Desputing Evolution or the bible


  • @Wild2000:

    The evidence that evolutionists use is illusionary at best. And for a theory to be falsifiable, you should only have to refute one thing to make it false. Otherwise it is the theory is fluid - adapting to any situation provided (even if contradictory).

    I don’T agree with the first, i agree with the second.
    I think, calling a thousands-of-years old book, with chapters written lifetimes later than the actual occurences is more illusionary than old bones turned to stone.

    And it does make prediction (whales with legs, Darwin’s Finches, et cetera…).

    Evolution does not predict whales with legs (please show me where). If there were no whales with “legs”; (they are not really legs), evolution would not be proven false. Instead, the evolutionist would just make up a story of why there were no whales with “legs.” Think about that for a moment. A prediction makes a theory falsifiable.

    Evolution predicts the occurence of intermedate steps: Like a mammal which has just “decided” to spent most of its time in water, but still has the capability to walk on land. This we can deduce from looking at our whales today and see that they have a bone-structure that can be accounted to having had legs that turned something else/useless.

    Your point sabout “they are no really legs” shows that you do not really follow what is happening in this field. Finding petrified bones of that creature (the whale with legs) was a big thing…

    And yes: a prediction makes a theory falsifiable… but evolution has not yet been falsified.

    Darwin’s finches is another example of speciation. This only shows variations within a single species. Once again, no new genetic information - just different beak sizes - and we still have finches. In order to show that evolution occurs, it must be shown that new genetic information has been created.

    Wait: you say here
    “evolution is about new information in the genetic code”
    please mark that!

    another remark: Are you sure that there does not appear a genetic difference between the different finches, one that might put different beaks forward? I am sure there is.

    @FinsterniS:

    The theory of evolution today has the same metaphysical characteristics as astrology. Astrology claims to predict human personalities and fortunes, yet no observations could conceivably refute it. This is the same for evolution.

    Nope.
    Just because we haven’t been able to falsify a theroy yet, doesn’t mean we never can, and doesn’t mean it is not a theory at all because of that.
    To astrology: This has been falsified, i do it every day by comparing my horoscope with my life.


    “Fitness is large size for combat, but it is also small size for hiding. Fitness is high-speed for catching and escaping, but it is also slow-speed for energy conservation. Fitness is genes that replicate faster than other genes, but it is also genes that replicate only as needed, to conserve genetic material. Fitness is sending out millions of seeds, but it is also sending out only a few specialized seeds.”

    Yes, that is true. And used not much different to the (flawed) thermodynamic arguement. It is rethorics, not more. It seems contradicting… but so does quantum mechanics and general relativity, still these later two have proven to be among the most successful theroies in physics ever.
    If you see a contradiction, usually means you haven’t fully understood the theory.

    1. Fossils - some evolutionists claim the record is incomplete. How can anyone make scientific conclusions based on incomplete data? The actual fossil record shows large morphological gaps, long periods of stasis and convergence. This is all data that would say evolution did not occur in the small gradual steps “predicted” by Darwin. This is another example of the fluidity of evolution - if something is shown to be false - just change the explanation - and presto, the theory is no longer falsifiable. This is metaphysical.

    No, it is not metaphysical.
    Yes, the data is inclompete, and yes, you can make theories out of incomplete data. If you had to wait for complete data to make a theory, we would still be pretty close to dark ages!
    And yes: the theory covers periods of stasis. If the environment does not change, then any “optimization” process will come to an end some time. How comes that there are so many bag-carrying (correct word) mammals in Australia? Because God wanted a special continent, or because that continent split from the rest of teh continents the first, when the “best mammal” was such a type, and stayed pretty isolated from everything afterwards, not having the pressure brought up by a (by chance created and proven “good”) new type of mammals?
    Jumps can oocur, and you might notice that one jump somehwere will end any stasis period you had before, because that one new species puts a lot of pressure onto the old ones. And of course, you (and i) do not know about other geological events that changed the environment to such a degree that jumps had to happen, or else some population would die out (as some most probably have, at that times, those that could not adapt to the changings).

    1. Vestigial organs - … See, both situations are covered - not falsifiable.

    here you bring on a thing to “prove” that evolution is fluid…

    … Today, that list is down to about three or four - which are debatable. Vestigial organs as a proof for evolution is a no longer used by evolutionists.

    Here you say that (a) these organs are not at all an evidence used by evolutionists. Therefore your above claim and argument that is evolution is fluid is flawed. It is simple (and badly done) rethorics.

    1. Genetics - A common misconception is that population genetics and natural selection (evolution) are interchangeable. The two theories are completely separate. The two can be discussed individually without ever needing to bring up the other.

    Population genetics is about the mechanisms of genetic change in populations. Its main focus in the evolutionary debate is survival differential. The main mechanism of natural selection is survival of the fittest which is not included in population genetics. Evolutionists try to use population genetics as support for evolution. But the two theories are different.

    If you look up, you might see that you claimed just that, that you mixed genetics and evolution…

    Btw, these are as different theories as statistical mechanics and thermodynamics: They approach the same topic one from top-down, the other one from bottom-up. They are different, but they try to answer the same questions, and they do not contradict each other (which would be a way to falsify evolution!!)! Survival of the fittest leads to a “genteic sieve”, where genes that put you at a disadavantage will lead to your extinction and the extinction of that gene. A gene that is advantagous (sp?) gives its host a better change to survive and procreate, therefore handing over that gene to more beings of the next generation…

    I do not see at all how you can claim that these two theories have nothing in common!

    I said that he was scientific because he stated a hypothesis that could be tested. Is it science today? No. Was it considered science in his day? Yes - it just had not been proven false yet.

    But you say evolution of today is not a scientific theory, just because we have not proven it wrong yet??


  • @F_alk:

    I think, calling a thousands-of-years old book, with chapters written lifetimes later than the actual occurences is more illusionary than old bones turned to stone.

    First of all, I do not think bones turned to stone is illusionary. Second, science is not about the “best” theory, it is about obtaining the correct theory.

    @F_alk:

    And yes: a prediction makes a theory falsifiable…. but evolution has not yet been falsified.

    @F_alk:

    Just because we haven’t been able to falsify a theroy yet, doesn’t mean we never can, and doesn’t mean it is not a theory at all because of that.

    @F_alk:

    But you say evolution of today is not a scientific theory, just because we have not proven it wrong yet??

    I agree that evolution has not been falsified. My point is that evolutionists have made the theory unfalsifiable. Thus it is not possible to falsify it - and thus only pseudoscience. I never said that evolution was never a theory. I think it is a theory alright - one based on pseudoscience.

    @F_alk:

    To astrology: This has been falsified, i do it every day by comparing my horoscope with my life.

    @F_alk:

    It seems contradicting… but so does quantum mechanics and general relativity, still these later two have proven to be among the most successful theroies in physics ever.
    If you see a contradiction, usually means you haven’t fully understood the theory.

    But you see, this is the same answer an astrologist would give you if questioned their “prediction.” They would say something like, “No you have not falsified astrology, because you didn’t apply the ideas correctly. You didn’t consider all the proper phases of the right moons; the rising and setting of the correct stars; or the precession of the Earth.” You see, astrology is too “complex” to fully understand. If you ask them why they cannot predict what will happen exactly, they will say it is too complex for even them to understand. Do you see the similarity here?

    Now do not get me wrong here. I am not arguing that astrology is science. I am saying that the theory of evolution has the same metaphysical qualities as astrology which makes it a pseudoscience. When you debate against an astrologist, you will never be able to falsify their theory, because it is unfalsifiable.

    @F_alk:

    3. Vestigial organs - … See, both situations are covered - not falsifiable.

    here you bring on a thing to “prove” that evolution is fluid…

    My five points that I addressed above are the exact five “indirect proofs” that Fin provided for evolution. I never brought them up - only addressed them as not being proof.

    @F_alk:

    Here you say that (a) these organs are not at all an evidence used by evolutionists. Therefore your above claim and argument that is evolution is fluid is flawed. It is simple (and badly done) rethorics.

    Let me clarify - at one time, evolutionists tried to use vestigial organs as proof for evolution. Today they no longer use them as proof. However, today when an evolution encounters a vestigial organ (or do not), they can always create a story to explain it.

    @F_alk:

    If you look up, you might see that you claimed just that, that you mixed genetics and evolution…

    Where have I mixed something up? Are you saying that the theory of Darwinian natural selection exists within the literature of population genetics? Survival differential and gene frequencies are not the same thing as survival of the fittest. Darwinian natural selection can be shown to have problems without causing a conflict with population genetics. The two theories stand on their own. As I said, evolutionists try to use population genetics to support evolution. Population genetics does not need the theory of evolution.

    @F_alk:

    Survival of the fittest leads to a “genteic sieve”, where genes that put you at a disadavantage will lead to your extinction and the extinction of that gene.

    Natural selection does not predict extinction. It only tries to explain it.

    @F_alk:

    Wait: you say here
    “evolution is about new information in the genetic code”
    please mark that!

    another remark: Are you sure that there does not appear a genetic difference between the different finches, one that might put different beaks forward? I am sure there is.

    Is the genetic code different? - Yes.
    I think the best way to look at this is by looking at the breeding of dogs. Carl Wieland has a good way of explaining it,
    “…in artificial selection, with all the various modern breeds of dogs being more specialized than the parent (mongrel) population, but carrying less information, and thus less potential for further selection (you can’t breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas). In all these sorts of changes, …dogs are dogs. The limits to change are set by the amount of information originally present from which to select.”

    Thus, no new genetic information is present. The more specialized organism contains a variation of what its parent organism had. Speciation allows for de-evolution. Not evolution.

    @F_alk:

    Evolution predicts the occurence of intermedate steps: Like a mammal which has just “decided” to spent most of its time in water, but still has the capability to walk on land. This we can deduce from looking at our whales today and see that they have a bone-structure that can be accounted to having had legs that turned something else/useless.

    Your point sabout “they are no really legs” shows that you do not really follow what is happening in this field. Finding petrified bones of that creature (the whale with legs) was a big thing…

    Before we go any further on this whale thing, it is important to note that whales with legs is a myth. I did some looking into this and have found only two species with references to whales with legs. One is the Ambulocetus. I think this is the one that Fin was referring to. The most important thing to note is that this species skeleton is incomplete in all the important areas. From looking at the picture of actual bones found, saying that even 40% of the skeleton was found would be generous. Here is a quote from Don Batten,

    “The skeleton is incomplete, with critical parts missing. It is also highly fragmented. To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones (femur and small proximal piece of tibia) belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. The pelvic girdle is missing!
    With the forelimbs, the humerus and scapula are missing which are again crucial to interpreting function, as well as establishing connectedness to the skeleton.”

    It is also important to note that the one femur associated with the skeleton was found five meters above the rest of the skeleton. No tail bones (an important part of determining if this was a whale) where found with the skeleton.

    Then, even if you ignore the incompleteness of the skeleton and add all the crucial missing pieces, the majority of scientists do not even think this was a whale, but a land only, four legged, animal which had no ability to swim. So much for an intermediate.

    The other species in question is the Basilosaurus. This species has been determined to be fully aquatic, not a part-land, part-sea dweller. Initially, it was questioned what the tiny hind appendages where used for. They are now believed to have been useful ‘grasping organs’ during mating. Thus they are not legs and useless leftovers from de-evolution.

    So, to say that evolutionists have predicted the intermediates between land mammals and sea mammals, you are correct. However, this prediction is not falsifiable. Because no matter how many times we never find any intermediates, the evolutionists will just say we won’t find it because the record is incomplete. Do you see how they can never be wrong? It is not possible to produce evidence that would refute this so called prediction.

    @F_alk:

    And yes: the theory covers periods of stasis. If the environment does not change, then any “optimization” process will come to an end some time…

    Jumps can oocur, and you might notice that one jump some where will end any stasis period you had before, because that one new species puts a lot of pressure onto the old ones.

    The Neo-Darwinists theory of evolution (the one we are debating here) does not cover periods of stasis. They say evolution occurred via slow, gradual change. Stasis is long periods of absolutely no change. Slow, gradual change is not a “jump.” Also, when one starts to discuss jumps, one must be careful not to go too far as too large of a jump infers saltation which is very illogical. However, this is exactly what is seen in the fossil record - large morphological gaps.

    @F_alk:

    How comes that there are so many bag-carrying (correct word) mammals in Australia? Because God wanted a special continent, or because that continent split from the rest of teh continents the first, when the “best mammal” was such a type, and stayed pretty isolated from everything afterwards, not having the pressure brought up by a (by chance created and proven “good”) new type of mammals?

    Biogeography is an area that evolutionists no longer use to try to prove evolution. This idea fell to the wayside in the 1960’s with the development of plate tectonics and continental drift. Here are some quotes from some top evolutionists which support my claim:

    “Biogeography, discipline notorious for idiosyncrasy, or lack of an agreed method.” Patterson, C.

    “We conclude, therefore, that biogeography (or geographical distribution of organisms) has not been shown to be evidence for or against evolution in any sense.” - Nelson and Platnick

    It is also important to note that in you above example regarding mammals in Australia, the fossil record shows that marsupials also lived on many other continents. Just because they thrive in Australia, does not prove evolution.

    Sorry that was so long winded. There were a lot of things to address.


  • Very impressive Wild2000. I believe that you are correct in nearly all of your points, and you demonstrate well that evolution, although has some “evidence” is not anywhere near to a proven science. Well done.


  • I like reading this. 🙂


  • Wild2000; in your argumentation you are making serious errors. First, you take all thing i said (fossils, genetic) separately, it’s unthinkable. We have different fossils at different time. If you look at a species like the horse, you will have the Hyracotherium at a time X, at a time X + 2, no more of the ancient species, but you got the Miohippus, with some difference. How can you refute that evidence ?

    Also you forget the main mecanism of evolution (i know) can be proven. Natural Selection & Mutations. That’s proven in a scientific way, like fossils are observed with scientific way. For me this is science. It’s not because you are unable to make a serious rebuttal that this is not science. Because it’s possible to refute Natural Selection, Mutations…, (but don’t take them out of context), it’s possible to refute evolution. It’s very hard because of the numbers of evidence, but it’s possible.

    Before we go any further on this whale thing, it is important to note that whales with legs is a myth. I did some looking into this and have found only two species with references to whales with legs. One is the Ambulocetus. I think this is the one that Fin was referring to. The most important thing to note is that this species skeleton is incomplete in all the important areas. From looking at the picture of actual bones found, saying that even 40% of the skeleton was found would be generous. Here is a quote from Don Batten

    A myth for who ? Anyway i was’nt speaking about Ambulocetus, it’s a walking whales, but there is also whales with little ridicoulus, useless legs. The Basilosaurus and the Dorudon for exemple.

    So, to say that evolutionists have predicted the intermediates between land mammals and sea mammals, you are correct. However, this prediction is not falsifiable. Because no matter how many times we never find any intermediates, the evolutionists will just say we won’t find it because the record is incomplete.

    Well we did found intermediates species. This is very hard to refute, when you got whales with little legs, there is a serious problem if you are a fixist.

    They say evolution occurred via slow, gradual change

    False, False and False.

    They admit there is mainly two kind of evolution, it’s linked to the systemic (catastrophic evolution, homeostatic evolution)


  • God is dead. -Neitche

    Nietche is dead. -God


  • @city:

    God is dead. -Neitche

    Nietche is dead. -God

    yeah, FS doesn’t believe that God is not dead yet.


  • God is Dead - John Proctor (The Crucible)

    Great play. Shows us another reason why we are so lucky Religion is no longer so prevalent.


  • eh, hated that play… :-?


  • @Wild2000:

    First of all, I do not think bones turned to stone is illusionary. Second, science is not about the “best” theory, it is about obtaining the correct theory.

    Are you working in Science? All that science does is obtaining the best theory, in the hope that it is the correct one.
    There is so much we don’t know, that we have to rely on what we can see. Knowing that we may not see all, we have to work with the “best”,
    Newtonian Mechanics is wrong, does that make Newton not a scientist?
    All we have in physics is not the GUT (Grand Unified Theory), which we believe is out there: Does that (working with the best, but not “the one” theory) make us not scientific?

    And: most important: Can you prove any theory to be correct? If you can, it is not falsifiable, and therefore you can start to address some of your thoughts about evolution on it.
    If you can’t, then human beings can not (never ever) do science, as we only can reach “the best”, but never know wether it is “the one”

    I agree that evolution has not been falsified. My point is that evolutionists have made the theory unfalsifiable. Thus it is not possible to falsify it - and thus only pseudoscience. I never said that evolution was never a theory. I think it is a theory alright - one based on pseudoscience.

    i don’t agree.
    I’ll give you a gedankenexperiment:
    Put some bacteria in a hostile environment (like heat, antibiotics etc). wait till 95% have died, note that time. Then put them back into a “better” environment and wait till they have reached the same strength in numbers as you had at the start.
    Repeat this process a 100 times.
    If you do not note a dramatic increase in the time you need to put them down to 5% survivors, then evolution is wrong.

    But you see, this is the same answer an astrologist would give you if questioned their “prediction.” They would say something like, “No you have not falsified astrology, because you didn’t apply the ideas correctly. You didn’t consider all the proper phases of the right moons; the rising and setting of the correct stars; or the precession of the Earth.” You see, astrology is too “complex” to fully understand. If you ask them why they cannot predict what will happen exactly, they will say it is too complex for even them to understand. Do you see the similarity here?

    Yes, and it is a false one.
    You will not see scientists who claim they will know “everything”, but for everything in science there is at least one who understands it….
    If they say “i can’t predict, because i don’t fully understand”, then they cannot claim my falsification is wrong, unless my falsification touches parts that they understand.

    My five points that I addressed above are the exact five “indirect proofs” that Fin provided for evolution. I never brought them up - only addressed them as not being proof.

    Then change my “bring up” to …“re-mention in different context”

    Let me clarify - at one time, evolutionists tried to use vestigial organs as proof for evolution. Today they no longer use them as proof. However, today when an evolution encounters a vestigial organ (or do not), they can always create a story to explain it.

    I always find it a good thing when people see that their theory has to be changed, i call it “progress”…
    the funny thing is, that probably a huge majority of the “stories” given by evolutionists would be the same, because they follow the same theory and think from that on.

    @F_alk:

    If you look up, you might see that you claimed just that, that you mixed genetics and evolution…

    Where have I mixed something up? Are you saying that the theory of Darwinian natural selection exists within the literature of population genetics? Survival differential and gene frequencies are not the same thing as survival of the fittest. Darwinian natural selection can be shown to have problems without causing a conflict with population genetics. The two theories stand on their own. As I said, evolutionists try to use population genetics to support evolution. Population genetics does not need the theory of evolution.

    it is funny though, that in genetics, in a natural environment, the genes tend to follow this “survival of the fittest”. And to me it seems like more than a coincidence.
    I agree with one needing the other, and the other one doesn’t.
    Have you looked up Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics?
    You could argue against that the same way…. but still, if you let them meet “in the middle” you can see that they there say the same.
    Genetics is supporting Evolution, as it gives evolution the mechanism of how change can occur. Without it, evolution would stand weaker. If genetics opposed it, evolution would have failed (so, it is falsifiable, just was not).

    Natural selection does not predict extinction. It only tries to explain it.

    Which is pretty much the same: If i can explain something, than it must have happened (otherwise there is no need to explain). If something has happened, and i can explain it, then i can say when and under which circumstances it will happen again, that is predicting it.

    Is the genetic code different? - Yes.

    Thus, no new genetic information is present. The more specialized organism contains a variation of what its parent organism had. Speciation allows for de-evolution. Not evolution.

    so, the world is de-voluting? You are not serious, are you?
    The multi-resistant bacteria that CC surely doesn’t want to meet are a product of de-volution?

    The Neo-Darwinists theory of evolution (the one we are debating here) does not cover periods of stasis.

    Is Neo-Darwinism up to date? Is that the theory used in biology?
    Just asking, if it does not allow for jumps after massive changes in the environment, then it sounds like a very incomplete theory. I doubt that it is any more than of historical value.

    Biogeography is an area that evolutionists no longer use to try to prove evolution.

    Isolated systems on the other hand are not, are they? And Australia is the best large scale ecosystem that was isolated for a long time.

    It is also important to note that in you above example regarding mammals in Australia, the fossil record shows that marsupials also lived on many other continents. Just because they thrive in Australia, does not prove evolution.

    No, but why do they thrive in this isolated area, plus one(!) other area in the world (amazon rain forest), but nowhere else? Why did they die out everywhere else (remember that i already said that they once where the “ruling” mammals). What did not happen in Australia that happened in the rest of the world?

    Sorry that was so long winded. There were a lot of things to address.

    No worries, i am not better 🙂


  • @city:

    God is dead. -Neitche

    Nietche is dead. -God

    N-I-E-T-Z-S-C-H-E

    sigh 🙂 🙂


  • If you can dismiss the theory of evolution with, what you belive to be suspect evidence, I have know idea how you stand behind creation, besides your faith, by the hand of a God.


  • God is dead. -Neitche

    Nietche is dead. -God

    Please, it’s Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. And when “Nietzsche” said that god was dead, it was not from a “physical” dead, Nietzsche was an atheist, it was from a spiritual death; god was dead in the heart of man, but “he” is still in our shared culture. And he did not said that directly, it was in the mouth of a mad man. He later write that the christian conception of god was the most corrupted on earth. And anyway what’s the link with evolution ?


  • @F_alk:

    Are you working in Science? All that science does is obtaining the best theory, in the hope that it is the correct one.
    There is so much we don’t know, that we have to rely on what we can see. Knowing that we may not see all, we have to work with the “best”,
    Newtonian Mechanics is wrong, does that make Newton not a scientist?

    I do not have to work in science to know that science is not defined by creating the “best” theory. Science is about truth. There are many criteria to define science – and just obtaining the “best” theory is not one of them. There is no “hope” in science either. In order for something to be science – you must “know” something is correct. If it is not “known” it is somewhere outside of science. A hypothesis at best.

    If Newtonian Mechanics is wrong, then it is not science. I never said that would not make Newton a scientist. We are debating what defines science, not what defines a scientist.
    @F_alk:

    And: most important: Can you prove any theory to be correct? If you can, it is not falsifiable, and therefore you can start to address some of your thoughts about evolution on it.

    I think you have this backwards. Any theory can be shown to be correct with the “right” set of data. To show a theory is unfalsifiable you must try to falsify it. If a theory is untestable, it is not possible to falsify it. See the difference?
    @F_alk:

    I’ll give you a gedankenexperiment:
    Put some bacteria in a hostile environment (like heat, antibiotics etc). wait till 95% have died, note that time. Then put them back into a “better” environment and wait till they have reached the same strength in numbers as you had at the start.
    Repeat this process a 100 times.
    If you do not note a dramatic increase in the time you need to put them down to 5% survivors, then evolution is wrong.

    First of all this does not prove or disprove evolution – if your experiment happens this way or not. Before and after the experiment (if any bacteria survives) – you still have bacteria. In order to prove evolution you must show the creation of a new genetic materail. This experiment does no such thing.

    The great thing about species like bacteria is that they reproduce so quickly. Still after all of these types of experiments, we still get bacteria. You would think that after millions and millions of experiments and many mutations, that these scientists would be able to finally show evolution occurs. However, even they cannot make a new species.

    If we cannot create a new species in a controlled environment, how do we expect nature to do it randomly? This is also shown in breeding of dogs or horses where scientists can take things only so far.
    @F_alk:

    Then change my “bring up” to …“re-mention in different context”

    How did I take Fin out of context? He said that vestigal organs are an indirect proof of evolution. I explained why they were not.
    @F_alk:

    Genetics is supporting Evolution, as it gives evolution the mechanism of how change can occur. Without it, evolution would stand weaker. If genetics opposed it, evolution would have failed (so, it is falsifiable, just was not).

    Why is this so hard to understand? Natural selection as defined by Darwin is not the same thing as survival differential and gene frequencies. If all of a sudden our understanding of population genetics would change 180 degrees, evolution would adapt to it. The theory of evolution does not use population genetics as a major foundational stone.

    I agree that the two can be logically discussed together. So can creationism and population genetics.
    @F_alk:

    Which is pretty much the same: If i can explain something, than it must have happened (otherwise there is no need to explain). If something has happened, and i can explain it, then i can say when and under which circumstances it will happen again, that is predicting it.

    I said evolution TRIES to explain it. I never said it does so successfully. Evolution creates stories which changes as the data changes. There is nothing that the theory of evolution stands behind which once falsified would disprove evolution.
    @F_alk:

    so, the world is de-voluting? You are not serious, are you?

    @F_alk:

    This we can deduce from looking at our whales today and see that they have a bone-structure that can be accounted to having had legs that turned something else/useless.

    The theory of evolution is not an upward climb. You yourself claim that whales have remnants of past legs. This is the type of de-evolution that I was referring to. I do not agree that whales once had legs. I do think it is possible for a species to lose features. Once again I will state, in order to show evolution, you must show the creation of NEW genetic material.

    @FinsterniS:

    Anyway i was’nt speaking about Ambulocetus, it’s a walking whales, but there is also whales with little ridicoulus, useless legs. The Basilosaurus and the Dorudon for exemple.

    I already explained the Basilosaurus. I looked up the Dorudon and it does NOT have any appendages where there would be legs. The only connectedness that I could find to this discussion is that Dorudons are whales. Maybe you could shed some light on how Dorudons prove whales had legs?
    @FinsterniS:

    Wild2000; in your argumentation you are making serious errors. First, you take all thing i said (fossils, genetic) separately, it’s unthinkable.

    Okay, so if I add up all of your individual indirect proofs which I showed were either neutral proofs or not proofs at all, you have no proof at on the side of evolution. I do not see how looking at them collectively or individually helps the case for evolution. You are trying to impose a synergistic effect on indirect proofs that even individually provide no proof. What am I missing here to create my serious error?
    @FinsterniS:

    If you look at a species like the horse, you will have the Hyracotherium at a time X, at a time X + 2, no more of the ancient species, but you got the Miohippus, with some difference. How can you refute that evidence ?

    To start with, whether or not Hyracotherium (or dawn horse) was really a horse is up for debate. There is much speculation on if it is really a Hyrax. And even if it is determined that that it was a horse, there are many problems with the claimed horse phylogeny, including not having a site in the world where the complete horse succession can be seen in the record. There are also issues with the number of ribs and lumbar vertebrae. The most amusing piece of evidence is that a three toed horse and a one toed horse fossils were found at the exact same location in Nebraska. So much for millions of years separating the beginning and the end. Most importantly, after all of this, you still have a horse. Differences between horses only shows speciation. No new genetic material.
    @FinsterniS:

    Also you forget the main mecanism of evolution (i know) can be proven. Natural Selection & Mutations. That’s proven in a scientific way, like fossils are observed with scientific way. For me this is science. It’s not because you are unable to make a serious rebuttal that this is not science. Because it’s possible to refute Natural Selection, Mutations…,

    Fin, you keep referring to generalities. How about providing some examples which has shown evolution to correct.

    Natural selection is set up either as a tautology, a special definition or even a lame definition. None of these are science. Why don’t you give some examples of natural selection and we can go from there.

    Mutations occur. The great majority are harmful. A select few are neutral or maybe beneficial. But again, where have mutations ever created new genetic material in a species? Evolution just wraps its story to include them because they are shown to happen.
    @FinsterniS:

    They admit there is mainly two kind of evolution, it’s linked to the systemic (catastrophic evolution, homeostatic evolution)

    @F_alk:

    Is Neo-Darwinism up to date? Is that the theory used in biology?
    Just asking, if it does not allow for jumps after massive changes in the environment, then it sounds like a very incomplete theory. I doubt that it is any more than of historical value.

    I am well aware that there are many variations in the theory of evolution. On one hand we have the Neo-Darwinists and on the other we have the punctionalists. There are some evolutionists somewhere in between. I did not mean to ignore the other side of the spectrum. It is just that the thread started around Darwin’s book and no one has really mentioned anything about punctionalists. Evolution hobbles on either foot.

    Whatever your preference, I think you need to stick to a side. You cannot be both a Neo-Darwinist and a punctionalist.

    Falk, what types of jumps are you suggesting? There are many evolutionists who disagree with this. Are you saying that the fossil record is complete or incomplete (complete being defined as representative of the species living through out the majority of time)? Because punctionalists that believe in these jumps also believe that the fossil record is complete.

    @Wild2000:

    It is also important to note that in you above example regarding mammals in Australia, the fossil record shows that marsupials also lived on many other continents. Just because they thrive in Australia, does not prove evolution.

    @F_alk:

    No, but why do they thrive in this isolated area, plus one(!) other area in the world (amazon rain forest), but nowhere else? Why did they die out everywhere else (remember that i already said that they once where the “ruling” mammals). What did not happen in Australia that happened in the rest of the world?

    From what I have read, marsupials are in major trouble in Australia due to the introduction of dogs and some other animals. Since you agree that marsupials living in Australia does not explain evolution – it seems like discussion on this group of species is a moot point.

    …so many voters, so few debaters.


  • @Mr:

    If you can dismiss the theory of evolution with, what you belive to be suspect evidence, I have know idea how you stand behind creation, besides your faith, by the hand of a God.

    Maybe you could fill me in on why you believe in evolution. What are the proofs that are so compelling that I am dismissing? So far all we have are Fin’s indirect proofs which as I showed are not really proof of evolution. How about some direct proofs?

    I asked for intermediates and all I got is the whale with “legs.” If you do any research on these legs, you will quickly see that evolution is going to need a lot more to ‘stand’ on.


  • Hehe, that’s funny. 😛


  • this isnt on topic but Deviant:Scripter whaen you had your signiture having a link to your site did it make your google standing go up?


  • WOW Geze! That’s freakin’ ironic!

    Just before I came to this forum and read your post, I had just finished reading all about Google’s PageRanking system and how it works. I was researching it to find out how to get my page listed higher. LOL, too weird for me. 😛

    Anyways, it probably didn’t make my site go any higher. Only six people clicked on that link from my signature. 😉


  • I was one of them, and its not how many times u click its how many links u have, isnt it?


  • Yes, I think it’s the quantity of links, but I also think it’s the quality of them also. If the page that is linking to you has a better ranking than you do, I think it helps your ranking go up.

    So…get that link on the front page of Microsoft.com and your site should skyrocket on Google. 😛

    BTW guys, want to know something really funny? Go to Yahoo.com and do a search for “search engine”. You’d be surprised at what the #1 result is. :lol: (Alright, I guess that isn’t quite fair, because Yahoo isn’t actually a search engine. 🙂 )


  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    So…get that link on the front page of Microsoft.com and your site should skyrocket on Google. 😛

    Ya, I think for a day or longer last year if you typed in “go to hell” in google the first site on the list was ‘Microsoft.com


  • Don’t tell me I get the last word on this one. I thought evolution was so compelling?


  • @Wild2000:

    Don’t tell me I get the last word on this one. I thought evolution was so compelling?

    The evolution vs creation debate is dead, we won’t return to fixism even if integrists are trying very hard. It’s not very interesting…

    I do not have to work in science to know that science is not defined by creating the “best” theory.

    Yes, you can never be sure of something, the role of science is giving us tool, on the form of laws, to explain how X react. The objective is to make a laws close to reality. You should read Popper. Science have not the truth, it’s the objective, we will always be closer. Evolution is the only theory that can explain why we have a species at time X, and another, with little differences, at time X + 2. Like i said with science like genetics we know new materials can be added, and we have observed the phenomena of micro-evolution. We know it is possible. It’s a very logical theory.

    If a theory is untestable, it is not possible to falsify it. See the difference?

    If the premisse are true and the inference logical; the conclusion is true. You cannot “test” evolution directly, but you can indirectly; you can test the mecanism of evolution. Mutation does happen. Micro-evolution does happen. We can trace history of species (with precise dating) and Natural Selection does happen, so what is illogical in this theory ? look at the parts, the indirect proof, interpretation, scientific laws (genetics), and the whole, then explain me that please, with a scientific and logical method, why this is not a valid theory, and if you can is there an alternative ? How can we explain that ? (Note that i know you don’t neccesarly need to give a new theory to falsify evolution).

    Okay, so if I add up all of your individual indirect proofs which I showed were either neutral proofs or not proofs at all, you have no proof at on the side of evolution. I do not see how looking at them collectively or individually helps the case for evolution. You are trying to impose a synergistic effect on indirect proofs that even individually provide no proof. What am I missing here to create my serious error?

    Fin, you keep referring to generalities. How about providing some examples which has shown evolution to correct.

    You showed nothing, if i have time and patiente i will answer to your rebuttal…

    About “generalities” the theory of complexity state that a system cannot be divide, you have to understand the whole system and the connection between the elements, a system is more than the sum of it’s part you should know that, i can give you good reference if you want.

    You said yourself when i spoke of vertigial organs “Vestigial organs - This is an argument created to dispute the theory of creation”. First of all, “god” can be a philosophical theory, but creation is’nt a scientific theory. Second; You said we are finding the use of what we think was vestigal organs, yes, i can take that (note that this time YOU have a theory with incomplete data, i have nothing against that but you do, you should argue with you about that), but the problem is that we know what’s their use, look at the caecum, it’s not that we don’t know what’s the use of it, we do, other herbivore mammals does have it. The horse have vestigial too of ancients fingers in their legs. It’s not like “Hey wow we don’t know what’s that it’s vestigial”

    Natural selection is set up either as a tautology, a special definition or even a lame definition. None of these are science

    Two words; Historical sciences. For you Lamarck’s “theory” was science (it was base purely on intuition, no real value), but now it seem evolution is not science. Strange. Also a tautology would be; Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. THAT is tautology, but i really don’t see that in evolution, sorry but tautology is about logic, it’s a circular logical fallacies if you prefer. I really wonder where you take all this stuff like Tautology and Thermodynamics. Anyway…


  • Fin-

    The evolution-creation debate is only dead in your mind. The debate is very much alive. Until evolutionists are able to show some actual evidence for evolution and define evolution in a way that can actually be tested, it is not proven. At this point evolution is more of a dogma.

    It is interesting that you bring up Popper. He was the one who said that in order for something to be considered science, it muse be falsifiable. Evolution is not science by his standards.

    Evolution is not the only means of explaining why we have variations between species. Biblical creationists expect to see variations as well. Natural selection and mutations fit very well (are actually required) in the biblical creation model. However, there are major differences in how evolution and creation use them.

    Evolution as you correctly state, says that natural selection and mutations add information.

    Biblical creation states that natural selection and mutations result in either a loss of information or no change in information present.

    The key is that only one of these models is consistent with what has been found through other scientific fields; specifically population genetics and biology. I find it troubling that you make the following claim:

    Like i said with science like genetics we know new materials can be added, and we have observed the phenomena of micro-evolution.

    In all of the research that has been done with population genetics, there is not instance noted that a mutation has created new genetic information. I would appreciate it if you could provide a source which contradicts this.

    Before I agree on micro-evolution, we must first agree on the definition. Micro-evolution is really only variation within a species. It is not the addition of new information. It is the re-arrangement or loss of existing genetic information. All the examples that evolutions provide as proofs for evolution are really only examples of these variations (moths, finches, dogs, flies, bacteria, etc.). That being said, yes micro-evoultion does occur. However, there is no evidence available that shows macro-evolution is possible. If evolution is defined as the creation of new genetic information (which it must), in a sense, the term micro-evolution is really a misnomer.

    If the premisse are true and the inference logical; the conclusion is true. You cannot “test” evolution directly, but you can indirectly; you can test the mecanism of evolution. Mutation does happen. Micro-evolution does happen. We can trace history of species (with precise dating) and Natural Selection does happen, so what is illogical in this theory ? look at the parts, the indirect proof, interpretation, scientific laws (genetics), and the whole, then explain me that please, with a scientific and logical method, why this is not a valid theory, and if you can is there an alternative ? How can we explain that ?

    Nowhere have I written that natural selection and mutations do not happen. As I have shown you above, evolution requires the addition of new genetic information. Since natural selection and mutations do not do this, how are these indirect proofs? Micro-evolution does not show evolution. It only shows variation between species. Where are the irrefutable intermediates?

    I am very curious on your take of the exact history of species. Scientists are hard pressed to show any lineage. The fossil record shows species showing up, fully formed without intermediates. Which dating methods are you referring to? Many of the dating methods scientists have found actually show the age of the earth to have a maximum life much shorter than the billions of years proposed by evolutionists.

    Something to keep in mind here is that the evidence that evolutionists are trying to use does not speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. Evolutionists attempt to interpret the data with a naturalistic, if not atheistic mindset. This in itself puts a bias on any work done. The same data can also be interpreted by a creation scientist in a way that makes logical sense. However, in many of the instances I have read about, including the ones mentioned above regarding natural selection and mutations, creation science actually makes more sense. Please re-read the part on mutations if you disagree.

    About “generalities” the theory of complexity state that a system cannot be divide, you have to understand the whole system and the connection between the elements, a system is more than the sum of it’s part you should know that, i can give you good reference if you want.

    I am sorry, when I referred to generalities, I was trying to address you point on natural selection and mutations. I was looking for examples. I agree that the theory of evolution is very complex.

    First of all, “god” can be a philosophical theory, but creation is’nt a scientific theory

    Why is creation-science not scientific? Are you going to tell me it is not because it is not falsifiable? Remember, evolutionists claim that their theory is better because it is science and creation-science is not. I think they both stand on the same grounds – interpretation of data through a dogma.

    Second; You said we are finding the use of what we think was vestigal organs, yes, i can take that (note that this time YOU have a theory with incomplete data, i have nothing against that but you do, you should argue with you about that), but the problem is that we know what’s their use, look at the caecum, it’s not that we don’t know what’s the use of it, we do, other herbivore mammals does have it. The horse have vestigial too of ancients fingers in their legs. It’s not like “Hey wow we don’t know what’s that it’s vestigial”

    The whole reason that evolutionists used the vestigal organ argument was to try and show imperfect design. You listed it as an indirect proof for evolution. I stated why it is not. Vestigal organs are a good example of an evolutionary claim shown to be incorrect. I am not sure where you are going with the complete and incomplete data thing. I never said that vestigal organs make the theory of evolution incomplete.

    Two words; Historical sciences. For you Lamarck’s “theory” was science (it was base purely on intuition, no real value), but now it seem evolution is not science. Strange.

    I am not sure why this thing with Lamarck keeps coming up. I said that Lamarck’s theory and research was science at the time because his theory was based on ideas that could be tested and potentially proven false. It was subsequently proven false and is thus today, not considered science. I do not think that the theory of evolution is testable like the Lamarck’s theory. You are trying to compare apples and oranges in terms of falsibility.

    Also a tautology would be; Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. THAT is tautology, but i really don’t see that in evolution, sorry but tautology is about logic, it’s a circular logical fallacies if you prefer. I really wonder where you take all this stuff like Tautology and Thermodynamics.

    First of all, I have never used Thermodynamics in any of my arguments. I am still reading into the law(s) and how it relates to the evolution-creation debate. F_alk was the one who injected it into this thread.

    Thank you for giving everyone the definition of a tautology. I agree with your definition. What I said in a previous post about natural selection is:

    Natural selection is set up either as a tautology, a special definition or even a lame definition. None of these are science.

    I said it is usually set up as one of those three things. I did not say it was always set up as a tautology. I have read many quotes by leading evolutionists that state natural selection as a tautology. Also, I never said that a tautology is not logical. It is logical by definition. A great example of a tautology is: A table is a table. Evolution needs logic that explains something, not self-defining.

    What I was trying to get at in the previous post was that it is nearly impossible to state the mechanism of natural selection in a way that is science. Any of those three makes the explanation non-science.


  • It is interesting that you bring up Popper. He was the one who said that in order for something to be considered science, it muse be falsifiable. Evolution is not science by his standards.

    Popper was a great mind. It’s true that somewhere in his live he believe evolution was not science but he change his mind. He said in a letter to New Scientist;

    “… some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested”

    • Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980

    “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological.”

    • Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica 32:339-355, 1978

    Evolution is not the only means of explaining why we have variations between species. Biblical creationists expect to see variations as well. Natural selection and mutations fit very well (are actually required) in the biblical creation model. However, there are major differences in how evolution and creation use them.

    Evolution as you correctly state, says that natural selection and mutations add information.

    Biblical creation states that natural selection and mutations result in either a loss of information or no change in information present.

    The key is that only one of these models is consistent with what has been found through other scientific fields; specifically population genetics and biology. I find it troubling that you make the following claim:

    The bible does’nt speak of evolution, it speak of myth and creation, there’s a big difference, and if you start making reference to god and the bible i think there’s no need to debate, you see you are at a point where you can kill for god, i really doupt anything can change your mind. And you dodge my question; why there’s a species at X, and an other at X + 2 with some difference, i gave you the exemple of the horse.

    About my claim; it’s false that new material cannot be added, you forget about duplication and polyploïdy, where the genome get larger. And that we can sequenced DNA we can look before and after to see if there’s new material.

    Something to keep in mind here is that the evidence that evolutionists are trying to use does not speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. Evolutionists attempt to interpret the data with a naturalistic, if not atheistic mindset. This in itself puts a bias on any work done.

    There is sure a naturalistic mindset. Evolution in science was made when we remplace “god did this” by “this is how it work”. Religion has no place in science, sure it’s naturalistic, we won’t try to speak to all schizophreniac, shaman, priest and monk before making a theory. And the bias in science exist (socio-cultural), but not as much as religion. Because scientist look for facts to make a theory, creationist have the “truth”, they only search for facts to consolidate their theory, and you call the naturalistic approach biased ? It’s not you that brign up the thermodynamic argument in the first place ?

    The same data can also be interpreted by a creation scientist in a way that makes logical sense. However, in many of the instances I have read about, including the ones mentioned above regarding natural selection and mutations, creation science actually makes more sense. Please re-read the part on mutations if you disagree.

    And it could be taken by any theory involving an all-powerfull being. I can invent a theory about a drunk god and it will be at least as much accurate as the bible and as much plausible. Like the finn believe it was from the blood of a trool, when it involve super-power it’s impossible to say who is right. Seriously i don’t care about creation “scientist”, the oxymoron is so big.

    Why is creation-science not scientific? Are you going to tell me it is not because it is not falsifiable? Remember, evolutionists claim that their theory is better because it is science and creation-science is not. I think they both stand on the same grounds interpretation of data through a dogma.

    Creation-science is not scientific because THEY HAVE THE “ANSWER”, they just look for facts. It’s not how it is supposed to work. About “dogma”… No, dogma does not make people change their theory, evolution change a lots ! Creation-science did not change, this is why creation-science is dogma, and evolution is not, scientist look for facts and they make their theory a little more accurate, creation-scientific does not care about science, they’ll come with any kind of escuse, thermodynamic, the light is getting slower, carbone 14 does not work out et cetera…

    The whole reason that evolutionists used the vestigal organ argument was to try and show imperfect design. You listed it as an indirect proof for evolution. I stated why it is not. Vestigal organs are a good example of an evolutionary claim shown to be incorrect. I am not sure where you are going with the complete and incomplete data thing. I never said that vestigal organs make the theory of evolution incomplete.

    Incomplete because you said we found out new use of these vestigial. But we did’nt for some, and you are making abstraction of the facts that some vertigial are on some other species where we know their use, and that vestigial when we speak of bone is even more credible.

    Also, I never said that a tautology is not logical. It is logical by definition.

    Tautology is about “logic”, but it’s an illogical argument/definition.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

82
Online

15.1k
Users

36.0k
Topics

1.5m
Posts