Denial of evolution III
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
evolution is phelosophy more than being scientific 
because, they don't say, how exactly it happens, and why and when, and what does it do exactly, and how does it work, exactly, and how does that mutation happends without having disturbed and, mallformed creatures during the first mutation. etc etc etc....
because, they don't say, how exactly it happens, and why and when, and what does it do exactly, and how does it work, exactly, and how does that mutation happends without having disturbed and, mallformed creatures during the first mutation. etc etc etc....
With bacteria that change, are we talking adaptation, or the creation of a new species?
There's sciences that develop from experiments, and there's sciences that develop from observations and studies. Most sciences involve reproducibility — what I discover/create in my laboratory, you should be able to reproduce in yours. This has pretty much become a standard of the profession.
Reproducibility cannot be applied to sciences that involves extraordinary amounts of time, materials, distances, energy, impossibility, and/or cruelty. These include astronomy (including the Big Bang), meteorology (including Global Warming), biology (including Abiogenesis and Evolution), economics (ie, what if the Great Depression never happened?), government (ie, what if America lost the revolution?), psychology (including experiments considered inhumane, such as Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment and especially Elliott's blue-eyed/brown-eyed experiment), etc.
Science that develops without reproducibility naturally involves some amount of belief, which is why these sciences are debated.
There's sciences that develop from experiments, and there's sciences that develop from observations and studies. Most sciences involve reproducibility — what I discover/create in my laboratory, you should be able to reproduce in yours. This has pretty much become a standard of the profession.
Reproducibility cannot be applied to sciences that involves extraordinary amounts of time, materials, distances, energy, impossibility, and/or cruelty. These include astronomy (including the Big Bang), meteorology (including Global Warming), biology (including Abiogenesis and Evolution), economics (ie, what if the Great Depression never happened?), government (ie, what if America lost the revolution?), psychology (including experiments considered inhumane, such as Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment and especially Elliott's blue-eyed/brown-eyed experiment), etc.
Science that develops without reproducibility naturally involves some amount of belief, which is why these sciences are debated.
evolution is phelosophy more than being scientific
because, they don't say, how exactly it happens, and why and when, and what does it do exactly, and how does it work, exactly, and how does that mutation happends without having disturbed and, mallformed creatures during the first mutation. etc etc etc....
Short answer: yes, we fucking do.
Answer to the idoit described in the OP: evolutionary change has been replicated (or at least pseudoreplicated) numerous times. The recent lizard and salmon papers demonstrate that, without even getting into bacteria.
Tell him only scientific experiments must be able to be replicated to show they can be duplicated not evolution for it only needs to have a record of events that can be factually shown as to have happened and be proven with certain testing like radioactive carbon dating as one of many examples.
I am broadly with Shadow1.
Just because a thing is, generally speaking, true does not make it science.
Science = plural and general; replicable in regard to variables under scrutiny. Validated by statistics.
History = singular and particular; unique to its circumstances. Validated by appeal to what is reasonable, like a prosecution case in the justice system.
Evolution is best regarded as an historical principle -- like "all power tends to corrupt" or dialectical materialism. Wherever evolution is observed, it is particular to its own environment and its own set of circumstances. That is what, in the context of humans, we call history, or analyse as a case history.
Just because a thing is, generally speaking, true does not make it science.
Science = plural and general; replicable in regard to variables under scrutiny. Validated by statistics.
History = singular and particular; unique to its circumstances. Validated by appeal to what is reasonable, like a prosecution case in the justice system.
Evolution is best regarded as an historical principle -- like "all power tends to corrupt" or dialectical materialism. Wherever evolution is observed, it is particular to its own environment and its own set of circumstances. That is what, in the context of humans, we call history, or analyse as a case history.
You came that close to owing me a new computer monitor.
Oohh ... ohhh ... and I will get kicks my ass.
Or my post will be deleted or moved to "denial of evolution".
The Theory of Evolution has become a religion where god is Time.
Any attempt to talk critically about evolution is considered blasphemy and treated as such.
Because of this the theory of evolution could not be improved.
As you can enhance something, first you must admit that is not perfect, has gaps that need improvement.
I am pleased to believe I helped myself to eliminate the word "random" in the definition of evolution in Wiki.
Major concern for them, is finding and more "relics" (fossils).
But this is not the problem.
These are conclusions that come from finding these fossils.And they say with absolute conviction.
What conclusion can we draw from Mendelleev's periodic table?
I do not believe in creationism so have not "suporters"among creationists but do not "believe" in evolutionism so I have no supporters in this camp.
But no matter.I am accustomed to solitude.
Where did you get the idea that any biologist thinks the theory of evolution is "perfect"? Look at it this way: There are tons of biology PhD candidates and tons of people with PhDs in biology who would be toast if the theory of evolution was perfect.
No science is perfect, and scientists are the very first to admit that.
How long have you been on Sciforums? You should know better. Evolution is not considered sacred and perfect in the realm of science. The basics of evolution have long since been proven, but we are learning more about it all the time. You might as well say breathing air in humans is a religion because no one questions it's necessity. Talking critically about evolution is what evolutionary scientists do.
Then you explain to me why I was moved from here http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2604468#post2604468 to here (and follow the discussion)
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2604362#post2604362
Also why a similar post was deleted.
If my conclusion based on experience so far has been wrong then I apologize.
Because it doesn't suffer from any serious gaps. And the emphasis on whether mutations are perfectly random isn't very pertinent. And a very long time did indeed pass, which most people cannot grasp, enough time for single cells to become whales.
Another way of supporting a scientific theory is to use it to make predictions.
If those predictions are found to be true, then that adds weight to the theory.
One prediction from the theory of Evolution is speciation.
Creatures in two places totally separated from one another will develop endemic species over time.
For example, islands situated in remote regions of the oceans are physically isolated from other landmasses. In any cases where such islands have continuously supported ecosystems for a long period of time (at least tens of thousands of years), their biota will mostly be composed of endemic species of plants and animals that are not found elsewhere. This attribute of island biodiversity occurs because, under highly isolated conditions, evolution over long periods of time proceeds towards the development of new species from older, founder species. In itself, this process leads to the evolution of distinctly different, endemic races and species on remote islands.
Read more: Endemic - Species, Islands, Time, Plants, Habitat, and Isolated http://science.jrank.org/pages/2468/Endemic.html#ixzz106hyiJNS
No isolated place has ever been found which did not have a large number of endemic species.
If evolution isn't true, then God is making a damn good job of making it look like it is.
I think we mean by science different things.
In the definition the things are not less relevant or more relevant .
If determinism mix with random I say it is a serious lack.
I understand that for you isn't very pertinent.
For me is very pertinent and for that you maintain, my opinions should be moved or deleted.
This is not specific to science.Because this,I made this analogy to religion.
And surely I am right is the fact that they changed the definition of evolution.
"Over many generations, mutations produce successive, small, random changes in traits, which are then filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes retained. This adjusts traits so they become suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.[6] Not every trait, however, is an adaptation. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, which produces entirely random changes in how common traits are in a population. Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will be passed on to the next generation."
This definition, where there is random no longer in Wiki.
The term random is a useful one. It means that the mutations do not necessarily have anything to do with the life and circumstances of that organism.
Doesn't matter. The Theory of Evolution does not depend on the mutations being perfectly random or just relatively random from the point of view of the system which evolves. A life form has no relation to a haphazard cosmic ray that changes it's DNA.
TalkOrigins says it better than me:
TalkOrigins says it better than me:
Another way to say this is just that the changes that get encoded in genes occur with no forethought to the eventual needs of the organism (or the species) that carries those genes. A gene change (for instance, a point mutation -- a mistake at a single locus of the genetic structure) may change in any way permitted by the laws of molecular biology, according to the specific causes at the time. This may result in a phenotypic change that may be better suited to current conditions than the others about at the time. However, it probably won't. So far as the local environment is concerned, the change is the result of a random process, a black box that isn't driven with reference to things going on at the level of the environment. It's not really random, of course, because it is the result of causal processes, but so far as natural selection is concerned, it may as well be.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
- Status