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 ...
>>But did you ever wonder why Darwinism’s general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution?<<
If there were a better theory than moden evolutionary synthesis, then the biofood, biochemistry and biomedicine industries would not be based on it.
we’ll know that ID or some other theory is better when they start developing new drugs based on ID.
Its sort of like global warming - people can claim the earth is not warming but the seas are rising. When the seas start dropping you’ll know global warming is over.
You should stop having dirty thoughts there snoogums.
And you accuse others of being perverts???
Just demonstrating his "intellectual superiority", as usual.
Are you going to provide evidence to back up your assertions as every good scientist should?
Kindly demonstrate that creationism and creationists are what swung the elections and pushed people to vote for obama.
That's a crap excuse anyway. People voted liberal because they are. Anyone who claims that the creation issue is what did it, is lying to cover for the fact that they are really liberal and blame shifting to make it look like it's not their fault.
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. “An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila”, Nature 23:289-292.
[Haa, haaaaa, haa, HEEEEE! So, they’re using the well known fact that different STRAINS....STRAINS.....STRAINS —— not SPECIES, but STRAINS, STRAINS, STRAINS, STRAINS, can often produce STERILITY -— STERILITY, which is an evolutionary DEAD END, ergo.....
No new species. Just dead ends. Some rather strong evidence that Darwinism can produce evolutionary dead ends, but no new SPECIES (once more, with feeling now): SPECIES, SPECIES, SPECIES...not STRAINS, STRAINS, STRAINS, or VARIETIES, or KINDS or RACES.
Then they say that “artificial selection” induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
Ah, what kind of selection again? Doesn’t Darwinian evolution require NATURAL SELECTION (i.e., blind selection by nature alone, meaning without the aid of a conscious intelligent researcher stage-managing anything) Yes! Darwinian evolution requires NATURAL (not ARTIFICIAL) selection.
I’m certainly willing to agree to the notion that life on Earth was “induced” by a researcher named GOD practicing ARTIFICIAL SELECTION. I could even accept (from a logical point of view) the notion that Martians practiced “artificial selection” on terrestrial life to breed new species-—human animal breeders have been doing that with available animal stocks for centuries, and in fact, their craft was precisely what influenced Darwin to invent his theory.
Unfortunately for the know-nothings at TalkOrigins.com, their example disproves Darwinism and points instead to intelligently-directed, “stage-managed” causation.]
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate “race” of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)
(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. “Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)”, Evolution 21:713-719”
[HEE, HEE, HEE, ha, ha, ha!!!! He just admitted that polyploids (doubled chromosomes) are, in fact, considered to be THE SAME SPECIES as the non-polyploids; just a different RACE (A “race” of plant? I think he means “variety” or “strain.”)
The “mating test” for speciation is a non-test, or at best, an inconclusive test. Wolves are considered to be a different species from dogs, yet both will mate and produce viable offspring. So what. Conversely, Chihauha’s don’t mate with Great Danes, yet both are considered to be of the same species. Again, so what.]
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)”
[This is question begging. The author merely asserts “rapid speciation” of the mouse, and then justifies it by claiming that the test was one of “morphology.” “Morphology” also proves that Chihauhas and Great Danes are different “species”, yet they are not. They are different varieties, or strains, or “races”, or “types”, or “kinds”, of the SAME SPECIES. Same for the next example on the TalkOrigins.com site, and so much for the use of morphology as an acid test of speciation.
“Horses” (E. Caballus) and “Donkeys” (E. Asinus) are different species, yet they can mate and produce “Mules” which are sterile, but useful. Nevertheless, they are evolutionary dead ends.
In 1956, the same guy TalkOrigins.com quotes above - Dobzhansky - wrote an article in “American Naturalist” in which he claims that there are several different “species” of fruit flies that have NO morphological differences...so what good is morphology as a test of speciation now, eh? TalkOrigins is really claiming this: “We’ll use the interbreeding-test when it suits us in one set of circumstances to prove new speciation; then we’ll use morphology when it suits us in another set of circumstances to prove speciation.” A scientific version of “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
Additionally, regarding “interbreeding” as a criterion: (i) no one knows a thing about the interbreeding habits — assuming they even existed — of all the EXTINCT animal and plant species; and (ii) in large areas of the plant and animal kingdoms, there is no “breeding” at all in the sexual sense, reproduction being accomplished through non-sexual means such as agamospermy.
For your theory to work, you can’t introduce a series of sterile dead ends, and you can’t introduce artificial selection. You need RANDOMNESS in mutation, and BLINDNESS (i.e., “natural”) in selection. Otherwise you are trying to sneak in elements of DETERMINISM (which is non-Darwinian) or CONSCIOUS GOAL DIRECTEDNESS (which is non-Darwinian).
TalkOrigins.com is one of the most ignorant and knee-jerk sites on the Web having to do with Darwinism and alternative theories (including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design). It’s about as reliable a source on the subject of Origins as The Huffington Post is reliable on the subject of politics. That you would rely on this site for your argument proves how little you understand about the entire debate and the issues involved in it.
Regarding fruit flies, I want to see a BEE or a WASP emerge from all that radiation zapping; not just a “strain” or a “race” or a “variety” of another fruit fly that can’t mate with other fruit flies because it has legs sprouting from its head.
I love Darwinians. Debating them is like debating liberals.
Read Ann Coulter’s book “Godless” for a pretty good summary of Darwinism, Intelligent Design, and the skirmishes — scientific, logical, and legal — between the two.]
“If there is debate, then it is not Science.”
I think the 'big bang' is still echoing.
But, because this is also confirmed by the Judaic book of Genesis, they have to reject it in their psychotic religious pursuit to disprove the Bible at all costs, even if it means denying their evolutionist religion!
They just want to set themselves up in a temple for others to genuflect before an assumed divinity.
Oh, the irony!
The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by so-called atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same.
Naturalism = HETEROSEXUALITY
Let's try the question professor...
Yeah, the evos claiming to be conservatives, all the while proceeding with their anti-God agenda by pushing God out of public life and giving their approval to groups like the NEA and ACLU in their anti-Christian efforts, IS a real stain on conservatism.
human animal breeders have been doing that with available animal stocks for centuries, and in fact, their craft was precisely what influenced Darwin to invent his theory.
And for all the centuries of deliberate manipulation of species by mankind, by whatever means, there's still nothing new under the sun.
He just admitted that polyploids (doubled chromosomes) are, in fact, considered to be THE SAME SPECIES as the non-polyploids; just a different RACE (A race of plant? I think he means variety or strain.)
Semantics play a large role in *proving* evolution. If they can claim ANYTHING is a new species, they think that they can *prove* (or prove beyond a reasonable doubt) that the ToE has to be true.
Except that *proving beyond a reasonable doubt*, is a legal standard; it's not science.
Well use the interbreeding-test when it suits us in one set of circumstances to prove new speciation; then well use morphology when it suits us in another set of circumstances to prove speciation. A scientific version of Heads I win, tails you lose.
You're correct -- GGG has repeatedly refused to answer questions about his educational and work background. When educated people refute the stupid articles he links to, he calls them all sorts of foul names.
He doesn't understand the articles that he spams, he doesn't understand that the Bible does not contradict science, he does not understand basic logic, and he does not understand rational rebuttuls. But he does know how to call you a believer in "atheist science" and a "worshipper at the Temple of Darwin Cult.
That's setting the wrong thing up as the absolute standard. Science often contradicts itself.
Until someone can be totally positive, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that science is true, correct, fact, the last word, there's no way that it can be used to be the standard by which everything is measured.
The thinking that science is *right* by default, and Scripture is *wrong* by default when the two are at odds, has no basis at all, nor does it have any precedence that supports it. It's merely a preference based on one philosophical outlook.
By "re-engineered" are you referring to an injection of Intelligent Design or variation and natural selection over time?
I think you mean "young earth" creationists. God could have created the universe through the Big Bang and man through evolution. That's not inconsistent with Genesis, unless you take the literal "day" thing seriously.
Humans have them because?
But this is all speculation, and it can be turned around just as easlily:
My dog holds down his (doggy-bone) "prey" with his paws while switching to a better grip with his teeth. But his (dead and immobile) bone keeps slipping and sliding away. His maladroit incompetence is really hilarious.
Why, after 300 million years of the magic of evolution, do canines have such crappy paws?
Or, turned back, why didn't God design him more effectively?
The fact is, we don't know. We have only the thinnest shred of knowledge. The paleontologist I respect most answers questions 95% of the time with with "maybe this or maybe that, but we don't really know."
Astronomy debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because creationists disagree with its findings.
Physics debate continues; because it is not science? No. Because creationists disagree with its findings.