Science IS religion

[Darkstorn]

I've been studying evolutionary theory for a number of years and if I'm confident in my beliefs, it's because I know a thing or two about it. And the little I know about it is enough to write pages and pages but I don't want to bore everyone here with too much information, so lets focus on 3 subjects, shall we?

We shall, but my real issue is not your beliefs or assumptions, but this claim:

"it counts on the devotion of numerous followers that believe everything it says"

That is not an attack against evolution but its followers, and it's an untruth. I barely believe anything anyone says. But i understand evolution. Not because someone told me to. Yet you're lying about MY motivations, and MY experiences with a statement like that. They are not an argument against evolution, but a slight at those who "believe" / understand it.

You should know better as a staff member not to interject attacks like that into a debate. It's a straw man. It doesn't count at all on anyone believing it in any form.

1- The origin of life

Scientists believe that the first cells emerged in the ocean, result of a spontaneous chemical reaction between non-living elements that somehow managed to form complex molecules, so complex they were able to work together and make cells.

Some scientists believe that. Straw manning.

With all the technology we have available today, in the controlled environment of a sophisticated lab, with brilliant scientists creating and manipulating the experiments, no one has been able to produce the elements believed to exist back in those days, provoke a chemical reaction between them and create living cells afterwards. Imagine it happening by chance.

Still, abiogenesis, and it's only a hypothesis. Not universally accepted at all. Stop constructing a straw man.

Knowing that in order to survive, a cell needs RNA, DNA and proteins to work in sync, what is the probability of having these elements appearing by chance at the same time, in the same place and with the ability to self-replicate? It is easy to talk about “simple life forms, or “simple” cells, but the truth is: there’s no such thing as a simple cell, much less a simple organism.

Yup. Now you're using an argument from incredulity. So far nothing but fallacies. The actual probability of these things is 1, because they have already happened.

What's the chance of man poofing into existence from dust?

The human body contains around 100 trillion cells of different kinds, each with its own structure and function. Our body is a network of cells, brilliantly organized, working together nonstop from the moment the embryo is formed until the moment the person dies.

The same way this works for humans, it works for all other species. Every living thing is a feat of engineering, so much so that engineers study animals and plants, to create things that imitate their features (ex the wings of airplanes, contact lenses, fabrics, etc). Am I expected to believe that those life forms appeared by chance? That the human brain is the fruit of many coincidences?

This is still an argument from incredulity.

So, point 1, is entirely a tirade of different logical fallacies.

2 - All forms of life have the same origin.

Even though no one really knows how the first living cells originated, for many people it seems reasonable to believe that those few original cells gave rise to the millions of species alive today.

DNA evidence alone shows this to be true, so it seems rational to believe it. Literally speaking: We don't need to look at the first. We can just look at all the current ones and conclude that they're all related.

We know that all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. We see this in our own families, and plant and animal breeders see it in their work. It is undeniable that mutations occur in species, but does descent with modification explain the origin and diversification of all living things? Do mutations really produce entirely new species?

Now it's looking like an argument from incredulity, again.

We know that some DNA mutations are neutral (they have no effect at all) but the clear majority is harmful, often leading to the weakening and premature death of the organism. In the struggle for survival, natural selection would have to ignore the first and eliminate the second, leaving only the mutations that favor the organism.

This is false. Since you haven't cited any evidence for this claim, i need nothing to shoot it down either. But it's clearly a fabrication. Evolution doesn't happen to individual organisms, but to populations.

Again, scientists have tried to replicate this. In several studies they artificially induced human selected mutations that would favor the organism but after many years of research, they didn’t succeed in creating any new species, only different breeds of the existent ones.

Lol. You're talking about animal breeders. Very few of those people are scientists, a notable exception in my head is that guy with the foxes. But he wasn't trying to create a new species. He was trying to eliminate unwanted traits in foxes to make them more suitable as pets. He succeeded surprisingly well.

I also don't understand why you're trying to straw man it.

What are the odds that chance succeeded in something that intelligent scientists were unable to do, not only once, but millions and millions of times, since there are millions of species alive today, believed to have evolved from a common ancestor?

The odds are exactly 1. Because it already happened / is happening. So stop with that inane line of argument from incredulity. The odds are not in your favor, so maybe you should consider making an argument that's not based on them but rather, evidence?

Evidence > odds.

So, pretty weak point 2 so far. At least it wasn't full of fallacies. Instead it had some false claims whenever it didn't.

That leads me to the 3rd issue.

I'm starting to realize there are more than 3 issues here.

3 - The fossil record

When Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species, the oldest known fossils were from the Cambrian period. But the Cambrian fossil pattern didn’t fit Darwin’s theory. Instead of starting with one specie that diverged gradually over millions of years into families, orders, classes then phyla, the Cambrian starts with the abrupt appearance of many fully formed phyla and classes of animals. So, complex biological forms appeared right at the start.

It was millions of years. "Abrupt appearance" seems like a huge mischaracterization. I suspect on purpose.

Darwin was aware of this problem but he hoped that more data would be found to support his theory. Since that time, further exploration has turned up many layers of the earth older than the Cambrian. Paleontologists have also found Cambrian rocks in Canada, Greenland and China with well preserved fossils. Thanks to that improved knowledge many paleontologists are now convinced that the major groups of animals did appear abruptly in the early Cambrian. The fossil evidence is so strong that this event has become known as “biology’s big bang”. Ancestors or intermediaries are still unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing in the Cambrian period.

No one tries to argue Darwin's claims anyway except Creationists trying to mischaracterize his work. Case in point.

There are other problems with presenting fossils as proof for evolution, such as the comparative size and the evidence that these creatures are related, since they are separated by millions of years. With such a big interval of time separating the fossils, it is very difficult to establish a connection between them.

... That's why the DNA evidence. It sure is difficult to establish a connection between fossils, but that hasn't prevented it from being done quite well. But the point is this: Even without the entire fossil record, evolution would still be quite strong in its argument.

So. Bunch of logical fallacies and trying to undermine Darwin. Very nice argument you had here.

To finish with a quote from Richard Dawkins, from the book The Blind Watchmaker: (biology) is “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed with a purpose”.
Dawkins implies that although living things look like they were designed, in fact they weren’t. I believe that living things appear to have been designed, and they were. I guess we're all entitled to our views.

I'll finish by quoting Vee:

"it counts on the devotion of numerous followers that believe everything it says"

You are entitled to that view. But the way you're doing it is actually breaking the forum rules, and you should know better. Next time i'll just report you and not respond, i don't care about your beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Read a definition for dinosaur, please. One dictionary says, among other things ‘a reptile, which went extinct 65,000,000 ya.”

That's common non-scientific hollywood use of the term. A biological definition, gives generic description of the biological makeup of creatures. Words like "extinct" are not part of such definition.

I thought it was kind of obvious that I was talking about scientific definitions.

In reality, what constitutes a dinosaur is a lot more nuanced then such. You are talking about the colloquial use of the word "dinosaur" where people imagine giant beasts like T-rex and bronto-sauris. In scientific jargon, the world of dino's is MUCH larger then that.

What Makes a Dinosaur a Dinosaur? | Science | Smithsonian

Excerpt from that link:

“Dinosaur”, then, isn’t just a popular term for anything scaly and extinct. It’s a scientific term with a strict meaning with a defined membership. Sometimes this creates what might feel like a paradox between the ancient and modern. All birds are dinosaurs, for example, but not all dinosaurs are birds. Given that birds are the only dinosaurs that remain, experts often specify whether they’re talking about non-avian or avian dinosaurs.


I repeat: it is impossible to come up with a generic definition for "dinosaur" which includes ALL dinosaurs, but excludes birds, without arbitrarily adding "but not birds".

And by definition, I mean a defining of the biological makeup of what constitutes membership of this big family.

So, "extinct" is not part of such definition, as it is not descriptive of biological makeup.

Everything else, you’re arguing semantics.

Nope.
There's nothing semantics about classifying species based on shared biological / anatomical properties.



If you are interested, you can learn more about the science here:

What, Exactly, Does the Word "Dinosaur" Mean?
Dinosaurs and Birds

Another excerpt from the first linke:
One of the problems with explaining the scientific definition of the word "dinosaur" is that biologists and paleontologists tend to use much drier, more precise language than your average dinosaur enthusiast on the street (or in an elementary school). So while most people intuitively describe dinosaurs as "big, scaly, dangerous lizards that went extinct millions of years ago," experts take a much narrower view.


You just made the common mistake of confusing colloquial use of the word "dinosaur" with the actual biological definition.


So, it seems you learned something today?

 

[dad]

Just like the THEORY OF GRAVITY is belief based?

That is not usually part of origin science is it!? Now if you want to talk about the far universe and gravity there and what you think it does..or exactly what gravity was like in Noah's day..or what it will be like on earth after Jesus returns to rule...maybe we could talk!

 

[Bear Wild]

Of course if comets or pond sludge or sea vents or....whatever nonsense people feel may be believable that they can dream up is where life started, then evolution deals in origins. Even if you want to ignore the early origin claims about where it started, you are still left with all life evolving from simple lifeforms. That is your religion.

My reference was to evolution not to abiogenesis. Two different subjects connected but different. Evolution is science not religion. No magical thinking here only evidence based information that anyone of any religion or no religion can understand. Yes we evolved from simple life forms as humbling as that might seem to you. I personally find it amazing and feel very connected with other life on our wonderful planet. All you need to do is transcend your human centric mind who created a god in mans image and maybe you will one day understand the power of the evolutionary process that gives us such a beautiful and diverse planet.

 

[dad]

The speed of light can be measured.

If we call the area of the solar system and somewhat beyond a 'fishbowl' then we could say light speed can be measured IN the fishbowl.

Now let's see you measure it in deep space?

It can be proven that stars are many light years away.

No. It can be guesstimated based on time in the fishbowl how long (how much time as we know it) it WOULD take for light to get to earth. But even here the distances themselves that the stars are away REQUIRES time as we know it in the fishbowl to be accurate. So you do not even know ow far away they really are.

As is said RELIGION!!! ha.

 

[David T]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion. Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

Currently the deep debate is believers believe there is a deeper intellect to what the intellect can grasp. The non believers say show me the proof of this deeper intellect i need intellectual proof. The believers say we have faith and belief! The atheists say nonsense all there is is my intellect get real be like me.... Agnostics are uncertain and wait fir intellectual proof!

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The answer precisely 3.

I as a breathairian we believe we breathe!!
The anti breathairians dont believe we breathe. They say show us proof and then We will believe!

We get together in the breathairian forum and debate this great deep topic constantly. For Thousands of years!!! We have made great deep strides in this debate. We believe we will win and everyone will someday be believers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Danger! Danger! Do not engage! Timecube levels of willfully obtuse boneheadedness lie that way! Danger!

There is only one way, and one way only to improve that.
EXTERMINATE!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The dictionary defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". From that point of view, science can't qualify as a religion.
However some forms of science, namely evolutionary science, have a lot in common with religion.
Evolutionary science is also based in a particular system of faith and it counts on the devotion of numerous followers that believe everything it says, regardless of the incredible lack of indisputable evidence.
So, I don't entirely agree with you, but you have a point.

Science is not based on faith, but on evidence and theory. I do not see this faith that you claim that the science of evolution is based on. Scientific theories may come to be a consensus conclusion based on an understanding of the theory and the evidence it explains by those forming the consensus, but consensus is not required. A consensus based on consideration of the evidence and theory is not a blind devotion based on faith. I agree that some can accept the theory without understanding and on faith. While unfortunate, it is not a required component for supporting the theory, nor does it preclude the possibility of a minority, so disposed, to come to a more educated acceptance in the future.

It is my conclusion that his points do not hold water and where we agree here is in the general view that science does not qualify as religion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My reference was to evolution not to abiogenesis. Two different subjects connected but different. Evolution is science not religion. No magical thinking here only evidence based information that anyone of any religion or no religion can understand. Yes we evolved from simple life forms as humbling as that might seem to you. I personally find it amazing and feel very connected with other life on our wonderful planet. All you need to do is transcend your human centric mind who created a god in mans image and maybe you will one day understand the power of the evolutionary process that gives us such a beautiful and diverse planet.

It is all part of the continuing effort to conflate related, but independent, scientific concepts so that one can be defeated by the lack of knowledge of the other.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is an inadequate description of science.
Observations & existing knowledge alone would be stagnant.
It's also about method, eg, speculating about relationships, creating theories, testing theories.
Religion doesn't do the theory testing thing.
It has only belief.

Science is based on what can be observed and sound, logical and objective explanations for those observations. While there may be a semblance of logic operating in religion, it is not based on observations that can be objectively demonstrated or explained. Religion is based on faith, that may not have any substance other than what the person holding that faith feels and projects.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've been studying evolutionary theory for a number of years

Out of interest... where are you studying this? Or are you homeschooling yourself? If the latter, what resources are you using?

and if I'm confident in my beliefs, it's because I know a thing or two about it. And the little I know about it is enough to write pages and pages but I don't want to bore everyone here with too much information, so lets focus on 3 subjects, shall we?

1- The origin of life

It's kind strange that after "a number of years of studying evolution theory", you still haven't figured out that the origins of life are out of scope of that theory............

But perhaps you are going somewhere with this. Let's see. (I'm replying as I read, so I don't know what comes next)

Scientists believe that the first cells emerged in the ocean, result of a spontaneous chemical reaction between non-living elements that somehow managed to form complex molecules, so complex they were able to work together and make cells.

Let me stop you right there.. "believe" is not an appropriate word to use in this context. Scientists go where the evidence leads them. And all the evidence suggests that sealife existed long before land life. So yes, the evidence suggests that however life originated, it originated in the water. That is if it uberhaupt originated on this planet. IF life originated elsewhere and somehow got "seeded" on this planet, then still all the evidence suggests that it first thrived in the water before invading land.

With all the technology we have available today, in the controlled environment of a sophisticated lab, with brilliant scientists creating and manipulating the experiments, no one has been able to produce the elements believed to exist back in those days, provoke a chemical reaction between them and create living cells afterwards. Imagine it happening by chance.

Yes, science is hard.
Don't tell me you are preparing a ginormous argument from ignorance...........
Just about everything we can do with technology today, we couldn't do in the past. And many of those things were very hard work as well, taking decades or even centuries to figure out.

Why would figuring out the origins of life be any different?

Knowing that in order to survive, a cell needs RNA, DNA and proteins to work in sync

This is true for MODERN cells, which are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolution...
Whatever first/early life looked like, it certainly wasn't as "advanced" as modern cells.

, what is the probability of having these elements appearing by chance at the same time, in the same place and with the ability to self-replicate?

It doesn't matter because nobody is claiming that first life looked like the modern cells we observe today.

It is easy to talk about “simple life forms, or “simple” cells, but the truth is: there’s no such thing as a simple cell, much less a simple organism.

Today....
Life has been evolving for 3.8 billion years. Why would you expect such primitive life to exist today?

The human body contains around 100 trillion cells of different kinds, each with its own structure and function. Our body is a network of cells, brilliantly organized, working together nonstop from the moment the embryo is formed until the moment the person dies.

Argument from awe, isn't a valid argument either.

Every living thing is a feat of engineering,

Evidence of this claim?
There's lots of evidence for evolution.
I'm unaware of any evidence of any "engineering" whatsoever.

so much so that engineers study animals and plants, to create things that imitate their features (ex the wings of airplanes, contact lenses, fabrics, etc). Am I expected to believe that those life forms appeared by chance? That the human brain is the fruit of many coincidences?

You aren't "expected" to believe anything.
Believe what you wish. But if you prefer logical fallacies like arguments from ignorance and arguments from awe/incredulity, then that's on you off course.

2 - All forms of life have the same origin.

Even though no one really knows how the first living cells originated, for many people it seems reasonable to believe that those few original cells gave rise to the millions of species alive today.

Because that's what the evidence supports.

We know that all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. We see this in our own families, and plant and animal breeders see it in their work. It is undeniable that mutations occur in species, but does descent with modification explain the origin and diversification of all living things? Do mutations really produce entirely new species?

Yes. Well... the continued accumulation of mutations does anyway.
The process is called "speciation".
Strange that you haven't encountered that in your "numbers of years of studying evolution theory", since it's kind of basic evolution 101....

We know that some DNA mutations are neutral (they have no effect at all) but the clear majority is harmful,

Bzzzt.

The majority is actually neutral as they happen in DNA that doesn't even do anything. Next to that, many mutations result in "synonyms", which means that the mutated genes do the exact same thing as before they mutated.

often leading to the weakening and premature death of the organism.

Yes and those mutations are quickly removed from the genepool for obvious reasons.

And sometimes, mutations are beneficial and lead to better chances of survival and reproduction.
Why do you not mention those?

In the struggle for survival, natural selection would have to ignore the first and eliminate the second, leaving only the mutations that favor the organism.

And that's exactly what natural selection does.

Again, scientists have tried to replicate this.

And they did.

In several studies they artificially induced human selected mutations that would favor the organism but after many years of research, they didn’t succeed in creating any new species, only different breeds of the existent ones.

Please cite these studies where scientists alledgedly tried to create a "new human species by inducing mutations" please.

I'm gonna call "lie" on this one. In fact, it would be downright illegal to do this, because it's not legal to experiment on humans like that. If you are going to make things up, at least try to come up with something that is at least a bit plausible.

What are the odds that chance succeeded in something that intelligent scientists were unable to do

1 in 1.

Case in point, have you ever heared of Genetic Algoritms during your "number of years of study of evolution theory"?

This is an algoritm that works according to evolutionary principles. That is to say, it takes existing designs and describes them in a coded "chromosome" as it is called in the jargon. It randomly mutates this "chromosome" and then subjects the resulting design to a fitness test. The best scoring designs are then used for "reproduction" and the process is repeated.

This algoritm is used as a search heuristic and optimisation module of a wide range of systems with great results.

Next time you set foot on a Boeing Airplane, remind yourself that the fuel distribution system has been optimised by such an algoritm. You know why Boeing did that?

Because the algoritm came up with better (=more efficient) designs then its own engineers!

, not only once, but millions and millions of times, since there are millions of species alive today, believed to have evolved from a common ancestor?

Yep. That's what evolution by natural selection does. It keeps what works and discards what doesn't. There are only 2 possible outcomes in such a process. The first is extinction. This happens when habitats / environments changes too fast and the evolutionary process is too slow in optimising the species for the ever-changing niche they occupy. The other is continous optimisation, inevitably resulting in speciation events, for the ever-changing niche they occupy.

That leads me to the 3rd issue.

3 - The fossil record

When Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species, the oldest known fossils were from the Cambrian period. But the Cambrian fossil pattern didn’t fit Darwin’s theory. Instead of starting with one specie that diverged gradually over millions of years into families, orders, classes then phyla, the Cambrian starts with the abrupt appearance of many fully formed phyla and classes of animals. So, complex biological forms appeared right at the start.

Darwin was aware of this problem but he hoped that more data would be found to support his theory. Since that time, further exploration has turned up many layers of the earth older than the Cambrian. Paleontologists have also found Cambrian rocks in Canada, Greenland and China with well preserved fossils. Thanks to that improved knowledge many paleontologists are now convinced that the major groups of animals did appear abruptly in the early Cambrian. The fossil evidence is so strong that this event has become known as “biology’s big bang”. Ancestors or intermediaries are still unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing in the Cambrian period

1. pre-cambrian fossils are even rarer then post-cambrian fossils because it mainly consisted of soft-bodies which are almost impossible to fossilize

2. the cambrian explosion lasted for 50 to 80 MILLION years - hardly "overnight"

3. punctuated equilibrium is a demonstrated evolutionary process. In a nutshell, it simply means that during times of stable environments, evolution slows down as most species are in their local optimum (meaning that there are very few, if any, evolutionary pathways towards further "improvement"). In periods of rapid environmental change, evolution accelerates again as changing environments open up new niches etc and pull species out of their local optimum.

In short: your objection is based on ignorance of the subject matter.....

To finish with a quote from Richard Dawkins, from the book The Blind Watchmaker: (biology) is “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed with a purpose”.
Dawkins implies that although living things look like they were designed, in fact they weren’t. I believe that living things appear to have been designed, and they were. I guess we're all entitled to our views.

You are entitled to your views. You are however not entitled to your own facts.
The facts support the science. Not your ignorance based objections.
But you can believe what you want off course.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep. I'm not interested in wasting my time trying to have a good faith discussion with someone with no intention of abiding by even a semblance of the conventions of intellectually honest conversation. Frankly I'm shocked anyone is still bothering. You made your bed, you lie in it.

You may have moved up in rank to some of the wisest among us.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The kinds that used to be here when God created them.

I repeat: what kinds?

What are they?
Define the word in such a way that I can look at any 2 random creatures and determine if they are the same "kind", without having to ask you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right, I think most of us know this...so? What has that got to do with you being relatives with worms?

Everything. It's the same evolutionary process.

 

[Vee]

Science is not based on faith, but on evidence and theory. I do not see this faith that you claim that the science of evolution is based on.

I agree that science is based on evidence, but I can't take it seriously if it's based on theory. Science can come up with a theory, sure, it has to start somewhere. But for it to be credible, it needs to be proved, otherwise it will continue a theory, and not a fact. My biggest issue with evolutionary science is that is has drawn too many conclusions from very few tangible facts.
In my opinion believing in evolution requires as much faith as believing in God. I'm still waiting for someone to produce a living cell in a lab, from the non living elements that scientists believe existed when life began. If they weren't able to do even that much, how am I supposed to take everything else seriously?
They want to come up with theories? No problem. But I won't accept them as facts based on consent. I'll accept them as a fact when I see them done, multiple times, with the same results. That's science to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

True. But science is responsible for WOMD, and etc. Nothing used in anything on earth is from origin sciences fables. Nor can science tell us that this natural world we live in now existed in Noah's day or will exist in the future kingdom of God coming to earth. Therefore, when origin science uses our current laws to extrapolate and model the past, this is...as the OP says...religion!

Still stuck in that Last Thursdayism after all these years, I see...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Out of interest... where are you studying this? Or are you homeschooling yourself? If the latter, what resources are you using?



It's kind strange that after "a number of years of studying evolution theory", you still haven't figured out that the origins of life are out of scope of that theory............

But perhaps you are going somewhere with this. Let's see. (I'm replying as I read, so I don't know what comes next)



Let me stop you right there.. "believe" is not an appropriate word to use in this context. Scientists go where the evidence leads them. And all the evidence suggests that sealife existed long before land life. So yes, the evidence suggests that however life originated, it originated in the water. That is if it uberhaupt originated on this planet. IF life originated elsewhere and somehow got "seeded" on this planet, then still all the evidence suggests that it first thrived in the water before invading land.



Yes, science is hard.
Don't tell me you are preparing a ginormous argument from ignorance...........
Just about everything we can do with technology today, we couldn't do in the past. And many of those things were very hard work as well, taking decades or even centuries to figure out.

Why would figuring out the origins of life be any different?



This is true for MODERN cells, which are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolution...
Whatever first/early life looked like, it certainly wasn't as "advanced" as modern cells.



It doesn't matter because nobody is claiming that first life looked like the modern cells we observe today.



Today....
Life has been evolving for 3.8 billion years. Why would you expect such primitive life to exist today?



Argument from awe, isn't a valid argument either.



Evidence of this claim?
There's lots of evidence for evolution.
I'm unaware of any evidence of any "engineering" whatsoever.



You aren't "expected" to believe anything.
Believe what you wish. But if you prefer logical fallacies like arguments from ignorance and arguments from awe/incredulity, then that's on you off course.



Because that's what the evidence supports.



Yes. Well... the continued accumulation of mutations does anyway.
The process is called "speciation".
Strange that you haven't encountered that in your "numbers of years of studying evolution theory", since it's kind of basic evolution 101....



Bzzzt.

The majority is actually neutral as they happen in DNA that doesn't even do anything. Next to that, many mutations result in "synonyms", which means that the mutated genes do the exact same thing as before they mutated.



Yes and those mutations are quickly removed from the genepool for obvious reasons.

And sometimes, mutations are beneficial and lead to better chances of survival and reproduction.
Why do you not mention those?




And that's exactly what natural selection does.



And they did.






Please cite these studies where scientists alledgedly tried to create a "new human species by inducing mutations" please.

I'm gonna call "lie" on this one. In fact, it would be downright illegal to do this, because it's not legal to experiment on humans like that. If you are going to make things up, at least try to come up with something that is at least a bit plausible.



1 in 1.

Case in point, have you ever heared of Genetic Algoritms during your "number of years of study of evolution theory"?

This is an algoritm that works according to evolutionary principles. That is to say, it takes existing designs and describes them in a coded "chromosome" as it is called in the jargon. It randomly mutates this "chromosome" and then subjects the resulting design to a fitness test. The best scoring designs are then used for "reproduction" and the process is repeated.

This algoritm is used as a search heuristic and optimisation module of a wide range of systems with great results.

Next time you set foot on a Boeing Airplane, remind yourself that the fuel distribution system has been optimised by such an algoritm. You know why Boeing did that?

Because the algoritm came up with better (=more efficient) designs then its own engineers!



Yep. That's what evolution by natural selection does. It keeps what works and discards what doesn't. There are only 2 possible outcomes in such a process. The first is extinction. This happens when habitats / environments changes too fast and the evolutionary process is too slow in optimising the species for the ever-changing niche they occupy. The other is continous optimisation, inevitably resulting in speciation events, for the ever-changing niche they occupy.



1. pre-cambrian fossils are even rarer then post-cambrian fossils because it mainly consisted of soft-bodies which are almost impossible to fossilize

2. the cambrian explosion lasted for 50 to 80 MILLION years - hardly "overnight"

3. punctuated equilibrium is a demonstrated evolutionary process. In a nutshell, it simply means that during times of stable environments, evolution slows down as most species are in their local optimum (meaning that there are very few, if any, evolutionary pathways towards further "improvement"). In periods of rapid environmental change, evolution accelerates again as changing environments open up new niches etc and pull species out of their local optimum.

In short: your objection is based on ignorance of the subject matter.....



You are entitled to your views. You are however not entitled to your own facts.
The facts support the science. Not your ignorance based objections.
But you can believe what you want off course.

Based on the idea that something has not been carried out in controlled laboratory conditions, your point about all our knowledge existing on the fact that at one time, we did not know it, is the most damaging to the notions against a natural origin of life. At one time we knew nothing of bacteria and viruses, yet today, we regularly prevent or treat infections brought on by those organisms. Following the logic of the original notion, we should not be able to do that. Or many, many other things.

 

[Audie]

U

The dictionary defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". From that point of view, science can't qualify as a religion.
However some forms of science, namely evolutionary science, have a lot in common with religion.
Evolutionary science is also based in a particular system of faith and it counts on the devotion of numerous followers that believe everything it says, regardless of the incredible lack of indisputable evidence.
So, I don't entirely agree with you, but you have a point.

Seriously? Your "Evolutionsry science..." sentence
is something that could actually be believed by
someone as unfamiliar wit real-world as one
who thinks they walk upside down in Australia.

If of course, ToE is soooo false, you should be
able to point to at least one fact that would prove
it false.

Oh, if "indisputanle evidence" is the key here, could
you give us one example of "indisputable evidence"
for anything?

Someone will pop up to dispute 1+1=2.
Or say Manson was framed.

"Indisputable" is an absolute that does not exidt on earth.

Physics, chemistty, astronomy, geology, biology
all cross verify and deminstrate the soundness of
ToE; any one of them could potentially produce the
data to disprove it

"Followers who believe everything it says"?

That is the opposite of science, so no.

Making up things about people you do not know
really will do nothing to show the falsity of a theory.

For that you need facts. Do you have some handy?

 

[Audie]

I've been studying evolutionary theory for a number of years and if I'm confident in my beliefs, it's because I know a thing or two about it. And the little I know about it is enough to write pages and pages but I don't want to bore everyone here with too much information, so lets focus on 3 subjects, shall we?

1- The origin of life

Scientists believe that the first cells emerged in the ocean, result of a spontaneous chemical reaction between non-living elements that somehow managed to form complex molecules, so complex they were able to work together and make cells.

With all the technology we have available today, in the controlled environment of a sophisticated lab, with brilliant scientists creating and manipulating the experiments, no one has been able to produce the elements believed to exist back in those days, provoke a chemical reaction between them and create living cells afterwards. Imagine it happening by chance.

Knowing that in order to survive, a cell needs RNA, DNA and proteins to work in sync, what is the probability of having these elements appearing by chance at the same time, in the same place and with the ability to self-replicate? It is easy to talk about “simple life forms, or “simple” cells, but the truth is: there’s no such thing as a simple cell, much less a simple organism.

The human body contains around 100 trillion cells of different kinds, each with its own structure and function. Our body is a network of cells, brilliantly organized, working together nonstop from the moment the embryo is formed until the moment the person dies.

The same way this works for humans, it works for all other species. Every living thing is a feat of engineering, so much so that engineers study animals and plants, to create things that imitate their features (ex the wings of airplanes, contact lenses, fabrics, etc). Am I expected to believe that those life forms appeared by chance? That the human brain is the fruit of many coincidences?


2 - All forms of life have the same origin.

Even though no one really knows how the first living cells originated, for many people it seems reasonable to believe that those few original cells gave rise to the millions of species alive today.

We know that all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. We see this in our own families, and plant and animal breeders see it in their work. It is undeniable that mutations occur in species, but does descent with modification explain the origin and diversification of all living things? Do mutations really produce entirely new species?

We know that some DNA mutations are neutral (they have no effect at all) but the clear majority is harmful, often leading to the weakening and premature death of the organism. In the struggle for survival, natural selection would have to ignore the first and eliminate the second, leaving only the mutations that favor the organism.

Again, scientists have tried to replicate this. In several studies they artificially induced human selected mutations that would favor the organism but after many years of research, they didn’t succeed in creating any new species, only different breeds of the existent ones.

What are the odds that chance succeeded in something that intelligent scientists were unable to do, not only once, but millions and millions of times, since there are millions of species alive today, believed to have evolved from a common ancestor?

That leads me to the 3rd issue.

3 - The fossil record

When Darwin wrote The Origin of the Species, the oldest known fossils were from the Cambrian period. But the Cambrian fossil pattern didn’t fit Darwin’s theory. Instead of starting with one specie that diverged gradually over millions of years into families, orders, classes then phyla, the Cambrian starts with the abrupt appearance of many fully formed phyla and classes of animals. So, complex biological forms appeared right at the start.

Darwin was aware of this problem but he hoped that more data would be found to support his theory. Since that time, further exploration has turned up many layers of the earth older than the Cambrian. Paleontologists have also found Cambrian rocks in Canada, Greenland and China with well preserved fossils. Thanks to that improved knowledge many paleontologists are now convinced that the major groups of animals did appear abruptly in the early Cambrian. The fossil evidence is so strong that this event has become known as “biology’s big bang”. Ancestors or intermediaries are still unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing in the Cambrian period.

There are other problems with presenting fossils as proof for evolution, such as the comparative size and the evidence that these creatures are related, since they are separated by millions of years. With such a big interval of time separating the fossils, it is very difficult to establish a connection between them.


To finish with a quote from Richard Dawkins, from the book The Blind Watchmaker: (biology) is “the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed with a purpose”.
Dawkins implies that although living things look like they were designed, in fact they weren’t. I believe that living things appear to have been designed, and they were. I guess we're all entitled to our views.

All that "study" and you never learned that the origin
of life has zero to do with ToE which is EXACTLY the
same whether life originated spontaneously or in
Batboy's Secret Moon-lab.

Never learned that science never has never will
do "proof".

All you have there is some ignorant quote mine
cut n paste from creosites.

 

[dad]

Science also deals with the history of the universe.

Not in any way is this remotely even related to a shadow of the truth.

The theory of biological evolution and the Big Bang theory are both about processes that unfolded over billions of years, and how our universe constructed itself without a conscious builder.

Both are belief based anti Jesus fables.

This was the second wave of science. You're referring to the first wave - how the universe conducts its business day to day like a giant clockwork,

NO! You cannot talk about the universe...only the fishbowl!

also without the aid of gods.

A god is anything ma puts before God. Such as science!

Electrons move through a wire in a circuit without needing angels to push them. The sun rises and sets without needing gods to drag it through the sky.

We also do not need evo fables to guide it anywhere! As for gods. well, you have no idea what is out there. The bible indicates that there are fallen beings out there that will all come falling down to this planet.

Real science is anything generated by the scientific method, the validity of which has been demonstrated repeatedly.

FALSE! The scientific method does not apply to the spiritual, or creation or even the past or future or far universe!

The method generates ideas that anticipate nature, allowing us to do great things that have improved the human condition dramatically.

Nothing to do with the nature of the past or future or universe etc etc. In other words life in the fishbowl is greatly affected by the science OF the fishbowl! Ha.

It's also the way that we know that ideas like creationism are incorrect. They can't be used for anything - just like astrology, another faith-based system of beliefs.

The only way your religion can be used for determining what is correct is by using it as a cult and excluding what you don't like and can't deal with.

You haven't even given your definition of religion.

Looking at a definition online I see this.

"noun
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:a world council of religions.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:to enter religion.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:to make a religion of fighting prejudice.


Here is webster on belief

Definition of belief


1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing..


2: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion ...


3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence belief in the validity of scientific statements

If it includes science, it's not a definition of religion that I can use. I have no reason to group science, an evidence based system of thinking

Origins scinces are a splattering of belief ONTO evidences. NOT evidence based!

There is also justified belief,

Such as belief in the tried and proven and observed and tested and repeated bile and manifestations of the supernatural in real lives.

justified by reason properly applied to evidence.

Using a religious/godless method to sully evidences in not proper or reasoned.

For example, I believe that my car will start the next time I try to turn it over just like it did the last several hundred times I tested it. That's a justified belief - a belief justified by history.

I believe God answers prayer and fulfills prophesy. All I have to do is look at history. I believe much of science prophesy is already shown false and changed. I believe that one day there will be no more cars in the wonderful clean world to come etc etc. So your car will NOT start then. Ha. or did your car start in creation week....or in the days of Noah.

"Kinds" is a vague, creationist religious belief. Science requires clear ideas.

Science was not there at creation. Naturally it has no clue what is what! That ignorance is clear I'll grant you that.

Because you don't know something doesn't mean that it isn't known by others. With all due respect, why would we take our science from people that don't care about it except to try to undermine it?

Those people would include God in their knowledge rather than omit Him from it religiously. The result, as we see is pollution, death, sickness from cancers, nuclear weapons and WOMD as well as false prophesies, and fables about creation that keep millions from the truth.

If you cared about the science, you'd already know it. You'd be able to recite the evidence for evolution, and explain how it implies what is presently being taught in universities.

Evolution as taught in the theory of evolution is a myth. The mark of intellect and wisdom is NOT to recite fables!

As soon as you use a word like kinds, you disqualify yourself as a source of reliable scientific knowledge or argument with others who do know the science - people that never post things like, "it's only a theory".

Just because science is religiously clueless does not mean the truth does not go marching on and over it's rotting corpse!

There is no controversy about the theory of evolution in the scientific community.

Hey, maybe not much controversy over the pope in Catholicism..so!?

The extent of change described by the theory is from the first living population of cells to the tree of life we see today (common descent).

Religion, then. OK.

The source is heritable genetic variation subjected to natural selection leading to differential survival and reproduction and evolving gene pools and populations.

No it is not. We do not even have any genetic info from Noah or Adam's day that us usable. We do not even know what laws existed in nature at the time. So that means that the forces and laws affecting how DNA works (molecules and atoms) are not known. So when we hear man lived about 1000 years for example, science has nothing to say about it either way.

The theory is pretty much worked out, and is unlikely to change much in the future.

The ever changing fable may be worked out inside your believing head. The prophesy about the future is overruled by the bible though. Sorry. The whole earth will be filled with the knowledge of God!

The work that needs to be done now is to determine the precise pathways nature took and over what timeline, but those answers won't affect the theory except perhaps to confirm its validity further.

Comical pontificate. Science doesn't so much as know what nature was like...forget how it changed.

So what are these fields of evolution to which you refer? Are you referring to fields like taxonomy and genetics? If so, I wouldn't call those fields of evolution. They are branches of biology like evolution, cell biology and ecology.

All the paleo fraud so called sciences. Also geology. evolutionary biology, cosmology, theoretical astrophysics etc etc! Ha.