Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong.

[Anti-World]

"...The modern understanding is that there are indeed universal laws (arising from fundamental physics and chemistry) that govern growth and form in biological systems."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization)

Though the theories behind self-organization are fascinating they do not justify calling themselves "self-organizing" at the basis. Every single organism, object, chemical reaction, etc, as I read it, maintains that it needs certain laws or situations to govern them. It is all guided into place. Simply because an outside source is not needed to spur the reaction does not mean that the reaction or creation is not run by a guiding force. "Self-organizing" seems to me to be very misleading.

Perhaps I don't fully understand the concept and I will continue to read up on the subject but, at the moment, it seems to me that self-organization is true in that it doesn't take any *outside* forces to allow it to exist. However, they *do* need *internal* forces to exist.

 

[[email protected]]

u r so wrong in so many ways
1st of all if u understood averages u would understand that u will never get a average of one because it is a "average of all numbers"
second of all ur analogy of a painting is so far off track.
the theory of evoloutions is that chance created 1 very simple life form, so more like a straight line than a masterpiece of work. and from there on evolution happened and thing evolved from there becoming more complex over about 4 billion years
and i have a question 4 u
if u believe on being(god) must have created everything because things are to complex to be created by chance, must then god be complex to do so? and if god is complex he couldnt of happend by chance so who created him?

 

[yossarian22]

So? It just needs to happen once

 

[andys]

I am new to this forum (as of one minute ago). I don't understand why this thread even exists. Dosen't everyone understand that evolution is a scientific fact? There is nothing to debate.

 

[Storm]

I am new to this forum (as of one minute ago). I don't understand why this thread even exists. Dosen't everyone understand that evolution is a scientific fact? There is nothing to debate.

Obviously not.

 

[Random]

I am new to this forum (as of one minute ago). I don't understand why this thread even exists. Dosen't everyone understand that evolution is a scientific fact? There is nothing to debate.

It is our solemn duty to make scientific conformists lives miserable by arguing all their ill-begotten conceits vigorously. Evolution is one of them. Join the fun...

 

[Valjean]

the theory of evoloutions is that chance created 1 very simple life form, so more like a straight line than a masterpiece of work. and from there on evolution happened and thing evolved from there becoming more complex over about 4 billion years

This isn't evolutionist dogma, paddo, in fact, if conditions existed that could give rise to a self-organizing, self-replicating structure, it would likely be operating equally on trillions of the "creature's" component parts. It could well be generating millions of protobiotic forms every day, indeed, there's no reason to discount the possibility that biogenisis hasn't been occurring continually for four billion years

 

[Tiberius]

I know you probably came here thinking I was going to give the same evidences that many before me have given and you'll just laugh and walk away.

However, the basis for this argument is *not* belief (I dislike belief) but rather a novel by the name of "The God experiments." I'm going by memory here so I can't remember the authors name, though I don't mean to plagerize.

The idea is quite simply this:
Chance can not answer the question of creation because chance is replicable and homogenous. His favorite experiment, though rudimentary, is to take a small container and make a sand painting, doesn't matter what it is, then pick up the container and shake it around. After the first shake, what do you notice? The second shake? Each successive random jumbling of the sand particles doesn't create a more complicated sand painting. It homogenizes. Walking on the beach no one is going to see a perfect sand painting of, say, a turtle, completely by chance.
Granted, that's not my favorite experiment. Mine was the one with the computer. In that experiment he had a computer randomly generate numbers (1-100) a hundred times then take the average of all the numbers. The average of the numbers (No matter how many times he did it.) was *always* around 50. **And got closer to 50 the more times the computer randomly generated numbers.** If randomization is trully random than why don't we ever get averages of 1? (meaning that 1 was randomly picked a hundred times.) According to chance, this is possible.

*yet every time this experiment is reproduced no strange averages occur*

His proposition, albeit you should probably read the book, was that the universe was ran by a Guiding Organizing Designing process or G.O.D process based on the fact that nothing can be created randomly.

It's completely illogical to say that sand paintings *could* be created if we waited a million years. There's no way to prove that statement and it's a painfully annoying escape route of evolutionists.

I think, based on this book, that some sort of G.O.D. process, as he calls it, made everything through a kind of evolution simply because, like he said, it is the most probable explanation.

Without having read through the entire thread, I don't know if this has been said before. But this is wrong, in every possible way.

he is right when he says that chance can't provide for the variety of life we see. However, evolution doesn't say that chance did it. Never has, never will.

Natural selection is responsible, and it is not random chance.

 

[yossarian22]

I am new to this forum (as of one minute ago). I don't understand why this thread even exists. Dosen't everyone understand that evolution is a scientific fact? There is nothing to debate.

There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Evolution has merely not been disproved, it has yet to be confirmed.

 

[rojse]

Hundreds of years of testing and researching has not disproven the theory of evolution. And when I use the word theory, I use it in the same context that I would use the word theory in the phrase: "theory of gravity". Gravity has not been proven - we have not detected actual gravitational waves, but we still believe it exists because it is the best method that we have to explain how our world works currently, and this is the exact same scenario for evolution.

Perhaps, one day, we may receive evidence that requires a rethink of evolution or gravity. This new theory must also account for all of the successes that Evolution had in explaining the natural world, or explain how our theory of gravity was able to explain everything from the flight of a ball to why we don't float off of the earth.

Until then, I think that it is safe so say that the theory of evolution is the best way of explaining why animals are the way they are, and that the theory of gravity is the best way of explaining why we stay on the earth.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

There is no such thing as a scientific fact.

In a very technical philosophical sense, perhaps. But for all practical purposes, I think it is reasonable to call it a "fact", for example, that pure water at standard room temperature and pressure freezes at zero degrees celsius.

 

[yossarian22]

In a very technical philosophical sense, perhaps. But for all practical purposes, I think it is reasonable to call it a "fact", for example, that pure water at standard room temperature and pressure freezes at zero degrees celsius.

Yep. It is logical to call something that you can directly observe and repeat while getting similar results fact. But something such as evolution? It is a theory. A strong theory, but a theory nonetheless. We cannot conclusively test it, yet

 

[Zeno]

Yep. It is logical to call something that you can directly observe and repeat while getting similar results fact. But something such as evolution? It is a theory. A strong theory, but a theory nonetheless. We cannot conclusively test it, yet

I think you ought to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Also, have you ever taken an antibiotic? Assuming you don't think they are a hoax as well?

Well, anyway, if you have I would like to point out that antibiotic resistance in bacteria due to....evolution....can and has been observed.

 

[yossarian22]

I think you ought to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Also, have you ever taken an antibiotic? Assuming you don't think they are a hoax as well?

Well, anyway, if you have I would like to point out that antibiotic resistance in bacteria due to....evolution....can and has been observed.

There is no such thing as a fact in an absolutely technical way. A "fact" is something we haven't disproved. Now you can say "water freezing at 0C at standard conditions is a fact", but it is not. Do you know if water freezes at 0C across the galaxy? How about the universe.
Now micro-evolution has not been conclusively disproved, and repeatable experiments suggest that it is real. Macro Evolution on the other hand? Can anybody claim to have observed a population undergoing macro evolution, as massive changes in physical characteristics? Nope, therefore it is a theory supported supported by circumstantial evidence. Do not pretend otherwise.

 

[Zeno]

Now micro-evolution has not been conclusively disproved, and repeatable experiments suggest that it is real. Macro Evolution on the other hand? Can anybody claim to have observed a population undergoing macro evolution, as massive changes in physical characteristics? Nope, therefore it is a theory supported supported by circumstantial evidence. Do not pretend otherwise.

Ok, let me know when you come up with a more compelling explanation that has better circumstantial evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

 

[yossarian22]

Ok, let me know when you come up with a more compelling explanation that has better circumstantial evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

I do not need to provide an alternative to dismiss your claims as a theory based on circumstantial evidence. Do you have DIRECT evidence of macro-evolution- as in you and preferable a few hundred other people have observed a species a lizard become a bird after millions of years? Then your theory remains so. It will, in fact, remain a theory until you can conclusively demonstrate that everywhere in the universe macro evolution exists.

 

[Zeno]

I do not need to provide an alternative to dismiss your claims as a theory based on circumstantial evidence.

Oh, I'm fully aware of that. I just figured you had one in mind since you seem to dislike evolution.

I mean, technically all evidence is circumstantial. Can you directly verify that what you are observing right now is not a hallucination. Or that your occipital lobe is processing the world with complete accuracy. Maybe you're observing macro evolution as you type and you don't even know it. Isn't the fact that we aren't all plugged into the Matrix by a bunch of robots using us as batteries just a piddly theory?

 

[yossarian22]

Oh, I'm fully aware of that. I just figured you had one in mind since you seem to dislike evolution.

I mean, technically all evidence is circumstantial. Can you directly verify that what you are observing right now is not a hallucination. Or that your occipital lobe is processing the world with complete accuracy. Maybe you're observing macro evolution as you type and you don't even know it. Isn't the fact that we aren't all plugged into the Matrix by a bunch of robots using us as batteries just a piddly theory?

Nope. I just like to inject scientific objectivity into things by challenging existing views.

Ah yes, but in order to accomplish anything, one must make certain assumptions and act on them as if they were fact. Which leads me to my basic point about this all.
Nothing can be considered scientific unless it can be conclusively disproved. I therefore do not consider evolution to be scientific because there is neither no way to prove or to disprove it.

 

[Zeno]

Nope. I just like to inject scientific objectivity into things by challenging existing views.

Ah yes, but in order to accomplish anything, one must make certain assumptions and act on them as if they were fact. Which leads me to my basic point about this all.
Nothing can be considered scientific unless it can be conclusively disproved. I therefore do not consider evolution to be scientific because there is neither no way to prove or to disprove it.

I'll just call evolution one of my assumptions then, ok? It's right up there with my assumption that earth will still have a gravitational pull when I wake up tomorrow morning.

 

[yossarian22]

I'll just call evolution one of my assumptions then, ok? It's right up there with my assumption that earth will still have a gravitational pull when I wake up tomorrow morning.

Sure. Just don't go touting evolution as a scientific fact.