Evolution for Dummies...*Edit*.....is for Dummies
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 10, 2007 06:19
VIEWED: 23475
PAGE 1 of 12
Just some hard science for the Evolutionists (Philosophers) among us. Read. or don't, you can always keep on believing in a ridiculously flawed philosophy
.... http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Same old arguments that have been debunked time and again.
But regardless of that, there is no proper scientific argument that can end with "As we don't understand this process, God must have done it."
As even that article says, a postulate requires certain conditions to be held true:
1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.
Creationism matches none of these criteria.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are doing what has hampered mankind from divorcing ourselves from ridiculous theories since we crawled out of the primordial soup
, not listening to the truth because we hate the messenger. The argument against evolution is made in the paper. That he believes in god is irrelevant. Is he correct about mutations, statistics, physics, the made up fudge factor, genetics, or Darwinism. He maybe a religious man, but that does not negate evolution being wrong. Accepting that as truth does not mean god did it..Just that evolution, as we spout it, is wrong.
P.s. And you could not have read that paper in 16 minutes. So, let those that do comment. You, obviously are closed minded and not open to anything that goes against your beliefs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Same old arguments that have been debunked time and again.
But regardless of that, there is no proper scientific argument that can end with "As we don't understand this process, God must have done it."
As even that article says, a postulate requires certain conditions to be held true:
1. The postulate must be observable.
2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
3. The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.
Creationism matches none of these criteria.
While I do agree with your conclusion, I want to quibble about your ( their? ) definition of " postulate"
When I learned it, a long time ago when we were still evolving, a postulate was a preliminary assumption, a thing agreed or accepted to be true, much like a laywer's stipulated fact, at least as the starting point for argument. A postulate could be hypothetical :" If faster than light travel is possible, then--"
I just looked it up in my Webster's Unabridged, where it says, in part:
"a position or supposition assumed without proof,or one that is considered self-evident, or too plain to require illustration; a propostion of which the truth is demanded or assumed for the purpose of further reasoning; a necessary assumption"
SO, if you start with the postulate, " Evolution is wrong, " you get one conclusion. If you start with a postulate of, " Evolution *M*A*Y* be right--" then the argument takes another shape, and the conclusion may be different.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I started reading it and ran into a problem in the first three paras....
Quote:Why look at the words of an amateur? If you're talking about science, it seems to me that he should be quoting scientists. He uses this straw-man argument because a real scientist wouldn't make the mistake that the amateur did. If the rest of the website is as duplicitous and manipulative as the intro, why should I bother reading the rest???
But first let us look at the comments of an amateur evolutionist.
---------------------------------
It don't make no sense.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I found MAJOR problems in the first section alone. This is just a small sampling of the errors. Either this person doesn't know anything about the topic OR they are deliberately whole-cloth fabricating their 'information'.
PLEASE educate yourself before you waste my time and try to foist this off on me.
"Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept."
So this person is not talking abut the 'creation' of life, but about major changes from one life form to another. Dude, there is common biochemistry across all life forms. In fact, there is common DNA across all life forms. This supports macro-evolution. It does fly in the face of creationism - if you are the creator, why use the same template over and over?
"Variety is there because evolution causes random mutation, hence the variety." I googled this phrase carefully, as it is a supposed quote. The only place I found it was your linked site. So this is a straw-man argument. By mis-stating the evolutionary argument, the person creates an easy target. From a supposedly religious person interested in 'truth', it's very dishonest.
"Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning. ... there are multiple mutation processes that can impact a genome but evolutionists only choose one. Duplication - Inversion - Deletion - Insertion - Transposition - (Recombination) - Point Mutation -
none of these (first six) processes can add any data to the genome.
1) Mutations must be positive and allow the organism to procreate and pass them on.
2. The mutations must add information to the genome of the organism.
To date no evolutionist has pointed out such a mutation.."
The person who is writing this is seriously mis-informed about the biochemistry of the genome. Duplication, deletion, insertion, and transposition cause MAJOR changes in biochemistry and anatomy. Loss of a single gene function is how whales lost their legs. These genetic changes which the author dismisses so casually can cause major heritable changes in biochemistry and anatomy. (To say that NO EVOLUTIONIST can point to this kind of mutation is a bald lie.)
"Population Genetics show that a positive mutation in a population has a poor chance of surviving the “noise” of random events in the population."
Again this is a complete mis-representation of what population genetics shows. Population genetics show that in a stable population, the relative distribution of genes (even the shiny new mutations) will stay the same. Under environmental pressure favorable variations will be selected.
"Even molecular biology has not helped as the evolutionists have hoped."
Actually, molecular biology has been a boon to evolution as more and more conserved sequences - between say bacteria, yeast and man - not only support the 'common ancestor' concept of evolution, but allow basic research - on say human aging - to be performed on yeast.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
That he believes in god is irrelevant.
Sure it is.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the tile of this post should be "This website is for dummies" with the link. Not saying Kaneman is one.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I especially like it when they say "This theory of evolution doesn't happen so obviously Creationism has been proven without doubt".
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, his point that mutations take away from an organism and add nothing new to a genome is fact. So, if you want to make a case for "De-evolution" feel free, but don't use it for a pro evolution argument. I am not a creationist by any stretch, I am saying the gaping holes in evolution cannot be overlooked by anyone being intellectually honest. To believe evolution we would have to forget all the scientific disciplines and laws that show it not only unlikely, but impossible. I am not willing to abandon established laws and sciences in favor of a "Philosophy".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME