Evolution Theory is Error

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Very succinct AH - and something I can say we agree on.:)

Yes but nobody is suggesting that it is a scientific model. It's a philosophical position that is rather unique in not being at least partially contradicted by scientific observation.

As I said though, that matter and the implications of it are way off topic. Take it to the appropriate thread?

I take it you're now satisfied that the peer review system is decent?

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

I am not in the least offended - too Christian for that.

Oh don't get me wrong I don't care if it offends. It was just "A statement of fact".

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Oh don't get me wrong I don't care if it offends. It was just "A statement of fact".

I think it would be unethical of you to accept any Christmas pressies this year:D:D

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yes but nobody is suggesting that it is a scientific model. It's a philosophical position that is rather unique in not being at least partially contradicted by scientific observation.

I take it you're now satisfied that the peer review system is decent?

I have no probs with it as a philosophical position.

My probs arise when pseudo science is applied to faith matters - and the whole atheist superiority thing kicks in.

I am a bit sceptical of the peer review system - perhaps I dont know enough about it in the field of science. Maybe its something I read:D

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I have no probs with it as a philosophical position.

My probs arise when pseudo science is applied to faith matters - and the whole atheist superiority thing kicks in.

Example? Please don't bring up Dawkins yet again.

CDfm wrote: »

I am a bit sceptical of the peer review system - perhaps I dont know enough about it in the field of science. Maybe its something I read:D

Have a look at this: Science Says

It's my take on how science enters the public consciousness. Not at all comprehensive but it'll give you an idea of the value of peer review and how it is largely ignored outside the scientific community, creating the perception that the system is broken.

Alternatively: Bad Science, an entire website dedicated to debunking rubbish science as it enters the mainstream.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Example? Please don't bring up Dawkins yet again.



Have a look at this: Science Says

It's my take on how science enters the public consciousness. Not at all comprehensive but it'll give you an idea of the value of peer review and how it is largely ignored outside the scientific community, creating the perception that the system is broken.

Alternatively: Bad Science, an entire website dedicated to debunking rubbish science as it enters the mainstream.

Who?


Thanks - I will have a look

Black Swan

Gareth37 wrote: »

Scientifically the theory of evolution is incorrect, it was theory put forward by Darwin over one hundred years ago and since that nobody has proved this theory but in fact evidence exists that the theory has no basis whatsoever:

Neither could they produce a single useful amino acid or protein, nor could they prove – despite thousands of experiments – that mutations can have beneficial effects and cause evolution.

Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

Given you being a scientist and I being just a lowly student of drama-film, I am in no way qualified to make a scientific argument. But something is troubling me in what you have stated above. You have used the words "proved" and "prove," which, if I recall are not words appropriate to science, but rather math or logic or law? I was under the impression that science and scientists never "prove" anything, but rather suggest educated guesses they sometimes call theories, which they hold with caution so long as the data tends to support them?

Sources:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm

AtomicHorror

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Given you being a scientist, and I being just a lowly student of drama-film, I am in no way qualified to make a scientific argument.

If you understand the scientific method and are familiar with the relevant data, you are as qualified as you need to be. A philosophical scientist rather than a professional scientist. :pac:

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

But something is troubling me in what you have stated above. You have used the words "proved" and "prove," which, if I recall are not words appropriate to science, but rather math or logic or law? I was under the impression that science and scientists never "prove" anything, but rather suggest educated guesses they sometimes call theories, which they hold with caution so long as the data tends to support them?

Sources:
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm

Pretty much correct. Except that the "educated guess" model is called a hypothesis, whereas a "theory" is a model that is considered by majority consensus to represent reality.

Models are supported by data or falsified by it (assuming the data is relevant), you are correct that "proving" does not enter into the matter. I don't believe for a moment that Gareth is a scientist in the philosophical or professional sense.

The Mad Hatter

Also, it should be borne in mind that he's using some new definition of 'scientist': See here. That is what he does or supposed to be, apparently.

Presumably he's also using some new definition of 'profession'.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

But dont claim scepticism is science just cos you cant relate to a theist belief system.

Science is essentially a very organised sceptical process. They are largely congruous.

I respect your beliefs dont diss mine.

I have nothing but contempt for your beliefs. I seriously doubt that you respect my position, you clearly don't understand it very well. I can imagine why you want to encourage an enviornment of mutual feigned respect though.

Red Hand

I'm a ghost-buster...does that make me scientist?:pac:

Black Swan

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Pretty much correct. Except that the "educated guess" model is called a hypothesis, whereas a "theory" is a model that is considered by majority consensus to represent reality.

Yes! Thank you. I am beginning to remember something from school... Hypotheses were said to be bite-sized pieces of theory, deduced for testing, although they could be inductively derived in some cases, emerging from data, both sometimes modifying existent theory, or refuting it (Wallace's Wheel of Science just popped into my head as a reference). Oh... theory was formally constructed to explain, predict, describe, show covariation, rule out spuriousness, and exhibit all the necessary conditions to be sufficient?

In any case, theory can at times be modified from what the original proposer suggested (e.g., Darwin), especially when new data suggests such revisions? It doesn't mean that the whole theory is tossed out (i.e., baby with the bathwater), like Gareth37 suggested in his OP, but rather it still may have merit as theory after revisions?

Zillah

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

In any case, theory can at times be modified from what the original proposer suggested (e.g., Darwin), especially when new data suggests such revisions? It doesn't mean that the whole theory is tossed out (i.e., baby with the bathwater), like Gareth37 suggested in his OP, but rather it still may have merit as theory after revisions?

Integration is far more common than revolution. New information requires us to modify our existing theories every day.

AtomicHorror

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

In any case, theory can at times be modified from what the original proposer suggested (e.g., Darwin), especially when new data suggests such revisions? It doesn't mean that the whole theory is tossed out (i.e., baby with the bathwater), like Gareth37 suggested in his OP, but rather it still may have merit as theory after revisions?

Exactly correct. In fact Darwin's theory has already undergone extensive development. When we talk about the theory of evolution today we mean the combination of Darwin's concepts of variation and natural selection with Mendel's concepts of genetic inheritance all tied together with modern molecular genetics. We call this the modern synthesis.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

I think it would be unethical of you to accept any Christmas pressies this year:D:D

Smart ass I won't even be in the country.

AtomicHorror

Zillah wrote: »

Integrated is far more common than revolution. New information requires us to modify our existing theories every day.

Certainly seems to be so these days. Even the rather revolutionary theory of relativity allows us to continue using Newton's work for more narrow applications. Of course it's hard to say for certain but it looks like we're getting better at this modelling business since the days of phrenology and lamarckianism :pac:

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

I can imagine why you want to encourage an enviornment of mutual feigned respect though.

Zillah - I dont have an aghenda and I do respect atheist beliefs - but of course if someone is hostile to my beliefs - i stick up for my beliefs.

If I see someone who is either atheist or agnostic posting a point of view on a christian thread and not getting a fair hearing -that annoys me.

I found some of the atheist/scientist posts on the now defunct abortion threads very factual and philosophical moreso than either side of the debate.A lot more balanced IMHO.

Weidii

Are we done with this?

That guy reaked of Kent Hovind.

CDfm

Nobody told me of Dinosaur Adventure Land - its a real place.

Woohoo - I have an alternative holiday destination.

Anyone been there?;)

IrishKnight

Gareth37 wrote: »

According to the Le Châtelier Principle, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water to take place in a hydrate environment.

Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

As a "scientist" you would know that Le Châtelier Principle states; "If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or total pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to partially counter-act the imposed change."

ChocolateSauce

IrishKnight wrote: »

As a "scientist" you would know that Le Châtelier Principle states; "If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or total pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to partially counter-act the imposed change."

How'd I miss that Gareth post?

Yeah, had to learn that one by rote for the LC.

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

How'd I miss that Gareth post?

Yeah, had to learn that one by rote for the LC.

You just reached post 666.

Cadburys is proof that atheists dont have all the best chocolate. I dont know of any atheist Chocolatiers.;)

UU

Gareth37 wrote: »

Scientifically the theory of evolution is incorrect, it was theory put forward by Darwin over one hundred years ago and since that nobody has proved this theory but in fact evidence exists that the theory has no basis whatsoever:

Proteins cannot form in the oceans because the reaction in which two amino acids bond together releases a water molecule. According to the Le Châtelier Principle, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water to take place in a hydrate environment.

Neither could they produce a single useful amino acid or protein, nor could they prove – despite thousands of experiments – that mutations can have beneficial effects and cause evolution.

Modern technology has allowed humans to discover some aspects of the cell. What was thought to be a murky lump during the time of Darwin has been discovered to be an unimaginably complex system.

Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

http://www.albalagh.net/kids/science/evolution.shtml

Oh please there is the science forum for this! Btw there is so much evidence for Evolution but obviously ignorance is bliss in your case. Try reading about the subject. There thousands of publications, books, scientific journals on the subject from a galore of different authors such as Richard Dawkins to name one popular biologist in evolution off the top of my head. I got a recent copy of the National Geographic magazine and there was an article of Wallace whom also came up with a similar theory at the same time of Darwin.

What extremely annoys about your post is have explained nothing at all without anything to back up your dubious claims you have asserted. Not everything is clear cut in Evolution I will admit that because it isn't a process we can witness in out short existence and there are many gaps certainly in fossil records. Irreducible complexity has never been proven if that's what you happen to assert. And if it's some ridiculous Creationism or the Intelligent Design theory you happen to accept there is always room over in the Christianity forum for you I'm sure people will welcome your views more there. After all religion likes to think not questioning things is a virtue and lack of evidence is fine because they can just insert God at every opportunity!

Oh by the way I clicked on your link and realised it is an Islamic version of trying to disprove Evolution. Well both the Bible and the Qur'an are false in my opinion.

Another note, I notice how you have put theory in bold as though it is something which is weak. Obviously you don't understand what a theory in science means and you claim yourself to be a scientist? Odd indeed.

Dades

Welcome back, UU. It's been a while!

btw - Gareth37 is banned for a while so don't expect a response.

I should really lock this thread or something...

AtomicHorror

Dades wrote: »

Welcome back, UU. It's been a while!

btw - Gareth37 is banned for a while so don't expect a response.

I should really lock this thread or something...

BC&P thread is pretty quiet these days so if you lock this one I'll have nowhere to go.

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

Welcome back, UU. It's been a while!

btw - Gareth37 is banned for a while so don't expect a response.

I should really lock this thread or something...

Nah, don't - it's sort of turning into the A&A chatroom at this stage.

blubloblu

Sometimes I wonder if there actually are any creationists on the internet or are they all just posters trying to wind up atheist. Looks like gareth was successful in this regard

Zillah

No he really is just a crazy person. He thinks his house is bugged by Satanic forces.

oeb

Zillah wrote: »

No he really is just a crazy person. He thinks his house is bugged by Satanic forces.

No no no, he thinks it is bugged by paddy power (Who are under the influence of Satanic forces)

The Mad Hatter

oeb wrote: »

No no no, he thinks it is bugged by paddy power (Who are under the influence of Satanic forces)

I thought he was buggered by the devil?

CDfm

UU wrote: »

Not everything is clear cut in Evolution I will admit that because it isn't a process we can witness in out short existence and there are many gaps certainly in fossil records........

And if it's some ridiculous Creationism or the Intelligent Design theory you happen to accept there is always room over in the Christianity forum for you I'm sure people will welcome your views more there.

Well both the Bible and the Qur'an are false in my opinion.

Your views on evolution are very Catholic - that it isnt clearcut but is accepted and may never be fully proven or disproven because of the lack of physical evidence.The Catholic Church and Church of Englan and many other mainstream churches accept evolution and have done for a very long time.

A bit harsh trying to foist a scientist back on us ODCs - we are all about morality, spirituality morality and all that.

Science is well science - Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

...Science is well science - Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

I'm not so sure about those two. Can someone back me up? As far as I'm aware the scientific theory of evolution is exactly that.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is a religious doctrine, and ID is creationism in a cheap tux.

pH

Dades wrote: »

Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is a religious doctrine, and ID is creationism in a cheap tux.

It's a point I'm not quite clear on myself. If a theory is falsifiable and has been shown to be false then is it still a "scientific theory". For example is it possible today to call Lamarckian Evolution or Luminiferous aether scientific, in that both were once scientific theories and falsified, do they remain scientific?

I agree that some of creationism is unfalsifiable (and on that basis not scientific) but some of it is falsifiable, and those bits have been shown by evidence to be false. Now I agree in the political and ideological media battle it might be extremely unwise to concede the word "scientific" to any of it but that may be unfair and disingenuous.

Dades

pH wrote: »

Now I agree in the political and ideological media battle it might be extremely unwise to concede the word "scientific" to any of it but that may be unfair and disingenuous.

I think it's disingenuous to describe something as "scientific" when results can only be interpreted in such a way as to support a predetermined conclusion.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Your views on evolution are very Catholic - that it isnt clearcut but is accepted and may never be fully proven or disproven because of the lack of physical evidence.The Catholic Church and Church of Englan and many other mainstream churches accept evolution and have done for a very long time.

A bit harsh trying to foist a scientist back on us ODCs - we are all about morality, spirituality morality and all that.

Science is well science - Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

Science doesn't prove anything, it just builds models of the natural world. When a model is so well supported that we're pretty certain that it is very accurate it gets promoted to the status of "theory". Evolution is a theory. Creationism and ID are not.

pH wrote: »

For example is it possible today to call Lamarckian Evolution or Luminiferous aether scientific, in that both were once scientific theories and falsified, do they remain scientific?

They'd be more accurately described as failed hypotheses, no?

pH

Dades wrote: »

I think it's disingenuous to describe something as "scientific" when results can only be interpreted in such a way as to support a predetermined conclusion.

You see I'm not so sure, take Christian creationism, it can be tested as follows:

We can measure the age of the earth using various methods, if it's older than the 6000-10000 years the theory suggests then the theory is falsified.

Creationism would imply that God created species as we find them today, they should appear pretty much instantaneously in the fossil record.

I guess what I'm saying is that in some cases, instead of jumping on the unscientific bandwagon it might be more honest to just say "Sorry we've looked at the evidence and creationism is just plain wrong".

I agree that some branches of creationism are as you say about interpreting the evidence to support a predetermined conclusion, but I still hold that "The earth and all the creatures on it was created 6,000 years ago by God" is a falsifiable claim that scientific evidence has shown to be wrong. My question is that can you call that "scientific", if not would it be correct today to say that Newton's work on gravity and planetary motions is no longer scientific.

pH

Zillah wrote: »

They'd be more accurately described as failed hypotheses, no?

OK I agree with your hypotheses/theory distinction, but that rather avoids the question as to whether they're still "scientific".

robindch

pH wrote: »

It's a point I'm not quite clear on myself. If a theory is falsifiable and has been shown to be false then is it still a "scientific theory".

"Theory" means a conceptual framework which explains a set of observations in a consistent and comprehensible manner. "Scientific" means the framework is falsifiable and therefore open to peer-reviewed, evidence-based disproof.

I reckon that a "scientific theory" still remains scientific after it's been disproved, though it's debatable if it can still be referred to as a "theory" since it will no longer explain all relevant observations.

But you can't have a conceptual framework which is 99% evidence-based and 1% undisprovable magic. You're either science all the way or you're not and creationism is certainly not.

Zillah

I'd argue that describing an idea/hypothesis as "scientific" is redundant. We can use a scientific approach to attempt to support or falsify it. If it amasses sufficient support it becomes a "theory", in which case "scientific theory" is assumed: all theories are scientific.

Though it does beg the question, what if a very well supported theory is eventually falsified? Has that ever happened? Has a hypothesis ever reached a point in modern science where it was at one point accepted as solid theory, and then falsified later?

Dades

Hmmm.

Just because someone claims a theory to be true, doesn't allow them to label it 'scientific'.
Think of the pirates/global warming hypothesis!

Before a theory is even entertained as science, the proponant should be able to produce at least one piece of scientific evidence that warrants looking into.

I also feel that because of the predetermined agenda, the whole point is moot. It's all about religion.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

Think of the pirates/global warming theory!

Hypothesis. Semantics matter in this sort of discussion :pac:

Dades

Edited - just for you!

Zillah

Dance puppet, dance!

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

Dance puppet, dance!

Watch it!

happyoutscan

Gareth..... Exactly what type of a 'scientist' are you???

Thomas_S_Hunterson

happyoutscan wrote: »

Gareth..... Exactly what type of a 'scientist' are you???

He's not. He lied. He deliberately sinned. He's going to hell.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Science is well science - Evolution, Creationism and Intelligent design are all scientific theories. Um- subject to peer review etc. I think science should be kept here.

Creationism and ID are, at best, big bundles of refuted hypotheses. Science builds models based on data. These guys have decided what the model is a priori and are trying to make the data fit the model. So what they're doing is just about as opposite to science as you can get whilst still masquerading as scientists. That's why they spend so much of their time attacking the data that supports evolution, rather than publishing new data that supports their model. If they can demonstrate 10% error in a given bit of data, that to them says they can move the data to wherever they like. A 10% error in radiometric dating on a 100 million year old fossil somehow calls the whole thing into question and means, quite conveniently, that the fossil is 10,000 years old. If they can't move the data, they'll find some uncertainty- any uncertainty- that allows them to dismiss the data entirely. Unsurprisingly, the more a piece of data contradicts their model, the looser their criteria for marking it as an outlier.

Their followers don't know enough about how science actually works to spot any of these tricks.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

I reckon that a "scientific theory" still remains scientific after it's been disproved, though it's debatable if it can still be referred to as a "theory" since it will no longer explain all relevant observations.

In my opinion, if its still scientific, but is no longer actually true, that makes it science fiction: you might get an interesting movie or book from it, but you wouldn't teach it in school.

pH

OK - I think we're all in agreement that certain claims are not scientific - like say "Jesus Christ can forgive sins". It's unmeasurable, untestable and nothing to do with science.

However the claim that "man was directly created by a supernatural God 6,000 years ago" is testable and has been falsified. Yes there are those that won't accept the evidence, and I agree with much that AH has said above (these people certainly aren't doing science) but I think the main problem with much of ID and Creationism is that it is utterly and entirely wrong. Arguing that it is unscientific seems to me to sidestep this crucial point.

Dades wrote:

Before a theory is even entertained as science, the proponant should be able to produce at least one piece of scientific evidence that warrants looking into.

What about say Einstein and his theory of Special relativity, which Einstein had no evidence for. We need to avoid a chicken and egg situation, someone had to take it seriously and then perform observations which confirmed it.

Zillah wrote:

Though it does beg the question, what if a very well supported theory is eventually falsified? Has that ever happened? Has a hypothesis ever reached a point in modern science where it was at one point accepted as solid theory, and then falsified later?

They've been *ahem* superseded