The Theory of Evolution - perfect?

[davidm]

But don't ask me to accept Darwin because what I see is a circular theory, nothing more.

And yet I have explained to you at least five or six times, in concrete detail, why it is NOT a circular theory. You refuse to engage with this, you don't respond to it, and then like a stuck record you go back to your "circular" nonsense.

You deny being a creationist but I don't believe you. You have been given ample evidence and argumentation, including outside links to detailed resources, that ought to have cleared up your confusion by now. I can only conclude that your alleged confusion is really just an agenda, as Harbal said.

Like any theory, evolution can be questioned. There are dozens of ways it can be falsified. Yet none of these falsifications succeed, whereas there is a mountain of evidence for evolutionary theory; and, of course, evolutionary changed is observed to take place.

If you had read one of the links I had given you (I don't believe you read any of them) you would have seen a robust discussion at a biochemist's blog about the role of neutral evolution vs. selection in shaping phenotypes. This remarkable discussion became even more dramatic when Richard Dawkins himself joined the discussion in the comments section. So there are live controversies within evolutionary theory -- but there is no doubt that the theory itself is correct.

But, as Harbal says, this is a waste of time.

[PauloL]

Breeding was the main post and this remains untouched by you.

"one-way street to change to have a better chance to reproduce"

I'm sure you don't mean such a thing, unless you can explain what's the guiding force that grants changes are "one-way street" to "have better chance to reproduce".

Perhaps you would explain what you think is the difference between "breeding" and "reproduction"? Most of my posts have been directed at the concept of evolution based on reproductive success, how is that not breeding.

What you said was "evolution is a one-way street to change to have a better chance to reproduce". Not breeding or reproduction.

[PauloL]

You're invited to read an elegant argument by a respected neo-Darwinian on Popper's epistemology:

The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is also clearly falsifiable because we can postulate theories which, if true, would render neo-Darwinian theory superfluous. The most obvious alternative theory is the Lamarckian one. If it were true that modifications acquired during the life of an organism could become hereditary, many features of organisms would evolve by the direct influence of the environment, and natural selection would not play a major guiding role in adaptation. (Futuyma, 1983, p 172)

For the most obvious alternate theory to neo-Darwinian's, Lamarck's (author's words) and his brilliant conclusion that modifications acquired during life of an organism CAN'T become hereditary, you have this evidence from the prestigious scientific magazine Nature Neuroscience 17-2(2014) by Moshe Szyf:

Lamarck revisited: epigenetic inheritance of ancestral odor fear conditioning

A study shows that when mice are taught to fear an odor, both their offspring and the next generation are born fearing it. The gene for an olfactory receptor activated by the odor is specifically demethylated in the germ line and the olfactory circuits for detecting the odor are enhanced.

So, Futuyma is not only tautological in his argumentation, he also offers lies as evidence, that Lamarckian theory isn't true. Life is much more complex than neo-Darwinians can think.

Neo-Darwinians are in Plato's cavern devising complex theories about the world supported by all they can see: shadows.

David, you can read here about falsification of Darwin's evolution, posted before, by a renown neo-Darwinist Futuyma.

[PauloL]

After you having called me arbitrarily liar violating the most elemental rules of politeness, our communications may end up here.

[davidm]

.. blah, blah epigenetics, blah blah...

Epigenetics is not Lamarckism. Epigenetics in no way proves neo-Darwinism false. You could easily find this out for yourself with a minimum of Googling.

[PauloL]

You should educate the editors of Nature Neuroscience. You may invite them to minimal Googling.

[thedoc]

After you having called me arbitrarily liar violating the most elemental rules of politeness, our communications may end up here.

If you tell a lie, then you are a liar, it has nothing to do with politeness, and what rule of this forum states that members should be polite to each other rather than honest. If you are leaving, good-by, it will be no loss to this forum.

[PauloL]

.




This might help illustrate my ideas on circularity and that selection creates nothing new.

"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."

In: Bethell T. Darwin's mistake. Harper's. 1976. 252:1509. p.70 (Philosophy reader at Oxford).

"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."

By Thomas Morgan (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1933).

.

[thedoc]

Breeding was the main post and this remains untouched by you.

"one-way street to change to have a better chance to reproduce"

I'm sure you don't mean such a thing, unless you can explain what's the guiding force that grants changes are "one-way street" to "have better chance to reproduce".

Perhaps you would explain what you think is the difference between "breeding" and "reproduction"? Most of my posts have been directed at the concept of evolution based on reproductive success, how is that not breeding.

What you said was "evolution is a one-way street to change to have a better chance to reproduce". Not breeding or reproduction.

Many definitions of breeding use the terms reproduction and to reproduce in the definition, as if they meant the same thing. In this usage they do mean the same thing, even though both have additional, different meanings.

BTW, nice dodge in not answering my question, what do you think is the difference between "breeding' and "reproduction"?

[thedoc]

BTW, evolution is a "one-way-street" for the organism to change, to have a better chance to reproduce. There is no opposite of evolution, negative evolution or de-evolution, it just doesn't happen. If the environment reverts to an earlier state, the organisms living in that environment evolve to better fit the changed environment even if that means changing back to an earlier condition, it's evolution.

[davidm]

This might help illustrate my ideas on circularity and that selection creates nothing new.

"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."

In: Bethell T. Darwin's mistake. Harper's. 1976. 252:1509. p.70 (Philosophy reader at Oxford).

"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."

By Thomas Morgan (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1933).

At this point one can only resort to rolling one's eyes.

Both statements are flat wrong, and in addition to which, both are common creationist canards. It's especially amusing to see that the second statement was made in 1933. Way to find up to date sources to bolster your non-arguments!

[davidm]

Zounds, that first idiotic statement is from the Philosophy Reader at Oxford???? And as recently as 1976????

No wonder so many scientists hold philosophers in contempt!

[PauloL]

.




1. Will you substantiate both are common creationist canards or remove it?

2. This is a Philosophy forum and philosophical argumentation is more than 2.000 years old.

3. How old are Darwin's ideas?




.

[thedoc]

This might help illustrate my ideas on circularity and that selection creates nothing new.

"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."

In: Bethell T. Darwin's mistake. Harper's. 1976. 252:1509. p.70 (Philosophy reader at Oxford).

"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."

By Thomas Morgan (Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1933).

One means of testing a theory is to observe the results, and it seems that waiting to see which variation survives is one way to observe the results. So Darwin's theory is testable, it seems that Bethell doesn't understand science.

No, evolution does not always produce something new, sometimes what exists works just fine and continues to exist.
Thomas Morgan does not demonstrate an understanding of evolution, only the creationist corruption of evolution

[Harbal]

1. Will you substantiate both are common creationist canards or remove it?

What would you like those of us who have already read it to do?

2. This is a Philosophy forum and philosophical argumentation is more than 2.000 years old.

So is some of the Bible but we would hardly be expected to take that seriously, would we? Or would we?

3. How old are Darwin's ideas?

Exactly, much too modern to have any credibility.