I have posted in a couple of the 'evolution' threads, but they always seem to become religious arguments, with matters of faith & belief being argued. I propose a scientific discussion of this topic, & a scientific critique of the different 'theories' of origins & increasing complexity. In this now closed thread, i made a critique of evolution as a valid theory of origins & increased complexity. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=267228&page=50&p=1062101248#post1062101248 Here was my contribution: This went on for a while, even going on to a new thread.. But seldom were scientific evidences offered as proof. As a reminder, here is the 'scientific method': Ok, the question is, 'Does life increase in complexity? We will accept the research of scientists from darwin to anyone who wants to support our hypothesis.. here it is: Evolution is the mechanism that causes an increase in complexity in life forms. That is stating it in a simple form. Now, lets try to 'test' this hypothesis. Hmm.. anyone do an experiment? Yes, of course! There have been thousands if not millions of experiments done to try to validate this theory! Do we have anything that can prove this hypothesis? Has there been any experiment where a NEW life form has been made to 'evolve' into another? NO! They have made strains of fruit flies. They have made resistant bacteria. The only thing they have PROVEN is that living things do NOT evolve into distinct, different forms, but are locked in to their genetic parameters. This is a direct contradiction to the hypothesis. It is not a valid theory or hypothesis, scientifically. THAT is the analysis of the results of centuries of 'testing' trying to prove evolution! The hypothesis is invalid.. the only thing partially true is that living things will vary within their genetic parameters & ADAPT to their environment. But fish do NOT turn into reptiles, nor do reptiles turn into birds. That is speculation & fantasy, not science. IF the hypothesis of macro evolution was true, we should be able to force it in controlled conditions in a laboratory. But even with all our technological prowess, we cannot! We can split atoms, & dissect the dna, but we cannot make a simple amoeba into a bacteria, or a fruit fly into a mosquito. We cannot force these genetic variations, yet we are to believe they somehow happened in the past? Based on what science? Fantasy? THAT is the logical conclusion using the scientific method. But what have the pseudo scientists concluded? Have they gone back & revised the hypothesis? No, they step up & declare, 'Evolution is proven fact' They boldly proclaim this conclusion, which has NO validity as a scientific hypothesis. They completely skip the 'analyze results' part, & strut around, brandishing their theory like a gun. It is not loaded, though, & has no power. It is a toy, useful only for entertaining children, & fooling the gullible. So, without ANY scientific evidence, or ANY facts to back it up, it is still ASSUMED.. Millions of years are proposed as a reason we cannot test it, yet we MUST believe it to be true. Macro evolution is impossible. It cannot happen now, & it is a great leap of faith to believe it happened 'way back then'. It is fine as a fantasy, or a belief system, but it is NOT science.
c'mon, wiz.. that's the basic premise of evolution. Higher, more complex creatures 'evolve' from lower, less complex ones. They gain information in their dna. They go from single cell to multi cell. They go from cold blooded to warm. This is basic evolution.
No it is not - they can evolve, but less complex life doesn't automatically evolve into higher forms. Bats evolved after humans both are mammals, by your definition the bat should be more advanced and more complex than a human, demonstrably they are not
You're just being technical or obtuse.. you know what i mean. You know the claims & my critique of this hypothesis. You can dodge it, & deflect from it, if you want, but that does not add any scientific validity to the theory. State it another way, if you want. Genetics will still shoot down your hypothesis.
Wow corned you fast. But try this - mammals are considered a more complex form than the bird. Yet mammals evolved a good 50 - 100 millions years before them. How can that be? But you can easily shut me up by showing where experts in the field claim increasing complexity has to occur as part of evolution
I'm not corned at all.. i'll be getting some dinner, soon, & corned beef or corn on the cob might be on the menu. But i'm not buying any of your corn, kansas boy. You're using circular reasoning. stick with the premise. How did life evolve from simple, one celled organisms to the variety & complexity we see today? What mechanism is there that we can test, repeat, & analyze the data? Looking for 'gotcha!' escape clauses won't help you here. Stick with science, & don't try to frighten me with smoke & mirrors, telling me to 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Well if you want to stick to science you first need to show, science is saying what you claim. If it was what evolutionary science argues, should have little trouble answering my challenge of showing someone in the field that is claiming it
I guess it depends on what we are willing to believe. Did life spring up exactly as it is spontaneously, or did it take time? What's your theory?
Anyone who wants to discuss the science of evolution without discussing mutation is hosed from the get-go.
The point here is not to bluster about our opinions, but to examine any theories of origins or increasing complexity in life. Personally, i am an origins agnostic, if you were fishing for my OPINION. I cannot prove this position using the scientific method, but i arrived at my views through it. I suppose i could state MY hypothesis thusly: There is no way to arrive at a scientific conclusion about life's origins or advancements... but this is not falsifiable, & cannot be tested. It is a dogmatic statement, based not on scientific conclusions, but on the lack thereof. So i would need to polish my 'hypothesis' to make it work under the scientific method. Then use mutations as evidence of your hypothesis.. show how it is a valid mechanism to support your premise. This is a scientific exercise.. we have plenty of threads where assertions are made & dogmatic opinions are presented. How about some REAL science.. using facts, logic, & sourced evidence.
The simple question is about evolution. Do living things increase in complexity or not? Is evolution the mechanism that makes this happen? Can you prove this? Stick with the science, & don't try to deflect or nitpick any details or definitions.
Utter and complete horse(*)(*)(*)(*). Mammals have always been mammals. Birds have always been birds. There is precisely zero scientific evidence otherwise.
Not as a rule no. It has happened on occasion, but it is definitely not an expected outcome of any evolutionary process. And if we want to be scientific can you be a little more precise in your questions. Which evolutionary mechanism are you speaking of
Hmmmm.... Let me think... Eureka! Monotremes have always been Monotremes!!! Unless you have some evidence otherwise?
So you are suggesting that we went from a spark of life in a primordial ooze, to complex creatures with millions of genetic 'bits'... how? I presented my critique of the hypothesis. If you want to go back to the drawing board, & propose a new hypothesis, i'm all ears. It is still my contention, with scientific support, that the 'theory' of increasing complexity via evolution can not happen, & there is no scientific data or experimentation to support it. It is fantasy & belief, not science.
All mammals produce eggs, Genius. Where in the fossil record do the Monotremes emerge? Hmmm? Where?!?!??!?!?
It has not only happened once, but probably twice, and maybe as many as four times. The key is geographic isolation, the smaller the parent population the greater chance mutation has to become noticeable. First an isolated population will drift enough to no longer be able to breed with the original population, that is when a species comes into existence - - - Updated - - - I said lay eggs - you know like birds and reptiles
So what is your explanation for mammals that breed like reptiles, fish that carry live young like a mammal. Mammals that act like birds. Fish that act like reptiles. The list is pretty endless really.
My answer is mutation. What is your answer? Some magical process whereby mud eventually turns into human beings?!? Get real. That is totally frigging absurd.
