Reasons To Doubt Evolution

[WinePusher]

In another thread a user asked for reasons to doubt evolution and, after thinking about the topic, I managed to come up with 3 objections to evolutionary theory:

1. Darwinian evolutionary theory fails to make precise, quantitative predictions. Generally speaking, a typical requirement for legitimate science is that a theory must produce precise, specific, quantitative predictions that will either bear out or falsify the theory itself. Darwinian evolutionary theory lacks this, as it only makes imprecise, abstract, qualitative predictions. Indeed, Stephen Jay Gould suggested that if all of natural history were rewound the mechanism of natural selection wouldn't produce the same species we have now.

2. The fossil record is highly discontinuous and many transitional sequences are nonexistent. Ideally, for evolutionary theory to be completely tight and sound there should be a wide array of transitional forms for every single major morphological change. The fossil record clearly lacks this.

3. Computer simulations of Darwinian evolutionary theory have yet to be successful. Inputting an appropriate algorithm into a computer is something that is done even in upper level undergrad university courses, and it is done to simulate and replicate a continuous process. It appears that attempts at encoding Darwinian mechanisms into an algorithm and inputting them into a computer have failed to yield successful results. I'm don't know much about this particular topic so input from biology experts would be extremely helpful.

Biology isn't my field so I would like to hear some input from other users (preferably those who have actually had academic training in biology like nygreenguy). Is there any truth to these three points?

[Danmark]

http://creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble

In June of 1992, Dr Austin B.S. ((Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970-M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979))
collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. . . .

One really need not look farther than the "creation.com" in http://creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble to know we are going to see rubbish from a creationist pseudo science propaganda site. Sloppy or purposely false sampling and unscientific methodology for this nonsense is always the case:

Xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts (like metamorphic and weathering features) are often easily identified under the microscope and sometimes even in the field. In some cases, a geologist may be interested in dating xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, or the xenocrysts. However, obviously, if the geologist is interested in dating the younger matrix, he/she will look for and avoid any xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts or xenocrysts. While mainstream geologists know how to avoid xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts when dating igneous rocks, creationist Steve Austin apparently was not careful to avoid them when he conducted his "research" at Mt. St. Helens or the Grand Canyon, see " A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project by Chris Stassen and compare with Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mt. St. Helens Volcano, by Steven Austin.

_http://www.thescienceforum.com/earth-sciences/ ... ating.html

This is a fancy way of saying Austin collects his samples in an unscientific manner. It is easy to understand how old rocks which are newly melted will still test as old.

Any scientist familiar with the field of radiometric date testing will explain that one does not rely on one test and one method of testing. Radiometric testing has been done thousands of times, with different methods and even with non radiometric testing such as tree rings, and the results are consistent.

What creationist phony science practitioners do is to use one test using one methodology and look for outliers that fit what they want to find. This is not science. Their methodology is 'confirmation bias' testing. It is seen as an obvious joke in the scientific community.

[sizzle-d]

we are going to see rubbish from a creationist pseudo science propaganda site.

Pseudoscience huh? Ok, your research, tests and results.

Sloppy or purposely false sampling and unscientific methodology for this nonsense is always the case

You have never collected any sample and you are calling something unscientific?

Any scientist familiar with the field of radiometric date testing will explain that one does not rely on one test and one method of testing.

How do you know how it works? Are you a scientist? Have you ever done it?

Radiometric testing has been done thousands of times, with different methods and even with non radiometric testing such as tree rings, and the results are consistent.

Good. Your research, tests, results etc., where are they?

What creationist phony science practitioners do is to use one test using one methodology and look for outliers that fit what they want to find.

This sounds exactly like atheist scientists.

This is not science. Their methodology is 'confirmation bias' testing. It is seen as an obvious joke in the scientific community.

How do you know what science is? Have you done radiometric testing?

[Goat]

So far here, I think I am the only one giving reasons. A simple dismiss of Intelligent Design (ID) is not a scientific answer either. It is actually a scientific Hypothesis.

No. Actually it is not. It is a scientific hypothesis like astrology is a scientific hypothesis. "God did it" is not a hypothesis, it is a conclusion based on a religion, not on scientific data.

"Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community."_ testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)" _ finding of the court

I cant actually respond to the Dover/Kitzmiller trial. I would need to research that before I would answer. But, what I have said before, creationists and evolutionists have exactly the same data references. So ID is a reasonable hypothesis (design) as against evolutionary cosmology and biology (chance) is an hypothesis from the same data. As I alluded to previously, Can you tell me if a scientist can produce useful products and research without any creationist or evolutionary theories of origins?
Yes they can, and yes, they do. Take all the evolutionary ideas from biology (and creationist for that matter) and biology will do quite well (maybe better) without it.
There is clearly a shutting out of alternative views of the Modern Synthesis (Darwinian selection), this includes ID but as well alternative evolutionary views.
Altenberg 16 is a good read in that it does show where divergence in thinking in the evolutionary camp is occurring. But it is all very polite and in house except where ID is concerned. It MUST be shut out at all costs. We cannot allow a Divine foot in the door, so to speak.
This is no conspiracy, this is quite clear from materials in the public arena.

Except, well, no, it isn't.

It makes no testable predictions.
It has not 'model' that has any kind of explanatory powers.
It has no evidence for it that can not be used more completely and with better effect by the TOE without intervention.

Until those issues can be addressed, it is pseudoscience.

[heavensgate]

http://creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble

In June of 1992, Dr Austin B.S. ((Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970-M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979))
collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. . . .

One really need not look farther than the "creation.com" in http://creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble to know we are going to see rubbish from a creationist pseudo science propaganda site. Sloppy or purposely false sampling and unscientific methodology for this nonsense is always the case:

Xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts (like metamorphic and weathering features) are often easily identified under the microscope and sometimes even in the field. In some cases, a geologist may be interested in dating xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, or the xenocrysts. However, obviously, if the geologist is interested in dating the younger matrix, he/she will look for and avoid any xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts or xenocrysts. While mainstream geologists know how to avoid xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts when dating igneous rocks, creationist Steve Austin apparently was not careful to avoid them when he conducted his "research" at Mt. St. Helens or the Grand Canyon, see " A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project by Chris Stassen and compare with Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mt. St. Helens Volcano, by Steven Austin.

_http://www.thescienceforum.com/earth-sciences/ ... ating.html

This is a fancy way of saying Austin collects his samples in an unscientific manner. It is easy to understand how old rocks which are newly melted will still test as old.

Any scientist familiar with the field of radiometric date testing will explain that one does not rely on one test and one method of testing. Radiometric testing has been done thousands of times, with different methods and even with non radiometric testing such as tree rings, and the results are consistent.

What creationist phony science practitioners do is to use one test using one methodology and look for outliers that fit what they want to find. This is not science. Their methodology is 'confirmation bias' testing. It is seen as an obvious joke in the scientific community.

May I suggest that a 'google' search should not be confused with 're' search. On both your previous posts you unreasonably castigate me for not knowing, not doing the research. I tell you now, that I will never be in the habit of chasing down blind ally's that you yourself have not researched. All you have stated is smear tactics which is probably the basest of debating skills.
I am amused.

[heavensgate]

So far here, I think I am the only one giving reasons. A simple dismiss of Intelligent Design (ID) is not a scientific answer either. It is actually a scientific Hypothesis.

No. Actually it is not. It is a scientific hypothesis like astrology is a scientific hypothesis. "God did it" is not a hypothesis, it is a conclusion based on a religion, not on scientific data.

"Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community."_ testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)" _ finding of the court

I cant actually respond to the Dover/Kitzmiller trial. I would need to research that before I would answer. But, what I have said before, creationists and evolutionists have exactly the same data references. So ID is a reasonable hypothesis (design) as against evolutionary cosmology and biology (chance) is an hypothesis from the same data. As I alluded to previously, Can you tell me if a scientist can produce useful products and research without any creationist or evolutionary theories of origins?
Yes they can, and yes, they do. Take all the evolutionary ideas from biology (and creationist for that matter) and biology will do quite well (maybe better) without it.
There is clearly a shutting out of alternative views of the Modern Synthesis (Darwinian selection), this includes ID but as well alternative evolutionary views.
Altenberg 16 is a good read in that it does show where divergence in thinking in the evolutionary camp is occurring. But it is all very polite and in house except where ID is concerned. It MUST be shut out at all costs. We cannot allow a Divine foot in the door, so to speak.
This is no conspiracy, this is quite clear from materials in the public arena.

Except, well, no, it isn't.

It makes no testable predictions.
It has not 'model' that has any kind of explanatory powers.
It has no evidence for it that can not be used more completely and with better effect by the TOE without intervention.

Until those issues can be addressed, it is pseudoscience.

What you are not hearing is that the same charges you make against creationist / ID views are exactly applicable to the ToE. It does not matter how often you state this hand waving dismissal of alternative evolutionary views, please show me product!

[sizzle-d]

What evidence do you have that this happened to the stars in the sky?
How do you know this?
Where do I look to see this?
When I look at the sky, I don't see an explosion.

Time travel and the unbiased part of your science.

They don't look like they "banged". They are just sitting there.

You do know why SETI will fail?

How do you know there was a Big Bang? Why do you believe in the Big Bang?

Duh, it's your theory. Except your are saying the universe has always existed.

How do you demonstrate this?

I should become God?

Claiming God made the Universe by a Big Bang is like saying I'm going to build a 747 by setting off a bomb in a junk yard.

Aww, you'll have to do better. Setting off a bomb in a junkyard is not the same because there is something in a junkyard, there was nothing before the "big bang/squash".

[sizzle-d]

What you are not hearing is that the same charges you make against creationist / ID views are exactly applicable to the ToE.

It's comfortable for them to google it up and call something else unscientific.

It does not matter how often you state this hand waving dismissal of alternative evolutionary views, please show me product!

And before you do that, the product should come with research, tests, qualifications, observations etc. and finally, your names.

[Hatuey]

Q: What makes the Creationist/ID position so ridiculously laughable?

A: It contains no scientific predictions or methodology not found within the assumption that a giant turtle farted the universe into existence. The "theory" is so nonspecific as to be just as applicable to any far-fetched idea at all about the origins of the universe. When IDers can demonstrate how their scientific model allows for creationism but does not allow for all other origin myths, they'll at least have a starting point, but right now they don't even know where the race is taking place.



And, as has been pointed out many times, the Big Bang is not a theory that the universe "began" or "came from nothing." The Big Bang begins with a singularity. So yes, there is a "junkyard" to start with, however retarded that analogy is from other aspects.

[Ooberman]

How do you know there was a Big Bang? Why do you believe in the Big Bang?

Duh, it's your theory. Except your are saying the universe has always existed.

[/quote]

Its not my Theory. It was a guess made by a Christian.

1. Do you know what the Big Bang is?
2. You claimed there was a BB, how do you know this? Are you God?

How do you demonstrate this?

I should become God?

well thats one way, i suppose.
Can you think of any other possible way you might convince someone there was a Big Bang?

Claiming God made the Universe by a Big Bang is like saying I'm going to build a 747 by setting off a bomb in a junk yard.

Aww, you'll have to do better. Setting off a bomb in a junkyard is not the same because there is something in a junkyard, there was nothing before the "big bang/squash".

[/quote]
But you claimed there was a big bang! Why do you say things you dont beleive?

[Goat]

http://creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble

In June of 1992, Dr Austin B.S. ((Geology), University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970-M.S. (Geology), San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D. (Geology), Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979))
collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. . . .

One really need not look farther than the "creation.com" in http://creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble to know we are going to see rubbish from a creationist pseudo science propaganda site. Sloppy or purposely false sampling and unscientific methodology for this nonsense is always the case:

Xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts (like metamorphic and weathering features) are often easily identified under the microscope and sometimes even in the field. In some cases, a geologist may be interested in dating xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, or the xenocrysts. However, obviously, if the geologist is interested in dating the younger matrix, he/she will look for and avoid any xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts or xenocrysts. While mainstream geologists know how to avoid xenoliths, zoned phenocrysts, and xenocrysts when dating igneous rocks, creationist Steve Austin apparently was not careful to avoid them when he conducted his "research" at Mt. St. Helens or the Grand Canyon, see " A Criticism of the ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project by Chris Stassen and compare with Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mt. St. Helens Volcano, by Steven Austin.

_http://www.thescienceforum.com/earth-sciences/ ... ating.html

This is a fancy way of saying Austin collects his samples in an unscientific manner. It is easy to understand how old rocks which are newly melted will still test as old.

Any scientist familiar with the field of radiometric date testing will explain that one does not rely on one test and one method of testing. Radiometric testing has been done thousands of times, with different methods and even with non radiometric testing such as tree rings, and the results are consistent.

What creationist phony science practitioners do is to use one test using one methodology and look for outliers that fit what they want to find. This is not science. Their methodology is 'confirmation bias' testing. It is seen as an obvious joke in the scientific community.

May I suggest that a 'google' search should not be confused with 're' search. On both your previous posts you unreasonably castigate me for not knowing, not doing the research. I tell you now, that I will never be in the habit of chasing down blind ally's that you yourself have not researched. All you have stated is smear tactics which is probably the basest of debating skills.
I am amused.

Might I suggest that Austins claims have been refuted quite soundly , and repeatedly over the last 30 odd years, and that using that example show a certain level of ignorance about radiometric dating, and a heap full of prevarication on the part of 'creation ministries'.

Austin KNEW that the sample he took was bad. He was informed it was going to yield bad results before the testing happened, and he still did it, because he had a theological axe to grind, and didn't mind doing bad science to prove it.

YOu might be 'amused', but it says more about your technical knowledge, and bias than anything else.