Fallacies of Evolution Redux

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChemEngineer, May 9, 2017.

  1. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet both evolutionary and genetic theory are used to develop and test new vaccines and antibiotics . We were not talking about the discovery, originally of these things. You can't even track the discussion well, so I suppose it is no surprise that the limit of your abilities to learn about and understand these complicated topics is a copy/paste job that you just now found, using Google.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
    Buri and WillReadmore like this.
  2. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Thank you for at least making that clear. It really bothers me when theists call things like atheism or evolution "religions". In that case, that vague definition (clearly lacking the mention of dieties or the supernatural) will have to be altered. Not that I am arguing it is currently the definition. Also in regards to your "zombie" comment, the same applies to every theist against evolution. They were told and they "feel it's true, so it must be". And I wasn't saying evolution is a scientific theory simply because I was told. It is because I classify religions very differently from non-theistic stories of human origin.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2018
  3. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You did read where I said "modern" biology, correct? And did anyone say that biologists can't disagree?

    Of course, this whole point is moot since no matter how many 19th century biologists you can find that disagree with Darwin, it does not invalidate the ToE. It does not matter that there are things in modern medicine that are not directly connected to evolution, evolution is still true and still the foundation of modern biology (with genetics too, since they work in tandem).
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  4. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That’s a contribution which has brought shame–not advance–to the medical field.

    Michael Egnor, M.D.
    I asked you a week ago to name a single vaccine, a single antibiotic which which was developed by an evolutionary biologist a with help of theory of evolution to counter the professor of a medical school, the founders of science of antibiotics (Fleming and Chain) and all Google.

    Believers in evolution cannot understand that saying that repeating a religious belief whatever it is with no reference to the reality, to any facts, to anything to back it up is a direct proof that evolution is a crazy religion, crazy cult and nothing more.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
  5. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Heart, liver, and kidney transplants, new treatments for cancer and heart disease, and a host of life-saving advances in medicine have been developed without input from evolutionary biologists. No Nobel prize in medicine has ever been awarded for work in evolutionary biology. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the only contribution evolution has made to modern medicine is to take it down the horrific road of eugenics, which brought forced sterilization and bodily harm to many thousands of Americans in the early 1900s. That’s a contribution which has brought shame–not advance–to the medical field.

    Michael Egnor, M.D.

    Evolutionists have been given quotes and polls telling and showing that there HAVE BEEN NO things in ALL history of medicine which are directly or indirectly connected to evolution.

    They have not pointed to a single thing in medicine which would be directly or indirectly connected to medicine.

    They switched from used in medicine to vague connected in the last hope to escape the reality.

    Evolutionists have been given a link both to a MCAD and a medical school showing that evolution is an insignificant part of biology and is in no way a foundation.

    (I may post a link showing that quite recently evolution was not even taught in public schools.

    And would not be taught if the KGB didn't meddle with the fabric of American society.)

    Believers in evolution cannot understand that saying that repeating a religious belief whatever it is with no reference to the reality, to any facts, to anything to back it up is a direct proof that evolution is a crazy religion, crazy cult and nothing more.
     
  6. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1800

    The national Academy of Sciences would disagree.
     
  7. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You make your own classifications to confirm your system of blind beliefs with no attention or with all intention to disregard the reality.

    How should I call you, a crazy fanatic?

    Your classification "theists against evolution" is in total contradiction to the reality where a head of Human Genome project is a believer in evolution and a born again Christian as well as many other "theists".

    I posted a study confirming the reality.

    But I guess you were not interested in the reality.
     
  8. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
  9. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Extremist SIR http://mentalfloss.com/article/21056/how-does-one-become-knight Ernst Chain.

    That should say it all.
     
  10. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I gave you the link https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion


    1 a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion

    b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

    describes theism

    4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

    does describe you.

    You believe that science requires evidence, you believe that creationism does not have evidence, you believe that TOE has massive practical use etc. etc. etc, and your mind is absolute closed for any reality which opposes your system of beliefs.

    If something contradicting your system of beliefs is pointed you post “Have a nice day and a smile” in the meaning "you are not worth my time", which just confirms your religious fanaticism.
     
  11. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If somebody says “False”, “That not true” it does not make a logic false, it just demonstrates that somebody is void of any logic.

    - I did not claim that science proves the truth, I just ask you to prove that what you said is true, to refer to some reality, facts, articles.

    Saying ‘”science does this and this'' does” not make the text you quote to say that it does not, but it does not make your claim anything more than a crazy babbling, since you refer neither to the text you quote no any facts.

    Now, after being done with your strawmen back to my opening statement.

    Indeed, there is the scientific method.

    Indeed, there are rules which allow to determine if a theory belongs to natural sciences or it is not a science at all.

    That the claim I came to this tread with.

    There is a reason WHY these rules but not other are the rules.

    You and all believers that evolution or creationism is science will die but never know less understand the rules.

    Never in your life.

    It is quite entertaining to see how evolutionists/creationists argue science.


    Laws of genetics were discovered by one person (in a longs series of accurate experiments).
    Fleming and Chain are two out of 3.
    Poll among 1473 physicians.
    Study among 2000 doctors.
    Links, quotes.

    While evolutionists none.

    I provided links and quotes demonstrating that
    - evolution is NOT a subject of medical schools at ALL,
    - that evolution is NOT any significant part of Biology
    - that MDs have no direct or indirect use of evolution and many of them prefer creationism over evolution as a personal belief.

    In the light of the facts listed above I explained the fact that evolution is required at MCAD by pointing to the fact that the belief is imposed on the society as a state religion in the same way as scientific communism and scientific atheism was imposed in the USSR.

    Let me make it simple – you are conceding your points to the obvious fact obvious that medicine and medical science have no use of TOE, as you originally claimed.

    This truth has been only a part of my statement.

    I said and you quoted:

    No evolutionist can name a single practical use of evolution.
    -If science produces knowledge that engineers do not consume – it is a garbage science.
    -Your life, well being and comfort depend on MDs and engineers, not on scientists.
    -(There is no clear division, as you can see MDs opposing evolution do a lot of research and experimentation.)
    -No engineer, no MD, no veterinarian, no crop and food producer has been having any use for TOE.



    Do you have any objections to these true facts?
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
  12. sdelsolray

    sdelsolray Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2016
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    300
    Trophy Points:
    83
    This is yet another one that is not worth any time.
     
  13. DarkDaimon

    DarkDaimon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,532
    Likes Received:
    1,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can we use pig heart valves to replace human heart valves? Because genetically we are similar enough to reduce rejection. Why? Because of evolution.
    Why do we use monkey and apes to test drugs. Again, because we are genetically similar enough for the tests to be meaningful. Why? Again, evolution.
    Why do humans get heart disease? It's because of our evolution from herbivore apes to omnivore humans.
    Why do we get diabetes? Because of the introduction of high carbohydrate foods entering out diet during the agricultural revolution and our evolution of insulin production.
    Why are some people lactose intolerant and others not? Because of the introduction of dairy in the human diet and the evolution of lactase in certain populations.
    Where did the CRISPR protein that scientists have been using to splice genes come from? It is an evolutionary defense used by single cell organisms against foreign viruses. The reason it works on human DNA is because of our evolutionary connection.

    Does creationism have a better explanation for these? Let us know what they are.

    There is no Nobel Prize for biology at all. It is usually paired up with Medicine or Chemistry. Why didn't Nobel include biology? He's not around to ask so any answer is pure conjecture. However, many of the Nobel prizes in Medicine and Chemistry have a evolutionary component to them.

    2017-Medicine: Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash and Michael W. Young for their discoveries of molecular mechanisms controlling the circadian rhythm. Hall, Rosbash and Young used fruit flies to discover the molecular switches that allow the body's clock to function. How do they know that those same molecular switches are in all other animal species, thus saving them time and money to investigate each species? Because of evolution.

    2016-Medicine: Yoshinori Ohsumi for his discoveries of mechanisms for autophagy. Yoshinori Ohsumi discovered the genes for autophagy in budding yeast. These genes are found across most species. Why? Because of evolution.

    2015-Chemistry: Tomas Lindahl, Paul Modrich and Aziz Sancar for mechanistic studies of DNA repair. By studying bacteria, and later eukaryotic cells, they discovered how DNA makes repairs. Why did they start with bacteria and then compared them with eukaryotic cells, because how close they are related evolutionary speaking.

    2015-Medicine: William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura for their discoveries concerning a novel therapy against infections caused by roundworm parasites and Youyou Tu for her discoveries concerning a novel therapy against Malaria. The top soil is one of the most competitive ecosystems on Earth. More organism can be found in a square centimeter than anywhere else. This competition leads to a evolutionary race as organisms either adapt or die. The Nobel winners exploited this by looking for biochemicals in soil that would kill parasites.

    2014-Medicine: John O'Keefe, May-Britt Moser and Edvard I. Moser for their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain.

    This list goes on.

    I know you are willfully ignorant of science, but the truth is that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of evolution. You can rant about crazy cults and the KGB all you want, but it does not change the fact that evolution is real and biologists use it to explain the biological world.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    tecoyah likes this.
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, what were you expecting me to use if not science?
    Yes, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory - the best science has on how that works.

    Creationism? There isn't a scientific theory on creation. There is the evidence that this universe started in a singularity. There is some success in understanding ways in which life could start.
    ???
    YOU are the one that came up with this med school thing. I'm the one agreeing that evolution is probably not taught in most medical schools.

    You haven't yet explained why you keep going on about doctors and med school. I'm fully aware that there are lots of scientists who believe in god and practice a religion. The question that pertains is whether religion affects their science. If so, it's probably going to be found out and questioned, as religion has no place in science.

    Evolution is a foundation of all biology.
    No, medical science has a foundation that includes the theory of evolution.
    "True facts"?

    - no, the direct application of scientific discovery doesn't always lead to immediate use. Whether an engineer uses the results of a scientific paper is absolutely not a legitimate criterion for judging the paper.

    - OK, NOW you're trying to suggest that SCIENCE is garbage!!! Why? What has you so hung up on doctors being people who work independently of science? That doesn't even make sense to me in any way.

    - again, some significant percent of scientists have strongly held religious beliefs. That's only a problem if such a person were to alter an experiment or investigation in any way such that it would conform to his/her beliefs.

    - Just about ALL of our food products in our stores have been modified by engineers who have used change through inheritance as a method of modifying plants and animals to enhance their value as crops for food. For example, apples were nasty inedible little things until farmer-scientists turned them into what they are today. Careful pollination is followed by selecting the better outcomes. This is also what nature does. Over large time, a population may divided into separate populations (due to food type, terrain (different sides of a mountain range), or whatever. The two populations will gradually change until they are different enough that they can't interbreed anymore. The only difference between nature and farmer-scientists is in what selections are made. Scientists in labs have identified specific changes that divide one species into two separate species at a cellular level - important, as plants and animals start out as single cells. These can include aberrations such as doubling the number of chromosomes, certain kinds of breakage, etc.

    Since evolution has produced a tree of all species that has humans close to pigs, rats, monkeys and other mammals, medical science and engineering have long used such animals to test various kinds of remedies before allowing them to be used on humans. Medical scientists (engineers?) watch viruses, bacteria and other such beasts change as they learn how to defeat the best remedies we have. Etc.
     
  15. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think you have a very good grasp of logic, specifically, the differences between existential and universal statements, and their negations. You could make a list of thousands of such things, and you will still not have negated my statement nor proven yours. And it is clear that you have no concept of this.
     
  16. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay, yes, I was correct in my suspicions. Logic is never "false" or "true", statements are. And logic can be perfectly valid, but it is not sound, if its premises can sometimes be or are always false. So what you just said is nonsensical.
     
  17. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect this person is used to using religious logic - where, regardless of any evidence, things are true when the religion (of the person or group) "has faith" that they are true.
     
  18. Mamasaid

    Mamasaid Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2018
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,218
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    God is true. Therefore, everything proves god is true.

    Logic!
     
  19. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A logic.

    Any Logic.

    Not logic.
     
  20. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You made the claim and kept on repeating the claim:

    I asked you to back up your claim with a single example showing evolutionary theory used to develop a single vaccine or an antibiotic.

    When somebody keeps on reciting the same claim but cannot back it up with any fact, any reality, one represents a good example of a zombified religious fanatic.

    I don't think you have any grasp of the reality around you.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2018
  21. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63

    I said that you will die but will never know what is the scientific method and what rules allow to determine which theory is scientific and which is not.

    Each time when I am talking to evolutionists/creationist arguing that their beliefs is science I get a feeling that I am talking to zombies.

    Hey, what rules allow to determine which theory is scientific which is not?

    Hey, didn’t you just quoted me saying again that creationism is not science?

    I answered to you continuing to claim that evolution is a topic in medical school.

    This is what you said:
    I predicted that evolutionists will be claiming again and again that evolution is taught in medical schools.

    They will be dancing and dancing around and you are dancing again:

    I'm the one agreeing that evolution is probably not taught in most medical schools.

    “Probably”.

    “In most”.

    I suggest, people, to watch WillReadmore and see her claiming again that evolution is NOT a major topic in medical school.

    Topic…

    I thought it was a theory, not a topic…


    Should I quote you the third time where you started from claiming that evolution is used to diagnose and treat deceases?

    Who does diagnose and treat deceases, evolutionary biologists?


    Links, quotes, testimonies… - boom, Allahu Akbar.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah…

    And biology is important for medicine…

    Zombies continue on their way, - Allahu Akbar.


    Did I say immediate? Did I say always?

    How in the world one normal person reading my words can ever think that I am trying to suggest that science is garbage?

    Are we talking about a scientific paper?

    You either start replying to my words, or continue as a zombie out of my way.

    That is absolutely crazy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2018
  22. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    1. I gave you the studies and polls:

    - About 40% – Goddidit .

    - About 30% - Goddidit through evolution.

    - About 30% –evolutiondidit.


    One guess is as good as another one, everyone thinks that his belief is better.


    You have to demonstrate that natural sciences ask or answer question Why.



    Did I ever deny that?


    You have to demonstrate that theories of natural science have any regards for correct logical deductions based on empirical evidence.


    Otherwise you are just keep on bubbling like a crazy idiot, I am sorry, I wanted to say a believer in evolution with no attention to links, quotes, articles, established facts.


    2. Genetics was founded and grew into a distinct science with no need, no use, no reference to evolution – fact.

    3. Genetics uses a totally different approach, scientific method than evolution - fact.

    4. Mendel , the catholic monk was a University trained in physics and mathematics, while Darwin’s knowledge about physics and mathematics did not exceed a 4th graders, do you see the difference in the approach or you don’t? You don't - fact.

    5. Lisenko/Stalin banned genetics because they knew that it was opposing evolution. fact.

    6. Evolution and genetics are a part of MCAD, then evolution is dropped, only genetics is studied.fact.

    7. No discovery in genetics, no Medical, chemistry or Nobel prize, no article mentions evolution.fact.

    8. Evolution jumped on board only when it was clear that genetics was having a great practical use.

    9. Evolution is rather an obstacle then any help for advancement of genetics and medicine or any other science. fact.

    “prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind.”

    https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred-nobel/full-text-of-alfred-nobels-will/

    Should I explain.... time...


    [QUOTE="DarkDaimon, post: 1069628979, member: 47775] However, many of the Nobel prizes in Medicine and Chemistry have a evolutionary component to them.

    2017-Medicine: Jeffrey C. Hall, Michael Rosbash and Michael W. Young for their discoveries of molecular mechanisms controlling the circadian rhythm. Hall, Rosbash and Young used fruit flies to discover the molecular switches that allow the body's clock to function. How do they know that those same molecular switches are in all other animal species, thus saving them time and money to investigate each species? Because of evolution. [/QUOTE]

    You are supposed to give a quote and a link .

    It is your duty, not mine.

    Quick search:

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jeffrey-C-Hall

    https://www.pressherald.com/2017/10...in-nobel-medicine-prize-for-body-rhythm-work/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29673553

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1203660/pdf/ge1214773.pdf

    Search for creationist’s "adapt" brings results, search for "evolution" or "evolve" brings 0 results.

    I have been betting everything on one, justone result.

    Do you know why?

    Because I know the rules allowing to determine which theory belongs to natural sciences and which does not, when evolutionists will die, but never know the rules working like a charm since Archimedes’ times.





    I took the first one of each of your “examples”, I am not certainly not going to go through all of them.

    Do you understand one, uno, ein?

    Try again.

    Do just one Nobel prize, just one example, just one article and you will prove me wrong.

    I am especially interested in Nobel Prize, because it looks to me it turned into a total garbage.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2018
  23. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. Creationism includes a requirement for a supreme being. There is no possibility of science dealing with any supernatural being. This isn't a statement that a supreme being doesn't exist, by the way. It's just that there is no way for science to deal with that question. The rules for science don't allow that.
    I stand by that quote. Evolution is probably not a major topic in medical school.

    That could be true even if evolution were used as a major tool in some coursework. One would expect that a med school candidate would not require a course in evolution.
    Even on discussion board threads we have a concept of what the topic of a thread is.

    Why do you care whether evolution is taught in med school?

    As I've said before, my position is that it doesn't matter.
    You said, "-If science produces knowledge that engineers do not consume – it is a garbage science."

    And, that's nonsense.
     
  24. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hey, what rules allow to determine which theory is scientific which is not?

    Hey, didn’t I already said 5 times that according to the rules creationism is not science?

    Cite the rules now, or go away forever.

    Absolutely crazy.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2018
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK.

    And, if I provide the cite will YOU go away forever?
     

Share This Page