Tell me your detest/disagreement/objection in evolution theory, and I will try to answer it.
I am not an evolutionary scientist, but I am a scientist, and I know a basic understanding of evolution theory. So if you have any objections/disagreement/things-that-don't-make-sense-according-to-you, you could write them here, and I will try to answer them.
No dirty words, slandering, etc please.
and also, trolls are welcomed only if they are amusing
No dirty words, slandering, etc please.
and also, trolls are welcomed only if they are amusing
Comments640
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Babylonia
Things that don't make sense? hmk. Why hasn't Religious martyrism not been selected out of the species right now?
Why don't these dip shits belive it?
Why is Intelligent Design not seriously pursued as a theory, when evolution, as a theory, explains how life progressed, not how life originated?
The origins of life is abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution.
ID is pursued as a theory by people like this, [link] and [link] , however they consistently fail to establish scientific credibility (mostly since, per their own admission, "Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well" (also add alchemy or divination or palmistry)). It sums up that by admitting supernatural causation, they throw out the falsifiability criteria out of science. At that point, ID has exited the practice of science, it is just philosophical wanking to justify one's own preconceived ideas.
Therefore most ID argumentation remains mostly a "battle of the negative" (rather than proving ID right, they try and prove evolution wrong, which of course is a false dichotomy), and a political fight (see misc. legislature proposals on the topic at hand).
ID is pursued as a theory by people like this, [link] and [link] , however they consistently fail to establish scientific credibility (mostly since, per their own admission, "Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well" (also add alchemy or divination or palmistry)). It sums up that by admitting supernatural causation, they throw out the falsifiability criteria out of science. At that point, ID has exited the practice of science, it is just philosophical wanking to justify one's own preconceived ideas.
Therefore most ID argumentation remains mostly a "battle of the negative" (rather than proving ID right, they try and prove evolution wrong, which of course is a false dichotomy), and a political fight (see misc. legislature proposals on the topic at hand).
So how solid is the abiogenesis theory in comparison?
you mean in comparison to creationism? rock solid.
For one, it actually is a scientific theory, meaning among others it is falsifiable and relies on natural explanations to natural phenomenons. For another one, experiments have actually been conducted that support its different threads...more that can be said for any of the ill-conceived attempts to recast religious beliefs into pseudo-science.
At the end, that is indeed what remains, that is a bad idea to try to cast religious beliefs, that should exist on Faith alone, into scientific theories. It leads to masquerading one's religion under a false mantel of pseudo-science to attempt to give it some legitimacy. Religion ought not to desire to claim its legitimacy through such methods. It is pointless and debases religion.
VE.
For one, it actually is a scientific theory, meaning among others it is falsifiable and relies on natural explanations to natural phenomenons. For another one, experiments have actually been conducted that support its different threads...more that can be said for any of the ill-conceived attempts to recast religious beliefs into pseudo-science.
At the end, that is indeed what remains, that is a bad idea to try to cast religious beliefs, that should exist on Faith alone, into scientific theories. It leads to masquerading one's religion under a false mantel of pseudo-science to attempt to give it some legitimacy. Religion ought not to desire to claim its legitimacy through such methods. It is pointless and debases religion.
VE.
I wasn't speaking of creationism with that question. I have my own issues with that hypothesis. I was simply referring to the idea that something with intelligence triggered life on earth, and looking at scientific fact from a standpoint of order, rather than chaos. I'm not saying religion should have a place in the scientific community, nor am I saying that any particular "god" brought about the process, or is manipulating the process.
I mean as an idea for the worlds origin, if one where to look solely at the information at present, there is as much speculation behind the abiogenesis theory as behind the biogenesis theory, as it seems no one in the scientific community, that I've seen anyway, has a solid answer behind the creation of the first cell, where evolution starts.
I mean as an idea for the worlds origin, if one where to look solely at the information at present, there is as much speculation behind the abiogenesis theory as behind the biogenesis theory, as it seems no one in the scientific community, that I've seen anyway, has a solid answer behind the creation of the first cell, where evolution starts.
I wasn't speaking of creationism with that question. I have my own issues with that hypothesis. I was simply referring to the idea that something with intelligence triggered life on earth, and looking at scientific fact from a standpoint of order, rather than chaos.
Be careful there, ID has been shown to be just a relabeling of creationism...so you are threading thin ice at best by trying to delineate between a <hypothetical non-Christian ID> and <ID as it currently exist, a Christian religious belief>.
In any case, let us play with this for a minute and let's start at the beginning...
Question 1. Did life on earth start by supernatural or by natural means (irrespective of an intelligent and/or cause cause to those natural means)? Did life on earth start through processes explainable by natural phenomenons?
If you answer supernatural, then you are into creationism, you have escaped the realm of science and are now making a religious/philosophical argument. If you answer natural, you get to move to the next question
Question 2. Assuming life on earth came about by natural processes, did it start by an external (potentially intelligent) agent, or by the chemical processes posited in the theory of abiogenesis?
Here the key is occam's razor. For the current theory of abiogenesis, I need to posit no other natural phenomenons than the basic laws of physics. For the theory of alien intervention, I have to assume causation by an as currently undescribed source of extraterrestrial origins. If we ignore the issue of what caused the alien cause to exist itself in the first place (the recurrence problem), I am still left with needing the current laws of physics (through which the alien cause acted) and the existence of this alien cause to support this. Occam would require me to select the theory making the fewest assumptions.
You also of course have a testability problem. The current theory of abiogenesis is tested against experiments and modeling, from Miller-Urey to measurements of hydrothermal vents, [link] . What do you propose to test to verify youyr hypothesis, keeping in mind that an unfalsifiable hypothesis can notbe a scientific hypothesis ...
Anyhow...what it boils down to is that abiogenesis is the currently correct scientific theory to explain the origins of life on earth. Like all scientific theories, it can be proven wrong. But until proven wrong, it is the correct theory. The thing to remember is that from the perspective of scientific validity, a fully scientific theory even if incomplete still trumps a religious/philosophical theory (god/aliens did it), since the scientific theory offers testability while a theory that calls in for a mysterious cause fails on any (or all) of natural causation, occam's Razor, testability ground.
Don't take me wrong, you can believe anything you choose to, you can even be partial to this or that without having to justify yourself to me. You could even choose to scientifically pursue research in any alternative theories you wish to. But when it comes to "what is the correct current scientific theory for the origins of life on earth?", the answer is abiogenesis.
VE
Be careful there, ID has been shown to be just a relabeling of creationism...so you are threading thin ice at best by trying to delineate between a <hypothetical non-Christian ID> and <ID as it currently exist, a Christian religious belief>.
In any case, let us play with this for a minute and let's start at the beginning...
Question 1. Did life on earth start by supernatural or by natural means (irrespective of an intelligent and/or cause cause to those natural means)? Did life on earth start through processes explainable by natural phenomenons?
If you answer supernatural, then you are into creationism, you have escaped the realm of science and are now making a religious/philosophical argument. If you answer natural, you get to move to the next question
Question 2. Assuming life on earth came about by natural processes, did it start by an external (potentially intelligent) agent, or by the chemical processes posited in the theory of abiogenesis?
Here the key is occam's razor. For the current theory of abiogenesis, I need to posit no other natural phenomenons than the basic laws of physics. For the theory of alien intervention, I have to assume causation by an as currently undescribed source of extraterrestrial origins. If we ignore the issue of what caused the alien cause to exist itself in the first place (the recurrence problem), I am still left with needing the current laws of physics (through which the alien cause acted) and the existence of this alien cause to support this. Occam would require me to select the theory making the fewest assumptions.
You also of course have a testability problem. The current theory of abiogenesis is tested against experiments and modeling, from Miller-Urey to measurements of hydrothermal vents, [link] . What do you propose to test to verify youyr hypothesis, keeping in mind that an unfalsifiable hypothesis can notbe a scientific hypothesis ...
Anyhow...what it boils down to is that abiogenesis is the currently correct scientific theory to explain the origins of life on earth. Like all scientific theories, it can be proven wrong. But until proven wrong, it is the correct theory. The thing to remember is that from the perspective of scientific validity, a fully scientific theory even if incomplete still trumps a religious/philosophical theory (god/aliens did it), since the scientific theory offers testability while a theory that calls in for a mysterious cause fails on any (or all) of natural causation, occam's Razor, testability ground.
Don't take me wrong, you can believe anything you choose to, you can even be partial to this or that without having to justify yourself to me. You could even choose to scientifically pursue research in any alternative theories you wish to. But when it comes to "what is the correct current scientific theory for the origins of life on earth?", the answer is abiogenesis.
VE
Because all the arguments for ID fall under two categories: blind speculation asserted as fact but without any supportive evidence whatsoever and which also can never be disproved (such as the existence of an "intelligent designer"); and erronious claims often repeated despite the knowledge that they have already been disproved (Irreducible Complexity).
If you want the explanation for the origin of life, look up the theory of abiogenesis.
If you want the explanation for the origin of life, look up the theory of abiogenesis.
But isn't the idea that life came from non-life blind speculation as well?
The theory that simple life arose from non-living inorganic matter via chemical processes has more merit and support (thanks to the Miller-Urey experiment, among others) than the hypothesis that some unspecified deity caused everything to magically appear out of nothing.
Complex life came from simple life came from complex organic chemicals came from simple organic chemicals came from complex non-organic chemicals came from simple non-organic chemicals.
Just like a fish didn't turn into a cat, life didn't just suddenly appear from non-life. It was a slow process involving many steps. Detailing each of those steps is complicated and full of some unknowns. But much is known in that process. Some has even been duplicated. (You can read more about all this on Wiki's abiogenesis page or TalkOrigin's collection of articles.)
None of biogenesis is known. Unlike abiogenesis, it is purely speculative, unfalsifiable, and cannot exist within the purview of science.
Just like a fish didn't turn into a cat, life didn't just suddenly appear from non-life. It was a slow process involving many steps. Detailing each of those steps is complicated and full of some unknowns. But much is known in that process. Some has even been duplicated. (You can read more about all this on Wiki's abiogenesis page or TalkOrigin's collection of articles.)
None of biogenesis is known. Unlike abiogenesis, it is purely speculative, unfalsifiable, and cannot exist within the purview of science.
Two major reasons.
It doesn't meet the qualifications of a theory:
Theories are dynamic bodies of evidence which explain its tenants. The process by which the tenant is true.
ID has no body of evidence, no process (other than 'god did it') and the only tenant rests entirely on a ad hoc argument without observation producing the claim.
That claim is that structures are too complex to have arisen by chance, even though
A. We see several clear steps for these structures progressing from simple to complex and
B. Natural selection is not a random process. Thus it is not chance that influences the structure's process.
Neither evolution nor ID are meant for explaining the origin of life. Evolution posits that life exists and has diversified via natural selection and common descent. ID posits that life exists and is too complex to have evolved.
When talking about the origin of life you are either talking about abiogenesis or biogenesis, which is creationism. And the ID originators and proponents wanted to make it clear that ID isn't creationism (mostly so their wedge strategy of getting religion into schools would succeed.)
It doesn't meet the qualifications of a theory:
Theories are dynamic bodies of evidence which explain its tenants. The process by which the tenant is true.
ID has no body of evidence, no process (other than 'god did it') and the only tenant rests entirely on a ad hoc argument without observation producing the claim.
That claim is that structures are too complex to have arisen by chance, even though
A. We see several clear steps for these structures progressing from simple to complex and
B. Natural selection is not a random process. Thus it is not chance that influences the structure's process.
Neither evolution nor ID are meant for explaining the origin of life. Evolution posits that life exists and has diversified via natural selection and common descent. ID posits that life exists and is too complex to have evolved.
When talking about the origin of life you are either talking about abiogenesis or biogenesis, which is creationism. And the ID originators and proponents wanted to make it clear that ID isn't creationism (mostly so their wedge strategy of getting religion into schools would succeed.)
as far as I know, intelligence design is used also to explain how life progressed. that's why in some "intelligence design" museum somewhere (I forget the exact name and place), they depict humans and dinosaurs living side by side, etc, which is clearly wrong.
IMHO, you could pursue ID as a theory explaining how life originates, but it is NOT correct for explaining how life progressed.
IMHO, you could pursue ID as a theory explaining how life originates, but it is NOT correct for explaining how life progressed.
The creation museum you're talking about posits young-earth creationism which is not generally considered the same as ID.
ah really? they are different? talking about my ignorance .........
Ok, if evolution is real how come we went from Rollo the Dane to emo kids?!?
It seems evolution works backwards to this weary troll :\
It seems evolution works backwards to this weary troll :\
If evolution is real, then why are there so many stupid people in the world?
Because of Natural Selection Interference Squad.
there will always be mutations. some mutations are good, others are bad .......... if you know what I mean ......... LOL