Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[benjamin1973]

In looking at your OP, I in fact have pretty serious doubts about whether you know what a hypothesis is, or what hypotheses are involved in studying evolution.

A hypothesis is an early step in the scientific process. You’ve made some observations, and you are putting forward candidate ideas for testing.

A theory is a robust system of thought which explains as much of the data as possible. A hypothesis is basically a hunch about what experiment to try first as you approach new data.

They are almost diametrically opposed in meaning.

 

[Uriel1]

Exactly @benjamin1973 , and Darwin made only one prediction which he withdrew in ed. 2
His is a non-testable hypothesis.

If you say it is a theory and believe that tell us how it can be tested or falsified. No-one has yet done this

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

Genetic homeostasis (I.M. Lerner) is a testable law

Really? Please state what the law is.

Dr I M Lerner developed the hypothesis of Genetic homeostasis in the 1940s-50s

Genetic homeostasis concerns the decline in fitness when either a whole population or a single individual in that population deviates from the mean value for any character.

It predicts that the superiority of the heterozygote will lead to the return of a population to its original mean value if it has been altered; for this unwillingness to be moved, he uses the Greek term " homeostasis. "

He proposes that the phenomena is best explained in terms of the value of heterozygosis per se, in that heterozygotes are superior not because of the individual genes they carry but simply because they are heterozygous, and it predicts that populations will not beneficially mutate through a nucleotide change but will return towards the mean character value.

Genetic homeostasis is a testable thesis which speaks against random beneficial mutational changes proposed by Neo-Darwinists

 

[benjamin1973]

It’s a theory, in its modern form, because it has a very detailed description of the method of speciation. There’s zero question about whether it’s a theory. Whether some of the beliefs of evolutionists, like abiogenesis, are correct, is a different issue.

Again, you are obviously paraphrasing (or quote mining) from a site, but I don’t think you’ve actually READ anything by Darwin.

If you want, I will invest the time it takes to go through the entire book, On the origin of Species with you, page by page, and we can talk about every single point what you agree and disagree with, and investigate the actual science that has been done to refine it.

I propose a thread: “Uriel1 and benjamin1937’s in-depth discussion of the Theory of Evolution”

What you’ve done is found one or two Creationist scientists, and locked onto the distilled second-hand reports as simplified (and probably distorted) on somebody’s website.

Now, I give you the chance to think for yourself, to learn what Darwin and modern evolutionists actually think and say. Do you accept?

 

[Fauken]

I agree partially, but we can use it’s predictions to escape the earth’s field and slingshot around other planets or their moons. Gravity is testable, and falsifiable and predictable.

And that does not make either of Einstein’s theories of relativity laws. We still don’t know exactly what causes gravity. One such speculation, by my limited understanding, is that there is a theoretical particle that causes it, a subatomic particle like a neutrino. This could cause our understanding of how gravity works to change.

I can use quantum mechanics to design semiconductor devices, but the equations used in it are part of a theory. Our electric devices work because of this, but it is still theoretical. An equation describes behavior, it is not an observable phenomena like a heliocentric solar system.

 

[RandomAlias]

The theory of evolution…

…
Okay, then what do you believe? Six days and done, Intelligent Design, or what?

 

[Roseeurekacross]

do you understand how a theory comes about

 

[Roseeurekacross]

the law of gravity is a physics theory

 

[Roseeurekacross]

you are clearly not understanding these terms

 

[Roseeurekacross]

what is a hypothesis , how does it become theory…

plays ncis music

 

[Roguish]

Nothing from ancient pre-history is observable, repeatable, nor can it be measured.
Darwinism is non observable, so is simply not falsifiable,

You’re absolutely right. Evolution hasn’t been proven, isn’t provable, and never will be provable. It is the definition of pseudo-science.

So why is it taught as a science using public funds?

For one reason only: because a great many people subconsciously looove it. A great part of mankind is infected with a self-destructive urge. Modern man wishes to debase and degrade himself. A theory that allows him to think of himself as not the Image of God, but as the random product of random circumstances, appeals to him. Modern man wishes to be rid of the meaning of life. He wishes especially to be rid of the meaning of his own existence, and of his duties before God that flow from that. Evolution theory enables him to be rid of all of this, and that is why he likes it.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Genetic homeostasis (I.M. Lerner) is a testable law

Hugh_Farey:

Really? Please state what the law is.

Uriel1:

Dr I M Lerner developed the hypothesis of Genetic homeostasis

No. Make up your mind. I don’t need a history of Genetic homeostasis. If it is a law, state the law. Simples!

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Exactly @benjamin1973 , and Darwin made only one prediction which he withdrew in ed. 2
His is a non-testable hypothesis.

No. The only prediction in The Origin of Species is “In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.”
His prediction has been amply fulfilled.

You’re absolutely right. Evolution hasn’t been proven, isn’t provable, and never will be provable. It is the definition of pseudo-science.

The term pseudo-science is often used by non-scientists in an attempt to demonstrate that something they don’t understand isn’t science. As I mentioned before, it is scientists who will define what their field of study is, and evolution is, obviously, included. Your idea that something has to be “proven” or even “provable” completely misreads the nature of scientific enquiry.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

For one reason only: because a great many people subconsciously looove it. A great part of mankind is infected with a self-destructive urge. Modern man wishes to debase and degrade himself. A theory that allows him to think of himself as not the Image of God, but as the random product of random circumstances, appeals to him. Modern man wishes to be rid of the meaning of life. He wishes especially to be rid of the meaning of his own existence, and of his duties before God that flow from that. Evolution theory enables him to be rid of all of this, and that is why he likes it.

Subconsciously! Not at all. I “looove” evolution consciously, actively and constantly. Far from debasing or degrading mankind and his kindred species, in evolution they seem to me to become ennobled. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. It is as a product of evolution that I find myself most clearly reflecting the image of God, and in understanding the meaning of life and my own existence.

 

[Roguish]

Subconsciously! Not at all. I “looove” evolution consciously, actively and constantly.

Of course, Hugh. You are as conscious of your fondness for evolution theory as you’re conscious of any fondness, be it for vanilla ice cream or whatever. What I meant was that you are not conscious of why you love it. It’s basically the same mechanism that’s at work when people watch horror movies: they know they love them, they just don’t know why they really love them, and instead believe in a false explanation for their preference. Same thing with evolution theory.

 

[Uriel1]

the law of gravity is a physics theory

No Rose, The law of Gravity was a physics theory bur is now used to send spaceships on orbital trajectories and maintain satellites in their orbits. It has been tested and proven which makes it a law.

Evolution is a mere hypothesis all experiments on which have failed to reproduce even simple abiogenesis, ref Miller Urey

Evolution is a failed hypothesis

 

[Uriel1]

Dr I M Lerner developed the hypothesis of Genetic homeostasis in the 1940s-50s

Genetic homeostasis concerns the decline in fitness when either a whole population or a single individual in that population deviates from the mean value for any character.

It predicts that the superiority of the heterozygote will lead to the return of a population to its original mean value if it has been altered; for this unwillingness to be moved, he uses the Greek term " homeostasis. "

He proposes that the phenomena is best explained in terms of the value of heterozygosis per se, in that heterozygotes are superior not because of the individual genes they carry but simply because they are heterozygous, and it predicts that populations will not beneficially mutate through a nucleotide change but will return towards the mean character value.

Genetic homeostasis is a testable thesis which speaks against random beneficial mutational changes proposed by Neo-Darwinists

Uriel1:

Genetic homeostasis (I.M. Lerner) is a testable law

Hugh_Farey:

Really? Please state what the law is.

Uriel1:

Dr I M Lerner developed the hypothesis of Genetic homeostasis

No. Make up your mind. I don’t need a history of Genetic homeostasis. If it is a law, state the law. Simples!

If you are “Simples”, as you have signed off I’ll try to make it clearer for you

Genetic homeostasis is a testable thesis which has been proven time and again, so it is a law which speaks against random beneficial mutational changes proposed by Neo-Darwinists, the tests on which have failed. Evolution is a failed hypothesis, which has long since been junked by Genetic homeostasis

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The theory of evolution is called “a theory” and not a scientific law.

The distinction between a “law” and a “theory” is not qualitative. It is quantitative. When a theory has been used extensively enough, people start calling it a law. All that means is that it has gotten more supporting evidence. But in principle, a scientific law is also falsifiable, just like a theory.

Darwin’s “theory” is more of a hypothesis, which remains “not-proven.”

The scientific method does not “prove” theories. It only collects more and more supporting evidence for theories. The are never “proven” in the sense of a mathematical proof. They are always falsifiable, no matter how much evidence has accumulated to support them.

Nor has anyone ever seen one species change into another.

That depends on how you define “species.” If you accept the common definition that different species are unable to interbreed, then yes. Populations evolving into different species have been observed in modern times.

Genetic homeostasis 1 (I.M. Lerner) is a testable law which overwhelmingly speaks against Darwinist evolution from one species into another.

Lerner’s genetic homeostasis is a good theory too, but it does not contradict evolution. Lerner himself was a prominent evolutionary biologist and served as editor of the journal “Evolution.” He would be quite surprised now to hear that people think he did not agree with random variation and natural selection. Have you read any of Lerner’s original work? Or are you saying this because some anti-evo website said it?

Nothing from ancient pre-history is observable, repeatable, nor can it be measured.

That is incorrect. We can observe pre-history through the effects that are preserved, such as in fossils and ice cores and ancient rocks. It can be repeatable if the same phenomenon is observed at multiple sites. And of course it can be measured.

Darwinism is non observable, so is simply not falsifiable, thus as an explanation for the start of life on earth (abiogenesis)

Darwinism is not about abiogenesis. That is a separate theory with far less support than Darwinism. Darwinism takes no position on the start of life on earth.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Genetic homeostasis is a testable thesis which has been proven time and again, so it is a law which speaks against random beneficial mutational changes proposed by Neo-Darwinists, the tests on which have failed. Evolution is a failed hypothesis, which has long since been junked by Genetic homeostasis

Why don’t you state what the law is? All you can do is tell me something about it. Would I be correct in guessing that you don’t really know what any law is, let alone the “law of genetic homeostasis”?

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Of course, Hugh. You are as conscious of your fondness for evolution theory as you’re conscious of any fondness, be it for vanilla ice cream or whatever. What I meant was that you are not conscious of why you love it. It’s basically the same mechanism that’s at work when people watch horror movies: they know they love them, they just don’t know why they really love them, and instead believe in a false explanation for their preference. Same thing with evolution theory.

How patronising. I know exactly why I love the theory of evolution, thank you.