Skip to comments.Evolution debate persists because it's not science
Posted on 02/22/2009 10:58:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Monday, Feb. 23, 2009
Evolution debate persists because it's not science
By Raymond H. Kocot
But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.
Because confirmable observations and generating experimental data are impossible for unique events like life's origin and macroevolution theory, world-famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr prompts evolutionists to construct historical narratives to try to explain evolutionary events or processes. In other words, stories are all evolutionists can muster to support macroevolution theory. If macroevolution theory, which must rest on faith in a story and is considered to be scientific, why not the creation story. With that in mind, it is no wonder the molecules-to-man debate has persisted for 150 years...
(Excerpt) Read more at myrtlebeachonline.com ...
Non-British scientists recognized Piltdown as a “composite,” but it took four decades for someone to get permission to test the Piltdown materials and determine they had been artificially stained and filed.
Much has been made in pseudoscientific circles about the position of Archae within the evolutionary scheme of things. The usual “argument” put forward is that Archae cannot be a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it is a bird. This simplistic line belies the fact that, whilst Archae is indeed classified as a bird, it has been done so on the strength of 4 main characters - 2 of which are not unique to birds. This classification ignores the fact that Archae has numerous characters which are unique, unique in that they are not possessed by birds. Archae’s avian affinities are allowable on the strength of the following 4 main characters:
It took decades for the technology to develope to accurately test.
It was recognized by scientist right away to be a fake.
“Almost from the outset, Woodward’s reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged. At the Royal College of Surgeons copies of the same fragments used by the British Museum in their reconstruction were used to produce an entirely different model, one that in brain size and other features resembled modern man. Despite these differences however, it does not appear that the possibility of outright forgery arose in connection with the skull.
Approximately 1915, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the jaw was from an ape. Similarly, American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown’s jaw came from a fossil ape.
In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct.
In 1915, Dawson claimed to have found fragments of a second skull (Piltdown II) at a site about two miles away from the original finds. So far as is known the site has never been identified and the finds appear to be entirely undocumented. Woodward does not appear ever to have visited the site.
You are quite correct. Animus from those who have set themselves up as enemies is one of the sincerest forms of flattery.
Are you being purposefully enigmatic? Threatening? Clever? Or is it just none of my business? If the latter, just tell me. If any of the former, please explain; I'm slow.
When you see the Admin Monitor CC’d, you are on the endangered list.
Piltdown was spotted immediately as a false interpretation. Elaborate hoaxes are rather rare in science, so when additional specimens were found, people tended to believe Dawson, the finder. Having Catholic monk along for one of the finds added to his credibility.
De Chardin remained silent on Piltdown for forty years, never mentioning in his writings what should have been the highlight of his career — assuming he didn’t know it was a hoax.
The hoax ruined the careers of several people who trusted them.
Science: the study of OBSERVABLE phenomena
But those who cling bitterly to their evo-religious belief in their own primordial soup origins (see tag line) simply don't like the definition, so they have added the notion that they can THEORIZE all they want and still call it "science".
Despite the fact the fact that the macroevo theory is NOT obeservable, testable, or repeatable.
But they will continue to banter.
And I will continue to laugh at them.
Laugh you may but the train of progress has left leaving you at the platform.
>>I dont get what the big push is about evolution. Its at least as plausable that we evolved over millions of years and that life was conjured out of thin air and we were created from dust.<<
Actually, that is not true. It is, frankly, literally impossible for something like DNA and it’s actual functionality to evolve. Throwing more years and adding zeros to the “odds” number just doesn’t help. Eventually, the number is effectively “zero”.
I do know that if my chances of winning the lottery were 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 I wouldn’t buy a ticket.
I swear that if we could develop a microscope so powerful that we could actually find a manufacturers serial number on a strand of DNA some evolutionist would say the number “evolved”.
Holding “progressive” views is not something I will ever miss.
enjoy your theoretical ride
The TOE train has, literally, gone backward for 150 years.
I guess we can all pack up our science books and just get our facts from you.
Blame shifting is not a responsible response.
You brought that up right out of the blue; nobody held a gun to your head and made you post that. You weren’t provoked and it wasn’t in response to any other post referring to the subject matter.
I guess anyone that rides a Harley is not about progress.
No argument from me there either.....