question for those who reject biological evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

Descend with modification is too vague

Did you miss the part where it said "...and selection"?
Was it on purpose?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

a quick argument
1 given that we evolved from simpler organisms

And

2 given that the mechanism of random mutation + NS doesn’t aim at complexity

Random mutation + selection, doesn't aim at anything.

There is no "aiming" of any sort.

Your objection is a complete non-argument.

 

[wellwisher]

One of the purposes of science is to provide the steppingstones for finding solutions to problems, such as treatments for illnesses.

Scientific knowledge derived from the observations and discoveries pertaining to evolution has actually served practical and beneficial purposes, such as genomic medicine, dealing with resistance to antibiotics, development of vaccines, discovery of drugs and treatments for cancer, infectious diseases, etc. It has even been useful in agriculture for dealing with resistance to insecticides and herbicides.

What I would like to know, from those who reject biological evolution, is this: would you turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution? Why or why not?

My pet peave is the over dependence of biology on black box science; statistical. This dependency is not fully rational but still has an element of hocus pocus, with hocus pocus the very thing that Evolution accuses religion. Neither are 100% rational; both need faith. For example, Evolution begins with the first replicators even though their origins lacks any direct evidence. That is hocus pocus; poof! That is a foundation premise but it is not based on solid fossil evidence. It is similar to the premise of life on other planets due to logic and lottery, but still no proof.

Black box science, which is an empirical form of science can still work, even if the theory is not sound. Empirical data does not have to follow logically from any theory, but rather the theory appears after the output data coming out of a black box. Since we use a black box, you can create an irrational theory that appears to follow the data; albeit, after the fact. Whereas a full logic theory can predict what will happen before you do experiments, since the black is opened first. That is real science, and just science lite.

Alchemy, was the precursor of Chemistry and the Empirical method. They would explain the reactions of atoms into molecules with mythical philosophy. We may think this is old fashion, but that system is very similar to what we till use today in biology. They could predict reactions with that, even though it was not fully rational by modern understanding. This is an artifact of after the fact theory; theory after black box empirical data.

The central topic question was;

What I would like to know, from those who reject biological evolution, is this: would you turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution? Why or why not?

I would use these modern medicines. But only after extensive testing, since I would not trust the theory of any company, for a new drug, to be rational enough to go directly to market. They will first need to test in a new and bigger government black box, since their theory came from their own black box, and will not be rational enough for others; "all hail the bigger black box."

They will also have to show all the extra side effects, that their theory did not infer, since many appear only after the bigger black box. I would also need some faith that that treatment includes me in the safe group, and that I will not have to go back to the hospital, since the theory of the bigger black box, did not foresee an extra side effect that took time to appear. There is faith involved in these people with lab coats, who are still practicing medicine. It is not yet opening night; still practicing. It is also what medicine is so expensive; black box cumbersome.

This is how the current consensus theory for evolution appeared. I won't have full faith, until they advance to rational science without side effects.

May I suggest using water as the central variable for biological evolution. Water was there, as part of all the precursors of life reactions. It is still the main variable in terms of the number of molecules; 100 times as many water molecules as the rest in the cell combined. Also the empirical data shows that nothing in cells works without water being present to pack and fold materials and help catalyze reactions.

Water creates this 3-D continuum of hydrogen bonding that is very stabilizing to water. This 3-D water grid is the predominant secondary bonding force in cells. The water continuum leads the rest, to form their minimal energy shapes in water, that allows water to maximize itself. The theory is simple. The sweet spot for the water and its push and pull of the organics, is called life. There is no reason not to advance beyond modern alchemy and bring biology into the future; cell in one variable via water interfaces for any situation.

 

[leroy]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him dtrink.
As for lurkers they recognize your pathetic game too, go back to your echo chamber and tell them how you slew the eviloushunists.

it is still a fact that you made a claim and that you are not willing to support it............that is sad , shame on you

 

[leroy]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him dtrink.
As for lurkers they recognize your pathetic game too, go back to your echo chamber and tell them how you slew the eviloushunists.

it is still a fact that you made a claim and that you are not willing to support it............that is sad , shame on you

 

[leroy]

Random mutation + selection, doesn't aim at anything.

There is no "aiming" of any sort.

Your objection is a complete non-argument.

then you shoulndt have any problem is showing why the argument fails.

2 simple premises

1 Complexity on average doenst increase as a resoult of random mutation and natural selection​

​

2 complexity on average tends to increase​

​

​

which of the premises do you say is wrong?​

 

[SkepticThinker]

But there is nothing wrong with pointing out the things that we know and the things that we don’t know.

1 we know that birds evovled from ancient dinosaurs

2 we don’t know how it happened. (we don’t know the mechanisms)

Any disagreement?

How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds

Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible

www.scientificamerican.com

The origin of birds

evolution.berkeley.edu

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215009458

 

[leroy]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him dtrink.
As for lurkers they recognize your pathetic game too, go back to your echo chamber and tell them how you slew the eviloushunists.

there is something very wrogn with you.............. if you made a claim you have to support it, why is it so hard to understand?

 

[Pogo]

it is still a fact that you made a claim and that you are not willing to support it............that is sad , shame on you

I am under no obligation to provide in depth answers to ill formed and ignorant questions from a person who is not engaging in polite conversation and desires only to try to show up posters.
When it became obvious that you understanding of the subject was based on a creationist website that had mislead you as to the significance of their source material and that you did not have enough background to see their and your error, I ceased wasting my time and linked you to some basic educational sites.

In short, until you actually learn enough about evolution, you are incapable of recognizing the lies propagated by Answers in Genesis.
Shame is on AIG or misleading people like you into thinking that they are presenting a question about evolution.

 

[Pogo]

then you shoulndt have any problem is showing why the argument fails.

2 simple premises

1 Complexity on average doenst increase as a resoult of random mutation and natural selection​

​

2 complexity on average tends to increase​

​

​

which of the premises do you say is wrong?​

No problem, your argument fails due to a false assumption in the premises due to your lack of understanding.
Random Walks are Random. Selection works on the result. There is no measure of specified complexity.

Could you be the first to measure complexity?

Specified complexity​

The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.[2][3][4] A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6]

 

[leroy]

I am under no obligation to provide in depth answers to ill formed and ignorant questions from a person who is not engaging in polite conversation and desires only to try to show up posters.

in my opinion, you have the intelectual obligation to support your asertions made in a public forum.... but feel free to have a different opinion.

When it became obvious that you understanding of the subject was based on a creationist website that had mislead you as to the significance of their source material and that you did not have enough background to see their and your error, I ceased wasting my time and linked you to some basic educational sites.

In short, until you actually learn enough about evolution, you are incapable of recognizing the lies propagated by Answers in Genesis.
Shame is on AIG or misleading people like you into thinking that they are presenting a question about evolution.

it didnt , I was not even aware of the article from AIG.

 

[leroy]

No problem, your argument fails due to a false assumption in the premises

no, no no sir, be specific, quote my exact words and explain what false assumtions are being made...... quit your dishonest and ambigous accusations.

due to your lack of understanding.
Random Walks are Random. Selection works on the result. There is no measure of specified complexity.

who is talking abut specified complexity?

all I am saying is that NS doesnt necesairly selects complexity over simplicity, and that there is not a trend that favors complexity over simplicity. Natural selection aims at survival and reproduction, not at complexity..................... do I really have to support this simple and uncontrovertial claim?

If you dont explicitly and unabigously claim the opposite I will assume that you agree with the satement.

Could you be the first to measure complexity?

regardless if we can agree on a defintion of complexity or not, we both agree that life is on average more complex today than in the precambrian.,,,,,,,, unless you expicitly disagree with this statement I will assume that you agree.

 

[Pogo]

in my opinion, you have the intelectual obligation to support your asertions made in a public forum.... but feel free to have a different opinion.


it didnt , I was not even aware of the article from AIG.

You got it from someplace because you were certainly not being original in your parroting their lies. You also obviously never read the original article which does not say what you think it does.
Your behavior like your avatars is arrogant and narcissistic, and ignorant of the Theory of Evolution.
Your behavior is also typical of creationist Christians who have discovered a "new" argument and think they are going to do mighty battle with the evil atheists.
The funny part is, that for many of your ilk, when you do start to learn about evolution, the lies you have been told about it often cause a crisis and create another atheist. Christians who accept evolution don't have this problem and are often the ones pointing out your mistakes.

 

[Pogo]

no, no no sir, be specific, quote my exact words and explain what false assumtions are being made...... quit your dishonest and ambigous accusations.




who is talking abut specified complexity?

all I am saying is that NS doesnt necesairly selects complexity over simplicity, and that there is not a trend that favors complexity over simplicity. Natural selection aims at survival and reproduction, not at complexity..................... do I really have to support this simple and uncontrovertial claim?

If you dont explicitly and unabigously claim the opposite I will assume that you agree with the satement.



regardless if we can agree on a defintion of complexity or not, we both agree that life is on average more complex today than in the precambrian.,,,,,,,, unless you expicitly disagree with this statement I will assume that you agree.

, You are parroting yet another creationist talking point, though this one is from the Discotute who made up this bad argument about complexity. You don't understand it either, agreement is not even a question, you really don't know enough to even discuss the subject let alone ask someone if they agree with your ideas, It is like talking nuclear physics with a five year old.

 

[leroy]

You got it from someplace because you were certainly not being original in your parroting their lies. You also obviously never read the original article which does not say what you think it does.

it was long ago, like 5 or 10 years ago..... I typed something like "same genes evolved independently" in google and that article emerged


BTW, I haven't read the AIG article, but I am curious can you quote a supposed lie in that article?......... or should I add this to the list of unsupported accusations made by you?

Your behavior like your avatars is arrogant and narcissistic, and ignorant of the Theory of Evolution.
Your behavior is also typical of creationist Christians who have discovered a "new" argument and think they are going to do mighty battle with the evil atheists.
The funny part is, that for many of your ilk, when you do start to learn about evolution, the lies you have been told about it often cause a crisis and create another atheist. Christians who accept evolution don't have this problem and are often the ones pointing out your mistakes.

You are not paying attention, I dont reject the theory of evolution. I am simply skpetical on the claim that ´random mutation + NS can account for all the diversity and complexity of life….. (I suggest that there are other mechanisms) which is consistent with what scientists say.

You are the one who claims with certainty that random mutation + NS can account for all the diversity of life, perhaps you are correct, but my issue is your arrogance and your alleged certainty together with your unwillingness to support your claims.

 

[leroy]

, You are parroting yet another creationist talking point, though this one is from the Discotute who made up this bad argument about complexity. You don't understand it either, agreement is not even a question, you really don't know enough to even discuss the subject let alone ask someone if they agree with your ideas, It is like talking nuclear physics with a five year old.

Ok just for the record, you accused me for making false assumptions, but you were unable to even quote those alleged falsehoods.

You didn't explicitly disagree with any of my 2 claims so I will assume that you grant them.


....
I will simply repeat it once again, there is something really really wrong with you. The question on how complexity evolve is a true question where scientists struggle and none claims to have a definitive answer.

The issue is you and your arrogance, for some reason you think you solved problems that scientists can't solve. But you are unwilling to share that secret knowledge.

Iĺl put it in simple words, nobody knows why complexity evolved, there are many hypothesis and scientists are divided, but none claims to have the answer…….

 

[Audie]

You got it from someplace because you were certainly not being original in your parroting their lies. You also obviously never read the original article which does not say what you think it does.
Your behavior like your avatars is arrogant and narcissistic, and ignorant of the Theory of Evolution.
Your behavior is also typical of creationist Christians who have discovered a "new" argument and think they are going to do mighty battle with the evil atheists.
The funny part is, that for many of your ilk, when you do start to learn about evolution, the lies you have been told about it often cause a crisis and create another atheist. Christians who accept evolution don't have this problem and are often the ones pointing out your mistakes.

Funny thing, thems the reasons I ignore
certain personas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it was long ago, like 5 or 10 years ago..... I typed something like "same genes evolved independently" in google and that article emerged


BTW, I haven't read the AIG article, but I am curious can you quote a supposed lie in that article?......... or should I add this to the list of unsupported accusations made by you?


You are not paying attention, I dont reject the theory of evolution. I am simply skpetical on the claim that ´random mutation + NS can account for all the diversity and complexity of life….. (I suggest that there are other mechanisms) which is consistent with what scientists say.

You are the one who claims with certainty that random mutation + NS can account for all the diversity of life, perhaps you are correct, but my issue is your arrogance and your alleged certainty together with your unwillingness to support your claims.

Corrections are not attacks. And the articles that you provided are about twelve years old. Genetic sequencing has improved by quite a bit over those twelve years, but no researchers seem to accept your false interpretations.

 

[leroy]

Corrections are not attacks. And the articles that you provided are about twelve years old. Genetic sequencing has improved by quite a bit over those twelve years, but no researchers seem to accept your false interpretations.

Ok and that is true because you say so.

 

[Comradio251]

One of the purposes of science is to provide the steppingstones for finding solutions to problems, such as treatments for illnesses.

Scientific knowledge derived from the observations and discoveries pertaining to evolution has actually served practical and beneficial purposes, such as genomic medicine, dealing with resistance to antibiotics, development of vaccines, discovery of drugs and treatments for cancer, infectious diseases, etc. It has even been useful in agriculture for dealing with resistance to insecticides and herbicides.

What I would like to know, from those who reject biological evolution, is this: would you turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution? Why or why not?

Do you want to know why I reject it?

1. It's an insult to the human species to think that we went from walking on four legs and scratching our butts all day long to eventually bipedalism where we stopped doing that weird crap... I think. You make the human origin sound humiliating.

2. It doesn't adhere to the scientific method. You cannot observe, test, replicate or even falsify evolution which is a clear indicator it's pseudoscience.

3. the egregious Whale Evolution fraud to promote the evolution agenda. The piltdown man was a great hoax back in the early 20th century to promote evolution for a very long time even though it was artifically created by a few con artists. The Nebraska man fossil which turned out to be a pig's tooth. Lucy definitely is a candidate on the evolution fraud list too as she is clearly shown to hang around in trees much more than being on the ground. After all, she died from falling off a tree!

4. No accepted transitional fossils in the fossil record. Darwin would still be disappointed to this day.

5. There is no known modern treatment made possible due to human evolution. I don't even know how that could be possible anyway if you read number 2 on my list. All experiments are done at a science lab on 'humans' not fictitious in between human variants which don't even exist. Unless you're fantasizing about how some scientists took a time machine back millions of years and experimented on 'that' in between species of course.