Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From a very personal viewpoint, I cannot disagree with you that humans are devolving. Just look at who we elected as POTUS! But insofar as the theory of evolution is concerned, it is still the dominant theory of most scientists today although that may be in the process of change.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
kkerwin1:
According to National Geographic, we share 96% of our genome with chimpanzees.

The human genome is composed of 3,234,830,000 base pairs (3.2 billiion). For a given side of the DNA molecule, there are four nucleic acids that could reside in each base pair “slot”. Therefore, the probability that the human genome could have randomly generated de novo and have the same DNA content as the chimpanzee just by chance can be expressed by the following:

(3234830000 * 0.96)^4 = 9,300,167,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is, it is a 1 in a 9.3 undecillion chance that humans could have developed a similar level of genetic content as the chimpanzee without having a common ancestor.

Those are some mighty long odds.
Click to expand...
It has fallen to below 70%.
Click to expand...
Why? Because you say so? Besides, @kkerwin1 made a mistake in the math. The real formula (now using your 70% figure) is not (3234830000 * 0.70)^4 , but actually it is:

4^(3234830000 * 0.70)

which is much much bigger than the number kkerwin1 first posted. (As an approximation, this new correct figure has, not 37 digits as kkerwin1 posted, but actual 1.36 billion digits. )
In addition the sequences are not the same. I would not use this argument any more.
Click to expand...
Of course you wouldn’t use it because it argues against your view.
Common design is a better explanation.
Click to expand...
Again, just because you say so, eh?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
In addition the sequences are not the same. I would not use this argument any more.
Click to expand...
Actually, @buffalo is correct regarding the value of the argument if the sequences aren’t the same (mind, I don’t know that this claim nor the 70% claim are true). If they aren’t the same, then one can’t use the strict 1->1 inheritence that the math assumes.

What (I think) @buffalo is talking about here is called convergent evolution. @buffalo calls this “common design” (correct me if I’m wrong, @buffalo). The basic idea is that if a particular adaptation is advantageous, then many species that are obviously unrelated may develop the same adaptation via different genetic codes; eg. both bats and birds have wings, because flying is very advantageous to predation and avoiding predation. Still, it is demonstrative of natural selection favoring advantageous adaptations.
Click to expand...
 
The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism

Brilliant analysis in a short film
 
“Devolving” isn’t a thing, only evolving.

That’s because “evolution” doesn’t mean “gradually getting better according to man’s / God’s standards of goodness.” It means “gradually adapting to the environment.”

It may be that people become less intelligent, on average, over a long period of time. That would be because high intelligence is expensive (the human brain uses like 25% of our calories), and for whatever reason that intelligence would serve the average organism less than a reduction in required calories for use by the brain.
 
You misunderstand the concept of scope.

Science is limited in scope to those truths which can be objectively observed, such that observations, experiments and conclusions can be shared by multiple parties.

If we were in the Matrix, a dream, or the Mind of God, it would have no impact on the principles of science at all-- there would just be a different set of observations to be made.

You don’t need to know the ultimate cause of things in order to make observations about them. That’s why science and theology are not really at odds. For the things we observe, there’s science. For whatever reality lies under or beyond the things we can observe, there’s philosophy and religion.

EVEN IF we knew everything there was to know, which is obviously impossible, there would always be one thing we COULDN’T KNOW-- where did it all come from, ultimately?
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Science is limited in scope to those truths which can be objectively observed, such that observations, experiments and conclusions can be shared by multiple parties.
Click to expand...
Fact is that evolution is not observed. What is observed are the gradual accumulations of errors in the genome. As much as you may wish the word not exist, we are devolving. While each new baby is a new fresh start to a human being, his/her DNA is very likely to contain changes which code for proteins less effective than its forebears. While there are built-in mechanisms that correct for misinformation in the genome, and sexual reproduction mitigates the impact of errors through the transmission of dominant genes that do what they are supposed to do, this is a slow downhill road.

It makes more sense to consider that human beings were created with a completely functional set of cellular processes to enable the ongoing reproduction of healthy offspring, but that in time, without adequate maintenance, there occurred an ongoing breakdown in the process. That’s what the data tells me. But then one has to account for what would be this healing “mechanism” that is inaccessible to manipulation and today we we witness only rarely and individually. One has to admit the existence of God to make sense of the world. Ain’t going to happen from what I observe of society today.

If one wants to understand creation, one has to understand the metaphysical/ existential underpinnings of the physical. When science seeks an answer we get the superficial, illusory explanations we find in biology today. The field should stick to just the facts, what is actually observed, but we actually cannot do this because everything is cast in the light of our fundamental philosophical, stated or unrecognized, understanding of existence.
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Fact is that evolution is not observed.
Click to expand...
Fact is that your sources are lying to you. Every time a bacteria develops immunity to an antibiotic, that is evolution. Every time an insect develops immunity to an insecticide, that is evolution. Every time a plant develops immunity to a herbicide, that is evolution.

See How To Make A Superweed for examples.

rossum
 
I’m lying to myself? Thanks for the heads up. But, I’m wondering what would constitute a lie to someone who believes in there being no ultImate truth.

As to resistances, there are built-in genetic and epigenetic processes within the cells that come into action when an organism is threatened by some aspect in its environment. There can be deficiencies that serendipitously may be helpful, but render the organism less healthy that those which may not have the genetic disorder. But I will agree that there can rarely occur genetic changes that may render the offspring of a particular organism better suited to the environment of which they are an integral part. As to the overall impact of natural selection, even a quick look into what has been happening in the Galapagos today will reveal its destructive nature. If many species continue to survive, it is only because of the care, the effort and money of human beings, whose efforts at times feel futile.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
“Devolving” isn’t a thing, only evolving.
Click to expand...
Every generation has accumulated more deleterious mutations than the one before. That is devolving, or degenerating.

Adam and Eve were the prototypical humans with pristine genetics. The “swith” that gave them bodily immortality and freedom from sickness was turned off after the fall.
 
benjamin1973 said:
EVEN IF we knew everything there was to know, which is obviously impossible, there would always be one thing we COULDN’T KNOW-- where did it all come from, ultimately?
Click to expand...
Yes! I have often stated the God of the Gaps argument is nonsense, since there will always be something we cannot know, otherwise we would be God. Science will never close some of these gaps, no matter what they tell you.
 
rossum said:
Fact is that your sources are lying to you. Every time a bacteria develops immunity to an antibiotic, that is evolution. Every time an insect develops immunity to an insecticide, that is evolution. Every time a plant develops immunity to a herbicide, that is evolution.

See How To Make A Superweed for examples.

rossum
Click to expand...
C’mon - we keep going over this. Bacteria have latent memories and use these when needed. If you want to call it micro-evolution, aka adaptation, OK. It is not macro.
 
Aloysium said:
But I will agree that there can rarely occur genetic changes that may render the offspring of a particular organism better suited to the environment of which they are an integral part.
Click to expand...
They single out these supposed advantages without understanding the negative offsets to the organism.
 
Aloysium said:
As to resistances, there are built-in genetic and epigenetic processes within the cells that come into action when an organism is threatened by some aspect in its environment.
Click to expand...
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Many organisms have built-in immune systems that recognise and reject non-self. However, DNA sequencing shows that in other cases, the resistance is newly generated and was not present in earlier specimens.

The example of multiple gene copies in Palmer Amaranth is just such an example. In the absence of glyphosate in the environment only a few gene copies are present because only a few are needed. In the presence of glyphosate, mutations that add extra copies are advantageous and so are favoured by natural selection. If the glyphosate is destroying your product, then having 100 parallel production lines will ensure that there is enough product despite the destruction.

Evolution is a change in genome over time. This is an example of a change in genome over time, so it is an example of evolution happening.

Any website that tells you evolution has not been observed is lying to you. Do not trust websites that lie to you.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Again, just because you say so, eh?
Click to expand...
God is not a deceiver. Design is obvious.
Click to expand...
This does not prove “common design” is a better explanation than common descent. Common descent does not require that God be deceiver. And common design is not obvious. People say something is “obvious” when they have no idea how to prove it.
 
Personally, none of that matters to me. I have looked and I have seen many possibilities provided for evolution, but nothing which has convinced me it has ever happened. I have seen the alterations in the theory and they seem rather convenient to support the idea, but no proof. So, I will wait. Until then, I don’t think it has ever occurred. There are far too many holes in the theory for me to take it seriously. It looks to me people are attempting to find evidence for the idea rather than follow evidence and then develop the idea. Either way, it doesn’t effect me or my life. Even if evolution did happen it was the result of Creation by the hand of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top