Theory of Evolution

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Guillermolis
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2023 8:47 am

Theory of Evolution

Post by Guillermolis »

Philosophy Now Forum
Introdução 17-1-23
Hi everyone. i would like to talk about the Theory of Evolution but searching within the forum I found the “Theory of Evolution, Perfect?” topic was locked many years ago.
I’m not a scientist and no learn about science as a main activity, but lately through the reading of three books, that gave to me the weak bases I have to face this matter, - “Conjuring the Universe: The Origens of the Laws of Nature”, Peter Atkins 2018, “Introduction of The Philosophy of the Religion” and mainly “The Strange Orders of the Things” António Damásio 2017, my mind had been concerned about the lakes and contradictions I think I discover in this theory.
My intention is to find people who have deeper knowledge of the theory and who are willing to answer some questions, maybe basic, I don't know, what I want to ask.

Can I count on any of you?
Thank you.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Guillermolis wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:58 am my mind had been concerned about the lakes and contradictions I think I discover in this theory.
Hi Guillermolis. The reason you find lakes of contradictions in the Theory of Evolution is because you have a healthy mind. I had an interesting discussion about the Theory of evolution about 5 years ago on the forum here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=24244

An anecdote about the previous thread that I find to be interesting and would like to relate. One year (month for month) prior to me starting to contribute on that thread, I was banned from another forum for voicing out similar criticisms of the theory of evolution. More interesting is that the one who banned me was here on the forum. She went by the name "Greta" on that thread. And as she had no power on this forum and this forum takes philosophy seriously, she could do nothing but whine and complain in her posts here on that thread. Here she could not escaped what she feared so much, i.e. a serious discussion on the Theory of Evolution. I have found that all evolutionists don't want to discuss about the serious issues in their belief. If you go through the posts on that thread, you will see how difficult it was just to get them to discuss with me on that topic; they are always trying to escape facing the evidence and logical arguments. So, I doubt any evolutionists will take up a discussion on the contradictions you have found on their most fundamental belief. But if they do, you will have to disregard their trying to escape and insist on having a rational discussion based on scientific evidence. However, in the end you will be all alone with no one to discuss with you!

Anyway, you should know that even Darwin knew the lake of contradictions in his theory, and he knew it was not at all scientific by his own admissions:

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 18 June 1857:
  • It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-2109.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 29 November 1857:
  • What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
Complete letter: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter ... -2176.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Cuthbert Collingwood on the 14th March 1861:
  • But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-3088.xml
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I'm sure you can find many people here to chat about evolution Guillermo. Welcome.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:14 am
Guillermolis wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:58 am my mind had been concerned about the lakes and contradictions I think I discover in this theory.
Hi Guillermolis. The reason you find lakes of contradictions in the Theory of Evolution is because you have a healthy mind. I had an interesting discussion about the Theory of evolution about 5 years ago on the forum here: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=24244

An anecdote about the previous thread that I find to be interesting and would like to relate. One year (month for month) prior to me starting to contribute on that thread, I was banned from another forum for voicing out similar criticisms of the theory of evolution. More interesting is that the one who banned me was here on the forum. She went by the name "Greta" on that thread. And as she had no power on this forum and this forum takes philosophy seriously, she could do nothing but whine and complain in her posts here on that thread. Here she could not escaped what she feared so much, i.e. a serious discussion on the Theory of Evolution. I have found that all evolutionists don't want to discuss about the serious issues in their belief. If you go through the posts on that thread, you will see how difficult it was just to get them to discuss with me on that topic; they are always trying to escape facing the evidence and logical arguments. So, I doubt any evolutionists will take up a discussion on the contradictions you have found on their most fundamental belief. But if they do, you will have to disregard their trying to escape and insist on having a rational discussion based on scientific evidence. However, in the end you will be all alone with no one to discuss with you!

Anyway, you should know that even Darwin knew the lake of contradictions in his theory, and he knew it was not at all scientific by his own admissions:

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 18 June 1857:
  • It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-2109.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 29 November 1857:
  • What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
Complete letter: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter ... -2176.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Cuthbert Collingwood on the 14th March 1861:
  • But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-3088.xml
What 'contradictions'? Do you have a specific one in mind?
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:22 am What 'contradictions'? Do you have a specific one in mind?
Hi Veg. How are you?
We already went through that discussion 5 years ago. You want to do that again? It's just going to be a repeat of that discussion as not much has changed concerning Darwinism in 150 years or so! By the blessings of My Creator, the Almighty I still remember the discussions that I had with you and everyone who contributed on that thread 5 years ago! I remember what you said, and how I responded!
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:32 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:22 am What 'contradictions'? Do you have a specific one in mind?
Hi Veg. How are you?
We already went through that discussion 5 years ago. You want to do that again? It's just going to be a repeat of that discussion as not much has changed concerning Darwinism in 150 years or so! By the blessings of My Creator, the Almighty I still remember the discussions that I had with you and everyone who contributed on that thread 5 years ago! I remember what you said, and how I responded!
Clearly you aren't very memorable. Just another tedious religious dipshit know nothing. You obviously learnt nothing in those 5 years then. How tragic.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:19 am Clearly you aren't very memorable.
Somehow it does not surprise me that you have forgotten. It's well documented in neuroscience and psychology that the human mind seeks to actively forget unwanted memories to preserve mental health. See:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8066077/
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:19 am You obviously learnt nothing in those 5 years then.
As I said, in 160 years of the theory of evolution nothing has changed. So, obviously as expected there was nothing more for me to learn in those five years. The situation is still as Darwin himself acknowledged.

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 18 June 1857:
  • It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-2109.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 29 November 1857:
  • What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
Complete letter: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter ... -2176.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Cuthbert Collingwood on the 14th March 1861:
  • But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-3088.xml
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:47 am As I said, in 160 years of the theory of evolution nothing has changed. So, obviously as expected there was nothing more for me to learn in those five years. The situation is still as Darwin himself acknowledged.

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 18 June 1857:
  • It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-2109.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 29 November 1857:
  • What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
Complete letter: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter ... -2176.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Cuthbert Collingwood on the 14th March 1861:
  • But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-3088.xml
You believe that, since Darwin's idea, the scientific community hasn't made any advancements or discoveries justifying a higher degree of certainty than what Darwin had?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:47 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:19 am Clearly you aren't very memorable.
Somehow it does not surprise me that you have forgotten. It's well documented in neuroscience and psychology that the human mind seeks to actively forget unwanted memories to preserve mental health. See:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8066077/
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:19 am You obviously learnt nothing in those 5 years then.
As I said, in 160 years of the theory of evolution nothing has changed. So, obviously as expected there was nothing more for me to learn in those five years. The situation is still as Darwin himself acknowledged.

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 18 June 1857:
  • It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-2109.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on the 29 November 1857:
  • What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
Complete letter: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter ... -2176.xml

Charles Darwin wrote to Cuthbert Collingwood on the 14th March 1861:
  • But I believe in Nat. Selection, not because, I can prove in any single case that it has changed one species into another, but because it groups & explains well (as it seems to me) a host of facts in classification, embryology, morphology, rudimentary organs, geological succession & Distribution.
Complete letter available here: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/ ... T-3088.xml
Or you were such a nonentity that you didn't register.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:57 am You believe that, since Darwin's idea, the scientific community hasn't made any advancements or discoveries justifying a higher degree of certainty than what Darwin had?
You are new here, so you can be excused for not knowing about a discussion that we had here 5 years ago and which lasted for more than a month. Now, it is not just me saying that but many of the members of the so called "scientific community" (as you referred to) who says that. For example, I had already mentioned Dr Micheal Denton who is a biochemist and geneticist wrote on this in a critical essay on evolution in 2015. He had this to say:

Dr Denton wrote:
  • IN Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Evolution), published in 1985, I argued that the biological realm is fundamentally discontinuous. The major taxa-defining innovations in the history of life have not been derived from ancestral forms by functional intermediates. This is the view that Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson defended in On Growth and Form:
    • In short nature proceeds “from one type to another” [emphasis added] among organic as well as inorganic forms; and these types vary according to their own parameters, and are defined by physical-mathematical conditions of possibility. In natural history Cuvier’s “types” may not be perfectly chosen nor numerous enough but “types” they are; and to seek for stepping stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.
    The contrary view remained predominant among evolutionary biologists until, at least, the 1980s, and remains predominant as the view offered the public today.

    There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations.

    This was my position in Evolution.

    It remains my position today.
Site: http://inference-review.com/article/evo ... d-part-one

You should read that, it is very enlightening. If you don't have time to go through these articles, Dr Denton has many recent interviews on YouTube where he talks about the subject matter of his books.
_________
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Do you, personally, believe that there have been no advancements or discoveries in the scientific community over the last 160 years that lend credence to the idea that evolution has happened here on this planet? It sounds like that's what you're saying, I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're arguing for correctly.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:41 pm Do you, personally, believe that there have been no advancements or discoveries in the scientific community over the last 160 years that lend credence to the idea that evolution has happened here on this planet? It sounds like that's what you're saying, I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're arguing for correctly.
First of all, you should know that scientific inquiry is not about personal beliefs of anyone in particular or in general, neither mine or anyone else. Science is about findings which is supported by empirical evidence. If you want to make sure you understand what I am saying, then make sure you understand what Dr Denton is saying in the paragraph I quoted previously and quoting again below:

Dr Denton wrote:
  • IN Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Evolution), published in 1985, I argued that the biological realm is fundamentally discontinuous. The major taxa-defining innovations in the history of life have not been derived from ancestral forms by functional intermediates. This is the view that Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson defended in On Growth and Form:
    • In short nature proceeds “from one type to another” [emphasis added] among organic as well as inorganic forms; and these types vary according to their own parameters, and are defined by physical-mathematical conditions of possibility. In natural history Cuvier’s “types” may not be perfectly chosen nor numerous enough but “types” they are; and to seek for stepping stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.
    The contrary view remained predominant among evolutionary biologists until, at least, the 1980s, and remains predominant as the view offered the public today.

    There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations.

    This was my position in Evolution.

    It remains my position today.
Site: http://inference-review.com/article/evo ... d-part-one

This is very clearly said, pay particular attention to the following paragraph of Dr Denton:

"There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations."

There is nothing more to add to this. Don't you understand English?
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2562
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Flannel Jesus »

If you believe there haven't been any advancements or discoveries that give credence to evolution over the last 160 years, you are incorrect.

If Dr. Denton believes that, he is incorrect.

The book you reference isn't published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, it's just a book by some dude. To the extent that it has been reviewed by his peers, it has been reviewed negatively. That doesn't mean it's false, but I'm certainly not going to trust information just from that book.

Darwin did not have access to DNA, DNA evidence has lent a significant amount of credence to the evolutionary theory.

We also have thousands of times more fossils today than Darwin had, and that's a source of credence to the theory as well.

So Darwin's own lack of confidence is not maintained by the modern relevant fields of science. We have more evidence now than he had.

The idea that there's been nothing over the last 160 years to lend credence to the theory of evolution is just not true.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Averroes wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:59 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:41 pm Do you, personally, believe that there have been no advancements or discoveries in the scientific community over the last 160 years that lend credence to the idea that evolution has happened here on this planet? It sounds like that's what you're saying, I just want to make sure I'm understanding what you're arguing for correctly.
First of all, you should know that scientific inquiry is not about personal beliefs of anyone in particular or in general, neither mine or anyone else. Science is about findings which is supported by empirical evidence. If you want to make sure you understand what I am saying, then make sure you understand what Dr Denton is saying in the paragraph I quoted previously and quoting again below:

Dr Denton wrote:
  • IN Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Evolution), published in 1985, I argued that the biological realm is fundamentally discontinuous. The major taxa-defining innovations in the history of life have not been derived from ancestral forms by functional intermediates. This is the view that Sir D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson defended in On Growth and Form:
    • In short nature proceeds “from one type to another” [emphasis added] among organic as well as inorganic forms; and these types vary according to their own parameters, and are defined by physical-mathematical conditions of possibility. In natural history Cuvier’s “types” may not be perfectly chosen nor numerous enough but “types” they are; and to seek for stepping stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.
    The contrary view remained predominant among evolutionary biologists until, at least, the 1980s, and remains predominant as the view offered the public today.

    There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations.

    This was my position in Evolution.

    It remains my position today.
Site: http://inference-review.com/article/evo ... d-part-one

This is very clearly said, pay particular attention to the following paragraph of Dr Denton:

"There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations."

There is nothing more to add to this. Don't you understand English?
Do you even know what a 'theory' is with regard to science? You do realise that 'evolution' only means gradual change over time don't you? It applies to anything. Stick your cherry picked religious garbage and 'answers in genesis' crap up your arse.
Averroes
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:48 pm

Re: Theory of Evolution

Post by Averroes »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:06 pm The book you reference isn't published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, it's just a book by some dude. To the extent that it has been reviewed by his peers, it has been reviewed negatively. That doesn't mean it's false, but I'm certainly not going to trust information just from that book.
I am glad that you wrote this because now you are in a better position to understand my reason for not trusting just the words of some random dude on a philosophy forum whom, moreover, I don't know his/her credentials! At least, Dr Denton had expertise knowledge of the subject!
Darwin did not have access to DNA, DNA evidence has lent a significant amount of credence to the evolutionary theory.
That is a personal belief and not science. For instance, the majority of people on the planet have different beliefs about DNA. Let's keep to science for now and when we are finished we can talk about your personal beliefs if you still want to.
We also have thousands of times more fossils today than Darwin had, and that's a source of credence to the theory as well.
The fossils do not prove the theory of evolution, not even close. I already discussed that lengthily on the thread I posted. But as you are new, let me go into that again. So, as you believe that the fossil records give credence to evolution, tell me why you believe that from a scientific point of view. Please, I am not asking for you favourite colour or your personal opinion on the matter. I am looking forward to having a logical and scientific discussion.
Post Reply