Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[edwest211]

Thank you buffalo.

 

[buffalo]

Already posted in the past - most likely ignored, as usual

‘Oldest bird’ Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch in controversial new study​

The fossil Archaeopteryx may not have been one of the earliest birds but just another feathered dinosaur, claim scientists

But when Xu’s team reconstructed family trees to include Xiaotingia , they found the creature belonged not in the lineage of birds, but to a group of dinosaurs called deinonychosaurs. More strikingly, Archaeopteryx appeared in the same group, according to the study in Nature. Deinonychosaurs, such as the velociraptor, walked on two legs, ate meat and had vicious retractable claws. The finding is tentative, but builds on doubts that have emerged over the special status of archaeopteryx following the discovery of other bird-like dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds over the past decade or so.

'Oldest bird' Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch in controversial new study

The fossil Archaeopteryx may not have been one of the earliest birds but just another feathered dinosaur, claim scientists

www.theguardian.com

 

[Uriel1]

Heady stuff Buffalo, in response to Rossum’s "No it was not’ post. Poor Rossum doesn’t want to believe in God but lurks on a Catholic site. That is proof against Evolution, the non-scientific fantasy
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

 

[rossum]

Well established theories on patterns in evolution might be wrong

Thank you for for confirming that well established theories on patterns in evolution might be right.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The fossil Archaeopteryx may not have been one of the earliest birds but just another feathered dinosaur, claim scientists

Which is irrelevant to Archaeopteryx’s status as a transitional fossil. Some Americans – Abraham Lincoln – are earlier than some Europeans – Angela Merkel. That does not mean that many Americans are not descended from Europeans.

A transitional is a transitional because of its characteristics, not because of its age. Coelacanths are transitional between fish and Tetrapods. Finding living Coelacanths did not change that status.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Poor Rossum doesn’t want to believe in God

It might surprise you to know that the Abrahamic God appears in Buddhist scripture. Here he is talking about himself:

“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of meditation, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

Brahmajala sutta

In Buddhism, Bodhisattvas and Buddhas are more important than gods.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

buss0042:

“macro,” has not yet. You could call it a working hypothesis. Still scientific, still far from proven, still far from disproven.

It is being disproven -

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
“The answer is no,” said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution .
For the planet’s 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity “is about the same,” he told AFP.
The study’s most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
“This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could,” Thaler told AFP.

Read more at: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

IDvolution.org: Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

From the link: 'This means a population “bottleneck” is only a partial explanation at best.

“The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving,” said Stoeckle.

That’s a Buffalo 04. Keep 'em coming!

 

[Bradskii]

More news.

Well established theories on patterns in evolution might be wrong​

Well established theories on patterns in evolution might be wrong -- ScienceDaily

From the link:

‘Do organisms have more evolutionary flexibility when they first evolve? Or do ecosystems get “filled up” as more species evolve, giving fewer opportunities for further diversification later on? In their new paper, Graham Budd and Richard Mann make the provocative argument that these patterns may be largely illusory, and that we would still expect to see them even if rates of evolutionary change stay the same on average through time.’

Another link purporting to deny evolution which discusses nothing but the evolution of species.

Well done. Buffalo 05.

 

[Bradskii]

Already posted in the past - most likely ignored, as usual

‘Oldest bird’ Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch in controversial new study​

The fossil Archaeopteryx may not have been one of the earliest birds but just another feathered dinosaur, claim scientists

But when Xu’s team reconstructed family trees to include Xiaotingia , they found the creature belonged not in the lineage of birds, but to a group of dinosaurs called deinonychosaurs. More strikingly, Archaeopteryx appeared in the same group, according to the study in Nature. Deinonychosaurs, such as the velociraptor, walked on two legs, ate meat and had vicious retractable claws. The finding is tentative, but builds on doubts that have emerged over the special status of archaeopteryx following the discovery of other bird-like dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds over the past decade or so.

'Oldest bird' Archaeopteryx knocked off its perch in controversial new study | Archaeopteryx | The Guardian

From the link:

If Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur, this means flight evolved at least four times in vertebrates: in reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, and most recently in bats.

Gee mate. You are going like a train: Buffalo 06.

 

[buffalo]

A transitional is a transitional because of its characteristics, not because of its age. Coelacanths are transitional between fish and Tetrapods. Finding living Coelacanths did not change that status.

So they say…

 

[buffalo]

If Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur, this means flight evolved at least four times in vertebrates: in reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, and most recently in bats.

Yes, according to recent findings several features “evolved” more than once.

We would call this by design.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

If Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur, this means flight evolved at least four times in vertebrates: in reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, and most recently in bats.

Yes, according to recent findings several features “evolved” more than once.

We would call this by design.

Note that the scare quotes in the very article to which you linked do not appear. You cannot put forward what you believe to be evidence and then change that evidence where it doesn’t suit your fundamentalist views.

The expert witness testimony you have put forward actually contradicts what you claim. That’s why you scored another Buffalo. Maybe I should post a logo that’s appropriate every time you score.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, according to recent findings several features “evolved” more than once.

As a science, terms are well-defined and precise. In evolution science, not so much. Take for example the words “variation” and “evolution” often used as synonyms by posters here.

Variation

Definition

noun: variation ;

1. a change or difference in condition, amount, or level, typically with certain limits.

Evolution

Definition

noun: evolution

The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

By definition, beings “evolve” if, and only if, evidence of a change in genetic composition can be demonstrated (not inferred). And, only 4 mechanism may be appealed to as causal: natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. (Why are “natural selection” and “mutation” different mechanisms?) Leaving that question aside, these biology definitions would label Dwarfism (Achondroplasia) as people that evolved which is absurd.

If in all of the citations claiming to be evidence of evolution, one would challenge the use of the word “evolution” and, absent evidence of genetic change in the citation, correct the verb to be merely “variation” then that citation can be safely ignored as evidence of evolution.

 

[PetraG]

“hostile to science”? Not me. Evolution, on the other hand, is the topic.

The topic is whether or not Darwin’s theory of evolution even qualifies as science.

It does. Maybe it is wrong–just because a particular explanation fits everything that is known now better than other theories do doesn’t mean it is the correct explanation or that it will always explain all observations that will ever be made in the future–but it does qualify as a scientific theory.

All of science is contingent like that. All of it.

 

[PetraG]

From the link:

If Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur, this means flight evolved at least four times in vertebrates: in reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, and most recently in bats.

Gee mate. You are going like a train: Buffalo 06.

Well, since science already postulates that some mammals went from being walkers back to being swimmers, that is hardly a disqualifying possibility. The capacity to navigate in the air isn’t somehow distinct from the capacity to navigate in the water or on or through the ground.

 

[PetraG]

By definition, beings “evolve” if, and only if, evidence of a change in genetic composition can be demonstrated (not inferred). And, only 4 mechanism may be appealed to as causal: natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. (Why are “natural selection” and “mutation” different mechanisms?) Leaving that question aside, these biology definitions would label Dwarfism (Achondroplasia) as people that evolved which is absurd.

If in all of the citations claiming to be evidence of evolution, one would challenge the use of the word “evolution” and, absent evidence of genetic change in the citation, correct the verb to be merely “vary” then that citation can be safely ignored as evidence of evolution.

Here’s the flip side, though.
If there is no such thing as evolution, then why did God create so many beings that died out? What is the divine purpose of starting with lots of different species and gradually picking them off one by one?

How do you explain the coincidence that there are so many species we see around us now that aren’t represented anywhere in the fossil record with species that disappeared? I don’t mean just a species here or a species there. I mean entire classes like mammals…they just aren’t there.

Just as those who propose evolution as a mechanism to explain the data lack a known mechanism by which a higher species with a certain number of chromosomes can give rise to a new fertile population with a different set of chromosomes, just so those who deny that such a thing could happen lack evidence that populations that seemed to spontaneously occur in the fossil record must have co-existed with the very oldest fossils even though none of their fossils have been found.

Do you not see that denying evolution as a theory is fine in the field of science if you come up with a more plausible theory? Don’t you see that all alternative theories explaining the current state of knowledge from the fossil record have gaps in evidence of their own?

Revealed truth does not let us sit in a sniper’s nest shooting down everything that seems to contradict our interpretation of revelation. Within the realm of science, it is necessary to come up with alternative explanation.

As an activity, science is like being in a court of law. Yes, the jury is ALWAYS still out, but there are rules of evidence. Using “this situation is so perplexing that we must admit that the most likely possibility is that a miracle occurred” as an explanation requires a very high standard of evidence.

Right now, from a scientific standpoint, explanations built on Darwin’s hypothesis seem the strongest. They explain things the best. I don’t know how that can be denied.

 

[o_mlly]

If there is no such thing as evolution, then why did God create so many beings that died out?

Again, the OP is not evolution or religion. The topic is the quality of the science supporting evolution theories.

How do you explain the coincidence that there are so many species we see around us now that aren’t represented anywhere in the fossil record with species that disappeared? … I mean entire classes like mammals…they just aren’t there.

The latest modified evolutionist definition of “specie” is a population that cannot successfully reproduce with its progenitors. That definition, as it relates to species which the evolutionist labels extinct, is neither provable nor falsifiable.

Further, because mammary glands and other soft-tissue features are not visible in fossils, the determination of mammalian fossils was a matter of convenience, not evidence.

In a 1981 article, Kenneth A. Kermack and his co-authors argued for drawing the line between mammals and earlier synapsids at the point where the mammalian pattern of molar occlusion was being acquired and the dentary-squamosal joint had appeared. The criterion chosen, they noted, is merely a matter of convenience; their choice was based on the fact that "the lower jaw is the most likely skeletal element of a Mesozoic mammal to be preserved. Today, most paleontologists consider that animals are mammals if they satisfy this criterion.

On this issue, you elevate that which is only supposition to be scientific fact. If you follow the thread, you will note that the proponents of evolution use this tactic to build their house of card until challenged. They then recant only to return to the same tactic.

As an activity, science is like being in a court of law. Yes, the jury is ALWAYS still out, but there are rules of evidence.

The rules that need to be observed are the one that qualify the available evidence as true or false. Yes, all science claims remain in the realm of doubt. But the realm of doubt has categories:

1. All evidence in support and all experts in agreement
2. A preponderance of evidence in favor and cogent reasoning disputing the contradicting evidence
3. Uncompelling reasoning
4. Insufficient evidence

While evolution proponents may judge the claims of evolution to be in categories 1 or 2, critics see the claims as 3 or 4. Disputation in science is necessary as it leads all to a hopeful synthesis as Mortimer Adler notes.

On the periphery of the sphere of truth in each department of learning lie disputed matters about which experts are not in agreement. Out of each conflict of opinion emerges the investigations, researches, criticisms, and arguments by which it is hoped the disputes can be resolved and agreement achieved. When that occurs, the matter under dispute becomes a settled matter, and the pursuit of truth pushes the edges of inquiry on to matters still disputable.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

PetraG:

How do you explain the coincidence that there are so many species we see around us now that aren’t represented anywhere in the fossil record with species that disappeared? … I mean entire classes like mammals…they just aren’t there.

The latest modified evolutionist definition of “specie” is a population that cannot successfully reproduce with its progenitors. That definition, as it relates to species which the evolutionist labels extinct, is neither provable nor falsifiable.

It is “theories” that must be falsifiable, not definitions. All a definition has to be is well-defined. But I suppose what you meant was that the claim that a certain species is extinct is unprovable. That is true. We don’t “prove” scientific theories. We build support for them (or against them.) In the case of claiming extinction, if a wide and long-lasting observation period passes without any appearance of a species, that counts as support for the claim that the species is indeed extinct, especially if that species is large and land-based, like a T-Rex. That is why the claim that T-Rex is extinct is strongly supported. That does not prove someone might find a “lost valley” in central Africa with a small living population, but that possibility shows that the claim is falsifiable, which it must be to be a scientific theory.

Further, because mammary glands and other soft-tissue features are not visible in fossils, the determination of mammalian fossils was a matter of convenience, not evidence.

It may be true that fossils are classified by a convenient proxy. But that proxy has been supported by evidence, so it is a valid convenience. But even if you doubt the validity of that proxy to identify a mammal in general, a much stronger case can be made for identifying the fossilized remains of specific mammals, such as dogs. The fact is we do have living species today that, if they has lived from the time of Genesis, would have left some fossilized remains in ancient layers.

 

[buffalo]

That definition, as it relates to species which the evolutionist labels extinct, is neither provable nor falsifiable.

and we call a theory that is non-falsifiable? Nonsense…

 

[buffalo]

Here’s the flip side, though.
If there is no such thing as evolution, then why did God create so many beings that died out? What is the divine purpose of starting with lots of different species and gradually picking them off one by one?

Look at it this way. He started with archetypes. From there devolution took place making the resultant offspring less likely to survive. Also, adaptation, by design allows life to fill the environment as it is at the time.