You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

Quote:

There is a counter argument for everything we "believe" we know and understand about evolution.
In other words there is no conclusive evidence, anyone taking that step is then using bias by deciding the counter argument is wrong by assumption, belief because we do not have all the facts.

And this is the underlying fallacy of your various responses.

Even though we don't know *everything,* we can know some things.

Also, as a Christian I'm troubled by the need of some to 'prove' that God exists by attacking established, settled science.

The last time I looked, the essence of Christian belief is *faith.*

s.

Actually that is not the core of my point, theory of everything ONLY becomes relevant when you take a controlled environment model and then try to apply it to the real world and also apply additional real-world associations.
And it is far from being a fallacy because we are talking about using mathematics-models for proof (including science relying upon chance).
And more importantly I am not sure how you come to conclusion my whole point is based on this when it was only my last post that touched on this subject and only because it was Buddha who broke the model argument into the real world when we were talking about Darwinmaths.

And where am I attacking established settled science when it comes to this subject with the factors I highlighted?
That is a fallacy statement right there, or are you ignoring the flaws in Darwinism that even the very last science link I provided politely showed where it breaks down (although for me not entirely)

Seems this is now a finite debate in an infinite loop, or is finite debate on an impossibly complex subject, or both
More seriously though, you should look more deeply at what I am saying instead of concluding I am attacking establish science to help Christians, I think you will find that is far from the truth.
You are looking at my argument with the wrong facts if you feel it is all based on upon your quote as it ignores everthing else I have been saying (McClintock comes to mind??? Just being one of them and of course the very last science link).

Edit:
satkinsn, to get a better understanding where I am coming from this link is pretty good (although it is still very polite towards Darwinism and still gives leeway on some aspects that are questioned by opposing scientists).
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/?tool=pubmed

Cheers
Orb

satkinsn
satkinsn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Aug 19 2008 - 4:23am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

I quoted that part of your post because - from my reading of your arguments - that's the essential point.

The theory of evolution is incomplete ----> the theory of evolution is open to question -----> we can't believe the theory of evolution.

I don't think that's a misrepresentation of your several pages of writing on the subject.

As for Christianity, my bad. I wasn't trying to suggest that was your intent. I was trying to make a more general point about how this issue is used to try to prove something that doesn't need proving.

s.

edit - Orb, just as an exercise, I invite you to do the following:

State the essentials of your argument in, say, five declarative sentences. The shorter, the better. You obviously feel strongly about the subject at hand, but sometimes your eagerness to make your case leads to phrases like "both evolution and creationism is flawed with both requiring a belief (if taking Darwinism evolution concept), with many using bias to decide on a conclusion as fact."

Tough read, that.

Having read a lot of science over the years, one of the things that jumps out at me is - no matter how complex the subject, someone with a case to make can use simple words and sentences to make it.

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
I quoted that part of your post because - from my reading of your arguments - that's the essential point.

The theory of evolution is incomplete ----> the theory of evolution is open to question -----> we can't believe the theory of evolution.

I don't think that's a misrepresentation of your several pages of writing on the subject.

As for Christianity, my bad. I wasn't trying to suggest that was your intent. I was trying to make a more general point about how this issue is used to try to prove something that doesn't need proving.

s.


I see.
The problem though is that a broken theory is not scientifically acceptable, that is the crux of this.

I am quoting my very 1st post because it sums up what you say about belief in Christianity.


Quote:

Got to agree with you here, I find it surprising that the very scientists who ridicule religion can then follow evolution with such and equal blind faith; in reality both are flawed and both missing a terrible amount of information, and importantly both sides suffer bias.
Classic case is where some believed they had found the missing link in evolution that was meant to be the link between humans and apes.
Turns out wrong.

In other words BOTH require faith and this is where I was forced to argue the case in point.
Now, it seems your not disagreeing with the idea of belief, which means somehow your agreeing what I am saying but also disagreeing.

And yes you are still misrepresenting what I am saying, or at least not fully understanding the point if you cannot understand why it is important for a theory to actually work scientifically if it is to be extolled by those who support science (again this is what kicked off all these pages because some seem offended that I pointed out evolution requires belief and also Darwinism is flawed that they use to prove evolution conclusively).
To be honest I do feel you are simplifying the argument (not using the word in a negative sense), and unfortunately doing so ignores much of the other fundamental points.
Sorry if this is wrong, but it does seem to me you did not bother to read in "detail" any of the references and links I provided (correct me if I am wrong).

Going to leave it at this as we will go round in a perpetual loop, as I hinted to earlier

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you and to all others!
Cheers
Orb

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

satkinsn,
I have provided way enough information for anyone to follow with at least 5 links including one just recently and yet again you challenge me to respond to this subject in 5 sentences, sigh.

Last post, take the time to read all those links, I am not going to get pulled into a pedantic argument caused by me trying to condense such a complex subject into a minimal form (which is easily open to wrong interpretation).

Merry Christmas
Orb

satkinsn
satkinsn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Aug 19 2008 - 4:23am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

No. Wrong.

Evolution is a testable belief. The essential quality of science is that you can determine whether or not something is true, (or for the Popperians in the crowd, not false yet.)

It is not, as you say, a broken theory. To get to the point where you believe that, you have to ignore a vast amount of science.

Again, I invite you to write your argument out in a few declarative sentences.

s.

satkinsn
satkinsn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Aug 19 2008 - 4:23am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
satkinsn,
I have provided way enough information for anyone to follow with at least 5 links including one just recently and yet again you challenge me to respond to this subject in 5 sentences, sigh.

Last post, take the time to read all those links, I am not going to get pulled into a pedantic argument caused by me trying to condense such a complex subject into a minimal form (which is easily open to wrong interpretation).

Merry Christmas
Orb

The subject is complex; the writing is merely convoluted.

The point of the five sentences is to get you to say what you mean, rather than being able to endlessly write around points.

Simplicity isn't pedantic - writing things like the above quoted sentence is, pure and simple.

Look, I'm nobody's genius, but I'm a reasonably bright boy with some grounding in the areas you're discussing - and your posts basically consist of careening from thought to thought, without much focus.

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:

Quote:
satkinsn,
I have provided way enough information for anyone to follow with at least 5 links including one just recently and yet again you challenge me to respond to this subject in 5 sentences, sigh.

Last post, take the time to read all those links, I am not going to get pulled into a pedantic argument caused by me trying to condense such a complex subject into a minimal form (which is easily open to wrong interpretation).

Merry Christmas
Orb

The subject is complex; the writing is merely convoluted.

The point of the five sentences is to get you to say what you mean, rather than being able to endlessly write around points.

Simplicity isn't pedantic - writing things like the above quoted sentence is, pure and simple.

Look, I'm nobody's genius, but I'm a reasonably bright boy with some grounding in the areas you're discussing - and your posts basically consist of careening from thought to thought, without much focus.

Strange, because each of my posts was in turn a response to another poster apart from that very first one that I partially quoted in previous post
If your criticising the structure of this discussion, then that criticism must be laid at the feet of those I had to respond to, don't you think?

Enough of this sillyness, it seems your rooting for an argument and still have not bothered to read those links have you?
Even the last one?
Why not help me out and condense what those links and last paper state in 5 sentences as your challenging me to do (after all they tie in with what I am trying to say)?

Do you think you can take those sources and put it into 5 sentences the reasoning behind Darwinism-evolution-mathematical models-axiom and probability?
If you can manage that accurately kudos, I agree it would be highly beneficial and seems you think it may be possible otherwise you would not challenge me to the exercise in the 1st place.
Look forward to your analysis of those sources, including the last one recently.

Ah and sorry, my phrasing about pedantic argument was not directed at you but the guaranteed response to a 5 sentence case on what those links and papers suggest about Darwinism and evolution as we know it.

Cheers
Orb

satkinsn
satkinsn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Aug 19 2008 - 4:23am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

It's not my job to make your arguments for you.

I'm not spoiling for a fight. I am spoiling for clarity, of which there is precious little in this thread.

Let me put it like this: I know vanishingly little about measuring audio equipment, something that requires engineering know-how, judgment and a sense of history.

Yet when I read John Atkinson's (no relation) sidebars on a piece of equipment, I can follow along reasonably well.

Why? Because he gets to the point, writes sentences that can be easily followed, and doesn't allow his detailed understanding of audio issues to stand in the way of explaining things for a more general audience.

Atkinson is *clear,* even if he's trying to make a complicated point.

Maybe I'm doing you a disservice, but I'm not getting that from your arguments here. My five sentence hypothetical is my way of saying - clean it up. Write it simpler and clearer. Now I have absolutely no right to ask such a thing - but what I suspect is, if you have to write it more simply, some of the problems you are glossing over right now, and in particular the sweeping generalizations you have made, will become obvious.

Or...maybe I just need to back away from the computer and go find my missing sense of humor and proportion.

s.

edit - And having re-reread your posts and the associated links, I'm not sure what *you* believe.

Do you believe in God?

Do you believe God is responsible for creating us?

If you don't, what do you believe?

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Yes. Sometimes I tilt at Lamont and JIMV's windmills. Ah, we all do it, at times.

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Satkinson,
I have been patient so far with your posts, but you continually ignore most of what I post and focus in your own way on specific sentences.
You say I am glossing over problems but dont express in detail what those issues are; in fact you have not presented any detail on what the exact issue is with my posting apart from an incredibly vague critique (sure you still say it is because there is no detail).

However, the detail is there with scientific papers, or with discussions linked from scientists, or other philosphical articles that expand on what you think seem to be "glossed over".
For in-depth details, read the links that are with or associated to my posts.
And please dont associate belief/believe with any of my posts, I am loathe that science should reach conclusions based on belief, which should be abundantly clear by now (although for you it seems as clear as mud ).

You have heard the RTFM?
Because where you accuse me of sweeping generalisation I have actually provided useful links that are associated with the post, which are actually informative with much detail in most cases.
I would say I am the only one who has NOT done sweeping generalisations in posting so far as I have taken the time to combine external sources with my discussions.
Once you actually read those links and provide a 5 sentence summary as you demand from me, then I will have more time for you as then you will actually be reading the not "glossed over info" that goes with my posts.
The point being my posts are intended for those that actually take the time to read the linked content associated with them or understand this subject beyond basic wiki.

BTW belief/believe does not come into play with my views as I will only reach a conclusion once the facts are fully known, meaning I do not require belief and my world does not come crashing down around me knowing that understanding evolution still has a long way to go.
Interestingly you ever read article about how scientists may think our brains our hard-wired to believe in a God of some kind (whether religious-Christian or I guess Science-Darwinism); maybe some cannot over-ride this and any information not conforming to the ideal just cannot be processed in same way as some bias mechanism.

Edit:
If interested Professor Jordan Grafman is the person I think was leading the research into belief-religion hardwired in the brain.

Thanks
Orb

satkinsn
satkinsn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Aug 19 2008 - 4:23am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

<sigh>

Ok. We'll do this the hard way.

Here's the post in which you lay out many of your talking points.

I'll go through them one by one, after which time you'll tell me that I miss the point, didn't read the links, am being close-minded or some combination of the above.

<sound of head hitting table>

"Bearing in mind that the evolution requires a common link between human and apes (thesis of Darwinism) and it just has never been found."

To describe this as the "thesis of Drawnism" is to seriously misunderestimate (as our former Commander in Chief put it) what Darwin was talking about and what evolution is.

But I'll remind you of what you already know - we share 98-99 percent of the same DNA, have similar skeletal structures, share many other characteristics.

If that's not a common link, what is?

"Yes evolution does occur, but you are saying evolution is proven to show that humans come from bacteria in a random natural selection-survival of the fittest fashion."

No. Any high school course in biology teaches the fundamentals of evolution, which you would be well advised to take at your earliest convenience. Natural selection is not the same thing as survival of the fittest, and neither of them is truly random. And evolution takes in more than those two things.

"This means you have to prove the links not only between say humans and apes, but how we even reached the stages from sea based life to bipeds without ever suffering from extinction."

The preceding statement has nothing to do with the statement before it, despite your "This means you have to prove..."

Taken purely on its own merits, it makes equally little sense. "We" suffered lots of setbacks along the way, and other, alternate "we's" did go extinct. That "we" didn't doesn't demand some extraordinary proof over and above what we already know.

"Its been proven if you do not mate like rabbits when your species is under a certain number it goes into terminal decline."

I'm charmed, and would very much like to see the science of mating like rabbits in greater detail. More seriously, so what? The statement neither proves nor disproves anything.

"On top of this you have to factor in the life we evolved from not only survived in some of the harshest conditions on Earth, but thrived.
Case in point, if we started as sea based life and by evolution standards it would be a small group, how did it manage not to be spread out into the seas and dilute the groups too much?"

How do you know the group size, or how such a group would behave in water? And if your argument were true, how does any group of anything in the water survive today?

"Or how about natural selection evolution requires mating between physically different species (take the proposal of ape-early man with a bridge species), now this is quite incredible when you consider that racism is still strong today and that is among the very same species (modern humans) with minimal physical differences.
So we need to assume or suspend racial prejudices that would most likely have existed even then between two sub groups with one being much more advanced."

Where to start? As Buddha pointed out, this 'physically different' part is wrong on the face of it, and then you add in the sad tale of a love between man and ape-man that was not meant to be. You have absolutely no proof of any such phenomena, but you state it as fact.

"This is just some very brief concepts that all need answering in detail and with facts.
The closest you get to facts with regards to this and how we evolved is that it was chance.
But the probability is sooo insignificance it then points to the more likely concept that chance does not exist meaning; who we are, what we will do,etc has in theory happened as it was designed that way from the birth of the universe with the laws we live in."

This shows such a profound lack of understanding of evolution as to make further discussion difficult; if you think that 'chance' in isolation is what's left on the table, you. are. clueless.

"On top of this you would also need to associate with evolution how life comes from its basic elements, the creation of certain laws in physics and bioligy,etc.
I could go on, but it is an absolute leap of faith, involving maths that may prove nothing is chance - including the choices we make."

In a weird, 'even a broken clock is right twice a day' sort of way, you're right about part of this, in my view. Our universe is roughly (not finely) tuned to life emerging, and so you can argue that life's emergence is not pure chance.

"But you cannot argue the case for evolution when you have no facts that can conclusively support it, or even validate beyond theory that is debatable."

Again, you show a breathtaking lack of understanding of science.

To quote from a useful plain English guide on the subject which lays out neatly why evolution is settled science:

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

"Simplest points, Darwin's point is that apes and humans originated from the same species (not that we came from apes), this is the missing link that some scientists believed they had found and I provided a link on awhile ago.
The reality was it had nothing in common to the missing link Darwin proposes that shows the giant leaps of evolution."

So? We can't directly observe many aspects of quantum mechanics, but we know they work. That the common ancestor hasn't been found - and may never be - proves exactly nothing.

Another example is intelligence in humans and apes, and theory on how intelligence evolves, the very link I provided in this thread again proves the theory needs to be revised as it cannot take into account very different species with same capabilities for problem solving-tool use as chimpanzees.

And the theory you refer to would be? And its connection to evolution?

"Just curious what facts you feel prove evolution, and overcomes severe challenges of DNA dilution, extinction when low number of species, the incredible complex requirements for life to exist and grow (such as balance of the food chain, plants, oxygen,etc)."

This has been endlessly hashed over, but here's the state of the art - the world is not finely tuned to us, there is no irreducible complexity and evolution can account for all of the above.

Seriously, go back to the basics.

s.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
Nah.

Actually, it goes right to the heart of a lot of what's being argued about here. FWIW, I read the entire thread before posting, and though I don't have the lightning fast sh**-stirring reflexes that you do, my point stands.

s.

Touche'....

I still think you are full of shit because you need to qualify yourself in a bar.


Quote:
Right about now
Momma I'm an astronaut
Right about now
Momma I'm an astronaut
Right about now
Momma I'm an astronaut
Yeah


Quote:
Also, as a Christian I'm troubled by the need of some to 'prove' that God exists by attacking established, settled science.

Settled science? Forgettaboutit!

Some people see the glass half empty. Some people see the glass half full. They are all full of shit. The glass is twice as big as it should be.

We just love the lack of creativity about creation when one has to quote, reply, quote, reply, quote, reply, and blah blah blah. You can write a complete paper in response to something without all the lazy fucking forum theatrics?...

satkinsn
satkinsn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Aug 19 2008 - 4:23am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

I'll bite - what's the lyric from?

s.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Why, G. Love & Special Sauce of course.

BTW, nothing personal. There is no right answer. I'm sort of like Oddball in Kelley's Heroes. I just want to get to the bank before my own people get there. I guess you can say we are Mejias's Heroes. Ruff Ruff. That is my other dog imitation.

satkinsn
satkinsn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Aug 19 2008 - 4:23am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Didn't think it was. I know when I'm in the presence of a master.

s.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
Didn't think it was. I know when I'm in the presence of a master.

s.

Agreed, Lamont is a cryptologist and he is like a poem:

He is most effective when least understood.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

This is from one of my favorite books. We're all Clevinger...


Quote:
Clevinger was a troublemaker and a wise guy. Lieutenant Scheisskopf knew that Clevinger might cause even more trouble if he wasn't watched. Yesterday it was the cadet officers; tomorrow it might be the world. Clevinger had a mind, and Lieutenant Scheisskopf had noticed that people with minds tended to get pretty smart at times. Such men were dangerous, and even the new cadet officers whom Clevinger had helped into office were eager to give damning testimony against him. The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with.

Orb
Orb's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: May 28 2009 - 12:51am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa


Quote:
<sigh>

Ok. We'll do this the hard way.

Here's the post in which you lay out many of your talking points.

I'll go through them one by one, after which time you'll tell me that I miss the point, didn't read the links, am being close-minded or some combination of the above.

<sound of head hitting table>

"Bearing in mind that the evolution requires a common link between human and apes (thesis of Darwinism) and it just has never been found."

To describe this as the "thesis of Drawnism" is to seriously misunderestimate (as our former Commander in Chief put it) what Darwin was talking about and what evolution is.

But I'll remind you of what you already know - we share 98-99 percent of the same DNA, have similar skeletal structures, share many other characteristics.

If that's not a common link, what is?

"Yes evolution does occur, but you are saying evolution is proven to show that humans come from bacteria in a random natural selection-survival of the fittest fashion."

No. Any high school course in biology teaches the fundamentals of evolution, which you would be well advised to take at your earliest convenience. Natural selection is not the same thing as survival of the fittest, and neither of them is truly random. And evolution takes in more than those two things.

"This means you have to prove the links not only between say humans and apes, but how we even reached the stages from sea based life to bipeds without ever suffering from extinction."

The preceding statement has nothing to do with the statement before it, despite your "This means you have to prove..."

Taken purely on its own merits, it makes equally little sense. "We" suffered lots of setbacks along the way, and other, alternate "we's" did go extinct. That "we" didn't doesn't demand some extraordinary proof over and above what we already know.

"Its been proven if you do not mate like rabbits when your species is under a certain number it goes into terminal decline."

I'm charmed, and would very much like to see the science of mating like rabbits in greater detail. More seriously, so what? The statement neither proves nor disproves anything.

"On top of this you have to factor in the life we evolved from not only survived in some of the harshest conditions on Earth, but thrived.
Case in point, if we started as sea based life and by evolution standards it would be a small group, how did it manage not to be spread out into the seas and dilute the groups too much?"

How do you know the group size, or how such a group would behave in water? And if your argument were true, how does any group of anything in the water survive today?

"Or how about natural selection evolution requires mating between physically different species (take the proposal of ape-early man with a bridge species), now this is quite incredible when you consider that racism is still strong today and that is among the very same species (modern humans) with minimal physical differences.
So we need to assume or suspend racial prejudices that would most likely have existed even then between two sub groups with one being much more advanced."

Where to start? As Buddha pointed out, this 'physically different' part is wrong on the face of it, and then you add in the sad tale of a love between man and ape-man that was not meant to be. You have absolutely no proof of any such phenomena, but you state it as fact.

"This is just some very brief concepts that all need answering in detail and with facts.
The closest you get to facts with regards to this and how we evolved is that it was chance.
But the probability is sooo insignificance it then points to the more likely concept that chance does not exist meaning; who we are, what we will do,etc has in theory happened as it was designed that way from the birth of the universe with the laws we live in."

This shows such a profound lack of understanding of evolution as to make further discussion difficult; if you think that 'chance' in isolation is what's left on the table, you. are. clueless.

"On top of this you would also need to associate with evolution how life comes from its basic elements, the creation of certain laws in physics and bioligy,etc.
I could go on, but it is an absolute leap of faith, involving maths that may prove nothing is chance - including the choices we make."

In a weird, 'even a broken clock is right twice a day' sort of way, you're right about part of this, in my view. Our universe is roughly (not finely) tuned to life emerging, and so you can argue that life's emergence is not pure chance.

"But you cannot argue the case for evolution when you have no facts that can conclusively support it, or even validate beyond theory that is debatable."

Again, you show a breathtaking lack of understanding of science.

To quote from a useful plain English guide on the subject which lays out neatly why evolution is settled science:

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

"Simplest points, Darwin's point is that apes and humans originated from the same species (not that we came from apes), this is the missing link that some scientists believed they had found and I provided a link on awhile ago.
The reality was it had nothing in common to the missing link Darwin proposes that shows the giant leaps of evolution."

So? We can't directly observe many aspects of quantum mechanics, but we know they work. That the common ancestor hasn't been found - and may never be - proves exactly nothing.

Another example is intelligence in humans and apes, and theory on how intelligence evolves, the very link I provided in this thread again proves the theory needs to be revised as it cannot take into account very different species with same capabilities for problem solving-tool use as chimpanzees.

And the theory you refer to would be? And its connection to evolution?

"Just curious what facts you feel prove evolution, and overcomes severe challenges of DNA dilution, extinction when low number of species, the incredible complex requirements for life to exist and grow (such as balance of the food chain, plants, oxygen,etc)."

This has been endlessly hashed over, but here's the state of the art - the world is not finely tuned to us, there is no irreducible complexity and evolution can account for all of the above.

Seriously, go back to the basics.

s.


Excellent now we are getting somewhere but the politest initial response I have is oh dear and steady on there tiger, or your continued hostile and biased approach will require declawing.
You continue criticising me for lack of scientific knowledge and yet I am finding it hard why you think it is fine to harp on about belief/believe as being normal for such a discussion.
I find it interesting your telling ME to go back to basics and yet the last link is a science link explaining Darwinism to you - should had at least read that.
It would explain where the flaws are in our understanding in Evolution and why proof-models are still required.

Anyway.
Do you not understand that belief is the absence of proof?
Period, science is based on validation-proof-understanding and without this we rely on belief and assumptions that do not necessarily match to any complete modelling concepts or complete known facts so far.
In other words its just a hypothesis if its without fully understanding the mechanics (consider why we have spent billions to build Large Hadron Collider).
Now that is fine but then if this accepted to be true then the process should also acknowledge there are potential flaws and that the hypothesis may need to be broken and re-considered with new models-data-etc.

To expand on this; here is the quote from one scientist who had the pleasure of doing the introduction in Origin of Species in an edition late 70s, this is even before genomics worked against Darwinism (in other words broke the hypothesis and redefined or started to);

Quote:

"belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to the belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present has been capable of proof'


Unfortunately this quote has been taken by creationists to assist their own arguments, however the point is it underlines that it requires a proportion of belief and as explained that means we are at a hypothesis and not a scientific conclusive mechanism-understanding, its an idea and theory that can then be challenged resulting unfortunately in questions that currently cannot be answered.
As a comparative example; String theory is an idea with parts that make sense in terms of modelling,data,etc, however this does not mean we can conclude string theory is actually scientifically proven and accurate.
Fact,period,end of story - so far.
I just did a search and might understand your hostility to such open philosophy and proof beyond theory/idea if you live in USA and deal with Discovery Institute/Thomas More Law Center, but what you seem to follow without question is open to more of a debate here in Europe.
Just reading about the Dover case raises part of the interesting aspect, the leading paleontologist witness against Discovery Institute agreed that the lack of fossil records tying in with Darwin's theory-evolution is a good question and while the mechanics are not proven it does not destroy the idea of Darwin-evolution.
He actually used the word idea, somehow we seem all of a sudden not to care about proof-mechanics-modelling.
This is what I would say myself and others with a bit more open mind than some question.

Now interestingly L.Harrison Matthews had a healthy pragmatic view because much later in modern genomics evaluating Darwin's evolution the suggestion is as follows (quote from the last link you seem to lazy to read before your hostile response):

Quote:

All the classical concepts have undergone transformation, turning into much more complex, pluralistic characterizations of the evolutionary process (15). Depicting the change in the widest strokes possible, Darwin's paramount insight on the interplay between chance and order (introduced by natural selection) survived , even if in a new, much more complex and nuanced form, with specific contributions of different types of random processes and distinct types of selection revealed.
By contrast, the insistence on adaptation being the primary mode of evolution that is apparent in the Origin, but especially in the Modern Synthesis, became deeply suspicious if not outright obsolete, making room for a new worldview that gives much more prominence to non-adaptive processes (184).

The whole quote has context to what I have said so far, but the purpose of bolding a section leads to another fundamental that I touched upon; specifically chance-randomness.
As a follower of Darwin-evolution who accepts that, you then MUST also consider the philosophical points I raised that pertain to Kurt G

satkinsn
satkinsn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: Aug 19 2008 - 4:23am
Re: Here is some more scientific methods used to prove global wa

Fair enough.

s.

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading