I am not yet aware of a scientist getting us from a single cell amoeba to a full grown human being; or even a mammal to a human being. I'll settle for a beetle to a horned beetle.

Would you settle for E. coli bacteria in real time?

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... real-time/

A snippit from the above:

A professor at Michigan State University, Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time. Since his Long-Term Experimental Evolution Project began in 1988, the bacteria have doubled in size, begun to mutate more quickly, and become more efficient at using the glucose in the solution where they’re grown.

More strikingly, however, he found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species, able to use a compound in the solution called citrate — a derivative of citric acid, like that found in some fruit — for food.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 13:

Just wanna tell I'm an amateur, but I've studied on this a good bit...

First, thank you for a courteous, objective reading of my post.

I was compelled by you a-doin' it to begin with.

Correct me if I am wrong, and I may very well be.

I point this out so's everyone can see there's theists that accept being wrong, and that we who ain't theists, we'd do well to do it too.

The theory of evolution does not involve uses or misuses of antibiotics, since these are late inventions.

I propose that no matter how late they came to the party, we should all give 'em a welcomin' hand for showin' up.


"In the lab" data suggests that certain bacteria / viruses can and will change depending upon the stressors they face. Granted, they don't suddenly become giraffes, but they do, and can be seen to do, change their abilities / attributes.

Look into the issue of "superbugs" caused by antibiotics / antivirals, and you'll see examples of evolution in action. Penicillin no longer works on some of 'em, to such an extent, it can be reasonably assumed they get drunk off of it

The theory states that over time organisms, unaided or hindered, will themselves undergo mutations on the cellular level. Some of these mutations will actually lead to a functional creature (very few, of course, the variable mutations that would lead to what might be called mutants--and not in the x-men fashion--is overwhelmingly higher than those which lead to a functioning creature.

Fer sher.

It's plenty fair, and somewhat obvious, that some, many, too danged many mutations lead to a loss of "progress". However, given time, it's quite rational to conclude that those (lets say minutely few) mutations that do occur, well let's slap 'em on the back. If we concede that "problem" mutations occur, we must also concede that "proud'ns" do.

These functioning creatures are either well-equipped or not to their environment. so even now, "functioning" is not necessarily an advantage. Natural selection is ruthless; and most are not well-equipped.

'Most ain't' implies some are.

So then, it is truly pure luck--odds greater than being struck by lightening or winning the lotto-- at every step along the way.

So what if it's "pure luck". "Pure luck" don't mean it can't happen. Then there's the issue of so many mutations happening across so much time.

Evolutionists understand this; and hence they have had to date the beginnings of life to allow enough time (4 billion years?) for all of this to occur.

I object to the implication that folks are up to tricks.

If life only showed up yesterday, we can reasonably assume and predict that mutations'll set in, such that mutaters'll be the result.

That is my understanding. I will be the first to confess this is not my arena. Since the theory presents zero challenges to my religious convictions, I simply have not taken the time to investigate it very closely.

Your honesty is a virtue.

But as you confessed to an unclose study of it, I propose your position should be considered with a strict concern - as my amateur status requires my own position be scrutinalized.

But yeah, your honesty is important, that it reflects on my own dis/honesty about it.

Polite corrections are invited.

Well what's the fun in that

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 9 by Kenisaw]

liamconnor wrote:

[Replying to post 1 by acehighinfinity]

I have a hard time believing there is ZERO evidence; I have zero difficulty believing the evidence is far less substantial than boisterous proponents like Dawkins would like to lead us to believe. But zero evidence...?

There's no other way to take that comment than to realize you think there is some kind of conspiracy afoot. As someone who is just now getting around to taking a look at evolution, your beliefs on the matter aren't very informed or accurate, so your comments on its validity are dubious. Boisterous or not, Dawkins isn't telling you anything that you can't go and verify yourself. Universities and colleges, museums and libraries, did sites and creek beds. The information is out there for someone who's goal is to learn. I don't see that as being your goal however...

Wouldn't it be a little strange for a person who believed in some conspiracy theory to admit that there was even "some" evidence, as my reply obviously did?

Nope. Even JFK conspiracist admit Oswald worked at the Texas School Depository and was there that day. Even moon landing conspiracists agree that a rocket took off from Cape Canaveral. But I'm glad you at least admit there is some evidence. That's more evidence than claims of intelligent design have...

I have not read Dawkin's scientific work, only his popular stuff. But as a reader of biblical and historical literature, both popular and scholarly, I know that scholars will sometimes publish to the public statements with a degree of conviction they would never dream of submitting to a scholarly journal. I would not be surprised if Dawkins is far more modest and cautious among his colleagues.

I've no doubt that is an accurate statement.

But the real Fact of the matter is, you don't know me, apparently don't like reading posts with the purpose of understanding them, and are dead wrong about my position.

You are right, I don't know you. All I have to go on is what you write. If I'm not portraying you accurately then I suggest finding a better way of communicating your intended meaning to me so that I do understand. It's your job to make me understand you, not the other way around.

I don't think I misunderstand your posts at all. If you feel I do then clarification would be in order to help me get the gist of what you are attempting to say.

I have no problem with evolution per se. In fact, I find the idea even attractive--from an aesthetic point of view. I would be happy if science could prove it (DID YOU READ THAT? I'll repeat it, I WOULD BE HAPPY IF SCIENCE COULD PROVE IT...digest it a bit).

Science has proven it to a great many people. That of course doesn't mean you have to believe or accept it. All I can tell you is that there is an enormous volume of data, gathered over the last 150 years by a hundred thousands scientists in several different separate scientific fields, and none of it has refuted the scientific theory. All that evidence, and every bit of it says life evolves over time.

All you'd have to do is find any data, anything at all, that shows that the current scientific theory is not an accurate portrayal of the progression of life on Earth. I wish you all the luck in your search, because you not believing or accepting it doesn't refute ANY of the empirical information. When 97% of scientists, half of which are religious or believe in a personal god, agree with a scientific theory, that means it is a really good theory.

My problem is entirely with its scientific credentials.

I'd like to believe that, and then I read the next sentence you wrote:

I am not yet aware of a scientist getting us from a single cell amoeba to a full grown human being; or even a mammal to a human being. I'll settle for a beetle to a horned beetle.

You don't know much about evolution, that much is obvious. Student tried this same nonsensical line of thought in one of his posts in another thread. (It comes right out of the standard creationist playbook from those pseudo science websites that your religious masters operate). Everyone who understands the theory of evolution knows that you cannot possibly expect any life form to change into a different animal in 100 years. Evolution does not work that fast, and if you had an inkling about the scientific theory you wouldn't have made such an absurd comment. Since that is not the only way to prove the scientific theory of evolution however, we don't need to wait tens of thousands of years for something to happen. We have millions of years worth of changes buried in the ground already. We have sequenced genomes of life on Earth that show how closely related things are to one another.

Your statement is NOT a valid argument. It isn't even an accurate reflection of the evolutionary process...

Quote:
However, the more I look into it, the less I understand it to be a science, placed beside physics. The sciences proceed by experiment; no one has replicated evolution in a laboratory. Evolution exists primarily as a theory attempting to explain not even phenomenon, but artifacts. In fact, evolution seems more a like a soft-science, very comparable to history. Historians look at data, and try to reconstruct a history based on that data. What distinguishes them from evolutionists?

Evolution has happened in a lab. Evolution has been shown in the examination of genomes. Evolution has been shown in a study of the fossil record.

I am willing to look at any literature. The literature I have looked at does not confirm evolution in a scientific (laboratory) manner.

What literature have you looked at?

Fossil records do not prove evolution or even demonstrate them. They are artifacts, and evolution is a theory about them.

They are not artifacts. You have a misunderstanding of that word apparently. They are fossils. They are snapshots in time of the structure of some living thing when it died. By comparing them to other living things from other time periods we can see how the characteristics changed over time. This led to a formation of a tree of life, showing how things were related to each other. Then genetics, a completely separate and new field, came along and completely verified the entire tree! This kind of independent verification from a totally different field of research is almost unheard of. All of the data, from billions of fossils showing a million different species, morphological studies, geology, paleontology, etc all agree. All of it agrees (DID YOU READ THAT?T...digest it a bit)

I am not saying it is a bad theory. But it is just a theory.

And now we get the standard creationist misunderstanding of what a layman's theory is and what a scientific theory is. Lovely.

And it is precisely here that evolution belongs in the category of history, alongside the analysis of documents and archaeology. As a lover of both the latter, obviously I cannot be prejudiced against evolution. But it does not provide the same certitude as mathematics or physics.

As I mentioned before (and you quote below) history and science can be similar in how they work. But history does not require empirical data, while science absolutely demands it. Science cannot work without it. As there is an incredible abundance of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, it is completely substantiated compared to baseless historical claims about, oh, let's say resurrection tales...

History and science can often be similar. Both fields rely on data and empirical evidence. Science has to have it, sometimes history proceeds without it. But both historyists and evolutionists have one thing in common - the overwhelming majority don't consider supernatural myths as plausible explanations for anything...

Have no idea why you brought "supernatural myths" into this. I thought this was about science...?

It's always about science, Liam. Always. No matter what the topic

Maybe your vehemence against religion is interfering with your ability to assess the sciences from a calm, objective point of view?

Says the guy that doesn't understand evolutionary time frames or the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. Objective indeed...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 11 by JoeyKnothead]

First, thank you for a courteous, objective reading of my post.

liamconnor wrote:

The sciences proceed by experiment; no one has replicated evolution in a laboratory.

Sure they have, only not to the level that'd convince so many others.

Beyond that, we see evolution occurring when we create new "superbugs" by our use / misuse of antibiotics and weed killers and such. This is true even if no new species are created. The idea is that given time, and two non-mating populations, we can predict with some certainty that there may (often, sometimes) be new species formed.

Correct me if I am wrong, and I may very well be. The theory of evolution does not involve uses or misuses of antibiotics, since these are late inventions.

You are wrong.

The theory states that over time organisms, unaided or hindered, will themselves undergo mutations on the cellular level.

Genetic level

Some of these mutations will actually lead to a functional creature (very few, of course, the variable mutations that would lead to what might be called mutants--and not in the x-men fashion--is overwhelmingly higher than those which lead to a functioning creature.

Wrong on the "very few". Most bad mutations lead to a reduction in fitness, not a creature that cannot function.

These functioning creatures are either well-equipped or not to their environment. so even now, "functioning" is not necessarily an advantage. Natural selection is ruthless; and most are not well-equipped.

"Most" are not really affected at all one way or another, especially if there is not a significant environmental pressure on the population at that time.

So then, it is truly pure luck--odds greater than being struck by lightening or winning the lotto-- at every step along the way.

It is random what mutations are received. Survival of the fittest is not random. Regardless, where did you get your "odds" from in your statement above?

Evolutionists understand this; and hence they have had to date the beginnings of life to allow enough time (4 billion years?) for all of this to occur.

Two mistakes here: One, the geological strata that various fossils have been found in give us the time frames we have. The theory of evolution does not date anything, geology does.

Second, the theory of evolution is not involved in the "beginnings of life". This is yet another basic creationist mistake. That is called Abiogenesis, and is a separate line of research. Evolution deals with the changes in life forms over given time periods, NOT when and how life first arose.

That is my understanding. I will be the first to confess this is not my arena. Since the theory presents zero challenges to my religious convictions, I simply have not taken the time to investigate it very closely.

Polite corrections are invited.

Your understanding is suffering from some basic misinformation. Clarification for things will be provided if you so desire it.

If you have Christian religious convictions than the theory of evolution does, in fact, present significant challenges to your belief system, but that's for another time

[Clownboat]

Evolutionists understand this; and hence they have had to date the beginnings of life to allow enough time (4 billion years?) for all of this to occur.

Please provide evidence that 'evolutionists' dated the beginnings of life to allow for enough time for evolution to occur. Perhaps you meant 'geologists'? Is 'evolutionists' another name for a 'geologist'? What is an evolutionists and why are they forced to date the beginnings of life to about 4 billion years? Who or what is forcing them and is it just a coincidence that our dating methods happen to agree with what these evolutionists were forced to agree with?

If they invented this date, please show us the correct amount of time and the mechanism that allowed you to arrive at it.

If you would like to learn more about how this date actually came about, there is plenty of info out there.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 689221.htm

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1 by acehighinfinity]

I have a hard time believing there is ZERO evidence; I have zero difficulty believing the evidence is far less substantial than boisterous proponents like Dawkins would like to lead us to believe. But zero evidence...?

In true British style, Dawkins understates the available evidence.

However, the more I look into it, the less I understand it to be a science, placed beside physics. The sciences proceed by experiment; no one has replicated evolution in a laboratory.

There you are wrong. Evolution has been directly observed in both the field and the lab.

Evolution exists primarily as a theory attempting to explain not even phenomenon, but artifacts. In fact, evolution seems more a like a soft-science, very comparable to history. Historians look at data, and try to reconstruct a history based on that data. What distinguishes them from evolutionists?

You need to look up the meaning of "theory" when it is used in a scientific sense.