Freedomain Radio

Greg Gauthier:

Nathan:

Wouldn't those proponents be inconsequential only because they aren't scientists and aren't directly involved in testing the theory to find out what does actually fill the "gaps"?  I mean what we observe is evolution, if it is not evolution then something will come along to prove it isn't, until then all we have to work with is evolution.  What I don't get is what Bill is talking about as far as the gaping unknowns. How well versed in evolutionary biology is the person he is talking to?

That there are gaping unknowns does not present a flaw in the entire theory nor does it imply that god must be filled into those gaps instead of figuring out what really explains them.

I'm not saying that Bill is proposing we fill in "God", but I am saying that you can't throw out the theory of gravity because there may be a flaw in the theory of how it works.  If I can't explain how a certain motherboard chipset technology works doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or work at all.
 

I agree. Those who hold up dogmatic proponents of evolution as some sort of evidence of the failure of evolution itself, are engaging in a kind of straw-man objection to evolution.

But, if we are to call ourselves true followers of science, then we should be careful not to confuse the theories with the observed phenomenon. I would not at all hesitate to "throw out" any theory that seemed flawed to me, by reason or evidence. But that is not the same thing as denying the reality of observed facts. We SEE rocks falling down. We SEE creatures evolving and mutating. Those are axiomatic facts. How we choose to EXPLAIN those facts is an entirely different matter.

Right we are certainly on the same page then. 

LibertyPunk:

No they don't Mr. Strawman. Abiogenesisis NOT Evolution. It is a seperate theory(set of theories)

The term 'biological origins' was meant as the explanation for the diversity of biology we see today.  "The origin of every species comes from evolution", I wasn't trying to confuse the topic with the first spark of life.  There is no need for me to start over.

Tuttle:

a long string of assertions with no facts to back them up

Mmm, sounds like the evolutionist position.  Mostly speculation, and pretty light on facts. ;)

plus a misunderstanding of the difference between theories of the origin of life and the theory of the origin of speciation

I hope I cleared that up above.

plus a false dilemma about evolution being in some way an opposite of "god" (whatever that is).

This is based purely on many experiences in with dealing with evolutionists.  They immediately create the straw man of god for proving their point against me.

Nielsio, of course I'm willing to debate this.  You are correct, I don't accept religious style explanations of how reality works.  I rely on the scientific method: observe, make a prediction and observe some more.  I think genetic mutation and variation (natural and man-made) does a wonderful job on explaining speciation and changing life forms.  Who can deny different breeds of dogs?  It does nothing to explain the macro changes of species, or the divergence of genetic material.  Evolutionary principles for genetic material currently violate the communicative law of logic.

I was too strong on saying you should completely throw out the theory of gravity if you find matter that falls up.  But if balloons float, you just don't keep changing the theory of gravity, you create gas theory.  If you kept changing the theory of gravity around to include whatever you want, then it means nothing.

What would be the null hypothesis for evolution?  Each one of the principles of evolution have been disproved, it has done nothing to disprove the theory, the theory just adapts, which means evolution can't be something that is true and real; that is where I find similarities between religion.

A funny aside, people are using evolution the produce evolutionary theory.

Bill, your idea that somebody can "create the straw man of god"  is quite a funny unintended joke! What on earth would the non-straw man argument for "god" be?

Its a shame that this thread is obviously not really about science because I am really interested in hearing any potential refutations of any aspect of evolutionary theory. However, you, my friend, are not wearing any trousers. Assertion is not argument- you need facts, you need to actually show these "gaping holes". Otherwise your references to scientific method are just empty posturing.

If you don't know what any of the numerous null hypotheses for evolution are then I suggest you start by reading a book because you must be simply ignorant in this field. Try "Origin of the Species" itself. One of the clearest things about Darwin's writing style is that he literally says at numerous points throughout the book "if this were the case, the entire theory would be invalid". For example, any case of a Lamarcian adaption of any organism through one generation would invalidate the theory of natural selection. Now if you think that or any other null hypothesis is invalid, show us that you are really living by your professed scientific principles and demonstrate it.

 

Tuttle, you're funny.  You tell me you want factual refutation of evolution, yet when I also ask for facts, you dismiss me to a book.  If you would not accept "go read a book" as my presentation of fact, then why would I accept yours?  There are many other threads that present scientific for my position.

Most evolutionist acknowledge Darwin had it wrong in several areas.  He just didn't have the knowledge that we currently have about genetics, so it was impossible for him to get it right.  I don't know if any of his refuted claims were precursored with "the entire theory would be invalid".  My claim in there is no solid complete testable definition of what evolution is.  When evidence comes up contrary to evolutionary definitions the definitions just change.  While I can respect evolutionist are willing to change their mind with evidence, evolutionary theory itself is a amorphous concept that continually changes.

That is the game I feel evolutionist play is "evolution is the answer...oh mechanism A has been proved (or B is disproved), ya, we meant that all along."  Evolutionist define biological development as guided by evolution.  There can be no challenge to the position because if I (or others in the past) somewhere were to present evidence contrary to the evolutionist position, they just change it because evolutionary theory IS the answer.

Evolutionary theory is a process much like mechanics is in the physical work.  The definition of mechanics is just the study of physical laws.  Mechanics by itself means nothing.  It is only the underlying theories and laws that are validated.  You can't say evolution is true, just as you can't say mechanics is true, because by definition evolution/mechanics is the study of mechanisms.

In the coming years humans will create Lamarckist variation within their own species.  I'm sure gene therapy will completely change one generation from the next.  It is a characteristic of humans to be affected (or not) by a specific illness and that could be passed on within one generation.  However that won't disprove evolution and that null hypothesis isn't valid.  If anything, that acheivement opens the door (and believe me I'm not) that ID is possible.

Nielsio:

Bill, you did not answer my main question.

I must have missed something Nielsio, was this your main question?

Nielsio:

If this is the case, what are your scientific theories to describe speciation and the ever-changing lifeforms around us?

If I had my own scientific theories I'd share them, but you don't have to understand astronomy and the solar model [I minored in astrophysics] to know some of the claims of astrology are invalid.  However, I'm not going to look at astrology, get my birth chart done and see they actually do have the planets and the stars in the correct place and assume that everything in that field is true.  You don't have to derive Kepler's Law of planetary motion to know the Earth isn't the center of the universe.  That question seems similar to statists asking "what about defense, what about roads, what about schooling."  I don't have the answer...if I did I'd be on a touring circuit. :)

I'm trying to determine why a blind belief in evolution bothers me so much.  I don't know if it is the total truthiness of its presentation at public school, and maybe I'm upset I got some questions wrong on tests because they teacher couldn't educate me on the subject matter she was teaching.  Maybe its the government fights so hard to keep all opposition and "unanswered" questions from public discourse and is the primary funding agency of evolutionary research.

There is much evolutionary research in the private sector especially related to virology, and they seem to have all the evidence they need to prove their specific claim of genetic variation but they focus on a subset of what evolutionary theory claims to answer.  So there are private funds out there funding research into evolution.  What private business has any incentive to find out how dinosaurs became birds?  That is the latest theory, one that has changed in my 30 years, unless move evidence has been presented to change it again.  Like Putty...I get so confused with what evolution is...

Also on my last postI used the wrong term.  I meant to say that slow, eons long genetic divergence violates the associative law of logic, not communicative.

Coincidence, not at all.  I'm certain there exists scientific answers for it.  I think punctuated equilibium holds the most promise to most of the gaps I've been working through, but to me it adds to my point.  Evolutionists argued "gaps" in the fossil record were because fossilization was rare and that's why we have practically zero transition species.  However, evidence against the "gaps" using evolution's professed dating methodology have been faced.  As tighter boundaries get drawn there is less of a possibility that transitory species exist. 

But if evolution is just "whatever" is right, then it means nothing.

All atempt I saw agains evolution was proving to be wrong. All the modifications I saw in the theory of evolution was precision added to answer how and why the transfomation occur from one generation to the other, (with genetic).

• The question I'm asking is: What are the error found in the theory of evolution which shake Darwin's theory so much, so we can say it false.

While I can respect evolutionist are willing to change their mind with evidence, evolutionary theory itself is a amorphous concept that continually changes.

Yes, that's what a theory is, a conclusion based on evidence.  If evidence adds new or contradicting information the theory changes to fit the evidence.  That's science dude, that's how it works.  Methodology is absolute, conclusions can change structure.  They are not amorphous.

You're asking us to provide proof, meaning explain the entire theory of evolution when you can save my time and yours by pointing out the specific errors and asking us to explain them.  It would be quite a bit easier than reinventing the wheel by rewriting origin of species. 

Nathan

Bill:

I'm trying to determine why a blind belief in evolution bothers me so much.

That sounds like a good place for you to start. You should also question whether the theory of evolution and "blind belief" (in anything) are in fact necessarily at all related.

Bill:

  It does nothing to explain the macro changes of species, or the divergence of genetic material.  Evolutionary principles for genetic material currently violate the communicative law of logic.

If you say that it explains subjectively small changes, then, unless it bows to subjective criteria, that means it explains any changes. Does natural selection run away on the subjective criteria of "bigness" ?

You later clarified the logical law you meant as associative. How is the associative law violated ? Is there some case where (A and B) and C isn't the same as A and (B and C) or are  you using a different definition of associative ? 

I think Theory of Evolution and evolution are being mixed up here. There really isn't a completely coherent Theroy of Evolution. Evolution itself is well documented. There is a general consensus as to what The Theroy of Evolution is with several different versions as to what exactly that theroy should be. I think this is what you are talking about. Yes punctuated equilibrium is one of the ways of spelling out the complete theory.

Your thoughts on more on par with complaints of Newton's theory of gravity than with complaints of Phlogiston theory of the elements. The theory is basically there but there are gaps to be filled in. Perhaps something comparable to Relativity will superceed The Theroy of Evolution as we now have it or perhaps a particular theory of evolution will make it complete. However, just like Newton's Theory, it is shown to be basically correct.

Bill:

we have practically zero transition species.

 

All species are transition species.