Evolution Easily Refuted

Greetings:You know, Mr. Pemboli, when someone starts making wild and inane statements it is usually indicative that he is losing the argument. Your last post is just such a "species" if I can use the pun. Maybe you can "evolve" it into something cogent?Anyway, Newton's Laws, most of Einstein's General Relativity theory and Thermodynamics are all provable - Evolution's insistence on biological changes in class are not. Let's take a look at some of these.Newton's Laws: #1 - A body at rest remains at rest and a body in motion continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force. #2 - A force (F) acting on a body gives it an acceleration (a) which is in the direction of the force and has magnitude inversely proportional to the mass (m) of the body: F=ma. #3 - Whenever a body exerts a force on another body, the latter exerts a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction on the former. All three of these laws apply when the space shuttle is launched. That Newton's laws break down when it comes to quantum physics is not very relevant because the laws were not made to explain quantum phenomena.General Relativity - is used to describe gravitationial forces in the curvature in space caused by the presence of mass. Ideas that have been proven in general relativity are that clocks run slower in strong gravitational fields, gravitional redshift, gravitional lensing and the relativistic precession of orderly bodies. All of which are provable. What has not been proven is what is often called the "fudge factor" - an error that Hawking involves himself in as well.All I have simply asked for from you evolutionists is some scientific proof that an organism can change its class: fish to bird, fish to lizard, fish to lizard to dinosaur to bird, whatever flavour of the theory you like to delight in I am open to read your "scientific evidence." That we have gone through 20 odd posts and I have not read a shread of evidence that backs up your claims makes me suspicious that your theory really has no scientific validity.I am waiting - but I am not holding my breath!Robert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Greetings:You know, Mr. Pemboli, when someone starts making wild and inane statements it is usually indicative that he is losing the argument.

---

What was wild or inane about my post?Para1: I pointed out that Newton's Laws did not explain all observable phenomenon, thus they are not "exact" in the definition you gave, ie "Admitting to no deviation ... not admitting of vagueness or uncertainty."Para2: I take you to task for your claim of Einstein's Relativity theory being "proven at least for the most part" which again indicated a weakening of your positioning on the necessary exactitude of scientific theories.Para 3-5: I pointed out that the Laws of Thermodynamics are approximations, again making the point that your requirement for exactitude is not met by the examples you gave.Para 6: I asked if you would now join the evolutionary camp as I beleive published evidence of evolution meets the de facto standards you have accepted.Para 7-8: I pointed out that you had misidentified the fallacy in your Martian example, and noted that the fallacy was in fact similar to the intelligent design argument.Para 9: I noted that as you regarded this example of intelligent design as fallacious and had also accepted approximate theories as scientific that you appeared to be much closer to accepting the evolutionary position.Para 10: I noted that I was enjoying the argument, not being upset.Para 11: I noted a factual inaccuracy and gave two examples of fish which can live out of water for more than hour. And I pointed you to the example of the lungfish - a fish which has lungs and gills - an example which provides an riposte to your question of "how can gills become lungs?"Para 12: I took you to task for the example of "how can growing feathers help a fish in the water." I compared this to the reasoning of a friend who was on drugs - an accurate comparison, but perhaps this is what you objected to?BTW, you may like to note that your paragraph was a genuine example of the "straw man" argument in that you question a proposition (that fish evolved feathers) that evolutionists do not make.Para 13: I gave an accurate answer to your question. Lynn Margulis claims neo-Darwinism is in a funk because it is tied to a christian anthropocentric tradition.Now what in this was wild? Possibly the comparison of your reasoning to my friend's ramblings? Yet it was an accurate comparison in that his reasoning was just as unsound and in a similar way - drawing on examples that were totally outwith the argument in hand.What in this was inane? By my reckoning I addressed 8 issues directly with reasoning and information.The point of all this is that you asked for "exact" evidence, you defined what "exact" meant, and you then gave examples of theories which you said were acceptable but did not meet your own definition.It is most necessary in any evidential discussion to be clear about the standards of evidence to be applied. So, prior to presenting evidence it is reasonable to inquire as to your standard of proof. We can then supply evidence that meets it, or we can argue that the standard of proof cannot be met, possibly by definition. This is what we did with your first definition of "exact" evidence, and we are trying to ascertain if you want to continue with that standard of evidence or if you want to modify it and give us a new definition.If it turns out that your standard of proof cannot be met then you may either wish to modify your standard or be skeptical of claims that can only be proved to that standard.If you modify your standard we can evaluate your new standard in the same way. If you choose to be skeptical, you could then expect us to inquire about other areas of your belief system to see if you apply your standard of proof disinterestedly and equally to all areas matters that come under your judgement or whether you apply different standards to different judgements and how those different standards are chosen and applied.If the former, we would have little to quibble about except perhaps to wonder how you manage to live with such high standards! If the latter, we could then debate whether you were applying an appropriate standard to evolution in comparison with your other applications of standards of evidence.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
1)Edge, Mr. Pemboli, and Joz are all getting upset with me because I am simply asking for sound scientific evidence that proves evolution? Can you prove evolution (darwinian or otherwise) in the same fashion that Newton's Laws can be proven? Or Einstein's Theories? Or the Laws of Thermodynamics?

​

2)Evolution says that life "evolved" from the fish in the ocean - that birds and lizards "evolved" from fish.

​

3)A fish dies after 1 hour without water - how can it "evolve" lungs over "millions of years" when it is already dead? How can gills become lungs? The only answers I receive from evolutionists is that it takes "millions of years."

​

4)How can growing feathers help a fish in the water? If the fish is no longer in the water how (or even why) did it "evolve" feathers in the first place? Feathers do not help a fish get food in the water.

---

1)Apparently I am upset with Bob because I posted:

quote:

---

Better add gravity to the list of things that are wrong acording to Bob....

---

In reply to:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
I do not think you could find a single scientist who, when formally considering the matter, would regard the evidence for evolution as reliable to the extent that it can be believed "Admitting to no deviation ... not admitting of vagueness or uncertainty."

---

Ok Bob whats this theory of quantum gravitation that you know and every one else doesn`t then?If you don`t know how QG works gravity hardly conforms to the standard you seem to require:

quote:

---

"Admitting to no deviation ... not admitting of vagueness or uncertainty."

---

2)Hang on "life "evolved" from the fish in the ocean...."????So fish aren`t alive then???So demonstrating that fish evolved into amphibians will prove abiogenesis???Bob fish are alive, ergo life did not "evolve from them as you claim....3)Lung fish Bob....4)What fish have feathers Bob...Or are you claiming that birds evolved directly from fish rather than land dwelling dinos?Or from some unknown land dwelling fish no one else knows of?I`m not upset Bob I just haven`t seen anything from you worth a reply yet....Oh and thats Mr Pamboli not Pemboli......(added by edit)And then theres this gem:

quote:

---

You know, Mr. Pemboli, when someone starts making wild and inane statements it is usually indicative that he is losing the argument.

---

Does this apply to people that claim that those debating the issue with them are upset when no evidence of said upset can be produced?What about if they claim that fish are not alive (otherwise how could life evolve from them?) or that birds evolved directly from fish....Wild and inane statements huh....

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 04-10-2002]

Well, here's one I suspect you won't like. How about vertebrate to single-cell evolution? Would that be a good example?
CheersJoe Meert

lobe-finned fishes, an ancient group named for the muscular, scale-covered lobe at the base of their fins. By comparison, the more numerous ray-finned fishes have no such lobes at the base of their spiny fins.These lobed-finned fishes probably turned into lizards when possibly a lake dried up, the lobe finned fish were able to survive and move to more favorable conditions by means of their lobed fins which eventually evovled into legs. again darwins theory of Natural selection------------------
Metalpunk (Metalpunk37@yahoo.com)

Dear Robert Where is your scientific proof stating that some supreme being created the earth, someone that you have never seen or heard.
Granted, evolution is a theory, however it can use comparative anatomy with present animals as well as the fossils of ancient creatures to make evolutionary connections. The Bible doesn't give any evidence to even begin to formulate a logical theory

Greetings:Mr. Pemboli - You make the claim that Newton's Laws do not explain "all observable phenomena" and no one would debate you on that including myself. But then you imply that since evolution does not explain "all observable phenomena" that it must be as scientific as Newton's Laws? And, that I will soon be admitting that evolution is "exact" according to my definition? Am I misreading you? You seem to require me to adhere to evolution without providing proof of your position. I have simply asked for proof of your position and you have been consistently attacking everything I say in an attempt, it seems, to dodge the issue of providing proof.What I am asking for is very simple: I would like some valid proof that darwinism (sometimes known as microevolution) is true. Since microevolution requires a change in class and not simply species, then that is what I want to see in your proof. Interpretations of the fossil record does not fit the standard of scientific proof (which is why I provided the example of Newton's Laws to begin with). One does not need to "interpret" physics in order to know that F=ma. One does need to "interpret" the fossil record in order to prove evolution. I hope you can see the difference here and that I need no longer explain this to you.So this is what it comes down to: For evolution to be true you must be able to prove that a fish can turn into a lizard then into a dinosaur then into a bird. As far as I have read no such proof is forthcoming. Simply prove that a fish can turn into a lizard and I will have no more to say about your theory. Remember:"The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. THOSE [GENES] THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE WITHIN NATURAL POPULATIONS DO NOT SEEM TO LIE AT THE BASIS OF MANY MAJOR ADAPTIVE CHANGES, WHILE THOSE [GENES] THAT SEEMINGLY DO CONSTITUTE THE FOUNDATION OF MANY, IF NOT MOST, MAJOR ADAPTIVE CHANGES APPARENTLY ARE NOT VARIABLE WITHIN NATURAL POPULATIONS." (emphasis in original)- geneticist John McDonald of the University of Georgia as quoted in Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Michael Behe, pg. 28.Good Luck!Robert

Greetings;Mr. Metal - My views on the origin of species are not in question here. The views of Darwin and evolutionists in general are in question. You are engaging in a typical evolutionist fallacy: that is, that "evolution is true because creationism is false".If you would like to start a new thread and tell me what you think Creationists teach and why you think it is wrong I will be more than happy to oblige you.Robert

We need to clear up some problems with your terminology. [QUOTE][b]What I am asking for is very simple: I would like some valid proof that darwinism (sometimes known as microevolution)[/QUOTE][/b]"Darwinism" and "evolution" are not the same. "Darwinism" is evolution driven solely by natural selection, as opposed to factors like genetic drift.Secondly, "microevolution" is any evolutionary change over a timescale that can be measured in generations. [QUOTE][b]Since microevolution requires a change in class and not simply species[/QUOTE][/b]Microevolution is something small, such as the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in microbial populations. A speciation event would be borderline macro, a change in class would be undeniably macroevolution. [QUOTE][b]Interpretations of the fossil record does not fit the standard of scientific proof[/QUOTE][/b]All "proof" requires interpretation. If it didn't there would be no need for scientists, everything would be known instantly and there would be no need for any revisions. Secondly, "proof" in the scientific sense is the same thing as "very strong evidence for", accepting that possibility of revision later. This is the Principle of Tentativity. [QUOTE][b]One does not need to "interpret" physics in order to know that F=ma.[/QUOTE][/b]I'm afraid you do need to "interpret" physics to derive that equation, that is the root of empiricism. F=ma did not rain down from the sky it came from measurements and experimentation, and then, interpretation. Name a law derived empirically that does not involve interpretation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
You make the claim that Newton's Laws do not explain "all observable phenomena" and no one would debate you on that including myself. But then you imply that since evolution does not explain "all observable phenomena" that it must be as scientific as Newton's Laws?

---

No, my point was that you had requested "exact" evidence "admitting of no error" and when pressed for an example, you quoted Newton's Laws - but they do admit of error. So, now I am trying to find out what your standard of evidence actually is. And so far you haven't given a consistent standard. [b] [QUOTE]... Am I misreading you? You seem to require me to adhere to evolution without providing proof of your position.[/b][/QUOTE]Not really. What am looking for is for you to clarify what standard of proof you would require for a scientific theory, and then to confirm that if evidence of evolution is presented which meets that standard, that you will accept it as proven to your standard of proof.So far, you have given a standard of proof which you agree your examples don't match, by accepting that Newton's Laws admit of error. You have also given specific standards of proof for the evolutionary theory alone, for example ...
[b] [QUOTE]I would like some valid proof that darwinism (sometimes known as microevolution) is true. Since microevolution requires a change in class and not simply species, then that is what I want to see in your proof. Interpretations of the fossil record does not fit the standard of scientific proof (which is why I provided the example of Newton's Laws to begin with). One does not need to "interpret" physics in order to know that F=ma. One does need to "interpret" the fossil record in order to prove evolution.[/b][/QUOTE]Now, aside from the fact that one does need to intepret observations to analytically prove Newton's Laws of force (to ascertain whether inertial mass is equal to gravitational mass, for example), your suggestion seems to be that scientific proof can only apply to "Laws", not "Theories." So, again, what I am looking for is a standard of proof, for scientific theories in general that (a) you consistently hold and (b) you will open mindedly apply to evidence of evolution. [b] [QUOTE]So this is what it comes down to: For evolution to be true you must be able to prove that a fish can turn into a lizard then into a dinosaur then into a bird.[/b][/QUOTE]No - gravity was true and even Newton didn't proved how it worked, but that its effects were open to description, observation and prediction. Evolution may be true, whether or not we present evidence, or you accept it. [b] [QUOTE]"The results of the last 20 years of research on the genetic basis of adaptation has led us to a great Darwinian paradox. THOSE [GENES] THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE WITHIN NATURAL POPULATIONS DO NOT SEEM TO LIE AT THE BASIS OF MANY MAJOR ADAPTIVE CHANGES, WHILE THOSE [GENES] THAT SEEMINGLY DO CONSTITUTE THE FOUNDATION OF MANY, IF NOT MOST, MAJOR ADAPTIVE CHANGES APPARENTLY ARE NOT VARIABLE WITHIN NATURAL POPULATIONS." (emphasis in original) - geneticist John McDonald of the University of Georgia as quoted in Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Michael Behe, pg. 28.[/b][/QUOTE]Another quote from a favourite scientist of mine, who is convinced of evolutionary mechanisms and provides fascinating insights to their workings.John McDonald says the above because of his study of transposons - "junk" DNA that can change position in the genome and introduce major structural changes as a result. To quote one interesting article about his workBut even now, few scientists have come to terms with just how important transposons might have been during evolution. If anyone truly appreciates their significance, it is John McDonald, a molecular biologist at the University of Georgia in Athens. He believes that without transposons nothing more interesting than a bacterium may have ever crawled out of the primordial mud ... In fact, Cal Tech molecular biologist Roy Britten, who was one of the first to spot transposons in the genomes of mammals, argues that the movement of transposons has had a much more significant effect than classical mutations--those in which a single base change results in a slightly different protein. When transposons jump to new locations, they can alter patterns of gene expression, and therefore have far more of an effect on how an organism actually turns out. Britten believes that transposons are unsurpassed as a source of natural variation. "You couldn't explain the process of evolution on the basis of single point mutations. You need a more powerful device." That powerful device, he says, is the transposon.Here is the article: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1511/12_20/58050558/p1/article.jhtml?term=
For more detail, you could follow up on McDonald's published papers.You see now what McDonald was getting at? Not that evolution is unlikely, or not proven, or didn't occur: but that it occurred by means of a mechanism which (ironically) is a devastating blow to Behe's irreducible complexity as proof of design.So. Let's see if we can actually get somewhere. Give a standard of proof, and be prepared for a few days discussion on how you apply that standard of proof to other areas of science or other areas where you may need to accept something as true. We should probably leave religious faith out of it, as it only complicates matters by bringing in belief in transcendence, which is categorically different. Then armed with your standard of proof, and the knowledge that you will accept in good faith the truth of what can be proved to that standard, we can set about trying to demonstrate a proof of evolution. Sounds fair?

Robert,First off, I do not think that just because creationism is wrong that evolution is right. In my earlier statement I said that "granted- evolution is a theory" however it does seem more logical to believe evolution rather than creationism. Evolution uses Comparitive anatomy, and natural selection-which has been proven.
I believe in evolution because it has actual evidence, evidence that I can see. The question I put to you is how can you believe in something that doesnt even have enough evidence to even formulate a theory.Now, there are several different views on creationism some that work with evolution and some that don't. I would appreciate it if you would tell me your opinions and views.

Also, before you ask, natural selection has been proven.Scientists place a strain of bacteria in a flask. The flask gets cloudy as the bacteria multiply.
The scientists introduce a bacteria-eating virus, the flask becomes clear once more.
The glass eventuall becomes cloudy again as new resistant bacteria reproduces.

Greetings:Mr. Pemboli - we seem to be talking cross purposes here. You point out that even physics needs to be interpreted - which is partly true. Newton, for example, had to use an inductive process to come by his laws of motion. However, in the proof of his laws he relies on factual evidence that exactly shows his theory to be correct.F=ma can be proved by fact and not simply from inference or interpretation. I can set up an experiment that will easily prove the theory. It is mathematically valid in the context of the phenomena it is trying to describe.Fish to lizard evolution can only be proved through an interpretation of the fossil record. I have quoted geneticist John McDonald several times now and he has reported the analysis of the last 20 years of genetic research on evolution. Dr. Behe's book is also very clear that biochemistry does not prove the evolutionary claims.So I am curious as to what your proof is outside of an appeal to the fossil record that evolution is true. Is that all you can stand on - the fossil record? Is there corraborating evidence from mathematics and genetics?"Mathematicians over the years have complained that Darwinism's numbers just do not add up. Information theorist Hubert Yockey argues that the information needed to begin life could not have developed by chance: he suggests that life be considered a given, like matter or energy. In 1966 leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists held a symposium at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia because the organizer, Martin Kaplan, had overheard, "a rather weird discussion between four mathematicans ... on the mathematical doubts concerning the Darwinian theory of evolution." At the symposium one side was unhappy, and the other uncomprehending. A mathematician who claimed that there was insufficient time for the number of mutations apparently needed to make an eye was told by the biologists that his figures must be wrong. The mathematicians, though, were not persuaded that the fault was theirs."quoted from Darwin's Black Box by Dr. Michael Behe.

Greetings:Metalpunct - As I said before I am not willing to get into a discussion with you concerning the evidence that proves that the Bible far more trustworthy than Darwin's Origin of Species. There is an abundance of evidence that proves the Bible to be the Word of God. If you would like to discuss this on a separate link I will be more than happy to oblige you.If you look in the Religion section of Borders, Barnes and Noble, or any other bookstore you will find a book there entitled, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, by Josh McDowell. In it you will find overwhelming evidence that the Bible truly is the Word of God. In it he gives you solid, provable evidence.If you are truly objective and wish to weigh the evidence then I would encourage you to read the book. But, beware! You may find yourself becoming a poor ignorant Christian like myself - yet very thankful that you are!"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men," 1 Corinthians 1:25Secondly, I have no problem with your use of Natural Selection in the way that you have described it. In fact, you will find a similar experiment in the Book of Genesis: Genesis 30:41-43.What I contend concerning Natural Selection is that it is unable to create a new class of organism. The virus in the petri dish that you are citing remained a virus. To give you an exaggerated example just to show you what I mean: if the virus turned into a bumblebee and flew away - that would be a provable example of Evolution, because that would be a change in class and not simply species.Natural Selection can prove that a fish can be a trout, salmon, Tuna or some other type of fish. This is a change within the class loosely titled "fish". Natural Selection cannot prove that there can be a change in class: that is a fish-class such as a Trout cannot become a Lizard-class like an Iguana. This is a change that Natural Selection cannot prove, but it is necessary in order for Darwinism to survive as a valid theory.Robert

---

Robert writes:
What I contend concerning Natural Selection is that it is unable to create a new class of organism. The virus in the petri dish that you are citing remained a virus. To give you an exaggerated example just to show you what I mean: if the virus turned into a bumblebee and flew away - that would be a provable example of Evolution, because that would be a change in class and not simply species.

---

A virus turning into a bumblebee wouldn't be evidence for evolution but for miracles! The theory of evolution postulates gradual and slow change that only accumulates into significant differences after many generations.

---

Natural Selection can prove that a fish can be a trout, salmon, Tuna or some other type of fish. This is a change within the class loosely titled "fish". Natural Selection cannot prove that there can be a change in class: that is a fish-class such as a Trout cannot become a Lizard-class like an Iguana. This is a change that Natural Selection cannot prove, but it is necessary in order for Darwinism to survive as a valid theory.

---

I'm not sure if this is merely a relaxed way of expressing things or if it reflects a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Natural selection is not a mechanism of change. Change happens during reproduction through mutation and the mixing of parental genes. Natural selection merely decides which organisms get to pass on their genes to the next generation.Evolutionary theory doesn't believe that trout can turn into iguanas. Are you really trying to say that you don't believe that over millions of generations small changes and mutations can accumulate into significant differences?--Percy