Free Skins
© Fisana

Jump to content


Photo

Does alot of poor evidence = good evidence?


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#46 plindboe

plindboe

    Has a pseudoscience radar

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 13 July 2008 - 05:09 PM

First, regarding the Darwinian theory of evolution of species: it is pointless to go through the numerous flaws in this theory point by point here; they have been enumerated ad nauseum elsewhere.


What flaws?


Suffice it to say that alternative theories have far more merit.


No, making a claim does not suffice. Some examples would be a good start.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

#47 plindboe

plindboe

    Has a pseudoscience radar

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 13 July 2008 - 06:14 PM

The current ideology of Darwinian evolution was formulated more than 150 years ago when our body of scientific knowledge was still pretty small and primitive. It seemed a reasonable explanation for the facts as they were understood at the time.

However, we now know a lot more about biology, cell biology, biochemistry, chemistry, physics, and statistics than was even imagined at that time.

The facts we now have available reduce the Darwinian theories to little more than the quaint musings of the ignorant.


I suggest that you stop thinking of yourself as an authority, especially when you talk about stuff that you know little about.

Fact is, the theory of evolution has come a long way since it was first proposed. Darwin proposed some things that turned out to be incorrect, he didn't know about genetics, and various subhypotheses have been incorporated. The theory as it stands today has evolved way beyond Darwin's ideas, it has an evidential support beyond most other theories, and it's used every day by scientists when developing medicine or modelling the spread of bacterial resistance.

If you think scientists today subscribe to "The origin of species" as dogma, you're living in a fantasy world. Have you never heard of the modern synthesis for instance? Even that, is ancient history.


It is significant to note that Darwin proposed his theories at a time when the world was undergoing a cultural revolution away from the then prevalent and dominant influence of religion. There was a backlash against all things religious, particularly amongst those with a “scientific” predisposition.


Yes, it is significant, as people before that time were tortured if they dared to question the prevaling biblical interpretation.


Darwin came along at the right time with an alternative view of the universe. Accordingly, his views were enthusiastically embraced by those who were seeking a secular view of existence.


Of course Darwin was deeply religious when he wrote "Origin of the species" and he believed he was solving a theodic problem. But just ignore that, it doesn't fit your preconceptions.


So one form of religion was substituted for another.


How is Darwin's theory a religion?


The tragedy is that the Darwinian theories are still taken seriously by a large percentage of the scientific community, and thereby precludes rational investigation of alternative explanations of the facts.


What does it preclude? Be specific.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

#48 plindboe

plindboe

    Has a pseudoscience radar

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 14 July 2008 - 05:27 AM

No, making a claim does not suffice. Some examples would be a good start.


Just adding, for these examples I'd like to hear exactly how they can explain stuff like our fused chromosome 2, the placement of the telomeres and the deactivated centromere found in the predicted location.

When that has been achieved, I'll be curious how these alternative theories can explain the ERVs we share with the other great apes.

And lastly I'd love to hear these alternative theories explaining pseudogenes, let's start with ΨGULO, and why this non-functioning gene is mutated in the same place in all simians.

When these things has been achieved I'll have some respect for these alternate theories, but of course there will still be a long way to go, considering the vast explanatory power the current accepted theory has.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

#49 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts

Posted 16 July 2008 - 05:50 AM

When I was in graduate school, my quantum physics professor summarised the situation pretty concisely:

"It is pretty easy to come up with a theory that is attractive and fits most of the facts, but that is totally wrong.

However, if such a theory gains a support base, new facts are interpreted to fit the theory; as opposed to the theory being modified to fit the facts.

Consequently, the longer the theory exists, the more difficult it is to dislodge; even when it is demonstrably wrong."

Darwinian theory has two components: the variation within species in response to outside factors; and the creation of life in general, and all species of life in particular, as a consequence of random events.

The former is clearly observable on an everyday basis, and is not in dispute.

The latter is patent nonsense.

One illustration demonstrates the fallacy of Darwinism:

For many years now, hundreds of geneticists have performed thousands of experiments on fruit flys. They have inflicted pretty well every mutagen known to man, including intense radiation, onto the flys, and then bred the resulting off spring over hundreds of generations.

While they have succeeded in creating all kinds of physical defects in the flys and their offspring, the subjects have always remained clearly and unquestionably fruit flys, albeit hideously disfigured.

Regardless of the mutations inflicted, nobody has yet succeeded in making a lizard, a chicken, an elephant, or anything else, out of a fruit fly.

However, despite these dismal failures in the laboratory, Darwinism will have us believe that as a consequence of random mutations, not only did we get life, but we got all the millions of different life forms; ie: grass, trees, elephants, chickens.

And while saying this, they manage to keep straight faces. Your taxes at work...............!

#50 plindboe

plindboe

    Has a pseudoscience radar

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 16 July 2008 - 07:10 AM

When I was in graduate school, my quantum physics professor summarised the situation pretty concisely:

"It is pretty easy to come up with a theory that is attractive and fits most of the facts, but that is totally wrong.

However, if such a theory gains a support base, new facts are interpreted to fit the theory; as opposed to the theory being modified to fit the facts.

Consequently, the longer the theory exists, the more difficult it is to dislodge; even when it is demonstrably wrong."


In other words no matter what evidence you are shown you will simply quote your professor and be on your merry way. That's the equivalent of burying your head in the sand. How can you ever learn with such an approach?


Darwinian theory has two components: the variation within species in response to outside factors; and the creation of life in general, and all species of life in particular, as a consequence of random events.


"creation of life" has nothing to do with evolution.


One illustration demonstrates the fallacy of Darwinism:

For many years now, hundreds of geneticists have performed thousands of experiments on fruit flys. They have inflicted pretty well every mutagen known to man, including intense radiation, onto the flys, and then bred the resulting off spring over hundreds of generations.

While they have succeeded in creating all kinds of physical defects in the flys and their offspring, the subjects have always remained clearly and unquestionably fruit flys, albeit hideously disfigured.

Regardless of the mutations inflicted, nobody has yet succeeded in making a lizard, a chicken, an elephant, or anything else, out of a fruit fly.

However, despite these dismal failures in the laboratory, Darwinism will have us believe that as a consequence of random mutations, not only did we get life, but we got all the millions of different life forms; ie: grass, trees, elephants, chickens.


Of course fruit flies will always be fruit flies. Life forms never evolve out of their clade. You seem to continuously attack, but you've no idea what it is you're attacking. Why don't you read about what evolution actually is, instead of gathering strawmen and misinformation from random websites?

Here's a true statement that I suggest you think about -> Just because you read something on the internet that you like to hear, doesn't mean it's true.


However, despite these dismal failures in the laboratory, Darwinism will have us believe that as a consequence of random mutations, not only did we get life, but we got all the millions of different life forms; ie: grass, trees, elephants, chickens.


No, you don't have to believe anything. Just stop thinking you're some sort of super expert who have it all figured out, while the people who have studied this stuff for most of their lifes and work with it every day are all deluding themselves. I've always seen you as arrogant, but your current behaviour surprises even me.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

#51 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts

Posted 16 July 2008 - 08:39 PM

Ahhhh shucks; don’t be like that! I did read a book once; it was yellow and had lots of pictures.

In “Origin of the species by natural selection”, Charles Darwin clearly states his theory that all species arose from a common root, by a process of natural selection; in fact, the only illustration in his original edition was a tree diagram showing the branching of all life forms from a common root.

So I am having a hard time understanding your objections.

#52 plindboe

plindboe

    Has a pseudoscience radar

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 16 July 2008 - 09:41 PM

Ahhhh shucks; don’t be like that! I did read a book once; it was yellow and had lots of pictures.

In “Origin of the species by natural selection”, Charles Darwin clearly states his theory that all species arose from a common root, by a process of natural selection; in fact, the only illustration in his original edition was a tree diagram showing the branching of all life forms from a common root.

So I am having a hard time understanding your objections.


I didn't object to you saying that all life had a common ancestor. I objected to you saying that evolution was about the creation of life. Do you not understand the difference?

Evolution deals with replicating organisms. How life arose, whether it be by abiogenesis, panspermia, God, aliens, or whatever, doesn't matter, because evolutionary mechanisms doesn't apply to non-organisms.

You've shown an inability to understand what evolution is, and you've practically admitted that you won't accept any evidence that challenges your preconceptions. I'm left bemused by your earlier statement "The facts we now have available reduce the Darwinian theories to little more than the quaint musings of the ignorant" when you so apparently and even by your own admission have chosen to wallow in ignorance.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

#53 stevenedel

stevenedel

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 17 July 2008 - 05:12 AM

One illustration demonstrates the fallacy of Darwinism:

For many years now, hundreds of geneticists have performed thousands of experiments on fruit flys. They have inflicted pretty well every mutagen known to man, including intense radiation, onto the flys, and then bred the resulting off spring over hundreds of generations.

While they have succeeded in creating all kinds of physical defects in the flys and their offspring, the subjects have always remained clearly and unquestionably fruit flys, albeit hideously disfigured.

Regardless of the mutations inflicted, nobody has yet succeeded in making a lizard, a chicken, an elephant, or anything else, out of a fruit fly.

However, despite these dismal failures in the laboratory, Darwinism will have us believe that as a consequence of random mutations, not only did we get life, but we got all the millions of different life forms; ie: grass, trees, elephants, chickens.

And while saying this, they manage to keep straight faces. Your taxes at work...............!


This example doesn't demonstrate 'the fallacy of Darwinism', it only demonstrates your fundamental ignorance about evolution. Genetically manipulating fruit flies has nothing at all to do with natural selection over long timespans to increase a species' adaptation to its environment. Evolution is a historical science, not one that can be tested in the laboratory.

Meanwhile, I'm still eagerly waiting to see your magnificent alternative theory that will convince us all in one blow that Darwin had it all wrong.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. (Carl Sagan)

#54 plindboe

plindboe

    Has a pseudoscience radar

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 17 July 2008 - 09:11 AM

Evolution is a historical science, not one that can be tested in the laboratory.


I know we mostly agree, but this statement isn't entirely correct. There are plenty of ways to test different evolutionary mechanisms. But I think I know what you meant.

This experiment is pretty interesting for instance: http://www.newscient...in-the-lab.html

Or this Drosophila experiment where the flies after only 8 generations had evolved different mating preferences: http://en.wikipedia....cial_speciation

Experiments are also used to learn about genetic drift and create mathematical models to predict for instance the chances that certain mutations will become fixed in the population.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

#55 plindboe

plindboe

    Has a pseudoscience radar

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 17 July 2008 - 10:21 AM

Evolution is a historical science, not one that can be tested in the laboratory.


Also wanted to make a point about the first part of this sentence. I think you might have meant common decent, and not evolution, because evolution hasn't by any means stopped, and is not simply historical.

It's widely used today regarding antibiotic resistance for instance. We know that indiscriminate use of antibiotics will create an environment that makes antibiotic resistance a selectable trait, too little use in individual cases is problematic as well, as we'll be left with a population with a higher frequency of alleles that codes for resistance. Doctors today use strict guidelines on how antibiotics should be applied, based on our knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms.

This presentation also gives a little info on how scientists can use the theory to make predictions.

Also check out evolutionary algorithms, which illustrates neatly the creative power of these rather simply mechanisms.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

#56 stevenedel

stevenedel

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 17 July 2008 - 11:24 AM

Evolution is a historical science, not one that can be tested in the laboratory.


I know we mostly agree, but this statement isn't entirely correct. There are plenty of ways to test different evolutionary mechanisms. But I think I know what you meant.


I was a bit hasty there; thanks for the correction and the instructive examples. Now I am even more curious to see Canuck's alternative theory.

As for the historical part, my phrasing was casual and imprecise, but what I meant is that the slow adaptation of species as well as common decent is documented in fossile records and the distribution of particular species around the globe, and that the theory of evolution finds strong support in those historical data. Obviously, evolution never stops as long as living creatures are around, but in many cases the processes involved are too slow to be studied in real time. Though as your examples show, there are some useful and interesting instances where we actually can see natural selection at work.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. (Carl Sagan)

#57 plindboe

plindboe

    Has a pseudoscience radar

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 17 July 2008 - 12:53 PM

Now I am even more curious to see Canuck's alternative theory.


I'd love to see one too, alas I knew it was empty rhetoric when I saw his statement.


As for the historical part, my phrasing was casual and imprecise, but what I meant is that the slow adaptation of species as well as common decent is documented in fossile records and the distribution of particular species around the globe, and that the theory of evolution finds strong support in those historical data. Obviously, evolution never stops as long as living creatures are around, but in many cases the processes involved are too slow to be studied in real time. Though as your examples show, there are some useful and interesting instances where we actually can see natural selection at work.


Indeed. :weeee:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)

#58 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 338 posts

Posted 17 July 2008 - 09:12 PM

When I was in kindergarten my teacher told me that when having a discussion with someone, it is generally a good idea to pay attention to what the other person is saying. Clearly, this advice does not seem to have widespread currency, particularly amongst the true believers.

My comments regarding evolution were clearly directed to Darwinism and the widespread application of his theories. Specifically, I explicitly stated that his theory has two parts: the developments of variation within a species by a process of evolution; and the evolution of species from a common root.

I explicitly, and unambiguously, stated that the former is not an issue of contention; the latter is patent nonsense.

I draw the attention of the true believers to the title of Darwin’s work: “Origin of the Species by Natural Selection”.

If the true believers had either understood the title, or read the book, they would have understood my comments, and their uninformed diatribe would not have been necessary.

Furthermore they would have understood the significance of my reference to the fruit fly experiments, and why they are relevant to the discussion.

I am somewhat confused by the cheerleader’s diatribe about my apparent lack of understanding of evolution. I am of the belief that I have a very solid grasp of both genetics and evolution, in addition to a wide range of other scientific disciplines; I am, maybe somewhat naively, under the impression that this knowledge gives me a pretty solid foundation for the identification of the flaws in Darwinism.

Interestingly enough, one of the chief cheerleaders says: “How life arose, whether it be by abiogenisis, panspermia, God, aliens, or whatever, doesn’t matter, because evolutionary mechanisms don’t apply to non organisms.”

Funny, but the entire foundation of evolutionary theory arose from the need to explain the processes of life; both its creation, and its subsequent development. In addition, life requires an organism for its existence, and organisms by definition are life forms.

Our cheerleaders clearly fail to understand the fundamental concepts of evolution, not to mention the entire range of issues revolving around “life”. I might also mention that evolutionary concepts are widely applied, and are not limited to just biological systems.

Clearly, our cheerleaders are reflecting the common stereotype of cheerleaders; I wonder, are they blonde as well? Or does this have anything to do with the comment they made previously that scientists are not too big in the thinking department?

#59 stevenedel

stevenedel

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 18 July 2008 - 01:08 PM

When I was in kindergarten my teacher told me that when having a discussion with someone, it is generally a good idea to pay attention to what the other person is saying. Clearly, this advice does not seem to have widespread currency, particularly amongst the true believers.

My comments regarding evolution were clearly directed to Darwinism and the widespread application of his theories. Specifically, I explicitly stated that his theory has two parts: the developments of variation within a species by a process of evolution; and the evolution of species from a common root.

I explicitly, and unambiguously, stated that the former is not an issue of contention; the latter is patent nonsense.

I draw the attention of the true believers to the title of Darwin’s work: “Origin of the Species by Natural Selection”.

If the true believers had either understood the title, or read the book, they would have understood my comments, and their uninformed diatribe would not have been necessary.

Furthermore they would have understood the significance of my reference to the fruit fly experiments, and why they are relevant to the discussion.

I am somewhat confused by the cheerleader’s diatribe about my apparent lack of understanding of evolution. I am of the belief that I have a very solid grasp of both genetics and evolution, in addition to a wide range of other scientific disciplines; I am, maybe somewhat naively, under the impression that this knowledge gives me a pretty solid foundation for the identification of the flaws in Darwinism.

Interestingly enough, one of the chief cheerleaders says: “How life arose, whether it be by abiogenisis, panspermia, God, aliens, or whatever, doesn’t matter, because evolutionary mechanisms don’t apply to non organisms.”

Funny, but the entire foundation of evolutionary theory arose from the need to explain the processes of life; both its creation, and its subsequent development. In addition, life requires an organism for its existence, and organisms by definition are life forms.

Our cheerleaders clearly fail to understand the fundamental concepts of evolution, not to mention the entire range of issues revolving around “life”. I might also mention that evolutionary concepts are widely applied, and are not limited to just biological systems.

Clearly, our cheerleaders are reflecting the common stereotype of cheerleaders; I wonder, are they blonde as well? Or does this have anything to do with the comment they made previously that scientists are not too big in the thinking department?


Lots of words, and a wrong guess about my hair color, but... nope, still not a trace of his great alternative theory. Nor, for that matter, of any argument why common descent, which is supported by compelling evidence from a wide range of disciplines, is 'patent nonsense'.

Canuck, you may be 'of the belief that you have a very solid grasp of both genetics and evolution, in addition to a wide range of other scientific disciplines', but it seems that, like so many of your beliefs, it is just that: a mere belief unsupported by any evidence.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. (Carl Sagan)

#60 plindboe

plindboe

    Has a pseudoscience radar

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:I'm an atheist and a skeptic regarding paranormal beliefs, but nonetheless I find other people's belief systems fascinating. I think it's important for people who hold different beliefs to discuss with, and learn from, one another. The free exchange of ideas are essential to progress, and it's no coincidence that mankind's two greatest ideas, democracy and science, are based on this.<br /><br />Feel free to message me, if you want to talk. :)

Posted 18 July 2008 - 01:53 PM

Great! More rhetoric.

I am somewhat confused by the cheerleader’s diatribe about my apparent lack of understanding of evolution. I am of the belief that I have a very solid grasp of both genetics and evolution, in addition to a wide range of other scientific disciplines; I am, maybe somewhat naively, under the impression that this knowledge gives me a pretty solid foundation for the identification of the flaws in Darwinism.


That you seem to think that science should create an elephant out of a fruit fly if evolution was true, can only be grounded in so many misconceptions and violations of logic that it defies belief that anyone would say such a thing. You might as well state that the theory of gravity is false because scientists haven't invented flying cars yet. What you said is so incredibly illogical and ignorant that I can't find words to describe how far off you are. Yet, you're still convinced you're some sort of omniscient expert. Seems Bertrand Russell is proved right once again.


Or does this have anything to do with the comment they made previously that scientists are not too big in the thinking department?


Seems that honesty is not exactly your forte either.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users