Jump to content


Photo

What Is The "scientific" Theory Of Evolution....?


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#81 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 February 2016 - 03:12 PM

You really need to stop quoting things out of context.

The full article is available online, there's no excuse for this kind of shenanigan.
 

 

oh brother, here we go again.  Thanks for the "FULL" article;  Ahhh, where do you suppose I got it from initially?

 

 

First, genetic change is random.

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy:  where'd you get Genes??  Start Here...

 

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from: Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
 
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !
 
Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room... 
 
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

 

 

Second, genetic change is gradual.

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy:  SEE Above

 

 

Third, following genetic change

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy.  SEE: above, above.

 

 

natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.

 

 

Reification Fallacy: "Natural Selection is a "CONCEPT" i.e., "Non-Physical".  It doesn't: lead, dance the hootchy cootchy, smile, swim, play cards, run, dream, direct, eat, drive, make bread boxes, stumble, read, see, hear, taste, predict, ad nauseam.

 

If you consider natural selection "Physical", then please post it's: Chemical Formula/Structure, Dimensions (L/W/H), and Location...?

 

 

I'll leave it as an exercise to you to actually read the specifics of how and to what degree those things were disproved

 

 

Doesn't something have to "Proved" first to then avail the opportunity to be "Disproved" ??

 

So before you go in detail about the Rib Eye Steak, please establish the existence of the cow first.  (SEE: first response.)

 

 

but I'll spoil for you that nowhere in that article does it say that mutations and natural selection don't happen, just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did.

 

 

Ergo... it's a Rescue Hypothesis (Quintessential Characteristic of Pseudo-Science) in a feeble attempt to save the previous fairytale, right?  Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Is it now gonna be the "Modern--Modern Synthesis" ??  And 'synthesis' of exactly what, pray tell....?



#82 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 03 February 2016 - 04:20 PM

oh brother, here we go again.  Thanks for the "FULL" article;  Ahhh, where do you suppose I got it from initially?

I assumed you just didn't bother to read the rest once you'd found a sentence you liked, rather than that you'd read and understood the whole thing and were being intentionally dishonest. My bad, I guess?
 

Begging The Question Fallacy:  where'd you get Genes??  Start Here...

No, let's start with the fact that the ideas "That is not what the article says" and "What the article says is correct" are two different things. I am only here about one of those ideas.

Doesn't something have to "Proved" first to then avail the opportunity to be "Disproved" ??

First, no, not at all. Second, you were the one who brought "disproved" in to the conversation.

#83 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 February 2016 - 09:08 AM

I assumed you just didn't bother to read the rest once you'd found a sentence you liked, rather than that you'd read and understood the whole thing and were being intentionally dishonest. My bad, I guess?
 

 

You know what happens when you "assume", right?

 

I read, in it's entirety...multiple times if need be, every single last Citation I reference.  

 

 

No, let's start with the fact that the ideas "That is not what the article says" and "What the article says is correct" are two different things. I am only here about one of those ideas.

 

 

It does say that....

 

"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been DISPROVED. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis; one that would allow a reintegration of physiological science with evolutionary biology."---Denis Noble

 

The Modern Synthesis introduced several changes in how evolution and evolutionary processes were conceived. It proposed a new definition of evolution as "changes in allele frequencies within populations , " thus emphasizing the genetic basis of evolution. (Alleles are alternate forms of the same gene, characterized by differences in DNA sequence that result in the construction of proteins that differ in amino acid composition.) Four forces of evolution were identified as contributing to changes in allele frequencies. These are random genetic drift, gene flow, mutation pressure, and natural selection . {Emphasis Mine}

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Modern_Synthesis.aspx

 

 

First, no, not at all. 

 

 

 

Really??  So you can "Disprove" something that hasn't be Proved.  Give an example...?

 

 

Second, you were the one who brought "disproved" in to the conversation.

 

 

Na, Denis Noble did.

 

Moreover, let's take a look @ what you said your last post...

 

Popoi-- "but I'll spoil for you that nowhere in that article does it say that mutations and natural selection don't happen...." just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did."

 

I NEVER said or Implied that the Article says that Mutations and Natural Selection don't happen.  I was using the Quote to quite plainly say.... that in "The Context" of  "The Modern Synthesis" (Neo-Darwinism) they have been DISPROVED.

 

 

MOREOVER, This is quite telling...

 

Popoi- ".... just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did."

 

So ahhh, if now the paper is discussing Natural Selection and Mutations OUTSIDE the framework of the "The Modern Synthesis"....Which by definition is OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT of  "The Modern Synthesis".... can you tell me, How on Earth I "Quote Mined" it, since "Quote Mining" by definition...is taking it "OUT OF CONTEXT".....??

 

Can't wait to hear your answer to that one.  :gotcha:



#84 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 04 February 2016 - 10:36 AM

It does say that....
 
"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been DISPROVED. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis; one that would allow a reintegration of physiological science with evolutionary biology."---Denis Noble

The Modern Synthesis introduced several changes in how evolution and evolutionary processes were conceived. It proposed a new definition of evolution as "changes in [/size]allele frequencies within [/size]populations , " thus emphasizing the genetic basis of evolution. (Alleles are alternate forms of the same gene, characterized by differences in DNA sequence that result in the construction of proteins that differ in amino acid composition.) Four forces of evolution were identified as contributing to changes in allele frequencies. These are random genetic drift, gene flow,[/size] mutation pressure, and [/size]natural selection . {Emphasis Mine}[/size]
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Modern_Synthesis.aspx[/size]

Why are you trying to use a different source's definition of the Modern Synthesis? The article explains exactly what the author is talking about when he says "all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis". The statement you quoted is only a reflection of the author's views and expertise within the context of those definitions.
 

Really??  So you can "Disprove" something that hasn't be Proved.  Give an example...?

I am a cat.
Dogs do not exist.
The Earth is hollow and there's another civilization living inside.

Why on earth would you think you have to prove something true before you can prove it false?
 

Na, Denis Noble did.

Why would you post someone claiming to have disproved something if you think it had to be proved first?
 

Moreover, let's take a look @ what you said your last post...
 
Popoi-- "but I'll spoil for you that nowhere in that article does it say that mutations and natural selection don't happen...." just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did."
 
I NEVER said or Implied that the Article says that Mutations and Natural Selection don't happen.  I was using the Quote to quite plainly say.... that in "The Context" of  "The Modern Synthesis" (Neo-Darwinism) they have been DISPROVED.

This is what you said:

"Neo-Darwinism" ='s Natural Selection and Mutations. They,"have been DISPROVED".

Natural selection and mutations haven't been disproved, at least not as far as the article is concerned. Specific elements of those things that were held true by the Modern Synthesis have.
 
If you intended to say the latter, I am willing to downgrade my objection to your post to "your statement was poorly phrased and misleading".
 

MOREOVER, This is quite telling...
 
Popoi- ".... just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did."

So ahhh, if now the paper is discussing Natural Selection and Mutations OUTSIDE the framework of the "The Modern Synthesis"....Which by definition is OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT of  "The Modern Synthesis".... can you tell me, How on Earth I "Quote Mined" it, since "Quote Mining" by definition...is taking it "OUT OF CONTEXT".....??

Can't wait to hear your answer to that one.  :gotcha:

The article is making a statement about the Modern Synthesis, which it goes on to define. If you're taking the statement and presenting it without that definition, you are exactly taking it out of its original context.

#85 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 February 2016 - 11:24 AM

Why are you trying to use a different source's definition of the Modern Synthesis? 
 

 

1.  I only used ONE source.

 

2. You just unwittingly imploded the entire fiasco.  Why on Earth would there be different definitions of " The Modern Synthesis" (aka: neo-darwinism) to begin with??  :think:

 

Can you tell me how this is not Equivocating (Fallacy)?

 

 

 

The article explains exactly what the author is talking about when he says "all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis". The statement you quoted is only a reflection of the author's views and expertise within the context of those definitions.

 

 

Let's play the Equivocation Fallacy Game.

 

 

ENOCH 2021 ---   So you can "Disprove" something that hasn't be Proved.

 

 

Popoi---

 

1. I am a cat.

2. Dogs do not exist.
3. The Earth is hollow and there's another civilization living inside.

 

 

1.  Was it ever "Proved" you were a Cat, first?

 

2. ???

 

3. Was it ever "Proved" that the Earth was hollow, first? 

 

 

Why on earth would you think you have to prove something true before you can prove it false?

 

 

Because "DIS"- PROVE is the Antithesis of "PROVE" i.e., to disprove something it has to have some modicum of proof to begin with.

 

You can't "DIS-embark" before you have "EMBARKED".

 

You can't "DIS-connect" before you have "CONNECTED". 

 

"True/False" is a Straw Man Fallacy.  Something can be flat out False, that has never been remotely proven....  Like "Pigs Fly"...that's just false, it has never been remotely proven to begin with, so as to attempt to disprove.

 

 

This is what you said: "Neo-Darwinism" ='s Natural Selection and Mutations. They,"have been DISPROVED".
 

1. Natural selection and mutations haven't been disproved, at least not as far as the article is concerned. 2.  Specific elements of those things that were held true by the Modern Synthesis have.

 

 

Well I was speaking to #2 and never remotely implied that DENIS NOBLE (The Article) said any such thing as it relates to #1.

 

However, In the "Context" of REALITY: Natural Selection is a Refication Fallacy and Mutations are a Begging The Question Fallacy.

 
 

If you intended to say the latter, I am willing to downgrade my objection to your post to "your statement was poorly phrased and misleading".

 

 

It wasn't, it was just 'Head-Space and Timing' of the Operator.

 

"The article is making a statement about the Modern Synthesis, which it goes on to define. If you're taking the statement and presenting it without that definition, you are exactly taking it out of its original context."

 

 

So there's more than 1 Definition, eh?  SEE: Equivocation Fallacy above.

 

I suppose the reason there's different definitions is directly due to not having a Viable "Scientific Theory" of evolution.

 

regards



#86 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,443 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 February 2016 - 12:39 PM

 

 

Enoch:I suppose the reason there's different definitions is directly due to not having a Viable "Scientific Theory" of evolution

 

Mostly it is a chronological failure of evolution, a failure to explain the facts. By toying with what it means that acts as a red-herring to take away the obvious conclusion that evolution has to evolve in order to survive as a theory. Let's face it, that is the only thing that has ever evolved. :D

 

More gas goes into evolution than there does cars in your town. That;s how it works - people treated it as a proven fact in history, which basically means they created a neurotic scientific agreement that it was factual and Darwin had found it out. 

 

So it was, "accepted" then any problems with it are explained by the following rhetoric; "well we know we evolved it's just not always easy to say how".

 

That is the type of sophistry they use to cover over the fact that these problems actually falsify evolution. The facts point away from evolution, generally yet they all agree neurotically with each other that it is a proven fact.

 

Why do they do that? I think they believe they "have enough" to conclude evolution happened but logically they don't have 1% of "enough", in actual fact, because the burden-of-proof is very great pertaining to great claims. 

 

It really is a case of people talking themselves into evolution being a fact.



#87 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 06 February 2016 - 01:11 PM

1.  I only used ONE source.

And that source was different than the source of your quote.

 

2. You just unwittingly imploded the entire fiasco.  Why on Earth would there be different definitions of " The Modern Synthesis" (aka: neo-darwinism) to begin with??  :think:
 
Can you tell me how this is not Equivocating (Fallacy)?

It seems like you're the one equivocating by assuming that anything that claims to be a definition of the modern synthesis will apply to a specific quote, as opposed to using the explicit definition that the source of that quote used. How do we know that Denis Noble would agree with the definition you posted?
 

Because "DIS"- PROVE is the Antithesis of "PROVE" i.e., to disprove something it has to have some modicum of proof to begin with.
 
You can't "DIS-embark" before you have "EMBARKED".
 
You can't "DIS-connect" before you have "CONNECTED". 
 
"True/False" is a Straw Man Fallacy.  Something can be flat out False, that has never been remotely proven....  Like "Pigs Fly"...that's just false, it has never been remotely proven to begin with, so as to attempt to disprove.

I would have thought you of all people would consult a dictionary before you pursued this tangent.

Simple Definition of disprove
: to show that (something) is false or wrong

See also: disallow, dislike, distrust.
 

Well I was speaking to #2 and never remotely implied that DENIS NOBLE (The Article) said any such thing as it relates to #1.

You posted the quote from Noble immediately before your conclusion. It's pretty difficult not to see that as intending for one to imply the other.
 

So there's more than 1 Definition, eh?  SEE: Equivocation Fallacy above.

If there's more than one definition, attempting to use a different one than the source of a quote intended is equivocation, yes. I am attempting to correct that error on your part.
 

I suppose the reason there's different definitions is directly due to not having a Viable "Scientific Theory" of evolution.

Different statements of a theory can be useful for different purposes. The laws of thermodynamics can be stated a bunch of different ways depending on what you're talking about and from what perspective, even though they're all at least attempting to talk about the same things.

In this case, I'm not sure that Noble was attempting to provide the be-all end-all definition of the modern synthesis, just enumerating the claims it contains that he thinks have been refuted.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users