|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Hi Michael.
As you can see there has been a bit of a pile on, here. The reason for this is that the points you make are very common misconceptions many creos hold as givens. I guess what I'm looking for is a smoking gun that can say that ToE is factually wrong. But the one stipulation is that this smoking gun must be made of science and not religion. Can you help me out? Edited by Larni, : new sub title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Content hidden. There was some on-topic content, but Bolder-dash won't be around to respond, so I've hidden the entire message. --Admin
Well, there are plenty of smoking guns, but the problem is the threshold that one is using to measure the reason for doubt. If the threshold were simply identifying aspects of living organisms which simply just don't make sense when considered through a simple Darwinian mechanism of development, the the list is almost endless. Things like the brains mechanics which use different thicknesses of nerves so that impulses which are traveling different distance all arrive at the same time, allowing us to sense information simultaneously, so as not to confuse us about information coming in at all different times, or things like the emergence of both emitters and receptors, which need to go hand in hand in order to perform a useful function. There are thousands of these problems which can not possibly be explained as the result of random beneficial mutations in any way that one could call this conclusion scientific. However if the threshold is to convince people who are already so entrenched in their evolutionist beliefs, (because this is the religious worldview they are hoping for, or because of the educational systems constant brainwashing) then of course they can think of almost any explanation to try to rationalize away these logical difficulties. With this type of paradigm, in which seemingly intelligent people can so easily just dismiss critical thought, and fantasize away these issues, no evidence will ever be enough. Instead these people will just lower themselves into an intellectual trough of mindless insults, denial, logically weak positions of "well, just because you can't explain it.." or "well, can you think of anything better..." and so now you have a impossible threshold to overcome. Convincing the unconvinceable, who swear their only allegiance is to science, but who are so easily willing to drop science in order to believe things they have absolutely no way of demonstrating. Their need for scientific reality suddenly disappears, as they believe in their theory through faith alone-a practice they claim to reject. Believing in these things you can't possibly explain requires more faith than any worldview I could ever think of. But boy does their hypocrisy shine like neon when they complain so noisily for the lack of evidence in other beliefs. Edited by Admin, : Hide content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Bolder-dash,
If you can't follow the Forum Guidelines then I'll continue suspending you for lengthy periods of time. See you around Thanksgiving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
So, is there any one out there on tinterweb who can provide a smoking gun and support it with actual evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 333 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
So, is there any one out there on tinterweb who can provide a smoking gun and support it with actual evidence? no if there was he would be getting a noble prize, though there was one claim once uppon a time that actualy had merrit. A one cellular organism forgot the name had a interesting way of movement it had a "motor" some other parts and the tail sticking out that got rotated by the "motor" it was argued that evolution could not produce such a thing cause it was too complex to evolve as a single system, and the parts on their own where conshiderd ussles so it was proposed that it could not have evolved from combining other parts in to this whole that works. It got debunked later one though some creos still use the little critter though they do not know why it was a problem for evolution usualy when the organisem gets pointed out by creos they mention everything about it except the initial problem it atcualy posed. they usualy show a video of the organism moving and say look at that thing it can move so fast and stop on a dime evolution could not have made it. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
That would be the flagellar motor in bacteria. Micheal Behe proposed this and had his ass handed to him in the Dover trial for it.
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
quote: The falsification of neo-Darwinian TOE will be a scientific process. It won't happen with one paper. However, I believe that the process has begun. Now before I begin, I would like to define some terms for clarification: TOE = The change in gene (allele) frequencies within a population over time. This is a narrow theory, and is often referred to as a "fact". Neo Darwinian TOE = NDTOE = The neo Darwinian synthesis of TOE. It is a broad theory that uses TOE to postualte the origin of the species through common ancestry. It includes the evolutionary tree/bush, and the evolution of natural history. This is really the theory in contention with creationists. Now please be advised.....I agree with TOE. Populations change over time. We see this. I agree. So please don't confuse the two in your arguments with me. However, we cannot observe long periods of time except for the contentious fossil record. We cannot observe the dino/bird trasition that NDTOE theorizes. etc etc. It is the NDTOE that can be falsified, and that is what us creos are working towards. As I said, the process has begun, and there is evidence. Dr. John Sanford has already published a few things on this subject, and more is coming. You can find his information here: http://logosresearchassociates.org/...john-sanford/#more-136 His paper here claims falsification: http://logosresearchassociates.org/...Mendels-Accountant.pdf This is not peer reviewed material, but Dr. Sanford has approximately 5 papers that will be peer reviewed and published in the science community by June of next year. Dr. Sanford is an extremely accomplished Biologist/ Genetisist and has a long track record of getting his papers published in the scientific community. Dr. Sandford's work, when published and peer reviewed will not immediately falsify NDTOE. The claims will be made, but the process will take years, but I believe that the process has already begun, and population genetics will lead to the demise of NDTOE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The claims will be made, but the process will take years, but I believe that the process has already begun, and population genetics will lead to the demise of NDTOE. Quite the contrary - all available evidence in population genetics supports the common descent of organisms. To the extent that Sanford's computer program demonstrates the contrary, that's simply evidence that he's a bad programmer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Accepted scientific theories are never falsified. They are sometimes abandoned in favor of a better theory, but not because they have been falsified.The falsification of neo-Darwinian TOE will be a scientific process. If you wonder why falsification is still used, it is because falsificationism is itself unfalsifiable. People still find it useful, though there is a lot of hedging of statements about falsifying. Simply put, falsificationism won't be abandoned until a better alternative becomes readily available and widely accepted.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Yawn!His paper here claims falsification: http://logosresearchassociates.org/...Mendels-Accountant.pdf The paper claims to have a theoretical refutation of neo-Darwinism. Biologists are regularly seeing empirical data that they find to be supportive of neo-Darwinism. Which do you think will win the day - the theoretical analysis, or the actual empirical data? The paper is based on a simulation, which claims to show that neo-Darwinism doesn't work. Yet, if I examine the literature of machine learning, I can find many simulations that are described as using the genetic algorithm (GA), and there is plenty of empirical evidence that GA works. If it works with GA programming, but doesn't work with the program "Mendel's Accountant", then maybe Mendel's Accountant is just a dud program. Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Just to echo what Crash and nwr have stated.
Mendel's Accountant is not an accurate model of reality. GIGO at work here, I think.
Dr. Sanford ... ...has a long track record of getting his papers published in the scientific community. When you read as many substandard peices of research as I have to you understand that a lot of what gets published is awful research (sometimes I feel like I'm reading about a strange land where error bars are an extinct species!). Edited by Larni, : spellingk Edited by Larni, : error bars n ting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
olivortex Member (Idle past 4805 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
Sorry to post this out of the blue but I just realized you also were on 4forums. I am too. Brackets closed .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Yup, thats me in my old Boba Fett incarnation.
I normally hang out in the ID/Evo threads being a bit more mature and handsom than I am here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
As I said, the process has begun, and there is evidence. Dr. John Sanford has already published a few things on this subject, and more is coming. You can find his information here: http://logosresearchassociates.org/...john-sanford/#more-136 His paper here claims falsification: http://logosresearchassociates.org/...Mendels-Accountant.pdf According to Sanford's simulation, rabbits should have gone extinct a long time ago given their short generation time. They haven't. Reality demonstrates that Sanford's simulation is not representative of reality. There was a thread over at theologyweb and one over at infidel's that dealt with these calculations. I can dig them up if you want. To put it another way . . . A few years back there were some scientists who programmed a simulation dealing with aerodynamics. When they applied this program to bees the program told them that bees should not be able to fly. So who is right? The reality that bees are capable of flying or the simulation that says they can't?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
When you read as many substandard peices of research as I have to you understand that a lot of what gets published is awful research To be fair to Sanford I don't think there is any reason to think his research papers were bad, but they weren't to do with population genetics. He is best known for his work in the field of Biolistics and the development of 'gene gun' technology. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlphaOmegakid Member (Idle past 2903 days) Posts: 564 From: The city of God Joined: |
According to Sanford's simulation, rabbits should have gone extinct a long time ago given their short generation time. Interesting claim, please support this with some evidence. I know of no such claim.
They haven't. Reality demonstrates that Sanford's simulation is not representative of reality. Well, your claim is false. There are extinct species of rabbits. And there are some extremely close to extinction right now. Do you recognize reality, or is it something you just believe in?
There was a thread over at theologyweb and one over at infidel's that dealt with these calculations. I can dig them up if you want. Why not bring forth your ideas and facts and arguments and let theirs stay where they are.
To put it another way . . . A few years back there were some scientists who programmed a simulation dealing with aerodynamics. When they applied this program to bees the program told them that bees should not be able to fly. So who is right? The reality that bees are capable of flying or the simulation that says they can't? Well if the simulation says rabbits are going extinct, and rabbits are indeed going extinct then I would say it is a pretty good model. Again, what is this reality you keep referring to?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024