Evolution: a red herring?

Hi Quester,I just joined today as well. Without going into whether ToE is or isn't true I would just like to say that, for starters, Evolution (specifically macro-evolution and chemical evolution) is more of a religion than a scientific theory. Until we can get logical thinkers to put aside their personal agendas we will never make any true progress on this issue. I would love to see a scientific basis for the Evolution belief system but no one has yet to give me any hard science to support it. Science rarely, if ever proves anything in absolute terms. But science can concretely disprove theories or ideas and this is at the core of the scientific method. Scientists propose theories, then design experiments to eliminate (disprove) possiblities which leads to further refining of the theory. Over time, when enough experiments have been done, a theory can become a law (such as the thermodynamic laws, law of gravity, etc.) Any good scientists will tell you that a valid scientific theory must be set up in such a way that it can be DISPROVED. This is crucial to the scientific method. If you can't even imagine experiments that can disprove the theory then the theory is pretty much useless and not considered valid (at least not in true science). This is why religion is not science. We cannot design experiments disprove the existence of a creator. By the same token we cannot design experiments to disprove evolution. We cannot even imagine a finding in nature that would disprove evolution. Which is why evolution is just another religion in the end (no offense intended to you religion haters out there) and if you are intellectually honest you can admit that its a belief system that is outside of science and stop pretending that it is scientific. The evolution faith movement is driven by the goal of finding what they already know in their hearts to be true and when any real scientific evidence crops up over time that contridict the belief system they simply modify the belief system. This is not science. I have met only a handful of evolutionist who are willing to admit this and for these I have respect.

this is a classic creationist canard, and simple misdirection. "chemical evolution" is not a biological principle, is it?Why is chemical evolution misdirection? Is it misdirection because you simply don't won't to deal with this tiny problem that makes your religion fall apart? Chemical evolution is a natural consequence of the logic of macro-evolution. Macro-evolution may not be the current term that you fancy but you obviously know what it means. I am not the first person to use this term and have seen evolutionists use it so I am not sure why it offends you. I don't want to be offensive so I will just say evolution from now on so we can stay focused. At any rate, one cannot avoid the final consequence of believing in evolution which is that life had to evolve from non-living material. For this to occur we would have to violate a very important law in biology called the Law of Biogenesis - life only comes from life. There is never been an experiment done in which non-living material has evolved into living. That's why its a law. Most all biologists are evolutionists but I still cannot understand how it is scientific to create a "theory" which violates the most fundamental law of their own discipline. It would be like a chemist stating a new chemical theory that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, but in the discipline of chemistry such a person would be laughed at. I wish someone could give me an explanation for why biologists blindly accept a theory that violates their own fundamental law. Even if we forsake that law and assume this first organism that came from the primordial soup, this first organism would obviously have to reproduce asexually. Can you propose a logical mechanism for the evolution of sexual reproduction?

"there's lots of very hard evidence, in the form of mineral deposits -- fossils."Can you please give me more details on how you believe that mineral deposits and fossils are hard evidence that supports the evolutionary mechanism? Specifically, can you give me an example of a transitional species that links one genus to another? Since this process would have happened over millions of years one would think that these transitional forms would abound.Off topic: Would you mind telling me how you got my text in the indented box format?

I think you know that the term macro-evolution is referring to the evolution from a lower form to a higher form of life while micro-evolution explains why we have different species of dogs for example.

By the same token we cannot design experiments to disprove evolution."for instance, if a dog gave birth to a cat, that would effectively disprove the law heritability, meaning that any system describing reproduction through heritable features, such as evolution, would also be overturned."It seems to me that if a dog spontaneously gave birth to a cat (or vice versa)it would be a great thing for evolution. This would be hard evidence for one genus evolving into another, which I have never seen anyone give an example of, either living or in the fossil record. It is easy to understand how different species of Feline could evolve. Its not sow easy to see how Feline could evolve into Canine for example. You can mate any cat with another species of cat but you you cannot get an offspring by mating a cat with any species of dog."actually, yes, it is. if you have a working theory, and new information presents itself that contradicts that theory -- you have modify or discard that theory, don't you?"I would agree that if something discredits the theory you have to discard the theory and create a new theory but it would not be very useful to just build upon the old theory if its based on something that you later find to be untrue. For example if I state a the "Theory of Only Life on Earth" and I later find concrete evidence of life on Mars it wouldn't make much sense to rename my theory to "Theory of Only Life on Earth and Mars"."that's more or less the opposite of what creationists do: ignore the vast majority of evidence against their position."Your statement makes no logical sense. I would love for you to give me an example of evidence against a creator? Its impossible to provide such evidence. To disprove the existence of a creator is outside the scope of science therefore there can be no scientific evidence against a creator. Obviously, any being who could create our universe would not be subject to the very laws in which this being himself created. So while it is impossible for you to provide evidence against a creator I could give you a proof of a creator but the proof would have to rely upon your acceptance of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. If you reject those laws then I would be wasting my time.

Is that a fact? Let's see, if a mechanism was found that prevented minor genetic changes from accumulating and leading to macro-evolutionary changes then the ToE would be falsified. Seemed pretty easy to conceive of a possible falsification of the theory to me. Took me all of about 15 seconds, what's your excuse?

One can propose mechanisms all day long but mechanisms are not scientific evidence. I am an experimentalist. To experimentally disprove evolution would be impossible because an evolutionist will always argue that given enough time basically anything can happen. So how can one design an experiment to concretely disprove that microevolution + time = macroevolution.But I will turn it around on you and ask you to just give me just one experimentally verifiable case, in even the simplest of organisms, where minor genetic changes accumulate leading to macro-evolutionary changes.

Wow, just wow. Could you be more wrong? Seriously, I am completely serious. Is there any way on Earth that statement could be more wrong?

​

Introduction to the Scientific Method

​

From the link...

​

"If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified."

​

That is exactly what you are supposed to do. If it didn't then it *would* be a religion.

You just made my point for me. Where are the experiments that prove evolution? More importantly, how can we do an experiment that disproves evolution? How can we do an experiment to disproves micro + time = macro? No matter how long we carry out a genetic experiment in order to try and force mutations into evolving into a new and viable life form an evolutionist can always say there was not enough time to accomplish the task. We have been doing fruit fly experiments for over 100 years now, involving thousands of generations in order to try and force a genetic mutation that is actually beneficial to the organisms viability, but in fact the mutations are almost always detrimental to the organism and in the best cases they are neutral in terms of viability. Not to mention that no new species has been developed or even a new enzyme.Of course evolutionists will say there has not been enough time. That may be true, but without the scientific experiments to back up the claims it is still just a belief system. I can't disprove your belief system because you have not set it up so that it can be disproved. It's not subject to the testibility of experimental science which is why I say its not a valid scientific theory.I hope you better understand where I am coming from now.

. . . But we have found links in the fossil record - I would think that anyone interested in evolution would have heard of tiktaalik discovered last year, one more link in the chain connecting fish to land vertrebrates. That's evolution at well above the genus level - so why haven't you heard of it or the other well-known (and many, many more less well known) transitional fossils ?

I am sorry but have you seen the picture of the bone fragments for this species? I refuse to believe that we can know all that is claimed to be known about this organism from a few fragments of bone. Surely you can agree that a fair amount of assumptions are made and these assumptions are unverifiable. This is the case will pretty much all fossils. I am not saying they aren't true but only they cannot be proven to be true.I am sure we could give our opinions about these types of things for a long time with little accomplished.What I really wish more than anything that one of you biologist or evolutionists out there could honestly and logically address my previous point about chemical evolution. Nobody seems to want to talk about the jump from non-living to living.

. . . For example if I state a the "Theory of Only Life on Earth" and I later find concrete evidence of life on Mars it wouldn't make much sense to rename my theory to "Theory of Only Life on Earth and Mars".

​

Why? You act like changing your mind and position to suit new evidence as it is uncovered is a bad thing, or is somehow dishonest. What could be more honest than admitting error and correcting it?

Its not a matter of changing your mind, it a matter of sheer logic. Why would I simply rename my theory to encompass every new planet that I found life on. If I found life on mars after my initial theory of "life only on earth" why would I revise my theory to just add mars, isn't more logical to just start over with a new theory? Obviously if I found life on mars too then it highly likely that there is life on many other planets so I need to redesign my theory to make it useful otherwise I am just wasting time. (Please note that this is only a simple example and I am not stating any position of the existence or non-existence of life on other planets.). . . So while it is impossible for you to provide evidence against a creator I could give you a proof of a creator but the proof would have to rely upon your acceptance of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Well, wait a minute. Is the creator outside of science, or not? How is it that you managed to directly contradict yourself in the space of a paragraph?

Of course DISPROVING creator is outside of science because the creator of anything would not be subject to the "laws" of his own creation. But we accept the observed laws of the universe as true laws (i.e. they are unwavering and always true for all time) then the laws the creation can point back to the existence of the creator and we can still speak scientifically without involving any hand waving. The best way to do this is by simple process of elimination. Would you like to see? But before I go further I need to ask you some questions because the proof does make some basic assumptions.First, do you accept the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics?

I do not know what AIG is and my only source to this point is from my own brain and experiences as a research scientist.

. . . This is not true, since some changes do confer an advantage in some situations. Rather, we should say, “We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.”

OK, but I was referring specifically to fruit flys, the organism with the most genetic experiments done on it to date, and I don't think you will find a single example of a mutation that is advantageous to the organism in its natural environment. And since you brought it up, have we even a single example of a mutation that increases genetic information?

. . . Can't speak toward enzymes at the moment without further research but here are several examples of new speciation:

​

Observed Instances of Speciation

I have not read the article yet so please tell me, does it give a concrete experimental example of a genetic mutation giving rise to a new species?

. . . Been there, done that. For one thing the second law only works in a closed system, which is not Earth due to the sun.

I was not talking about the earth but the entire universe. Surely you can agree that the universe is a close system, correct? So that we can focus like a laserbeam I want to go stepwise with you (you won't see it yet but it is relevent to evolution):Has the universe 1) Always existed or 2) Not always existed ?

. . . we have the whole front half, nearly complete. specifically intriguing are the forelimbs, which alone would have been enough to indicate a good transition. the fact that they are at a mid-way point between the forms of lobe-finned fish and tetrapods, homologous to both, is enough indication that it is a "transitional species."

Sorry, that just not good enough for me. We still don't really know much about the organs of this organism without significant assumptions.

. . . What I really wish more than anything that one of you biologist or evolutionists out there could honestly and logically address my previous point about chemical evolution.

​

if you want to talk about chemistry, ask a chemist.

Well, I happen to have a Ph.D. in chemisty, specific areas of expertise are in physical chemistry and organic chemistry with a minor in mathematics. But that is beside the point. Its not really a matter of chemistry in the strict sense. Its only called "chemical evolution" because its the theory that non-living chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves to become the first life form. This breaks the biologist most fundamental law. Why will no one address this?

Why should I? The link is there, why can't you read for yourself and make your own conclusions?

​

If you are actually a research scientist, I would expect more curiosity and less bluster. I am beginning to have my doubts.

Sorry if I've offended you. I was merely trying to save myself some time. I thought that if you had read it thoroughly already you could just tell me that one point so that I could decide whether or not I want to dedicate my time to going through it myself. I am perfectly prepared to prove my qualifications if need be.By the way, what is your background/profession?

i'm not sure i believe you. your vast ignorance of biology leads me to believe that you haven't even been through a four year degree in the sciences, where this sort of thing is explained quite well.

Please tell me what you would accept as valid proof of my degree. By the way you never told me yours.

...Its only called "chemical evolution" because its the theory that non-living chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves to become the first life form.

​

are you unaware of the famous miller-urey experiment? i'd think they'd covered that somewhere in your chemistry degree. that's a rather good first step of the model, isn't it?

I must ask you if you are aware of the experiment? Do you really believe that this experiment, in which trace amounts of a few amino acids were formed from a reaction chamber that was supposed to similate the "primordial soup" is anywhere close to being experimental evidence for life evolving from non-living material? Do you have any concept of the difference between an amino acid and a simple protein, not to mention the more complex proteins in living systems. We then have to make the jump to enzymes. You obviously don't have the faintest clue about the chemical complexity of these molecules and far removed even the simplest form of life is away from these more complex chemicals. I would have thought by now evolutionary theory would have graduated from citing miller-urey as evidence for chemical evolution.

I never said that the fruit fly experiments were specifically designed to 'try and force a genetic mutation that is actually beneficial to the organisms viability'. I was merely stating the facts concerning the experiments, not the intention of the experiments.

. . . There are many examples of successful selection experiments to enhance specific traits which might be considered beneficial such as longevity , pesticide resistance or differing levels of geotaxis but virtually all mutational screens set out with the specific intention of breaking genetic systems to see how they work.

Please cite one scientific reference of a genetic mutation experiment in which the mutation creates a new species that is more viable IN ITS NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. You might be able to find new isolated traits which might in seem beneficial but show me the complete mutated organism that more viable in its natural environment than its predesessors.

Were you accepted to a doctoral program straight out of HS? This is the first time I have heard a PhD refer to their educational background in a singular tense

I don't know why you insist on playing these childish games. Is it because you cannot believe, in your arrogance, that someone with higher education than yourself could possibly not believe in evolution? I not only have a Bachelors and a Ph.D. in Chemistry but was at the top of my class as both a graduate and undergraduate. Now I admit that I am no longer in acedemia because I had to leave that behind to actually do something with my life. I now run a multi-million dollar company. You can see my resume here Essential Oil University (EOU) (although its not been updated in while because I have been my own boss for some time now).