Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Over and over I have posted current science links showing common design. Maybe you just ignored them.

Once again, there are 500 or so conserved core components that are the building blocks of all life.

Convergent evolution - the odds against a process without foresight “evolving” eyes separately several times as well as so many other things is strong evidence of design.

I quoted Dawkins who is no friend of ID. He at least admits design in biology.

Why are so many here afraid to? What will happen to you if you accept ID?
 
rossum said:
Any website that tells you evolution has not been observed is lying to you. Do not trust websites that lie to you.
Click to expand...
You are still playing the game. The sites that are lying are the ones that conflate micro and macro evolution.

Besides you have no idea what is true since absolute truth does not exist. Why not let us have our way? Why fight it so?
 
Nacho45 said:
Even if evolution did happen it was the result of Creation by the hand of God.
Click to expand...
Here is the rub. If it happened by God’s hand it is designed. They cannot/willnot go there. Why? is beyond me…
 
buffalo said:
Over and over I have posted current science links showing common design.
Click to expand...
That is not enough for science. Consider Darwin; he explained how to disprove his idea. Twice:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

– both from Chapter Six of ‘Origin’.
Click to expand...
What you need to do for your design proposal is to explain something which, if found, could not have been designed and would “annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through design”.

Science works by disproving hypotheses. What could disprove your design hypothesis? If you want to do science then you need to provide a possible disproof of design.

Undisprovable hypotheses are useless for science, only disprovable and not yet disproved hypotheses are considered.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
The sites that are lying are the ones that conflate micro and macro evolution.
Click to expand...
Both macro- and micro- are evolution. Both have been observed. For macro-evolution try Tauber and Tauber (1977) and the Marbled Crayfish.

Do you think that making a distinction between macro-creation and micro-creation would be important?

rossum
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
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.
Click to expand...
Once again, there are 500 or so conserved core components that are the building blocks of all life.
Click to expand...
That’s called “argument by confusion.”. If you throw out enough vaguely defined terms, no one can refute it because they don’t know what you are saying.
Convergent evolution - the odds against a process without foresight “evolving” eyes separately several times as well as so many other things is strong evidence of design.
Click to expand...
Abuse of mathematical terms.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
Any website that tells you evolution has not been observed is lying to you. Do not trust websites that lie to you.
Click to expand...
You are still playing the game. The sites that are lying are the ones that conflate micro and macro evolution.

Besides you have no idea what is true since absolute truth does not exist. Why not let us have our way? Why fight it so?
Click to expand...
The debate has been interesting, but as the OP I would like to take it into a more mathematical pathway. Let me first concede that Darwinism IS scientific, but that that science may be being abused.

Allow me also to make clear that I am Catholic and believe that God created us for a reason. I believe the new heaven and new earth teaching is an important one to grasp.

Rev.21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more.
2 And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men, and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people; and God himself with them shall be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.
22 And I saw no temple therein. For the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb.
23 And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof.
24 And the nations shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory and honour into it.
25 And the gates thereof shall not be shut by day: for there shall be no night there.
26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
27 There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.

Be that as it may, there is one bigger scientific problem that humanity needs to deal with which is the accumulative effect of deleterious genetic mutation. Current understanding is that the human mutation rate is between 100 to 250 (deleterious) mutations in each person in every generation. Most mutations are indeed deleterious so we can probably agree on say 200 deleterious mutations in each person in every generation.

I often think that God created the dinosaurs so that we could discover their extinction, and consider their fate as a prefiguration of our destination to come as a temporal species.

Given those accumulative deleterious mutations, how many generations then do we think there are before humanity becomes extinct?

Blessings
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Adam and Eve were the prototypical humans with pristine genetics.
Click to expand...
It is hard for me to accept that people actually still believe in a literal, historical Adam and Eve.
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Most mutations are indeed deleterious so we can probably agree on say 200 deleterious mutations in each person in every generation.
Click to expand...
No. Most mutations are neutral, not deleterious. Of the remainder, the majority are deleterious with a few beneficial. Your 200 is far too high. I suspect 20 is a better estimate or maybe less. Your overall number is probably too high as well; I usually work on 75 to 125 mutations per individual.

You do not appear to have included the impact of natural selection in your estimates. Roughly 30% of fertilised zygotes fail to get as far as being born. A high proportion of those will carry severely deleterious mutations, such as a non-working Cytochrome C. Those early failures will remove those severely deleterious mutations from the gene pool. Less serious mutations may result in death before sexual maturity, again removing those genes from the gene pool. Any deleterious mutations which persist must allow the carrier to be able to reach sexual maturity and to reproduce. That makes them the less serious, non-fatal mutations.
Given those accumulative deleterious mutations, how many generations then do we think there are before humanity becomes extinct?
Click to expand...
The average large mammal species lasts about 500,000 years. That gives us something like another 250,000 years, say 12,500 generations. That assumes we manage to avoid killing ourselves off in one way or another. It may turn out that intelligence is our most deleterious mutation.

rossum
 
Shakuhachi said:
It is hard for me to accept that people actually still beleive in a literal, historical Adam and Eve.
Click to expand...
… and that they make such claims without having sequenced their DNA. We know that DNA can survive 6,000 years reasonably intact.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Most mutations are indeed deleterious so we can probably agree on say 200 deleterious mutations in each person in every generation.
Click to expand...
So do you want to disagree with this source too and, if so, why?

Probably less than half of the mutations to this (functional) 10 percent of DNA are neutral. Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. (Remine, The Biotic Message, page 221.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Probably less than half of the mutations to this (functional) 10 percent of DNA are neutral. Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. (Remine, The Biotic Message, page 221.)
Click to expand...
Notice that “to this (functional) 10 percent of DNA” in your quote. Mutations to the other 90% of DNA – the non-functional part – are neutral. It has no function, so changes in that 90% are overwhelmingly non-functional as well. Very occasionally a change to non-functional DNA will make it functional, but that it extremely rare. Your source is telling you that more than 90% of mutations are neutral. Synonymous mutations are neutral wherever they occur for example.

rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
Uriel1:
Probably less than half of the mutations to this (functional) 10 percent of DNA are neutral. Of the remainder, 999/1000 are harmful or fatal and the remainder may be beneficial. (Remine, The Biotic Message, page 221.)
Click to expand...
Notice that “to this (functional) 10 percent of DNA” in your quote. Mutations to the other 90% of DNA – the non-functional part – are neutral. It has no function, so changes in that 90% are overwhelmingly non-functional as well. Very occasionally a change to non-functional DNA will make it functional, but that it extremely rare. Your source is telling you that more than 90% of mutations are neutral. Synonymous mutations are neutral wherever they occur for example.

rossum
Click to expand...
Ok

I see how you prefer to think
 
Mixing science and theology is bad science. Science is a process of explaining observable data, and we don’t have observations of humans doing anything but flourishing wildly. We are a massively successful species, unlike the success of any large animal before us.

If you want the idea of perfect archetypal human beings to be part of science, then you’ll have to come up with some perfect genes. Until then, we are stuck with fossils, bones, DNA, and the fact that there are probably almost 8 billion of us living on every continent in the world.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top