Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Conflicts and assumptions of evolution theory

  1. #1 Conflicts and assumptions of evolution theory 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    46
    Errors of evolution theory

    When it is a question of the reliability of the theory of evolution, so in the previous chapters has been handled some of its problems. The purpose has been to show, that the theory, which is only 150 years old, is on many points problematic and is not after all reliable. Matters, which have been regarded as sure, are so often far from it.

    In fact the same point appears also in experts’ own publications of this area. For if it is wanted to take trouble, so it is possible to find from them researchers’ own comments about the same matter. For the researchers have also noted, how some fields are still unclear to them, the evidence slight and the theories also unsatisfactory. They have so noticed that there are some weak points in the theory, but as far as the main thing is concerned, they have not however doubted it. Their trust and confidence in the theory of evolution has been strong, even though the evidence would have indicated many times on the contrary.

    In any case, next there is a purpose to go through those obscurities, which appear in the theory of evolution and in the haphazard birth of all. They have been handled already in the previous chapters, but because of repetition it is good to take them out in a shortened form. So it is possible for everyone to get a better overall picture about this area.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Since this is a topic about a science (evolution) and not religion, I've moved it to the appropriate forum.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    945
    well, granted there are some gaps in the theory of evolution, and thats why its not actually a law.
    Their trust and confidence in the theory of evolution has been strong, even though the evidence would have indicated many times on the contrary.
    yes, but using your same logic the evidence that is there, the evidence that strengthans my trust, is there. disprove that evidence, and i will surely think twice.

    whats is the evidence to the contrary?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    How 'bout debating some specifics, Mr/Mrs. Petri.
    Got anything from Dembski? Behe?

    Since this was originally posted in the religion threads, do you happen to believe that problems in current evolutionary studies make a case for creationsim/ID?

    It is beyond me how some folks look right through the mountains of emperical evidence supporting evolution, and blindly accept pseudoscience as law over reason, logic, and observation.
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    41
    CaveatLector Wrote:

    It is beyond me how some folks look right through the mountains of emperical evidence supporting evolution, and blindly accept pseudoscience as law over reason, logic, and observation.
    The results of reason, logic and observation depends on what you are looking at and why you are looking at it.

    As one without a detailed scientific background, but who has lived and observed many things in many different parts of the world for over 60 years, I see things differently than you do and my reason and logic puts things into a different perspective.

    I do not claim to know everything, but I see a world where from a more logical than scientific view, the world and everything in and on it are very complex. That complexity leads me to believe that man does not have the answers, even though some think they do.

    I have seen (I think her name is Jane Goodall or something like that) who spent so many years in the jungles studing apes that she began to see things that I see in other animals on this planet. The fact that an ape or chimp can be taught to respond to training does not make that animal unusal, nor does it make them next of kin.

    In Thailand, elephants for a very long time have been trained for the purpose of carrying logs cut in the forest. I have seen elephant shows there where elephants can be trained to do many things, from stacking logs to catching pennies and throw them back to their trainer.

    My goodness, observe dogs. They can be trained to do just about anything. In fact, far more than an ape or chimp. But I dont think they are next of kin either.

    Some animals can be easily domesticated. They provide food, milk and labor and thier hides and bones are used for shelter, clothing and protection. Why are some animals easily domesticated and why are some not? My logic says there is a reason, it was planned that way.

    Palm trees in the lush tropics produce coconuts. Palm trees in the deserts of the middle east produce dates. When the dates ripen, they transform into a fruit that has a high energy source for humans and require no refrigeration for over a year. They provide a source of food for those who live there that does not spoil in the blisteing heat. My logic says there is a reason for this and it is not a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.

    I watch a lot of foresnic science shows. DNA has become a very valuable tool in determining who is a suspect or not. In the areas of the DNA molecule used for these determinations, we find that there are cases where the DNA structure of a particular person is so rare, that only one person in a billion would have the same DNA structure. We also have been told that no two persons have identical finger prints. Yet with all these differences, we are still all humans. Mutants have either allowed genuses or those with Downs syndrome, but we are still humans.

    Observations of children show that they have some individual, born in traits, while other traits are taught as a result of thier environment. Scientific studies have tried to quantify these inbred traits versus those taught. Although some of this has to be subjective, the studies have shown up to 40 percent of a persons traits are inbred. Science has not been able to determine from a study of DNA why this occurs. They state that they could clone Tiger Woods from a physical standpoint, but it would not be possible to determine if the clone would ever be able to play golf like Tiger. Think about it, this world would be a boring place if we were all alike and there would be no real learing because everyone would be a robot.

    So as you can see, your use of the word pseudoscience only applies if you are so narrow minded as to think that everyone should see things as you do. I know from any history book you want to use that people are different, think different, have different logic, have different reasoning and observe things differently, so I know that everyone will not see things as I do.
    Yujikid
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by yujikid
    So as you can see, your use of the word pseudoscience only applies if you are so narrow minded as to think that everyone should see things as you do. I know from any history book you want to use that people are different, think different, have different logic, have different reasoning and observe things differently, so I know that everyone will not see things as I do.
    His use of the word "pseudoscience" was spot on. There simply *is* an objective reality that *can* be observed. Regardless of how you "see things," this reality has a given set of qualities and characteristics -whether it be your dates or your elephants. Those that fail to think critically, and stop only at the close-minded thought process of believing that because something appears designed it, therefore, must be, are using "pseudoscience" if they claim that what they observe is scientific evidence of anything.

    However, one who observes that a date is useful and therefore is evidence for something other than its evolutionary success may simply be ignorant of science. If that person's beliefs work for that person in his day-to-day life, more power to him. But if that person should wish to make anti-science comments in public forum just to satisfy whatever religious superstitions he holds, the term "ignorant" is useful and expected.

    In the end, it doesn't matter how you think or reason, the natural world is what it is. Evolution really happened, independent of the human fallibility of perception. Science has tested it as a concept time and again and has yet to be demonstrated wrong. No other explanation has manifested itself as legitimate or viable. Life, as we know it, is either the result of Darwinian evolution or something else not yet thought of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore CaveatLector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Turn left at the second light, three houses down on the right. You can't miss it.
    Posts
    152
    yujikid, I'm not exactly sure what "training" has to do with anything.
    Goldfish can be trained.

    As for the rest of your post, from what I can decipher, it seems you're hung up on the interdependence or consanguinity of organisms throughout this little blue marble we call Earth.
    While differences exist between virtually every member of a species, breed, or race, (however slight, as you would have to discount similarities for entire kingdoms in body plans, reproduction, internal structure, etc…) there is one thing that remains true for every being, structure, or organism—whether plant or animal—WE ARE ALL MADE UP OF THE SAME “STUFF.”

    "I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true."

    Carl Sagan
    .
    .
    .
    Cogito, ergo doleo.

    There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.
    Oscar Levant
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    41
    Skinwalker Wrote:

    But if that person should wish to make anti-science comments in public forum just to satisfy whatever religious superstitions he holds, the term "ignorant" is useful and expected.
    I have said before that I do not have degrees in science, so that does make me ignorant of the details of some fields of science.

    But the real difference between what you observe and what I observe is that you strickly look at the mechanics, while I see reason and logic for what is here.

    While I am ignorant of a lot of the mechanics, a fitting word for one who only looks at the mechanics and cannot ask why is arrogance.
    Yujikid
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by yujikid
    But the real difference between what you observe and what I observe is that you strickly look at the mechanics, while I see reason and logic for what is here.
    There is no "reason" for what exists beyond continued procreation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    945
    The
    reason and logic
    is the natural selection at its best,
    The prunes survive in the hot climate, because when they were evolving,

    Those who survived the hot weather had more successful reproduction, passing on this development, with another plant. And passed on that successful mutation.

    Over so many years, it has become a given feature. Your right the plant survives because logic says it be wise to be able to survive, the how is evolution.
    Stumble on through life.
    Feel free to correct any false information, which unknown to me, may be included in my posts. (also - let this be a disclaimer)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,667
    Palm trees in the lush tropics produce coconuts. Palm trees in the deserts of the middle east produce dates. When the dates ripen, they transform into a fruit that has a high energy source for humans and require no refrigeration for over a year. They provide a source of food for those who live there that does not spoil in the blisteing heat.
    Hmm, those palm trees were created for their own good. By evolution.
    Hard shell to protect themselves from the fall out of a tree.
    Then to be taken by the sea. They float.
    Then they start to turn into a plant, during it's sea travel.
    It's shell keeps protecting it from fish / sun / sea.
    It doesn't rot because it's a living plant/seed.
    Then it ends up on another beach. It roots itself in the deep soil and sometimes they find fresh water so they can grow.
    Most of the times the food in the coconut depletes and the plant dies.

    Seemed to be a great way to reproduce.. there are loads of palms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Interpretation 
    New Member prophet20:9's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2
    His use of the word "pseudoscience" was spot on. There simply *is* an objective reality that *can* be observed. Regardless of how you "see things," this reality has a given set of qualities and characteristics -whether it be your dates or your elephants.
    The evidence may be all the same, but the interpretation of the evidence is based on two things: the evidence and the interpreter's own personal agenda. Richard Lewontin said in an article in New York Review,
    "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (9 Jan. 1997 pg. 31)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    It would be presumptuous of me to take issue with one of the fathers of population genetics.

    However, I am a presumptuous bastard. [I should also like to have seen this particular quote, provided by prophet 20:9, in context. That might rather have changed its meaning.]

    I believe Lewontin has missed the point. He is correct that science restricts itself to looking for physical, or in his vocabulary, material, explanations for phenomena. He appears to view this as a shortcoming. That is just silly.

    The scope of science is to investigate physcial phenomena. Full stop. Period. That is its raison d'etre; its role; its function. Lewontin's criticism is reminiscent of the creationists who fault evolution theory for failing to account for the origin of life, or of the Universe. In both instances there is simply no connection. Science is not meant to find spiritual explanations because that is not what it investigates. Theories of evolution are not meant to account for the origin of life, for that is not within their scope.

    In short his description of the restrictions of science are accurate. His conclusions of the significance of these are in gross error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    The question becomes: is there a "phenomenal world?" Are so-called mystical experiences merely physical phenomena misunderstood? Without at least an attempt at inquiry, the answer cannot be had, and this is where religious/mystical types draw their lines in the sand. They don't want science looking at them lest science reveal the man behind the curtain.

    But, in an effort to get the thread back on topic, I think we are all still waiting on some specific examples of Conflicts and assumptions of evolution theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    945
    i read that quote. i read it in full. im not really in a position to start a detailed critisim of it, in relation to the aforemetioned points. so i wont.

    but i took it to mean, that the writter has decided to slate science for wat it cant do.

    if you want to make a direct comparrision

    the theory of evolution cannot be proved, its still a theory. thats not in question really. theres a great likely hood it is, to me, perhaps not to others.

    Their trust and confidence in the theory of evolution has been strong, even though the evidence would have indicated many times on the contrary
    the gods out there, they are theory, belifes which
    no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated
    people still belive.

    i see parelles there of the highest degree, and wonder again if they can really say that "our theory is unproved" for various reasons. but that "theres" is true?

    i can't even prove the likelyhood that the theory is true, by my highschol standard, using embryotic comparision, or palentology of the arms and feet. dosent mean its not.
    Stumble on through life.
    Feel free to correct any false information, which unknown to me, may be included in my posts. (also - let this be a disclaimer)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •