DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Alter2Ego, May 6, 2012.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cosmologists do not believe our universe came from nothing.
     
  2. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
    ⁜→ ChemEngineer, et al,

    What I have not learned through experience and evidence, I've probably learned through both books and lectures.

    I am not so arrogant as to believe that all alternative theories to mainstream physics are nonsense. And while I have read the opposition to Bohmian Mechanics (Pilot Wave Theory - PWT) and tend to believe that even at the extremes of Quantum Mechanics (QM), I am not yet convinced that there is compelling evidence to totally disregard the idea that spontaneous generation through quantum fluctuations possible. Although, I'm not sure that there is even such a thing as "nothingness." [Question: Is there any position in the known universe where an observer might (theoretically) stand and observe zero energy (across the entire spectrum) from all vectors in a spherical scan?] (This is an unknown.) There is even energy originating from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). And whatever you can detect on one side of the CMB, is detectable on the other side of the CMB. There are even types of matter and energy that we have not yet defined but are detectable in terms of its gravitational effect on other stellar objects and energy forms.

    (COMMENT)

    Am I impressed easily? Well, I don't think that is really relevant. But give me the name of your published works, and I will give it the same attention as other doctoral-level publications; such as those from a theoretical physicist and cosmologist, and a Fellow of the Royal Society (Lawrence M. Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, etc). Am I so learned that I can afford to be dismissive of such scholars? (I don't think so.) What about:

    Yes, It is quite possible that such things as a “zero energy” universe or a spontaneous generation as a theory to the origins of the universe may be entirely wrong. But I doubt, in my lifetime, that it will be proven one way of the other.

    But until then, I hope you don't mind too much if I give some serious consideration to the giants of contemporary physics such as Marie Curie, Ernest Rutherford, Neils Bohr, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Alan Guth, and Peter Higgs. I have read many of their published works as well. And maybe, I'll add your name to my reading list some day.

    (EXPECTATION)

    Maybe you will take the time to pick a point or two of Dr Krauss's work and banter with me...

    ......... •  Smaller then Smallest.png
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  3. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins

    Page 80 - “Mutations can be reversed (‘back mutations’). For most genes, mutation in either direction is equally probable.”
    P. 91 “There can be no going downhill - species can’t get worse as a prelude to getting better.”

    P 132 - “It cannot be said often enough that Darwinian theory does not allow for getting temporarily worse in quest of a long-term goal.”

    [Both directions are equally probable but there can be no going downhill. "Science," Dawkins style.]

    P. 134 - “To say it again, going down the slopes of Mount Improbable is not allowed by Natural Selection.”

    P 82 - All improvement (in a living cell) is therefore, in the first place lucky, which is why people mistakenly think of Darwinism as a theory of chance. But mistaken they are.”

    P. 101 - “(Sir Frederick Hoyle) is reported to have said that the evolution, by natural selection, of a complicated structure such as a protein molecule or by implication, an eye or a heart is about as likely as a hurricane’s having the luck to put together a Boeing 747 when whirling through a junkyard. If he’d said ‘chance’ instead of ‘natural selection’ he’d have been right.”

    (Dr. Dawkins did NOT quote Sir Hoyle. What Sir Hoyle said was “The spontaneous generation of a bacterium is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein”. Dawkins’ first error was in substituting “protein” for “bacterium”. Complex as a protein is, a bacterium has hundreds of them in it. Secondly, “probability” is purely a matter of “chance”. Mutation “is indeed a chance process”, and ONLY mutation configures proteins and enzymes. ONLY mutation - “chance”, “accidental” mutation. “Natural selection” - that evolutionist’s Magic Wand - has nothing whatsoever to do with the assembly either of a bacterium or a 747. Why is this simple concept so difficult for evolutionists to grasp! It is the assembly that is the difficult part. Waving the Magic Wand over the finished product and declaring it completed is trivial in comparison.)

    P. 287 - “An elephant is a colony of about 1,000 trillion cells, and each one of those cells is itself a colony of bacteria.”

    [Inside the peritoneal cavity it is sterile. There are no bacteria outside of the elephant's gut or our own. This is pure ignorance by Dawkins. His other books display similar ignorance of science and common sense, as do Carl Sagan's, an agnostic who was prone to making snide remarks directed at Christians and conservatives.]
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2019
  4. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    well perhaps you should post Darwin’s definition of Macro -Evolution if you are going to debate about Darwin’s theories.
     
  5. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your mistake is in assuming that just because something is exceedingly improbable it will never happen. Any statistician will tell you that is incorrect. Let me give you a simple example. Take coin flips The odd of twenty heads in a row is 2 to the twentieth power. Exceedingly small. And yet any statistician can tell you that if you flip a coin enough times the probability of twenty heads in a row not occurring becomes vanishingly small.

    or the old infinite monkeys typing for an infinite period of time will eventually write Shakespeare.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
  6. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You said "odd" but meant "odds."
    You said "2 to the twentieth power" but meant "one chance in 2 to the 20th power, which is not that unlikely at all.
    You have no concept of statistics. The probability of 20 consecutive heads doesn't change.


    1. There are not "infinite monkeys". Not even half of that imaginary number. Not a billionth.
    2. There has not been an "infinite period of time" nor will there be in this universe. Read up on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    3. What is the probability of striking 1 of the more than 50 different keystrokes on any keyboard correctly one hundred times in succession?
    1 over 50 to the 100th power. That is a far smaller number than 1 chance in 10 to the 50th, a commonly held definition of "impossible."
    The most rigorous definition is 1 in 10 to the 150th. I won't bother to explain how it was derived, but suffice to say that 10 to the 50th grains of sand
    would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto. And you would don a space suit, dive in to each of fifteen solar systems full of sand, and find the ONE special grain, on your first and only try? It's ONE chance, not an "infinite number" of chances.

    Next time you see a picture of a large beach or a desert, remember your Shakespeare reference and find that one grain of sand. YOU CAN DO IT ! ! !
     
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Genetic mutation is not the sole factor in evolution.

    The problem with going backwards is that the backwards version was rejected. Expecting it to NOT be rejected the second time around would be pretty darn amazing.
    There is no force within a whirlwind in a junkyard for accepting or rejecting individual elements of change.

    This is the same ignorance as shown by those ignoring selection - leading individuals to conclude that evolution is purely about chance.

    Very obviously, it is not.
    This isn't even worthy of discussion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019
    RoccoR likes this.
  8. Alter2Ego

    Alter2Ego Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    579
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    carlberky:

    You are using the stale and often-used atheist tactic of assigning human limitations to Almighty God. Scripture makes it clear that Jehovah is eternal (he had no beginning and he has no end).

    "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalms 90:2 -- King James Version)

    Alter2Ego
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  9. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor John Lennox, Oxford University

    His lecture "A Matter of Gravity" can be viewed on www.YouTube.com

    It is extremely convincing, from a very well educated Christian.
     
  10. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's hoping no one imagines the observation requires affirmation by any mortal pedagogical authority figure, as there are ten year olds who would balk at the idea of a created God.
     
  11. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Atheist *intellectuals* Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both "discovered" the brilliant *scientific* necessity of denying God at the age of nine years.
    They never outgrew it.
     
  12. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have not read any of Krauss' books, but have read several of Carl Sagan's, a former agnostic, and Richard Dawkins, an extremely malicious, and hateful atheist.

    Sagan: "Sex was invented."
    Please explain RoccoR and don't tell me "what he meant to say." That's what he said. If he did not mean to say what he said, why did he say it.

    Dawkins: "A room full of monkeys would eventually type all the works of Shakespeare."

    Please. What is 1/50 to the 100th power for just a short sentence?
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Likewise, the environment which gave birth to the "big bang" could be eternal.

    The idea that god existed before the "big bang" but absolutely nothing else existed before the "big bang" is a little weird. If god existed it would seem like there would be some manifestation - energy, or whatever. And, energy is all that is needed to create a "big bang".
     
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People accept the existence of god by that age and then don't "outgrow" it.

    I'm not sure what point you are making here. Are you just trying to accuse atheists as being childish?
     
    RoccoR likes this.
  15. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sagan meant to say that sex was invented.

    What's your point?
     
  16. RoccoR

    RoccoR Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
    ⁜→ ChemEngineer, et al,


    (COMMENT)

    I would not presume to know or interpret what Dr Carl Sagan meant.

    (COMMENT)

    Unlike probability, this is a theory on inevitability. Given enough time, I inevitably earn my doctorate; but, the probability of me earning a doctorate is near infinitesimal (as it approaches zero).

    (COMMENT)

    ✦ 1^100/(1/50) = 50​

    (IMPERICAL THOUGHT)

    ✦ It is a question of mathematics. It does not require a "sentence." It only requires a determination on the mathematical expressions [ 1^100/(1/50) ] and equality (=50). And that confuses me in → what application it might have to the discussion.​

    ......... [​IMG]
    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  17. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Viewers, RoccoR has not the slightest idea of what exponents are. There are at least 50 keys on any keyboard, typewriter or computer.
    This doesn't even count components in upper case, which would double the number of keys.

    So Mister Monkey would have a choice of 50 different keys to hit, 100 times in succession for a short sentence, much less a paragraph, a book or in Dawkins' words, "The complete works of Shakespeare." One chance in 50 to the 100th power is 1 chance in 10 to the 169th power.

    There are "only" 10 to the 80th fundamental particles in the universe.

    "Sex was invented" contradicts Neo-Darwinism, where it all made itself in perfect alphabetology, viz., "A>B>C>D" as Dawkins writes.
    So scientific. So precise. We often used "A>B>C>D" in my biochemistry classes...… Professor said, "Brilliant! No, really."
     
  18. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Chance is not a creative force.
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  19. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Darwinian evolution is based upon chance mutations accumulating into ever increasing functional complexity.
    Natural selection is nothing but extinction by degrees; it offers nothing new.
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  20. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps the most common observation ever made by human beings is that this did not happen by chance. People who lived thousands of miles and thousands of years apart, people who never even knew of each other's existence, all made the same observation -this did not all happen by chance. As creative beings, we are able to recognize created things. Only a human being can recognize an arrow head from other rocks of the same type and know immediately that that did not happen by chance.

    The idea that this all happened by chance is perhaps the most ridiculous idea that human beings have ever come up with.

    Chance is not a creative force.
    Chance is what man calls the void where the knowledge of God would be.
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  21. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Darwin did not originate the term ‘evolution’, use the word mutation, or in his discussions of the principles of natural selection role in the diversity of the species imply the the consequence of natural selection was increasing functional complexity nor any other similarly implied valuation. Nor, did he ever use the phrase, ‘survival of the fittest’. The term evolution already existed long before it was applied to his publications, already was associated with various and different concepts and theories. Everything you think you know of Darwin’s work isn’t of Darwin, but of many preceding him and many later applying his work to their own agendas.
    BTW, given the last couple decades of work in genetics and the development of tools to modify the Genome (think CRISPR) and discussions of the biological mechanisms that perform genetic sequence repair, along with the variations found in the genetic sequences of individuals within any given species, combined with the underlying principle of natural selection (a concept that can be applied to many domains such as culture, ideas, business, etc.) The mechanisms resulting in speciation are becoming better understood.
    Not long after Darwin published his work, the MSM of the time combined with a combination of religious criticism, parody, and Victorian superiority, explaining Darwin was suggesting Humans evolved from apes... a view that resulted in the famous and persisting image showing the progression from quadruped ape forms through to the upright bipedalism and modern form of humans. At the time, Darwin hadn’t suggested that, but that it was possible both modern apes and modern humans shared a common ancestor... some thing extremely plausible considering the similarity of the modern human genome with that of the modern chimpanzee. But, the popularized view of Darwin’s work was employed in subsequent years to evoke the Victorian view of their values and technology, an thus, them, being superior to that of other ‘less evolved’ people, thus justifying their imperialism as bringing civilization to the less fortunate, with them, of course, as the enlighten rule. Hitler, liked that line of thinking, as did every other nation with imperial (greed) aspirations... the beginnings of ‘the survival of the fittest’ justified expansionist credo.
    Just as a question of thought, do you think Darwin would consider humans to be a superior form of life over the common roach? Or, does that sound like a measure more likely assigned by Western religions. But, in the case of a massive meteor strike of the scale suggested by those that believe such an event responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs, which would be more likely for long term survival; humans or roachs?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You and others keep forgetting that mutation is only a mechanism for creating new choices.

    The critical part that gets repeatedly overlooked is that of selection. Mutations that are advantageous tend to get preserved longer than those that cause death, for example.

    So, it keeps getting pointed out that the "whirlwind in a junkyard" nonsense is dead wrong. Evolution requires a selection proces. Plus, it requires more time.

    When assaulting evolution, let's at least try to understand what it IS before making preposterous claims about how it doesn't work!
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  23. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,898
    Likes Received:
    2,751
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Advantageous mutations" are not possible. Chance is not a creative force. Selection is extinction by degrees. Selection adds nothing and neither does mutation.
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    These are bald assertions you are making, which run contrary to demonstrable science.
     
  25. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am 100% certain that you did not understand the article you linked to.

    The answer to the problem of fluctuating amounts of this important isotope is calibration. While an uncalibrated reading may be off by a factor of 10%-20%, calibration severely reduces that value. Standard calibration curves are now used for more accurate readings.

    While this error exists - claiming this is proof that such technologies are worthlessly inaccurate - as you have tried to do - is simply promoting a falsehood.

    Worst case scenario in your link - the date is off by 20% - with proper calibration the error is much lower - but using the worst case scenario - if we say that the age of the earth value is off 20% - that still puts the world at billions of years old - blowing creation nonsense out of the water.

    Ice cores are very accurate and have a low error - like tree rings you count the layers. They go back hundreds of thousands of years - blowing away the creation account.

    Coral reefs also go back hundreds of thousands of years. Scientists can tell you the temperature of the water during various periods.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.

Share This Page