A Nice Explanation of Why "Evolution" is Nonsense

[Votto]

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, proven by the DNA in every cell in your body. Proven by millions of fossils in the geologic record. Abiogenesis is still not well understood, however the problem is not how it occurred, but which of the multiplicity of ways in which it could have occurred.

No, there are ONLY theories in science.

Nothing is 100% safe because nothing is really proven outside a math class.

Try again.

 

[Votto]

Bullshit. Evolution is a fact, the theory is the driving force that creates evolution. Yes, we are taught to question everything in science, but bring evidence before you declare a well tested theory invalid. Thus far there has not been any valid evidence to show that evolution did not happen, and no evidence presented that Natural Selection is not part of the process. Mere flap yap by whackadoodles that immediately connect political beliefs to their opposition to scientific evidence is not acceptable evidence.

You entirely miss my point which is that you should be able to question ANYTHING in science and not fear your job and reputation by doing so.

Or do you not agree?

 

[Votto]

Nothing in the current Theory of Evolution negates the existence of G-d. It merely challenges a literal translation of Beresheit (The Book of Genesis to y'all).

If we accept that G-d didn't literally make man from clay and woman from a rib then another explanation is required. Evolution is a mechanism that we know exists in nature where random genetic mutations (which we know happen frequently) are passed to offspring which may, or may not, contribute to its ability to pass those mutations on to its own offspring.

This is a powerful biological force that could very well be the tool used by G-d to create our world and possibly many others.

We CAN believe that G-d sculpts every creature (including the mutation) individually from clay every moment of every day -- OR -- we could CAN believe that G-d uses the powerful tools already working in the universe to work smart, not just hard.

But, most important, it doesn't really matter what you (or anyone else) believe regarding the creation of life in this universe. Your personal belief will have no impact on the processes that continue to mold life in that universe.

I don't really care which perspective you have on the issue, whether God did it or otherwise.

There are underlying mysteries here that will never be fully answered.

To suggest otherwise is arrogant and moronic.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sorry, not an observation that contradicts evolutionary theory.

How do you know? how do you decide if an observation contradicts empirical expectations? You don't you regard observations as being two kinds:

1. Observations that are consistent with empirical evolutionary expectations.
2. Observations that only apparently disagree with empirical expectations.

So the good stuff you keep, the bad stuff you classify as irrelevant, no matter what dramatic inexplicable counter evidence is presented you always dismiss it, the hypothesis cannot be falsified it is formulated in such a way that it is immune to critical analysis.

That's not scientific but then evolution is not a scientific theory.

Nor will you be presenting any.

Ever.

But you sure will repeat the lie, ad nauseum, that it exists.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is a "non sequitur".

It's useless, irrelevant, and can be ignored.

Like I'm going to ignore you.

It's also a weird lie, since clearly the theory of abiogensis includes the correct premise that once there was no life.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's a theory. Just like the "theory" of gravity.

And just like gravity, it's supported by millions upon millions of reproducible and independently verifiable pieces of evidence.

Newtonian gravitation meets that criteria but stands falsified.

Like the pop-science fake that you are, you do not grasp the essence of scientific theory which is falsification. It doesn't matter how much some hypothesis agrees with observation, once it's falsified we can reject is a legitimate explanation.

Like all evolution cultists all you want to focus on is where hypothesis matches observation, where it doesn't you just dismiss that as irrelevant.

The evidence of overwhelming discontinuity revealed by the Cambrian explosion falsifies Darwinian evolution, get your head out of the sand.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact, proven by the DNA in every cell in your body. Proven by millions of fossils in the geologic record. Abiogenesis is still not well understood, however the problem is not how it occurred, but which of the multiplicity of ways in which it could have occurred.

The evidence form the Cambrian explosion is the complete absence of continuity expected from the purported process of natural selection.

That's evidence, as I've pointed out many times, the evolution cultists elevate hypothesis to fact and then they reject all falsifying evidence as only apparent.

No matter what objections are raised be they silly or compelling, it is met with the same response "Just because we don't know yet doesn't mean it's falsified".

But as someone just said above - if the hypothesis cannot be falsified then it's not scientific, that's a requirement for a true theory it has to state the criteria that would falsify it, evolution does not do that except where Darwin said this speaking of the Cambrian:

 

[alang1216]

The evidence of overwhelming discontinuity revealed by the Cambrian explosion falsifies Darwinian evolution, get your head out of the sand.

It hardly falsifies evolution, it just shows how poor the fossil record is from 500 million years ago. It is equally reasonable to say it proves evolution since suddenly (only a geologist could call tens of millions of years 'suddenly') new species appeared. There is zero evidence of new species appearing by any other process.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

It hardly falsifies evolution, it just shows how poor the fossil record is from 500 million years ago.

Classic, evolution cites the fossil evidence as one proof of evolution and when there's a dire absence of such evidence you claim the evidence would exist but was inexplicably not preserved.

Tell me what evidence can you present that shows the Cambrian fauna did evolve? None, without the fossils you have no evidence for the claim and you really can't go around demeaning those who point this out.

How do you know these untold millions of generations of evolving animal phylae actually ever existed at all?

There's nothing wrong with the fossil evidence, we have pre-Cambrian fossils of delicate jellyfish even amoeba, perfectly preserved, so why do you claim the missing fossils are not evidence of absence?

The situation is very clear, the fossil record shows that the Cambrian fauna (40+ phylae) arose almost spontaneously without any long drawn out evolutionary process, that's the most rational interpretation of the fossil record.

If the Cambrian fauna did not evolve we'd expect to see exactly what we do see in the fossil record!

The Cambrian fossils and the accompanying absence of credible precursors is a pattern repeated all over the earth, it seems to be universal, not just a local absence.

It is equally reasonable to say it proves evolution since suddenly (only a geologist could call tens of millions of years 'suddenly') new species appeared. There is zero evidence of new species appearing by any other process.

It is geologists and paleontologists who named this an "explosion" it is they who describe it as "sudden" I am just using terms that they use!

As for the "process" that gave rise to these animals, a true scientific thinker doesn't teach and promulgate a fairy story just because they don't know what actually happened, instead they say "I don't know" something the evolution cultists cannot bring themselves to admit.

They are as fanatically religious as the theological fundamentalists we see around us, insisting they know when they don't, insisting conjecture is fact, attacking anyone who dares to question their dogma, they are no better intellectually than those who imprisoned Galileo, dogma is dogma.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

 

[alang1216]

Classic, evolution cites the fossil evidence as one proof of evolution and when there's a dire absence of such evidence you claim the evidence would exist but was inexplicably not preserved.

Tell me what evidence can you present that shows the Cambrian fauna did evolve? None, without the fossils you have no evidence for the claim and you really can't go around demeaning those who point this out.

How do you know these untold millions of generations of evolving animal phylae actually ever existed at all?

There's nothing wrong with the fossil evidence, we have pre-Cambrian fossils of delicate jellyfish even amoeba, perfectly preserved, so why do you claim the missing fossils are not evidence of absence?

The situation is very clear, the fossil record shows that the Cambrian fauna (40+ phylae) arose almost spontaneously without any long drawn out evolutionary process, that's the most rational interpretation of the fossil record.

If the Cambrian fauna did not evolve we'd expect to see exactly what we do see in the fossil record!

The Cambrian fossils and the accompanying absence of credible precursors is a pattern repeated all over the earth, it seems to be universal, not just a local absence.

It is geologists and paleontologists who named this an "explosion" it is they who describe it as "sudden" I am just using terms that they use!

As for the "process" that gave rise to these animals, a true scientific thinker doesn't teach and promulgate a fairy story just because they don't know what actually happened, instead they say "I don't know" something the evolution cultists cannot bring themselves to admit.

They are as fanatically religious as the theological fundamentalists we see around us, insisting they know when they don't, insisting conjecture is fact, attacking anyone who dares to question their dogma, they are no better intellectually than those who imprisoned Galileo, dogma is dogma.

Evolution has been confirmed in the more recent fossil record which, not surprisingly, is more complete than older eras. It has also been confirmed by other scientific disciplines. There is no good scientific reason to believe that natural processes occurring today are any different from those that gave rise to the Cambrian 'explosion'.

 

[alang1216]

This would be more impressive coming from a scientist and not a philosopher. Berlinski refuses to theorize about the origin of life so he claims he knows how life did NOT appear but won't say how if did appear.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This would be more impressive coming from a scientist and not a philosopher.

No, it wouldn't, no matter who I cite they're always "unqualified" to comment on evolution unless its to endorse it. I could cite chemists, molecular biologists all day but there would always be some reason why they can't be taken seriously.

Everything Berlinski said though its true, that's all that matters, not his qualifications.

Berlinski refuses to theorize about the origin of life so he claims he knows how life did NOT appear but won't say how if did appear.

He doesn't know how it appeared, nobody does, we do know that life-comes-only-from-life, that's the law of biogenesis perhaps the most empirically sound law in the sciences.

 

[alang1216]

No, it wouldn't, no matter who I cite they're always "unqualified" to comment on evolution unless its to endorse it. I could cite chemists, molecular biologists all day but there would always be some reason why they can't be taken seriously.

Everything Berlinski said though its true, that's all that matters, not his qualifications.

He doesn't know how it appeared, nobody does, we do know that life-comes-only-from-life, that's the law of biogenesis perhaps the most empirically sound law in the sciences.

So you admit that, while not perfect, evolution is the best theory we has to explain life?

 

[Moonglow]

"Evolution is a wonderful explanation for the living world around us that has no basis in scientific reality. Invoking millions of years and processes unknown and presently not reproducible, scientists simply say that it is a fact and like with the Covid/pangolin nexus, tell you to keep your mouth shut if you think otherwise."

The Biggest Lie of Them All

Exploring the biggest lie: evolution and its impact on belief and society.

townhall.com

Many of us have had similar reactions to the religion of Evolution, a religion that is believed most fervently by people with zero scientific background. This guy has the scientific chops to make the case more forcefully than most people, while stating his rationale in a way that is understandable to any literate reader.

Give it ten minutes; you will be glad you did.

The biggest lie is God loves you.

 

[scruffy]

It hardly falsifies evolution, it just shows how poor the fossil record is from 500 million years ago. It is equally reasonable to say it proves evolution since suddenly (only a geologist could call tens of millions of years 'suddenly') new species appeared. There is zero evidence of new species appearing by any other process.

We could get quantitative about this.

Should we do something simple?

T test?

p values?

Or should we go Bayesian and estimate the confidence of our beliefs using... I dunno... a gamma distribution?

 

[talanum1]

It has been demonstrated that a cell needs all it's parts, as is, for the cell to function and an in between state won't function, so it can't evolve.

 

[Votto]

The biggest lie is God loves you.

Nope, it's just you he doesn't care for that much.

 

[alang1216]

We could get quantitative about this.

Should we do something simple?

T test?

p values?

Or should we go Bayesian and estimate the confidence of our beliefs using... I dunno... a gamma distribution?

Go for it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and if the OP author wants to deny evolution, that's his business.

Definitely! If it makes him happy, I am happy for him.

But if he wants to toss his steaming pile of shit out on the table, then it is also everyone else's right to mock it.