Is Darwinism still fact after Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29?

[Audie]

Below references proved the Biblical Creationism (which tells, that Adam’s Family is just 7000 years old), but in order to be published in Darwinists’ journals the authors are saying, that they have not proved Creationism, but simply have questioned some aspects of the Darwinism:

Parsons, T., Muniec, D., Sullivan, K. et al. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet 15, 363–368 (1997); N. Howell, I. Kubacka, and D. A. Mackey, How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Sep; 59(3): 501–509; Ann Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29; Jacob A. Tennessen, et al., Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes, Science 06 Jul 2012: Vol. 337, Issue 6090, pp. 64-69.

But then Darwinian Evolution has lost its proud title „fact“. If one aspect of the fact is put in doubt, then it is not fact anymore. These references are in "Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline" BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. JANUARY 09, 2013 Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline

Are these peer-reviewed papers, which proved Creationism, debunked already? Perhaps they are all debunked now, because of this verse: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Revelation 3:20, so the God does not break the "door". If a human wants to ignore the facts, the facts become debunked sooner or later. The great Richard Dawkins said: "God, why are you taking so many efforts to hide Yourself from us?" (in the end of the video "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein).

However, if the papers, which prove Biblical Creationism get to be debunked, they nevertheless put in doubt the Darwinian Evolution. Thus, even if they do not disprove Darwinism, they have debunked it long ago.

Nevertheless, the true faith is not blind, one can know all and be believer in God: God is not atheist, cf.
1 Corinthians 13:2.

You aint questing very hard.

 

[Estro Felino]

Genesis, as in the Bible story?
That's not even a theory, just untestable magical thinking.
Darwinism, ie, the TOE, is more that that. Testing comes
also in the form of applying it to engineering design.
And there is not one competing theory ever dreamed up.

And what about my picture framing needs?

Also...logic,...after analyzing the evidence.
Since Logic is still reliable, I guess...

 

[sun rise]

Personally I find semantic conversational thrashes to not be very useful. In the political realm they can even result in arguments about the word "is".

 

[questfortruth]

"Evolution" is basically considered an "axiom" in science since all material objects appear to change one way or another over time, and life forms are material objects. It's the details of which that can be conjectural at times.

In the references above is put in doubt the 100 000 years old Adam. Thus, all ToE is put in doubt, if such major aspect is put in doubt.

 

[Estro Felino]

Since, I think our mind cannot comprehend a temporal concept like millions of years (not to mention billions of years), Evolution is difficultly understandable temporally by human minds.

But this doesn't mean it doesn't take place.

 

[metis]

In the references above is put in doubt the 100 000 years old Adam. Thus, all ToE is put in doubt, if such major aspect is put in doubt.

False. Even if one scientific hypothesis were to turn out to be incorrect, that doesn't mean an entire theory or set of theories is incorrect.

On top of that, it is logically impossible that a fossil of a man called "Adam" could be found.

 

[exchemist]

I'm arguing that a theory which undergoes extraordinary testing,
& results in entirely dependable utility rises to the level of fact.
Your example of Newton's theory of gravity being an approximation
in certain common circumstances is factual. Even newer better
theories of gravity won't change the factuality of that approximation.

Asymptotically perhaps - i.e. as nearly as you like, but not quite. One has always to keep at the back of one's mind that a model may be shown incomplete some day, as happened with Newtonian mechanics. So Newtonian mechanics has the paradoxical status of being treated as a fact, by you, when it has been shown by Einstein to be wrong!

As a chemist, I am quite used to having more than one model for the same thing, and selecting the best model for the job rather than taking any one of them to be fact. This is probably because chemistry is so complex that all the models , just about, are approximations and recognised as such.

 

[gnomon]

And you call yourself educated?

You cannot objectively test a theory. What you can do is objectively test the data and predictions and such. Do they support the theory, contradict it, or suggest improvements.

"Sky fairy" theories have been tested. Zillions of people have tried to produce objective data corroborating the theories. There's a whole thread about some dude who spent his life trying to find solid evidence corroborating Scriptural history. His personal sky fairy.
The fact that he failed miserably is solid evidence on the subject.
Tom

What? You can objectively test a theory. A theory is based upon a hypothesis. That is what is tested and gives us a theory. And based upon those tests the theory is tested again either based upon the original hypothesis or a new hypothesis.

Thus that hypothesis that Revoltingest is uneducated has been tested and been found to be true. But others have tested that hypothesis and he supposedly fixed my plumbing, I think, so that is false.

In the end, I don't know if Revoltingest is educated or not. Plumbing is ****ed up.

In the end he knows more than me about widgets.

God damn.

 

[Audie]

In the references above is put in doubt the 100 000 years old Adam. Thus, all ToE is put in doubt, if such major aspect is put in doubt.

"Adam" is a myth and no more a part of ToE than Batman.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Below references proved the Biblical Creationism

Biblical creationism has been ruled out both by pure reason and by science. There are no perfect gods that make mistakes and then regret them just as there are no married bachelors.

The evidence supporting the theory of evolution contradicts Genesis even if the theory is eventually falsified. You still have to contend with all of that evidence, but now you'd have to postulate an extremely powerful and deceptive agent that set up the earth to look like evolution had occurred, not a benevolent god that loves us, and wants us to know and love him. Not the Christian god.

And proof is that which convinces. Nothing you wrote proves anything except that you posted it.

In the references above is put in doubt the 100 000 years old Adam. Thus, all ToE is put in doubt, if such major aspect is put in doubt.

No, there is no doubt that the theory of evolution is correct except with creationists, who have no vote.

Don't be offended by that. I also have no say even though i happen to agree with the scientists over creationists in matters of science. They don't care what either of us thinks. Biologists consider the matter settled science. There is no debate there about how genetic variation and natural selection combine to generate new life forms over time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Also...logic,...after analyzing the evidence.
Since Logic is still reliable, I guess...

I seldom use anything as sophisticated as logic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's not what I said, you Deplorable you.

Unsupported theories are speculation. Like genesis.
Theories supported by mountains of evidence(facts) are scientific consensus. They might still be wrong. But the more evidence that accumulates the less likely that is. That's the difference between Scriptural biology and scientific biology. Despite centuries of effort on the part of biblical scholars there's no more objective evidence for genesis than there was 500 years ago. Evolution, speciation through natural selection, keeps being supported by an ever increasing, cross discipline, body of facts.
Tom

You make it sound so dismissive.
It can range from speculation to the level of fact though.

Approximation can be factual, eg,
Pi approximately = 3.14159
That is a fact.

We're getting rather pedantic, eh.

Yes, it is getting a bit pedantic, isn't it?

Tom, I think your point, that consensus theories "may be wrong," is problematic. I think it would be to suspect that they may be "incomplete," just as Newton's gravity didn't (and couldn't) include relativistic effects, and yet, as you say, is quite good enough for any practical purposes we may have at present. This is likely to be true of evolution, too. There just might be unguessed-at events at the gene expression or transmission level that we haven't seen yet. Most likely they will not completely negate the theory -- just as relativity didn't completely negate Newton.

 

[Revoltingest]

Asymptotically perhaps - i.e. as nearly as you like, but not quite.

Is that detente I smell?
Close enuf for me.

One has always to keep at the back of one's mind that a model may be shown incomplete some day, as happened with Newtonian mechanics. So Newtonian mechanics has the paradoxical status of being treated as a fact, by you, when it has been shown by Einstein to be wrong!

I'm content with right enuf in the appropriate circumstances.
Then it becomes fact.
And even the modern theory of gravity (GR) is factual for time
keeping purposes & GPS systems. .

As a chemist, I am quite used to having more than one model for the same thing, and selecting the best model for the job rather than taking any one of them to be fact. This is probably because chemistry is so complex that all the models , just about, are approximations and recognised as such.

When there's no competing model at all, & the one we
have is so very useful, it rises to the level of a fact.
You can correct me when the TOE goes awry, & a
useful replacement theory is found.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Below references proved the Biblical Creationism (which tells, that Adam’s Family is just 7000 years old), but in order to be published in Darwinists’ journals the authors are saying, that they have not proved Creationism, but simply have questioned some aspects of the Darwinism:

Parsons, T., Muniec, D., Sullivan, K. et al. A high observed substitution rate in the human mitochondrial DNA control region. Nat Genet 15, 363–368 (1997); N. Howell, I. Kubacka, and D. A. Mackey, How rapidly does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? Am J Hum Genet. 1996 Sep; 59(3): 501–509; Ann Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science 02 Jan 1998: Vol. 279, Issue 5347, pp. 28-29; Jacob A. Tennessen, et al., Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes, Science 06 Jul 2012: Vol. 337, Issue 6090, pp. 64-69.

In the references above is put in doubt the 100 000 years old Adam. Thus, all ToE is put in doubt, if such major aspect is put in doubt.
But then Darwinian Evolution has lost its proud title „fact“. If one aspect of the fact is put in doubt, then it is not fact anymore. These references are in "Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline" BY JEFFREY P. TOMKINS, PH.D. JANUARY 09, 2013 Genetics Research Confirms Biblical Timeline

Are these peer-reviewed papers, which proved Creationism, debunked already? Perhaps they are all debunked now, because of this verse: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." Revelation 3:20, so the God does not break the "door". If a human wants to ignore the facts, the facts become debunked sooner or later. The great Richard Dawkins said: "God, why are you taking so many efforts to hide Yourself from us?" (in the end of the video "Expelled: no intelligence allowed" by Ben Stein).

However, if the papers, which prove Biblical Creationism get to be debunked, they nevertheless put in doubt the Darwinian Evolution. Thus, even if they do not disprove Darwinism, they have debunked it long ago.

Nevertheless, the true faith is not blind, one can know all and be believer in God: God is not atheist, cf.
1 Corinthians 13:2.

Not going to get into this again, since you are clearly not on a "quest for truth," but rather looking for somebody to say something that makes you feel better about being so hopelessly wrong on this particular issue, for no other reason than that you cannot let go of your literalist take on the Bible.

You really ought to stop pretending you're interested in science, when you're not. You really ought to stop pretending you're seeking truth, too, when what you are really seeking is validation.

 

[PruePhillip]

I think that is right, evolution is both an observed fact (we've seen it happen) and a theory of how it happens. I'm not sure what "Darwinism" is, though. It is term thrown, widely thrown around, that seems to mean different things to different people. I suppose we call the theory of evolution by natural selection Darwinian evolution.

Darwinism describes a lot.
But as usually the case, it doesn't describe everything.
Just look, for instance, at the spread of lactose tolerance
around the world. This is a form of evolution, but not by
natural selection.
And the theory of Catastrophism might play a part -
just read of the last three hours of the dinosaurs.
Or Lamarck's theory of evolution - that is found to have
a scientific basis too.
The world is stranger than we CAN imagine.

 

[Audie]

Not going to get into this again, since you are clearly not on a "quest for truth," but rather looking for somebody to say something that makes you feel better about being so hopelessly wrong on this particular issue, for no other reason than that you cannot let go of your literalist take on the Bible.

You really ought to stop pretending you're interested in science, when you're not. You really ought to stop pretending you're seeking truth, too, when what you are really seeking is validation.

Phonies make baby jesus cry

 

[Audie]

Darwinism describes a lot.
But as usually the case, it doesn't describe everything.
Just look, for instance, at the spread of lactose tolerance
around the world. This is a form of evolution, but not by
natural selection.
And the theory of Catastrophism might play a part -
just read of the last three hours of the dinosaurs.
Or Lamarck's theory of evolution - that is found to have
a scientific basis too.
The world is stranger than we CAN imagine.

So they say. It sure is not like
you imagine.
Do you have any idea how completely
uneducated you are?
You say so many silly things.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Darwinism describes a lot.
But as usually the case, it doesn't describe everything.
Just look, for instance, at the spread of lactose tolerance
around the world. This is a form of evolution, but not by
natural selection.
And the theory of Catastrophism might play a part -
just read of the last three hours of the dinosaurs.
Or Lamarck's theory of evolution - that is found to have
a scientific basis too.
The world is stranger than we CAN imagine.

Yes, all those other things may play some part -- why wouldn't it be possible for complex feedback systems to have an impact on gene expression (which might help to validate Lamarck a little)?

But the true beauty of what Darwin hypothesized -- and then demonstrated! -- isn't invalidated by those things at all!

Here it is:

• Genetic characteristics are passed from parent to offspring
• Genetic characteristics can be altered (random mutation in the gametes, or a Lamarckian sort of alteration, it doesn't matter)
• Those alterations that result in more fertile progeny will quickly become majority
• In a "catastrophic" scenario, however genetic change happens -- it may not happen quickly enough, and populations will become extinct

 

[Ouroboros]

Darwinism describes a lot.
But as usually the case, it doesn't describe everything.
Just look, for instance, at the spread of lactose tolerance
around the world. This is a form of evolution, but not by
natural selection.

Diversity in the gene pool is explained in the theory. It all depends on the selective pressure. When there's less pressure, the genetic diversity increases, like in sharks.

And the theory of Catastrophism might play a part -
just read of the last three hours of the dinosaurs.
Or Lamarck's theory of evolution - that is found to have
a scientific basis too.
The world is stranger than we CAN imagine.

I'm not sure about Lamarck's theory, but I do recon there's some value to epigenetics which might be touching his theory a little. Also, catastrophism fits within the framework of evolution. I remember reading about it in class.

 

[questfortruth]

False. Even if one scientific hypothesis were to turn out to be incorrect, that doesn't mean an entire theory or set of theories is incorrect.

Read what I say: even if the papers have not disproved ToE, they certainly have debunked ToE.