"the general theory of evolution" or neo-darwinian theory is a faith based position

[sammy7]

hay all just thought id throw a spanner in the works so to speak lol

 

please watch these videos of the worlds frontman of neo darwinian theory saying himself that (my interpretation) macro-evolutionary "theory" has never been observed and the official story is it started and stopped a long time ago without observation. also please look in your nearest dictionary for the definition of the word "science". you will notice the words OBSERVABLE EMPIRICAL TESTABLE REPRODUCIBLE etc etc........that said please view the following and comment....

 

 

 

 

 

 

from 16.15 on, notice richard dawkins comment "thats true"...................................................................................

 

 

 

here is a dictionary definition of "religion" from dictionary.com

 

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.

thanks for viewing..( i will comment more on the religion definition once people have viewed/commented)

[immortal]

hay all just thought id throw a spanner in the works so to speak lol

 

please watch these videos of the worlds frontman of neo darwinian theory saying himself that (my interpretation) macro-evolutionary "theory" has never been observed and the official story is it started and stopped a long time ago without observation. also please look in your nearest dictionary for the definition of the word "science". you will notice the words OBSERVABLE EMPIRICAL TESTABLE REPRODUCIBLE etc etc........that said please view the following and comment....

 

 

Sammy7,

 

Macro-evolution is not something which can be observed in a person's life time, we can make inferences from the mutations of homeobox genes which indicates that small and single mutations can cause a wide range of abdomen changes with limbs developing in every segments to no limbs at all, so its not that unlikely considering the millions of years of evolution on earth. We don't just accept the macro-evolution theory as a fact, theories are there to give us better explanations for our collected observed data.

 

 

Just because macro-evolution is not observed doesn't mean that God created the life on earth, so the arguments of creationists cannot be accepted as science they need to do more than just say there is no observable empirical testable reproducible evidence for macro-evolution. I am a theist and I don't have to make god fit with science or even call it as science.

[sammy7]

Macro-evolution is not something which can be observed in a person's life time, we can make inferences from the mutations of homeobox genes which indicates that small and single mutations can cause a wide range of abdomen changes with limbs developing in every segments to no limbs at all, so its not that unlikely considering the millions of years of evolution on earth. We don't just accept the macro-evolution theory as a fact, theories are there to give us better explanations for our collected observed data.

 

ok. please see dictionary definiton of science. . you have just reiterated what dawkins said ie-we dont observe it today, because it happened in the past. this is not science. (again see dictionary definition again)

 

Just because macro-evolution is not observed doesn't mean that God created the life on earth, so the arguments of creationists cannot be accepted as science they need to do more than just say there is no observable empirical testable reproducible evidence for macro-evolution. I am a theist and I don't have to make god fit with science or even call it as science.

 

im not suggesting that because it isnt science that MEANS there was a creation event. i never said such a thing.

 

by dawkins own admission N-D-T is a FAITH based position (please see 2nd video again from 16.00 onwards

 

 

definition faith-

faith-belief that is not based on proof

Edited May 19, 2012 by sammy7

[immortal]

ok. please see dictionary definiton of science. . you have just reiterated what dawkins said ie-we dont observe it today, because it happened in the past. this is not science. (again see dictionary definition again)

 

 

It may not be an exact science like physics and mathematics but it still falls in the domain of science because the theory is falsifiable. It is a type-2 science.

 

 

im not suggesting that because it isnt science that MEANS there was a creation event. i never said such a thing.

 

by dawkins own admission N-D-T is a FAITH based position (please see 2nd video again from 16.00 onwards

 

 

definition faith-

faith-belief that is not based on proof

 

 

Ofcourse you never said such a thing but the videos in your posts all point to creationism.

[sammy7]

It may not be an exact science like physics and mathematics but it still falls in the domain of science because the theory is falsifiable. It is a type-2 science.

 

thanks for the reply i didnt expect people to take to it so kindly lol. is there a model for this type-2 science? (i would be interested to see it) also about it being falsifiable......neo darwinian theory has this almost magic attribute of actually not being falsifiable....lol....i will await your comments before posting more. thanks

[immortal]

thanks for the reply i didnt expect people to take to it so kindly lol. is there a model for this type-2 science? (i would be interested to see it) also about it being falsifiable......neo darwinian theory has this almost magic attribute of actually not being falsifiable....lol....i will await your comments before posting more. thanks

 

Type-2 science

 

A great deal of evolutionary biology looks back at what has occurred, and says things like "humans happened like this because . . .". We cannot run the experiment again. It takes too long and we do not have control over most of the variables anyhow. History and many social sciences come close to Type 2 science and that may be why the Type 1 scientists do not really like Type 2 science.

 

When a historian says "The Great War happened because . . .", this is the most reliable interpretation we can offer based on the evidence. If the evidence changes, our view will need to change as well. As with the evolution of humans, we can see the effects, but we do not know all of the causes. If we ran the experiment again, we might not get the "right result" this time. Type 2 science might not be repeatable.

 

We may be describing, after the event, a unique sequence. If we "ran the tape again", to use Stephen Jay Gould's expression from A Wonderful Life, we might get an entirely different result next time. So while we describe Type 2 events in scientific language, our results are less certainly replicable, at best. In some cases, there is absolutely no prospect of replication at all.

 

[sammy7]

hay thanks. well it is still a faith position. it is in the past. it was never observed. if one wishes to believe in it, it is taken by faith that it happened...could you please cite one piece of literature for that homeobox thing you said that has actually been observed? thanks

 

we can see the effects, but we do not know all of the causes.

 

i can hardly believe this... its in the "fusion of ancestral chromosome 2" paper as well.... they are attributing an unobserved cause in the past to an observed effect today...and it starts with the big fat presupposition----darwinian evolution is true.... i see circular reasoning here...do you?

 

also could you please quote 3 ways it would be falsifiable?.....

Edited May 19, 2012 by sammy7

[doG]

ok. please see dictionary definiton of science. . you have just reiterated what dawkins said ie-we dont observe it today, because it happened in the past. this is not science. (again see dictionary definition again)

We don't observe the birth of planets in our lifetime either, particularly the Earth's. Will you now tell us that accretion disks are not science either?

[sammy7]

We don't observe the birth of planets in our lifetime either, particularly the Earth's. Will you now tell us that accretion disks are not science either?

 

i dont know what that is (yet) but if we didnt observe something then if we believe it happened it is taken by faith that it did....

[immortal]

hay thanks. well it is still a faith position. it is in the past. it was never observed. if one wishes to believe in it, it is taken by faith that it happened...could you please cite one piece of literature for that homeobox thing you said that has actually been observed? thanks

 

http://www.websterworld.com/websterworld/scienceupdates/h/howanimalbodyshapeschaion725.html

 

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego, have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were brought about during the early evolution of animals. This fills a major gap in explaining evolution because it gives us an insight into the way new animal body plans might arise from a simple genetic mutation. At the same time, it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution - the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

 

In simple terms, the newly identified mechanism takes away one of the underhand ploys used by people who do not understand the nature of evolution, and who seek to prevent it being taught in schools. Motivated by their reading of the Bible, these people call themselves 'creation scientists', pretending to argue from a scientific viewpoint that evolution is seriously flawed as a theory, and is unproven.

 

This immediately identifies the 'creationists' as people with no real understanding of either scientific theories or the nature of scientific proof (a matter addressed in Fingerprints and science, January 2002). Theories are 'best approximations', and expected to have flaws which will later be worked out, just as Einstein refined Newton's laws by adding new conditions for very fast travel. In fact, much of science involves testing theories to find discrepancies. This means that gaps in a theory are deliberately sought out by scientists, not because the theory is 'wrong', but because there is clearly still something to learn.

 

What it comes down to is a semantic quibble, with scientists using 'theory' as another word for a model or paradigm, while the opponents of science and evolution deliberately muddy the waters, using 'theory' in the sense of 'as opposed to practice'. In other words, these people call themselves 'scientists', but rely on distortion to achieve a political goal of censorship.

 

[sammy7]

im sorry i didnt see the literature ( i dont want just an overview)....also even just by reading the overview i can see the same trait as in the telomere telomere paper-assigning an unobserved cause in the past to account for an observation today (this is plain and simply a story wether you like it or not, if one chooses to believe it, it is taken by faith that it happened)- i dont need to say the utterly insane things i could fit into this model if i wanted to and call it science...please cite the actual literature if you have it...

[doG]

i dont know what that is (yet) but if we didnt observe something then if we believe it happened it is taken by faith that it did....

So our belief that Earth exists is based on faith?

[sammy7]

So our belief that Earth exists is based on faith?

 

can we observe it right here in the present?......(no semantics about time please you know what i mean..i could elaborate on this further but i hope i wont need to)

[immortal]

im sorry i didnt see the literature ( i dont want just an overview)....also even just by reading the overview i can see the same trait as in the telomere telomere paper-assigning an unobserved cause in the past to account for an observation today (this is plain and simply a story wether you like it or not, if one chooses to believe it, it is taken by faith that it happened)- i dont need to say the utterly insane things i could fit into this model if i wanted to and call it science...please cite the actual literature if you have it...

 

 

Macro-evolution is a theory, it is not a fact. Please care to read what the paper claims to explain, before it was argued that there was no genetic mechanism for macro-evolution but now the researchers have found out a genetic mechanism of how macro-evolution could've happened.

 

 

The geological evidence provides the conditions that prevailed on earth at different times, molecular clocks and evolutionary trees provides timescales on when a population diverged and branched out to form a different species, this is the most reasonable explanation that we have got based on evidence.

 

"To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write."

 

― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

 

Edited May 19, 2012 by immortal

[Ringer]

sammy, what links that I posted in the other thread did you read?

[doG]

can we observe it right here in the present?......

Sorry, you're not allowed to move the goal post you started with. Now, we did not observe the birth of Earth. Again, are you saying that makes our belief in the result, the existence of Earth, one based in faith?

[sammy7]

Macro-evolution is a theory, it is not a fact. Please care to read what the paper claims to explain, before it was argued that there was no genetic mechanism for macro-evolution but now the researchers have found out a genetic mechanism of how macro-evolution could've happened.

 

if the scientific model goes- hypothesis-observation-theory etc etc darwinian evolution/neo-darwinain theory/the general theory of macro evolution is stalled on the hypothesis stage.. (if this is not the right model please write out the precise right model thanks)

 

i dont care what an overview says i need ACTUAL LITERATURE. on a topic like this an overview will not suffice...ACTUAL LITERATURE PLEASE lol.

 

The geological evidence provides the conditions that prevailed on earth at different times, molecular clocks and evolutionary trees provides timescales on when a population diverged and branched out to form a different species, this is the most reasonable explanation that we have got based on evidence.

 

again we are back to the ol assign an unobserved cause in the past to an observed effect today.....when one starts noting this trend they dont think that it could possibly extend to the literature itself do they? lol please see the telomere telomere paper and comment on that for me..INTERESTING NOTE-francis collins himself referenced me this paper.....

 

i dont know what else to say.....if no one can cite anything then the title of my post is accurate....comment away please.

 

Sorry, you're not allowed to move the goal post you started with. Now, we did not observe the birth of Earth. Again, are you saying that makes our belief in the result, the existence of Earth, one based in faith?

 

 

yes we BOTH did not observe the birth of the earth...when it comes to origins wether its cosmic evolution or creation...as we already know...these are faith based beliefs....

 

we can observe the earth right here in the present..what does that tell us? well that tells us we can observe the earth right here in the present...i cant make it more simpler than this.

 

thanks for reading

Edited May 19, 2012 by sammy7

[Ringer]

if the scientific model goes- hypothesis-observation-theory etc etc darwinian evolution/neo-darwinain theory/the general theory of macro evolution is stalled on the hypothesis stage.. (if this is not the right model please write out the precise right model thanks)

 

Yeah, that's what happened with evolution.

 

i dont care what an overview says i need ACTUAL LITERATURE. one a topic like this an overview will not suffice...ACTUAL LITERATURE PLEASE lol.

 

I will give you ACTUAL LITERATURE as soon as you read some of the links I posted.

 

 

again we are back to the ol assign an unobserved cause in the past to an observed effect today.....when one starts noting this trend they dont think that it could possibly extend to the literature itself do they? lol please see the telomere telomere paper and comment on that for me..INTERESTING NOTE-francis collins himself referenced me this paper.....

 

We have seen evolution happen, read the links I posted on the other thread.

 

i dont know what else to say.....if no one can cite anything then the title of my post is accurate....comment away please.

 

I've given you citations that you ignore. You can't say you're right unless you have evidence, which you have failed to provide in all aspects.

 

 

 

yes we BOTH did not observe the birth of the earth...when it comes to origins wether its cosmic evolution or creation...as we already know...these are faith based beliefs....

 

 

You keep using that word, faith . . . I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

we can observe the earth right here in the present..what does that tell us? well that tells us we can observe the earth right here in the present...i cant make it more simpler than this.

 

 

Again I ask, since we can't directly observe atoms do they not exist?

 

 

 

 

[sammy7]

please link to just one literature then..i will only read and fail one from each person... ( i dont have infinity time lol) well maybe more if i think its worth it for some unknown reason...

again not an overview actual literature....(no someones OPINION on that talk origins site does not count lol, we are trying to elevate this to level of science remember not hear-say...

 

 

Again I ask, since we can't directly observe atoms do they not exist?

 

 

i have never even looked down a tunneling electron microscope or whatever but based on some vids i saw on youtube they seemed to define them somewhat

 

this is a poor reference , i could find more but i dont think its terribly relevant to our discussion... if your referring to the nucleus or whatever...well..i only learned of imagining techniques 2 hours ago so i cant really comment... i dont see how its hugely relevant though given some of the vids on youtube can define them to some degree...

 

 

[immortal]

if the scientific model goes- hypothesis-observation-theory etc etc darwinian evolution/neo-darwinain theory/the general theory of macro evolution is stalled on the hypothesis stage.. (if this is not the right model please write out the precise right model thanks)

 

 

 

I'm sorry, we just don't make things up in science based on faith and the fact that there is so much to explore and to develop new models and new explanations is what makes science exciting and interesting to study with out any bias or faith.

 

i dont care what an overview says i need ACTUAL LITERATURE. one a topic like this an overview will not suffice...ACTUAL LITERATURE PLEASE lol.

 

If you're not satisfied with the overview and don't believe in it, search the article in scientific journals like Nature or scientific american, I can't do much other than that.

 

again we are back to the ol assign an unobserved cause in the past to an observed effect today.....when one starts noting this trend they dont think that it could possibly extend to the literature itself do they? lol please see the telomere telomere paper and comment on that for me..INTERESTING NOTE-francis collins himself referenced me this paper.....

 

i dont know what else to say.....if no one can cite anything then the title of my post is accurate....comment away please.

 

I don't know where your telomere paper is.

 

Science is not a propaganda we are open to alternate explanations and theories which gives better explanations based on evidence than the current ones.

[Moontanman]

if the scientific model goes- hypothesis-observation-theory etc etc darwinian evolution/neo-darwinain theory/the general theory of macro evolution is stalled on the hypothesis stage.. (if this is not the right model please write out the precise right model thanks)

 

i dont care what an overview says i need ACTUAL LITERATURE. one a topic like this an overview will not suffice...ACTUAL LITERATURE PLEASE lol.

 

 

 

again we are back to the ol assign an unobserved cause in the past to an observed effect today.....when one starts noting this trend they dont think that it could possibly extend to the literature itself do they? lol please see the telomere telomere paper and comment on that for me..INTERESTING NOTE-francis collins himself referenced me this paper.....

 

i dont know what else to say.....if no one can cite anything then the title of my post is accurate....comment away please.

 

 

sammy7, you've been given actual literature in the other thread, you chose to ignore it and keep on making dishonest assertions and quote mining, your videos are the worst sort of quote mining. Your creationist premise is dishonest, I have pointed it out to you many times already, you are not the least bit interested in anything but asserting your dishonest world view... At the 11:30 the guy with Dawkins in the last tells a lie and then doubles down and lies about the evidence for it and continues to spout that lie... classic dishonest creationist...

[sammy7]

If you're not satisfied with the overview and don't believe in it, search the article in scientific journals like Nature or scientific american, I can't do much other than that.

 

no if you wont cite it then its not evidence, N-D-T is making the claim, its up to its proponents (if you are) to cite it.... if you do find it and cite it i would be happy to read it.... (NOT JUST AN OVERVIEW)

 

 

here is the telomere telomere paper.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf

 

 

 

Science is not a propaganda we are open to alternate explanations and theories which gives better explanations based on evidence than the current ones.

 

unfortunately thats not how the scientific heirarchy seems to operate...(JUST MY OPINION)

[Moontanman]

That has to be the most faulty reasoning i have heard in quite some time, they can't believe the past because they weren't there? They weren't there when Darwin was alive, they deny the facts about something because we didn't see it but then they double down and go for justifying it by citing something from the past that they weren't there for either... and why does everything look so old, check out to be so old via multiple methods? did god misrepresent it on purpose? yes that 9th commandment again, pesky thing that...

[Ringer]

please link to just one literature then..i will only read and fail one from each person... ( i dont have infinity time lol) well maybe more if i think its worth it for some unknown reason...

again not an overview actual literature....(no someones OPINION on that talk origins site does not count lol, we are trying to elevate this to level of science remember not hear-say...

 

First, talk origins cite all their sources, as did all the links I posted, so it's not hearsay. Second, I have posted actual literature, but since you haven't even went through my past links you wouldn't know that I guess.

 

But here's one about hybrid speciation:

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002274?__utma=261502610.311680613.1337299064.1337299064.1337459494.2&__utmb=261502610.14.10.1337459494&__utmc=261502610&__utmx=-&__utmz=261502610.1337299064.1.1.utmcsr=bacteriality.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/2008/08/26/dino/&__utmv=-&__utmk=260281870

 

 

 

 

i have never even looked down a tunneling electron microscope or whatever but based on some vids i saw on youtube they seemed to define them somewhat

 

this is a poor reference , i could find more but i dont think its terribly relevant to our discussion... if your referring to the nucleus or whatever...well..i only learned of imagining techniques 2 hours ago so i cant really comment... i dont see how its hugely relevant though given some of the vids on youtube can define them to some degree...

 

Yeah, that's not an atom. Try again?

 

 

It is relevant because it shows that you don't know what is meant by observed and by your definitions we can't consider a large body of knowledge to be scientific, which would be ridiculous.

[Ophiolite]

Sammy, macro evolution is occuring today. Here is an analogy that may help you to understand, if you are able to open your mind.

 

If I take a slice of a few seconds of time I can see someone move in a car from a few yards away to just opposite me. That is not a very long distance. I'll call it a micro-distance. I can see them move a micro-distance if my observation time is restricted to a few seconds.

 

One of those cars may have come from a city three hundred miles away. That is a macro-distance. I can't observe a macro-distance being covered in the span of a few seconds, but it certainly does not mean that a macro-distance has not been covered. And it has been covered by simply covering a lot of micro-distances over many, many short periods of time.

 

It really is that simple. If you wish to deny macro-evolution you had better stand ready to deny that anyone ever came by car from Arkansas.