The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Locked
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

PauloL wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:25 pm ... presented nonsense argumentation to counteract me in such a way to make me seem fool.
No, your questions were concretely and correctly answered. But after I showed, for instance, why it is false to say that the theory of evolution is "circular," you persisted in this claim even after I had shown it to be false. The problem was not with the answers you were given. The problem is you don't like for evolution to be true.
Richard Dawkins is the typical Evolutionist and does that with mental diarrhea not because of Evolutionism itself, but because within that stinking diarrhea he's got the idea that he's attacking God. This must be the reason for Evolutionists by and large.
No, the reason for "evolutionists" studying and teaching evolution is because evolution is corrrect.
Scientifically, Darwin himself, perhaps the only honest Evolutionist in history, listed the major flaws in his theory ...
Care to elaborate on this claim? This should be interesting!
... (that he himself refused to call so),
In Origin of Species he uses the word "theory" to describe his work more than 150 times.
...each one likely to falsify Evolutionism, but these have been ever since ignored by Evolutionists under argumentation of the quality I pointed before.
Can you seriously be unaware of the fact that in Origin, Darwin raised potential objections to this theory, but then showed why the objections don't work?
So I stopped posting here, of course. It's a waste of time. I wished to discuss science, not cults of something.
I'm discussing science. I have no idea what you're discussing.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Walker »

uwot wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:01 pm
Walker wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:26 pm- Source: Physics for kids
So that's where you learn your science.
I'm simply illustrating how davidm is implying that secular educationalists are implanting false notions into the minds of the children at the elementary level, with all this information that he calls false.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

For any interested in more on "laws," I recommend this.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL »

davidm wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:06 pm
Well, first of all, I don't care whether Evolution is true or not, I seek scientific evidence and accept it.

I'll quote Darwin here, so that it might look more clear.

My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three more years to complete it [...] This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect.


But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL »

davidm wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:06 pm

In Origin of Species he uses the word "theory" to describe his work more than 150 times.
True.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

PauloL wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:09 pm
davidm wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:06 pm
Well, first of all, I don't care whether Evolution is true or not, I seek scientific evidence and accept it.

I'll quote Darwin here, so that it might look more clear.

My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three more years to complete it [...] This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect.
Of course it must necessarily be imperfect! He published this in 1859, for heaven's sake! He didn't even know the mechanism of heredity -- didn't know a thing about genes! How could he?
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
And his answer to your underlined part is in the very next sentence. He goes on to elaborate upon this, too. It should also be noted, of course, that the fossil record is much, much, much more extensive now, than it was in Darwin's day -- and all the many, many intermediate forms that have now been found confirm evolution 100 percent. To blow the whole theory off the rails would be simple -- find a human fossil in the geological period of dinosaurs, for example. None of these deal killers have ever been found, needless say.
User avatar
Conde Lucanor
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by Conde Lucanor »

davidm wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:38 pm For any interested in more on "laws," I recommend this.
An old claim, quite predictable from Bible truthers. Keeps being a fallacious argument, as always.

This odd distinction between "physical laws" and "scientific laws" is ridiculous. It's just a word game that exploits the possibilities of language to express attributes of objects, as well as the nature of concepts. Simply rearranging the phrases to reveal their meaning shows where the fallacy is. By "physical laws" we are referring to the "laws of physics" or the "laws of physical objects". But what would we be referring to with "scientific laws"? To the "laws of science"? To the "laws of scientific objects"? Is there such thing as a concrete "scientific object"? There are objects of study. But we're just talking of an approach, a method (one regarded as scientific) to study things. It does not exclude physical objects, it's not a different ontological domain. The rest of the text just develops this basic confusion, exploiting other ambiguities in the distinctions between science and scientism, or between natural sciences and social sciences, and is not worth further discussion.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

Conde Lucanor wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:39 pm
davidm wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:38 pm For any interested in more on "laws," I recommend this.
An old claim, quite predictable from Bible truthers. Keeps being a fallacious argument, as always.

This odd distinction between "physical laws" and "scientific laws" is ridiculous. It's just a word game that exploits the possibilities of language to express attributes of objects, as well as the nature of concepts. Simply rearranging the phrases to reveal their meaning shows where the fallacy is. By "physical laws" we are referring to the "laws of physics" or the "laws of physical objects". But what would we be referring to with "scientific laws"? To the "laws of science"? To the "laws of scientific objects"? Is there such thing as a concrete "scientific object"? There are objects of study. But we're just talking of an approach, a method (one regarded as scientific) to study things. It does not exclude physical objects, it's not a different ontological domain. The rest of the text just develops this basic confusion, exploiting other ambiguities in the distinctions between science and scientism, or between natural sciences and social sciences, and is not worth further discussion.
Then of course you're free not to discuss it.

The real point the author (a professor emeritus of philosophy at Simon Fraser University) is making is that it is a mistake to think in terms of "laws" that "govern" the universe. That is why the very word "law" is suspect because it implies that physical laws have some kind of "force" over nature. Rather, what we call "laws" are actually descriptions of physical regularities.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

As to "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," that's true even today, but it's nevertheless much more robust than in Darwin's time -- and it confirms Darwin. We know step by step, for example, how the modern whale evolved from a land mammal. The wonderful video below shows how.

Evolution of the whale
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL »

davidm wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:33 pm
PauloL wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:09 pm
davidm wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:06 pm
Well, first of all, I don't care whether Evolution is true or not, I seek scientific evidence and accept it.

I'll quote Darwin here, so that it might look more clear.

My work is now nearly finished; but as it will take me two or three more years to complete it [...] This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect.
Of course it must necessarily be imperfect! He published this in 1859, for heaven's sake! He didn't even know the mechanism of heredity -- didn't know a thing about genes! How could he?
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
And his answer to your underlined part is in the very next sentence. He goes on to elaborate upon this, too. It should also be noted, of course, that the fossil record is much, much, much more extensive now, than it was in Darwin's day -- and all the many, many intermediate forms that have now been found confirm evolution 100 percent. To blow the whole theory off the rails would be simple -- find a human fossil in the geological period of dinosaurs, for example. None of these deal killers have ever been found, needless say.
1. So the theory is supported by imperfections of Geological record?
2. No human fossil in dinosaurs period proves what?
3. The killer is absence of intermediaries, that's the killer.
4. Also, crocodiles and cockroaches haven't suffered evolution for the past more than 200 million years.
5. Where are the intermediaries you talk about?
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

PauloL wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:57 pm 1. So the theory is supported by imperfections of Geological record?
No. What Darwin wrote here was in response to the bit you underlined, and it is the correct response. As noted, however, we have a much greater fossil record now, than we did then.
2. No human fossil in dinosaurs period proves what?
If you don't understand why finding a human fossil in a dinosaur strata would falsify evolution, then you don't understand anything about the theory.
3. The killer is absence of intermediaries, that's the killer.
:lol: Puh-leeze!
4. Also, crocodiles and cockroaches haven't suffered evolution for the past more than 200 million years.
Say what? Both are evolving right now. But it true that some species, well adapted to an environment that changes little, will undergo very little evolution over a very long period of time.
5. Where are the intermediaries you talk about?
LOL. See the link above, and see the whale evolution video. There's an even longer video of whale evolution, lasting ten minutes, that shows every intermediate step over millions of years of evolving from a land mammal to an ocean mammal. All this information is derived from the intermediaries that you falsely claim are absent!

Every "point" you've raised in this thread is a long-debunked creationist talking point, yet you deny being a creationist. Sorry, not buying that.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by PauloL »

davidm wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:32 pm
Neither humans at the time of dinosaurs would falsify evolution nor its absence validate it.

You maintain that imperfections keep validating evolution.

For whales, perhaps you'd like to learn about Gingerich words on the subject (which you know but ignore):
"I speculated that it might have had a fluke [whale-like tail], I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail."
"Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, and the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can spread out like flippers on a whale."
Rodhocetus tale is based on conjectures created when a few fragments of it emerged. The conjectures were contradicted by later discoveries, but the tale remained for Evolutionauts please.

Also note that the terrestrial ancestors-to-be of whales all lived in the same era, Ambulocetus even antedated the predecessors. Too bad for Evolutionauts, but they ignore this.

If no humans at dinosaurs time validates evolution, all ancestor-to-be at same time, some even antedating, do what? What about sham ancestors like Rodhocetus?
Rapid evolution is exciting. I checked this one.

Well, the poison selected out cockroaches that tasted glucose sweet and selected in those that tasted glucose bitter (so good for their teeth, too). Great, David. You deserve some pats on the back (just kidding). Like Morgan said, evolution means producing new things, not more of what exists.
Locked