Contrition for evolution

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
How the frell do you figure that? Mutually exclusive, that is about as far from the truth as you can get and doesnt even make sense from any point of view. Do you even know what mutally exclusive means??? And Natural selection has been demonstrated, time and again to be a force for change, not "quality control". Come to think of it, I really onl ...[text shortened]... hat are you smoking? and will you share with the rest of us cause it must be really good stuff.

Let's try this again.


Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow
[
--------------Partiallly reproduced for brevity----------------

First and foremost, the idea that evolution is only a theory and apparently the subset of this that I didnt see until this thread, that it is not real science. When scientists use the word theory, they're referring to a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts.

*************
From Webster (partial): Theory -- the analysis of a set of facts... a belief, policy, or procedure proposed.... an ideal or hypothetical set of facts..... a hypothesis used for the sake of argument or investigation.... abstract thought: speculation.

We scientists frequently expound theories based upon what little or maybe more we know about a subject. This is then thrown out to the community for review and discussion. Theories are hardly ever taken as proof of anything, initially -- certainly not as fact.
*********************



These theories all have been modified over time to better explain data but have never been disproven or have any major claims against them scientifically.


***********
On the contrary, for every scientist-adherent to evolution theory there is a corresponding scientist-assailent. This includes scientists of all disciplines -- medicine, biology, physical, geological. Numerous successful attacks have been made against evolution on scientific grounds.
*********************



Evolution is on par with these other theories, so you should spend just as much time arguing that DNA has nothing to do with inheritance or the sun goes around the earth.

**************
Evolution stands distinctively as a theory searching desperately to contain itself from dripping hopelessly through all the holes punched into it.
*****************************




A law is not higher than a theory, it is a pattern that can be predicted, theories are used to explain why laws are true.

*********
Theories ATTEMPT to explain, test, and disprove laws, among other things.
****************



And we can synthesize amino acids running a current through what we think the primordial soup would have been like, so that is good supporting evidence that that step is possible.

**************
That proves nothing. We need to add intelligence to the sysyem of chemicals to make them work the way we need them to work.
***********




Just because we can't directly observe something doesnt mean the theories and hypothesises about it are less reliable.

********
Of course you need to observe something to ascertain its validity. Please re-read The Scientific Method.
*************




And evolutionary theory is the ONLY scientific theory or hypothesis which does a good job of explaining observed phenomina.

***********
Yes, its the ONLY theory. But its still wrong because it doesn't explain anything conclusively and satisfactorily.
**************




It has been said that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

************
Whoever said that is wrong. Let it now be said that "Nothing in evolution theory makes sense."
*********





Basically, evolution isn't just some guess or idea, it is backed up by lots of evidence and has been refined and tested and subjected to harsh peer review for over 100 years.

***********
It has certainly been accepted by its proponents. However, evolution theory has bee tested and subjected to harsh criticism for over 100 years and has not succeeded in supporting itself to the satisfaction of the scientific and lay communities.
**************




If you have any better model, I and the scientific comunity would like to hear it. If not, then you need to understand how science works.

************
As a long-standing member of the scientific community I offer the model of creationism. However, I do not invoke the G-word because I have no furher basis of knowledge.
****************




Creationism and Intelligent Design don't qualify as competing scientific theories because they're not scientific. They don't offer natural explanations for biological phenomena.

**************
You are not qualified to, in an out-of-hand way, dispose of Creationism and Intelligent Design as valid concepts.
*************



Things like the eye that people talk about weren't a series of random mutations to get to an eye, they were random mutations that happened to end up with an eye as an end product,

A species is a group of animals who can interbreed with each other, but not with other groups. But because change is gradual, you can't follow evolution as one species to another in sudden changes, the line is blurred and is really more of a continuum.

***********
These are major stumbling blocks that evolution theory fails terribly at explaing in coherent fashion.
************





I am curious what better way you have to explain the seeming partial steps between humans and chimp like beings that we have found in africa and asia.

**********
There are NO partial steps connecting chimps to humans, hence, no explanation is possible.
*************

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Out of curiosity--excuse the tangent--why do you fundamentalist anti-evolutionists (you know who you are) make derisory comments like "from goo to the zoo" to mock the theory or express horror at the notion that we might have "evolved from slime", yet (presumably) have no objection to seeing yourselves as inflatable soil (in-breathed mud), as Genesis depicts? Either way you started out as some sort of dirt.

Originally posted by llhank
(JUST TO CLARIFY HIS TEXT)

Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnow


First and foremost, the idea that evolution is only a theory and apparently the subset of this that I didnt see until this thread, that it is not real science. When scientists use the word theory, they're referring to a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts.

From Webster (partial): Theory -- the analysis of a set of facts... a belief, policy, or procedure proposed.... an ideal or hypothetical set of facts..... a hypothesis used for the sake of argument or investigation.... abstract thought: speculation.

We scientists frequently expound theories based upon what little or maybe more we know about a subject. This is then thrown out to the community for review and discussion. Theories are hardly ever taken as proof of anything, initially -- certainly not as fact.

These theories all have been modified over time to better explain data but have never been disproven or have any major claims against them scientifically.

On the contrary, for every scientist-adherent to evolution theory there is a corresponding scientist-assailent. This includes scientists of all disciplines -- medicine, biology, physical, geological. Numerous successful attacks have been made against evolution on scientific grounds.

Evolution is on par with these other theories, so you should spend just as much time arguing that DNA has nothing to do with inheritance or the sun goes around the earth.

Evolution stands distinctively as a theory searching desperately to contain itself from dripping hopelessly through all the holes punched into it.

A law is not higher than a theory, it is a pattern that can be predicted, theories are used to explain why laws are true.

Theories ATTEMPT to explain, test, and disprove laws, among other things.

And we can synthesize amino acids running a current through what we think the primordial soup would have been like, so that is good supporting evidence that that step is possible.

That proves nothing. We need to add intelligence to the sysyem of chemicals to make them work the way we need them to work.

Just because we can't directly observe something doesnt mean the theories and hypothesises about it are less reliable.

Of course you need to observe something to ascertain its validity. Please re-read The Scientific Method.

And evolutionary theory is the ONLY scientific theory or hypothesis which does a good job of explaining observed phenomina.

Yes, its the ONLY theory. But its still wrong because it doesn't explain anything conclusively and satisfactorily.

It has been said that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Whoever said that is wrong. Let it now be said that "Nothing in evolution theory makes sense."

Basically, evolution isn't just some guess or idea, it is backed up by lots of evidence and has been refined and tested and subjected to harsh peer review for over 100 years.

It has certainly been accepted by its proponents. However, evolution theory has bee tested and subjected to harsh criticism for over 100 years and has not succeeded in supporting itself to the satisfaction of the scientific and lay communities.

If you have any better model, I and the scientific comunity would like to hear it. If not, then you need to understand how science works.

As a long-standing member of the scientific community I offer the model of creationism. However, I do not invoke the G-word because I have no further basis of knowledge.

Creationism and Intelligent Design don't qualify as competing scientific theories because they're not scientific. They don't offer natural explanations for biological phenomena.

You are not qualified to, in an out-of-hand way, dispose of Creationism and Intelligent Design as valid concepts.

Things like the eye that people talk about weren't a series of random mutations to get to an eye, they were random mutations that happened to end up with an eye as an end product,

A species is a group of animals who can interbreed with each other, but not with other groups. But because change is gradual, you can't follow evolution as one species to another in sudden changes, the line is blurred and is really more of a continuum.

These are major stumbling blocks that evolution theory fails terribly at explaing in coherent fashion.

I am curious what better way you have to explain the seeming partial steps between humans and chimp like beings that we have found in africa and asia.

There are NO partial steps connecting chimps to humans, hence, no explanation is possible.

On the contrary, for every scientist-adherent to evolution theory there is a corresponding scientist-assailent. This includes scientists of all disciplines -- medicine, biology, physical, geological. Numerous successful attacks have been made against evolution on scientific grounds.

Are you aware of Project Steve Ilhank? I know dj2becker is, because I've already gone over this with him. Project Steve is a list of Steves int he scientific community who believe in evolution. It was a response to the lists creationists were coming out with of 'scientists against evolution'. I believe Project Steve has more scientists that any such creationist list; since Steves are ~1% of the population, that means that more than 100 times as many scientists support evolution as do not. In addition there are often other flaws with the creationist lists; for example they will be lean on biologists and earth scientists, who are the people who are relevant to this topic - the Steve-O-Meter is about 2/3 biologists. It's also heavy in Nobel Prize winners and other presigious scientists (Stephen Hawking's on there).

In light of Project Steve, how can you claim that

for every scientist-adherent to evolution theory there is a corresponding scientist-assailent.

This goes for you too dj.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/

Originally posted by llhank
Numerous successful attacks have been made against evolution on scientific grounds.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Name one.

I'm not a scientist, but a historian of science and culture. As such I must track developments in science and scientific theory. I cannot recall any successful attacks upon evolution that were made on scientific grounds. There have been, on the other hand, a great many unsuccessful attacks on evolution from cultural and religious perspectives. ...[text shortened]... If you don't understand the sexuality of mayflies, keep your friggin trap shut regarding bugs.

Originally posted by llhank
The successful attacks include the probablility that our body being such a structure of so many simultaneous, interdependent, complex systems could EVOLVE??? via random mutations in such a relatively short period of time.

Originally posted by llhank
The successful attacks include the probablility that our body being such a structure of so many simultaneous, interdependent, complex systems could EVOLVE??? via random mutations in such a relatively short period of time.