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 Aug 19, 2017 8:22 pm .
1. Will you substantiate both are common creationist canards or remove it?
You can easily discover this for yourself. That's what Google is for.
2. This is a Philosophy forum and philosophical argumentation is more than 2.000 years old.
Relevance?
3. How old are Darwin's ideas?
So the validity of an idea is determined by its age? We should go back to believing that the sun revolves around the earth and in Plato's forms?
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc »

PauloL wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 7:12 pm
This might help illustrate my ideas on circularity and that selection creates nothing new.
If you ascribe to the ideas of these 2 people, you have my deepest sympathy.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

PauloL wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:22 pm .
3. How old are Darwin's ideas?
Actually I think I misinterpreted your response here. This was in response to my mocking the use of a 1933 quotation.

Unfortunately your response is irrelevant because modern evolutionary biology has far surpassed Darwin. So if you want to attack evolutionary theory, you have to attack it as it is in 2017, not as it was in 1859. And a 1933 quote is not up to the task.
davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

Darwin made a mistake in proposing his natural-selection theory, and it is fairly easy to detect the mistake. We have seen that what the theory so grievously lacks is a criterion of survival that is independent of survival. If only there were some way of identifying the fittest beforehand, without always having to wait and see which ones survive, Darwin's theory would be testable rather than tautological.
There was a factory that produced a lot of nylon. The nylon got in the wastewater. A mutation occurred among the bacteria in the wastewater that — talk about good luck — conferred upon the bacteria the ability to digest nylon!

And it was totally good luck. One should not assume that the bacteria somehow mutated to eat nylon because it found itself in the presence of nylon. Evolution doesn’t work that way at all. Undoubtedly a similar mutation had occurred many times in the past, but in those instances there was no nylon lying around to be eaten (nylon didn’t even exist before the 20th century). In cases like that, the mutation would either have been neutral (neither harmful nor helpful) or deleterious (harming the organism).

In the case of the factory bacteria the random mutation was most definitely beneficial because there was nylon lying around waiting to be eaten.

“Fittest” really means “those who leave the most offspring.” In the wastewater, the nylon-eating bacteria experienced a population explosion, outcompeting the other bacteria that could not eat the nylon. This is an example of survival of the fittest.
We have seen that what the theory so grievously lacks is a criterion of survival that is independent of survival.
Wrong! The criterion of survival was that the bacteria had acquired the ability to scarf down a shitload of nylon. So in this case there most definitely is a “criterion of survival that is independent of survival.”
If only there were some way of identifying the fittest beforehand, without always having to wait and see which ones survive, Darwin's theory would be testable rather than tautological.
But of course there is such a way! If I had been at that factory I could have looked at all the nylon and said, “You know, if some bacteria happen to acquire the ability to eat nylon via a mutation then they’re going to be happy campers — and the fittest of all the bacterial populations hereabouts.” And my prediction would have proved to be correct!

This paradigmatic case also demolishes the following:
”Selection, then, has not produced anything new, but only more of certain kinds of individuals. Evolution, however, means producing new things, not more of what exists.”
Good lawd! Right before our very eyes, evolution produced something that had never existed in the history of the world — an organism that could eat nylon!

BTW, the first part of this guy’s quote is also wrong — evolution doesn’t work on individuals; it works on populations.
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 »

thedoc wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:42 pm
Harbal wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:50 pm
.



As no serious contributions have been entered so far, I'll pay due attention to your posts as deserved.

No, observation is the weakest possible scientific evidence and at most allows you to formulate hypothesis. Logical positivism is gone. The question is that you can't do a prospective study that can be falsified for the simple reason that you don't know which traits to test. So, Darwinism is unfalsifiable as widely demonstrated.

What works fine and continues to exist just isn't evolution, unless you're so desperate that wish consider such things evolution.

I expect David to substantiate the affirmation. If he doesn't ask him.

One says my quotations are too old and you say Darwin is too modern.Even if argumentation is timeless that's funny.




.
Last edited by PauloL on Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 Aug 19, 2017 8:54 pm
.




You who made the claim, now please substantiate it.

You're funny in that you blamed for the quotations to be too old, and now ask me if an idea is determined by age and relevance for antiquity of philosophical argumentation?

Well, forget, I'm answering by post and now I see you remembering to have mocked me with that thing of ages.

Darwin's tenets are still in order in 2017, and that's the problem. Neo-Darwinism adds a few things like genetics and intelectually discussing what counts, if populations, if genes, and so, but they bound to the tenets without modification of any sort.




.




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

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

I took some time to track down this “Bethell” character who wrote this idiocy about survival of the fittest being a tautology. What a surprise! In addition to being an advocate of intelligent design, he is a global warming denialist and he denies that HIV causes AIDS! And of course he has spent his whole wretched life being associated with fringe right-wing causes. Unsurprisingly he is NOT a biologist or even a scientist. Wow, that is some reliable source! :lol:

Tom Bethell

The Tautology Objection, Part 1

The Tautology Objection, Part 2

Both linked responses above by a biologist to Lyin’ Tom Bethell. The biologist agrees with me, of course.

You're going to have to do better than this, PauloL. Time to break out the Holy Babble and threaten us evilutionists with Eternal Fire!
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 Aug 19, 2017 10:02 pm
Darwin [...]
There was a factory [...]
We have seen that what the theory so grievously lacks is a criterion of survival that is independent of survival.
Wrong! The criterion of survival was that the bacteria had acquired the ability to scarf down a shitload of nylon. So in this case there most definitely is a “criterion of survival that is independent of survival.”
I really appreciate your example and your effort. That's highly logical indeed. And elegant.

The only problem is that Nature is highly parsimonious and bacteria must have their genome reduced to a minimum that allows survival. Image a bacteria carrying an enormous luggage of genes for everything they may happen to cross with, like nylon, somewhere in the future.
davidm wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:02 pm
If only there were some way [...]
But of course there is [...]
You must read the full sentence. Anyway, bacteria would survive with or without nylon, as you put it before, so there's nothing to test, less so to falsify.
davidm wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:02 pm This paradigmatic case also demolishes the following:
”Selection, then, has not produced anything new, but only more of certain kinds of individuals. Evolution, however, means producing new things, not more of what exists.”
Good lawd! Right before our very eyes, evolution produced something that had never existed in the history of the world — an organism that could eat nylon!

BTW, the first part of this guy’s quote is also wrong — evolution doesn’t work on individuals; it works on populations.
The organism that ate nylon was already there carrying a useless gene for generations until it found nylon. Nylon is the only new thing there.

Your second part is wrong, too. Morgan is talking about individuals in a population.
Last edited by PauloL on Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc »

PauloL wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:19 pm
thedoc wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:42 pm
Harbal wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:50 pm
.
As no serious contributions have been entered so far, I'll pay due attention to your posts as deserved.

No, observation is the weakest possible scientific evidence and at most allows you to formulate hypothesis. Logical positivism is gone. The question is that you can't do a prospective study that can be falsified for the simple reason that you don't know which traits to test. So, Darwinism is unfalsifiable as widely demonstrated.

What works fine and continues to exist just isn't evolution, unless you're so desperate that wish consider such things evolution.

I expect David to substantiate the affirmation. If he doesn't ask him.

One says my quotations are too old and you say Darwin is too modern.Even if argumentation is timeless that's funny.
And you claim that we are not making substantive posts, you have demonstrated your complete misunderstanding of evolution and science.

All science is observing, please give me an example of science that you believe does not use observation.
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 Aug 19, 2017 11:34 pm I took some time to track down this “Bethell” character who wrote this idiocy about survival of the fittest being a tautology. What a surprise! In addition to being an advocate of intelligent design, he is a global warming denialist and he denies that HIV causes AIDS! And of course he has spent his whole wretched life being associated with fringe right-wing causes. Unsurprisingly he is NOT a biologist or even a scientist. Wow, that is some reliable source! :lol:

Tom Bethell

The Tautology Objection, Part 1

The Tautology Objection, Part 2

Both linked responses above by a biologist to Lyin’ Tom Bethell. The biologist agrees with me, of course.

You're going to have to do better than this, PauloL. Time to break out the Holy Babble and threaten us evilutionists with Eternal Fire!
.




I'm shocked indeed, but fortunately I don't follow cults of personality. I take any argumentation neutrally, be it for or against Darwin, under the sole condition of validity.

I hope Morgan Nobel Prize doesn't have such a dire obscure past, too.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not a creationist. I accept evolution (not Darwin's as you can infer), I accept mitochondrial endosymbiosis. I don't even know what religion are those creationist people, but I know that Catholic Church accepts Darwinism. So all Catholics are cheering for you, David.

P.S. - David, you can call me Paulo.




.
Last edited by PauloL on Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
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 »

thedoc wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:42 pm
.




Doc, of course there's no science without observation. Now I invite you to minimally Googling on scientific method, like David once advised me wisely and generously on another subject. You can start with difference between an observational study and a trial experiment. After that don't feel lost, I'll guide you.

[They say I'm a creationist (they're really funny) and I say you're not a medical doc, or you couldn't get a license without knowing that difference off by heart.]

Remember all Catholics are cheering for you too, Doc. Don't disappoint them.




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

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by davidm »

Oops, I forgot to include this:

Fisking Bethell :lol:
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 »

.




Don't worry. I forget things, too.

Like US judges use to say in movies after some time of witness testimonial:

= I've had enough.

P.S. - What about Morgan? Any gossip now? I hope he won't start making turns in his tomb (Heavens!). ┬┴┬┴┤(・_├┬┴┬┴

David, always remember all Catholics are cheering for you. Don't disappoint them. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:




.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc »

PauloL wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:01 am Doc, of course there's no science without observation. Now I invite you to minimally Googling on scientific method, like David once advised me wisely and generously on another subject. You can start with difference between an observational study and a trial experiment. After that don't feel lost, I'll guide you.

and I say you're not a medical doc,

And I never claimed that I was, thedoc is a nickname some of my friends call me.

We are obviously using "observation" in different senses. I certainly would not look to you for guidance concerning science as I don't think you understand it as well as you think you do.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

Post by thedoc »

PauloL wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:46 pm
P.S. - David, you can call me Paulo.
I think PauLOL is much more fitting.
Locked