Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Flu shots have nothing to do with evolution. I know the history of such shots. If I may, there is no evolution based guide book.
 
I have read both, and yes they are against organized religion because they believe it’s made up, but they do not deny the possibility that there can be a creator-god. But either way, they represent a small but vocal minority. If we look at scientists in all fields, the largest single group are agnostics, not atheists, with theists taking a fairly close second place.
 
Actually they do as they try and calculate which strains are likely to mutate and in which direction. The composition of the shots vary from year to year, and the mutation of viruses is very much taken under consideration. It’s not like “Let’s throw a bunch of chemicals out and see what it kills”.
 
You’ve just described current drug development. Small samples of infected tissue are resting in tubes on racks. A machine injects a trial chemical cocktail that might work. The results are as follows: it did little or nothing, or it killed all or most of the samples. Next: test the chemical combination in animal models. Possible results include death or severe side effects. The end. Or, results show few or no side effects. On to humans. If test patients don’t die or show significant side effects, they are examined for other effects. Still, how many times have I seen on TV, the marketing of a new drug whose side effects can include heart failure, liver failure or death?

Mutation of viruses is a built-in ability. It means that the virus has changed its outer protein coat in an unpredictable way. Again, this is a built-in function. Prediction is out of the question.
 
Last edited:
NNT is simple arithmetic
Description{\displaystyle I_{e}} I_e{\displaystyle I_{u}} I_{u}NNTInterpretation
Perfect drug0.01.01.0Everybody is cured with the pill; nobody without
Very good drug0.10.91.25Ten take the pill; 8 cured by the pill, 1 cured by itself, 1 still sick.
Satisfactory drug0.30.72.5Ten take the pill; 4 cured by the pill, 3 cured by itself, 3 still sick.
High placebo effect0.40.510Ten take the pill; 6 cured but 5 of those would be cured anyway.
Low cure rate0.80.910Ten take the pill, one is cured by the pill, one cured by itself, 8 still have the disease.
Goes away by itself0.10.210Ten take the pill and 9 are cured; but 8 would have been cured anyway.
Counter-productive0.90.8−10Ten take the pill, two would have been cured without it, but with the pill, only one is cured, so NNH=10.
data table from Wiki
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
Flu shots have nothing to do with evolution. I know the history of such shots. If I may, there is no evolution based guide book.
Click to expand...
You need a flue shot every year because the flu virus mutates. This is a foundation principle of evolution.
You asked for an application of evolution today. There you go.
 
buffalo said:
You need a flue shot every year because the flu virus mutates. This is a foundation principle of evolution.
You asked for an application of evolution today. There you go.
Click to expand...
Adaptation refers to the same generation.
Evolution refers to mutation of traits across generations.

This is why you need a new flu shot NEXT year.
Click to expand...
 
We call this phenomenon a “mutation” , not adaptation and not evolution.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
No. Adaptation can be across generations. The finches beaks changed and then went back to what they were before.

What do viruses evolve into? Viruses.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow you. Are you saying evolution is false but adaptions are true?
Of course an adaption can cross generations, but an adaption - in terms of how you are using it - is not genetic.
When the genetic structure is modified to provide an advantage - ie, a flu virus mutates so that it is impervious to a vaccine, that’s evolution. That is the definition.
What is your point here? Evolution is true but not useful? Or evolution is false? You seem to imply evolution is true but you are want to call it something else.
Are you a creationist that believes the universe is only 6000 years old and Adam and Eve were real people?
 
LateCatholic said:
40.png
buffalo:
No. Adaptation can be across generations. The finches beaks changed and then went back to what they were before.

What do viruses evolve into? Viruses.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow you. Are you saying evolution is false but adaptions are true?
Of course an adaption can cross generations, but an adaption - in terms of how you are using it - is not genetic.
When the genetic structure is modified to provide an advantage - ie, a flu virus mutates so that it is impervious to a vaccine, that’s evolution. That is the definition.
What is your point here? Evolution is true but not useful? Or evolution is false? You seem to imply evolution is true but you are want to call it something else.
Are you a creationist that believes the universe is only 6000 years old and Adam and Eve were real people?
Click to expand...
Microevolution is true, nobody here is arguing against it.
 
Techno2000 said:
Microevolution is true, nobody here is arguing against it.
Click to expand...
If you agree that microevolution is true, then you believe regular evolution is also true. They are one and the same, just different time scales. Macro-evolution is literally the accumulation of ‘micro-evolutionary’ changes over vast time periods. There literally is no other difference.

You probably are referring to “speciation”, the process when one species, over time, evolves into another. Creations equate this phenomenon with “macroevolution”. However, these are separate things. Speciation has been validated by not only fossil record but irrefutably by the discovery of multiple ring species one earth.

I am truly amazed that in the 21st century people argue against evolution. Why? What are you afraid of? So what if facts and evidence conflict with 2000 year old beliefs? Wake up. You can still be a Christian.
 
anthonymarie said:
What science is is a philosophical question not a a scientific question.
Click to expand...
Ignoring your slight misreading of what I said (the difference between what Science is and what Scientists do), actually I mostly agree with that. However, Scientific philosophers are scientists too. They look at what scientists do, and construct a philosophy around it. If their philosophy doesn’t fit what scientist do, then their philosophy, however logically developed, is meaningless. A simple illustration is commonly found in the creation/evolution debate, by pseudo-philosophers who claim that if a phenomenon (such as a historical event) is not repeatable in a laboratory, then its study cannot be Science, which of course is nonsense. Constructing a biological genealogy on nothing more than a handful of photographs can be just as much Science as observing hundreds of identical chemical experiments in a laboratory. Whether such a genealogy actually is Science or not, is, I’m afraid, not a question of adhering to some academically derived philosophy, its a question of general Scientific acceptance.

When you say that “Science has moved away from being “a model that fits appearances” towards something radically empirical”, you miss the point, I think. Empiricism is only a way of substantiating a model. It does not negate the previous principle. Scientific “knowledge” or “truth” continues to be, as it always has been, a corpus of coherent, comprehensive explanation for the universe we observe, not, necessarily, a statement of irrefutable fact. Furthermore, illustrating its democracy, Science is not “proven”, it is “demonstrated”. Anybody with a refinement (or an overthrow) of existing Science must present his evidence, and it must be accepted, by his peers, and then by the Scientific community generally, before his or her refinement becomes Science.

I typed “gender social construct” into Google, and the top response was the bold headline " Scientific research shows gender is not just a social construct". I should be grateful if, since this seems to be a field of interest to you, if you could suggest just one of the “people calling themselves scientists and recognised as scientists by the scientific community” whose work suggesting the opposite I should read.
 
LateCatholic said:
If you agree that microevolution is true, then you believe regular evolution is also true. They are one and the same, just different time scales. Macro-evolution is literally the accumulation of ‘micro-evolutionary’ changes over vast time periods. There literally is no other difference.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Microevolution clearly can happen but is akin to a beneficial mutation, which can and sometimes does reverse. There is however zero fossil evidence for macroevolution; the bacterium remains a bacterium, and the coelacanth a coelacanth.
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Incorrect. Microevolution clearly can happen but is akin to a beneficial mutation, which can and sometimes does reverse. There is however zero fossil evidence for macroevolution; the bacterium remains a bacterium, and the coelacanth a coelacanth.
Click to expand...
Your lack of relevant knowledge is showing here. “Bacterium” covers millions of different species, and so macroevolution can easily happen within the group: E. coli strain 123 macro-evolves into E. coli strain 124.

There are/were hundreds of different species of Coelacanth, two of which are still extant. Again, macro-evolution can easily happen within the group.

By using larger groups like this, you are effectively saying you have no problem with humans evolving from a chimp-like ancestor because “they are still mammals”.

You do not get to define your own terms in biology, you have to use the terms as everybody else uses them. Macro-evolution is at species level or higher, hence the evolution of a new species, as with crayfish or lacewings, is macro-evolution.

rossum
 
LOL. Incorrect about God @rossum,
and incorrect about bacteria, and macroevolution
rossum said:
“Bacterium” covers millions of different species, and so macroevolution can easily happen within the group: E. coli strain 123 macro-evolves into E. coli strain 124
Click to expand...
The bacteria remain as bacteria - and Jesus created them
Simples.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top