Book: The Hoax Called Evolution

[reggieM]

The Story of Evolution

Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.

 

[rossum]

Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.

Evolution explains the biological part of observed reality. We observe flight in some birds, but not in others. Evolution explains why. All that you talk about is taken from observed reality, and evolution explains some of it. Any explanation of terrorism would have to include both politics and religion, which are not covered by evolution.

Creationism also explains exactly the same things, because creationism is an attempt to explain observed biological reality. Your attempted criticism of evolution fails because it is equally a criticism of creationism. Creationism also explains why some birds have flight and some birds do not and so on. Indeed, prior to Darwin, creationism was the accepted scientific explanation.

The difference is that there are potentially some things that evolution cannot explain - a living pegasus, a hexapod dragon or a Cambrian rabbit. Creationism’s problem as science is that it could also explain those things as well - “God did it that way.”

Evolution explains all that we have observed in biology and can in principle be falsified. Creationism also explains all that we have observed in biology but it can also explain all that we have not observed so it cannot in principle be falsified.

rossum

 

[liquidpele]

The Story of Evolution

Evolution explains more complexity, and more simplicity. It explains why flight arose in some birds, but was lost in others. With evolution, organs and genomes can become more complicated, or more streamlined. Eyes emerge through evolution, but eyes are also lost by evolution. Evolution makes the cheetah fast but the sloth slow. By evolution, dinosaurs grow to skyscraper size, and hummingbirds grow tiny. With evolution, peacocks grow more flashy and crows more black, giraffes tall and flatworms flat. Evolution explains predator and prey, loner and herder, light and dark, high and low, fast and slow, profligacy and stinginess, terrorism and altruism, religion and atheism, virtue and selfishness, psychosis and reason, extinction and fecundity, war and peace. Evolution explains everything.

Everything is a loaded word, but it sure does explain a lot.

 

[reggieM]

Evolution explains all that we have observed in biology and can in principle be falsified. Creationism also explains all that we have observed in biology but it can also explain all that we have not observed so it cannot in principle be falsified.

Evolution, in principle, cannot be falsified. A Cambrian rabbit can be explained in an evolutionary model. Any anomalous data can be fit into the story of evolution – as contradictory data already is force-fit into the theory today.

Many would compare evolution with belief in God’s creative power (as you seem to). Darwin created his theory in the hope of finding scientific proof against creation.

God, as the supreme being, first cause, source of all being and life itself, eternal, omnipotent (even as Newton describes God as the foundation of the universe and of science), does explain everything.

Evolutionary theory is a paradigm or world-view. It makes assertions based on observations:

“Dandelion flowers are often yellow in color”. “Horseshoe crabs show no morphological change for nearly 500 million years”.

Those are conditional statements based on observations. It’s not a theoretical construct.

As explained above, stating that something might have evolved or not, either quickly, slowly or imperceptibly, with no fossil or other evidence to support, using as the primary evidence, the imagination of an evolutionary theorist, leaves us with a “theory” which claims to explain everything.

That is precisely how the most prominent evolutionists in the world use the theory.

 

[reggieM]

Thanks Reggie.

Glad you enjoyed it, Buffalo.

I find that someone usually appreciates a duplicated post in a related thread because not everyone subscribes to every discussion that I’m involved in.

 

[buffalo]

Glad you enjoyed it, Buffalo.

I find that someone usually appreciates a duplicated post in a related thread because not everyone subscribes to every discussion that I’m involved in.

Exactly.

 

[rossum]

Evolution, in principle, cannot be falsified. A Cambrian rabbit can be explained in an evolutionary model.

How? A Cambrian Rabbit would falsify common descent since it would appear long before any of its supposed ancestors. The earliest mammals did not appear until long after the Cambrian. It would have had nothing to eat, since in the Cambrian all life was in water - there were no (other) land animals and no land plants. A Cambrian rabbit would not be a problem for creationism since God could have created rabbits wherever and whenever He wanted to. Evolution can only give us rabbits in places and times where there are ancestors to those rabbits already existing and the Cambrian was not such a time.

Any anomalous data can be fit into the story of evolution – as contradictory data already is force-fit into the theory today.

That is the nature of science. Theories change as new data comes in. Anomalies in the orbit of Mercury helped change the theory of gravity. For Newton’s gravity Mercury was a Cambrian rabbit; the theory was replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity.

Evolutionary theory is a paradigm or world-view.

Theism and creationism are also paradigms or world-views. How do you propose that I chose between the different world-views that are proposed? Currently I go with the world-view that is based on the observation of reality. We observe change over time in living populations. We observe change over time in the fossil record. We observe that almost all known species have ancestors earlier in the fossil record. Common descent has no known exceptions - that is why evolution could not explain a Cambrian rabbit, it would be an exception to common descent.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

Darwin created his theory in the hope of finding scientific proof against creation.

ReggieM, do you have evidence to back up this claim?

 

[mathematician]

Darwin created his theory in the hope of finding scientific proof against creation.

If Darwin was anything he was an agnostic. He certainly wasn’t a militant atheist, unlike many of his cheerleaders today. Here is an expression of his views on religion, written in his own words:

I am much obliged for the photograph of yourself and friend.f2 I am sure that you will excuse my writing at length, when I tell you that I have long been much out of health, and am now staying away from my home for rest. It is impossible to answer your question briefly; and I am not sure that I could do so, even if I wrote at some length. But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.

From a letter written 2 April 1873

 

[StAnastasia]

Theism and creationism are also paradigms or world-views. How do you propose that I chose between the different world-views that are proposed? Currently I go with the world-view that is based on the observation of reality./

But remember Rossum, “creationism” is not opposed to evolution, unless it is “anti-scientific creationism.” All Christians are creationists by definition, in that we believe the world is ontologically dependent for its creation upon a source outside itself. Not all of us who are creationists reject evolution as being the best current explanation for species diversity.

 

[Touchstone]

Evolution, in principle, cannot be falsified. A Cambrian rabbit can be explained in an evolutionary model. Any anomalous data can be fit into the story of evolution – as contradictory data already is force-fit into the theory today.

Just a single rabbit fossil, dated to such an early epoch, would falsify the theory. It would thus introduce mammalian structures at the head of the chain, rather than as late descendants from more primitive morphologies. If mammalian skeletons are found in the strata dated to be from the Archaean eon, Darwin would throw up his hands, and be confronted with the evidence that his ideas on origins were no more supportable in light of the evidence than his ideas on phlogiston.

If we don’t see a “tree” or a “bush” of hierarchical descent from more primitive forms in the evidence, evolutionary theory is falsified, and cannot be rescued. A 2.5Gya rabbit skeleton would be plenty enough to do it.

Many would compare evolution with belief in God’s creative power (as you seem to). Darwin created his theory in the hope of finding scientific proof against creation.

That’s

God, as the supreme being, first cause, source of all being and life itself, eternal, omnipotent (even as Newton describes God as the foundation of the universe and of science), does explain everything.

And, unlike the rabbit fossil from the Archaean, it really is an unfalsifiable proposition, having omnipotent magical powers to explain any phenomena, combined with inscrutable dynamics – God can do anything, any time, any way, for any reason.

This is a stark contrast with evolution, which is constrained to explanations that call on processes and entities that are empirically supported. There’s no magic allowed. Life evolves through step-wise, incremental changes that happen in a natural way, in accord with physical law.

Evolutionary theory is a paradigm or world-view. It makes assertions based on observations:

“Dandelion flowers are often yellow in color”. “Horseshoe crabs show no morphological change for nearly 500 million years”.

Those are conditional statements based on observations. It’s not a theoretical construct.

As explained above, stating that something might have evolved or not, either quickly, slowly or imperceptibly, with no fossil or other evidence to support, using as the primary evidence, the imagination of an evolutionary theorist, leaves us with a “theory” which claims to explain everything.

That is precisely how the most prominent evolutionists in the world use the theory.

It does not, conspicuously, explain the origin of living, reproducing organisms, in the first place. It only provides explanations given such are already in place, active in the environment. It does not explain the dynamics of the environment, gravity, entropy, energy flows, chemistry, etc, but relies on the conclusions and knowledge other scientific disciplines and theories. It’s a very robust explanation for the development of the presence and diversity of species we observe around us, and reflected through fossil and other evidence. But it sits like other theories in community with related theories that explain more fundamental and related phenomena.

-TS

 

[reggieM]

Just a single rabbit fossil, dated to such an early epoch, would falsify the theory. It would thus introduce mammalian structures at the head of the chain, rather than as late descendants from more primitive morphologies.

Actually, a very simple explanation can be given, just as it was given for many other contradictory elements. In this case, a single rabbit fossil. The explanation?

– “This finding shows that mamallian evolution occurred more rapidly than previously thought.”

— “The finding of a rabbit skeleton leads to many question and new opportunities for knowledge about the speed of evolutionary development.”

– “The rabbit skeleton surprised some scientists initially but it is certain that within the evolutionary paradigm, anything can happen and this skeleton helps bring together many of the missing pieces in the Cambrian era.”

– “This fossils proves that evolutionary development spans the widest historical range and many rabbit-like transitionals can be expected in the same era.”

— “It has already been certain that the fossil record was incomplete. Darwin’s theory, while not predicting this exactly was clearly open to this possiblity.”

God can do anything, any time, any way, for any reason.

I should have mentioned earlier that by shifting the topic to an attack on creationism, the main argument (that evolution explains everything) was abandoned.

 

[buffalo]

Actually, a very simple explanation can be given, just as it was given for many other contradictory elements. In this case, a single rabbit fossil. The explanation?

– “This finding shows that mamallian evolution occurred more rapidly than previously thought.”

— “The finding of a rabbit skeleton leads to many question and new opportunities for knowledge about the speed of evolutionary development.”

– “The rabbit skeleton surprised some scientists initially but it is certain that within the evolutionary paradigm, anything can happen and this skeleton helps bring together many of the missing pieces in the Cambrian era.”

– “This fossils proves that evolutionary development spans the widest historical range and many rabbit-like transitionals can be expected in the same era.”

— “It has already been certain that the fossil record was incomplete. Darwin’s theory, while not predicting this exactly was clearly open to this possiblity.”

I should have mentioned earlier that by shifting the topic to an attack on creationism, the main argument (that evolution explains everything) was abandoned.

Yes - like the Dino soft tissue. We never thought it could last 60 million years but it must have. We will now go to work to prove it did. How much should the taxpayers pay to fund this? 1 million - 10 million - 50 million or more. Just turn it over to Hollywood for more storytelling.

 

[edwest2]

Do people who put God Created Man on buses actually believe that statement is true? Yes. Evolutionary psychology tells them it’s true. When the only possible explanation involves purely material/mechanical development then our genes coded themselves and caused our minds to increase in complexity, leading to a god/gods phase, followed by whatever phase we’re in now.

I think Catholics need to look at the data and look at the fact that God is not a theory or symbolic but the Living God with whom we have a relationship. No. I’m not saying put God in science textbooks but if we don’t realize how and where the provisional data is pointing, we may begin to think that such incomplete data which can only look in one dogmatic direction will lead some to believe in the wrong thing, namely - Nothing Made You but a mindless process.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

Yes - like the Dino soft tissue. We never thought it could last 60 million years but it must have. We will now go to work to prove it did. How much should the taxpayers pay to fund this? 1 million - 10 million - 50 million or more. Just turn it over to Hollywood for more storytelling.

Are you bringing that up again? We’ve been through this. Do you intentionally not pay attention? There was not “soft tissue”… there were microscopic pockets of organic material left in parts of the fossil. These consisted of mostly pigment and proteins, both of which are pretty stable and can last a long time. Even the lady who found them (as Christian) noted that she is appalled that people hijack her findings for their own agendas, as you just did.

You’re making a big deal out of it because you think it supports your views. It doesn’t. Were you under the absurd notion that science is unchanging? That new things are not found? That science understood everything? Of course we find new things and discover new evidence that challenges current theory, that’s the point of science! However, finding evidence is a lot different than holding up things you think support your theory but don’t when you look closely. The important parts are usually the details you you seem to gloss over.

 

[Touchstone]

Actually, a very simple explanation can be given, just as it was given for many other contradictory elements. In this case, a single rabbit fossil. The explanation?

– “This finding shows that mamallian evolution occurred more rapidly than previously thought.”

— “The finding of a rabbit skeleton leads to many question and new opportunities for knowledge about the speed of evolutionary development.”

– “The rabbit skeleton surprised some scientists initially but it is certain that within the evolutionary paradigm, anything can happen and this skeleton helps bring together many of the missing pieces in the Cambrian era.”

– “This fossils proves that evolutionary development spans the widest historical range and many rabbit-like transitionals can be expected in the same era.”

— “It has already been certain that the fossil record was incomplete. Darwin’s theory, while not predicting this exactly was clearly open to this possiblity.”

None of these would save Darwin’s idea, which if your read Origins from the man himself is quite clear. From the Wikipedia article on the subject:

Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process. Mammals are a class of animals, whose emergence in the geologic timescale is dated to much later than any found in Precambrian strata. Geological records indicate that although the first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period, modern mammalian orders appeared in the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs of the Palaeogene period. Many, many millions of years separate this period from the Precambrian.

You can slander the integrity of scientists all you want, but if you ask them, they will affirm that such a find would be fatal to Darwin’s idea. Such a find would neecessitate a reformulation of the theory of biological origins from the ground up. This is a huge, constant liability for the theory that it has successfully avoided for 150 years, with the evidence we do have fitting right into the progressive structure that Darwin established as a necessary implication of his theory.

I should have mentioned earlier that by shifting the topic to an attack on creationism, the main argument (that evolution explains everything) was abandoned.

I think you were trying to denigrate the theory of evolution by comaparing it to the perfectly unfalsifiable beliefs of theism. Evolutions is ever at risk of being discredit by the facts on the ground, and will only survive as long as the evidence supports it. That cannot be said for theistic claims of supernatural telos. I’m happy to focus on evolutionary theory, but find it worthwhile when it gets confused with theism to speak up and point out the structural differences.

-TS

 

[reggieM]

There was not “soft tissue”… there were microscopic pockets of organic material left in parts of the fossil.

“That was not a rabbit in the Cambrian strata. It was a highly-adapted trilobite descendent with a fuzzy tail, floppy ears and other mamallian characteristics which simply emerged earlier in the fossil record than anticipated.”

 

[edwest2]

None of these would save Darwin’s idea, which if your read Origins from the man himself is quite clear. From the Wikipedia article on the subject:

You can slander the integrity of scientists all you want, but if you ask them, they will affirm that such a find would be fatal to Darwin’s idea. Such a find would neecessitate a reformulation of the theory of biological origins from the ground up. This is a huge, constant liability for the theory that it has successfully avoided for 150 years, with the evidence we do have fitting right into the progressive structure that Darwin established as a necessary implication of his theory.

I think you were trying to denigrate the theory of evolution by comaparing it to the perfectly unfalsifiable beliefs of theism. Evolutions is ever at risk of being discredit by the facts on the ground, and will only survive as long as the evidence supports it. That cannot be said for theistic claims of supernatural telos. I’m happy to focus on evolutionary theory, but find it worthwhile when it gets confused with theism to speak up and point out the structural differences.

-TS

I think your comments support reggieM’s position. There have been statements made by scientists that the materialist worldview must be supported at all costs. It should be obvious to anyone reading this that science is the ally of atheist-materialism. As I wrote elsewhere, even scientists like the late Isaac Asimov support the nonsensical notion that creationism will put an end to scientific discovery. The Ideology of Evolution is far more important here and elsewhere than the Science of Evolution, but that has been buried under many layers of materialism.

Peace,
Ed

 

[liquidpele]

“That was not a rabbit in the Cambrian strata. It was a highly-adapted trilobite descendent with a fuzzy tail, floppy ears and other mamallian characteristics which simply emerged earlier in the fossil record than anticipated.”

As I said, the details are typically what matter. Yes, there is likely some interpretation, but you can’t take that inch and run a mile without being called out on it.

 

[buffalo]

Are you bringing that up again? We’ve been through this. Do you intentionally not pay attention? There was not “soft tissue”… there were microscopic pockets of organic material left in parts of the fossil. These consisted of mostly pigment and proteins, both of which are pretty stable and can last a long time. Even the lady who found them (as Christian) noted that she is appalled that people hijack her findings for their own agendas, as you just did.

You’re making a big deal out of it because you think it supports your views. It doesn’t. Were you under the absurd notion that science is unchanging? That new things are not found? That science understood everything? Of course we find new things and discover new evidence that challenges current theory, that’s the point of science! However, finding evidence is a lot different than holding up things you think support your theory but don’t when you look closely. The important parts are usually the details you you seem to gloss over.

I do not recall your sources.