Evolution is Unscientific

This scientific discussion brought back a memory for me. There was a lady who came here about the same time I did who called herself Jane Q (if I remember correctly?). Her desire was to examine spiritual matters through the use of the scientific method.

My heart breaks as I think of it. What did I see there? She wanted bigger answers but was using the scientific method as a safe place she could go back to. A structure of sorts, a life raft.

She moved me, she still does. Huge intellect but needing something more that her intellect could not provide. I messed it up, perhaps the whole list did. I was too far gone to really try to help anyone. My only hope is that in some way, through my utter human ruin, she felt that someone cared.

Water under the bridge now, but still heartbreaking. It's not about doing away with the scientific method, it's about adding love to it? This is just a guess on my part. We need that safety raft that science provides. It will always be there for us as long as we are in this temporal existence. But always, just one step away, is another world. The love, the heart, is the guide to that world which science dimly points to... perhaps. IMO (not a scientist but I love science and the art of science fiction).
 
Last edited:
stranger said:
It will always be there for us as long as we are in this temporal existence. But always, just one step away, is another world.
Click to expand...
Science is hard-nosed unemotional. But it breaks down where 'nature' ends in singularity. The scientific method is limited to study of nature. As @ScholarlySeeker observes, science requires a theory to be falsifiable -- meaning it could in theory be disproved by experiment.

So in a sense where someone says: show me a proven example of evolution by genetic mutation, the answer given by science is: there is study and evidence to show it probably did happen that way, therefore if you do not accept the scientific conclusion -- the onus falls upon you to falsify the theory and demonstrate by evidence and experiment that it could not have happened that way?

(edited ...)
 
Last edited:
Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a long period of time, and although we can observe micro-evolution in nature, there is not enough time to observe macro-evolution. But it cannot or has not been shown to be a false theory?

Small genetic mutations happen naturally and nature preserves the mutations that are beneficial to the species.

So could a (primordial) species of fish evolve to become a (modern) cat? Can it be shown to be impossible?
 
Last edited:
End of the day the truth is going to be what IS, regardless of what I believe -- and how strongly I believe isn't going to change that?

It's useless trying to deny the reality in favour of the map. The map is not false but it is limited?
 
RJM Corbet said:
End of the day the truth is going to be what IS, regardless of what I believe -- and how strongly I believe isn't going to change that?

It's useless trying to deny the reality in favour of the map. The map is not false but it is limited?
Click to expand...

I agree. Just how limited the map is, how lifeless, could only be properly seen from the perspective of the reality. There must be jumping off point somewhere, where following the map no longer satisfies, and a leap of faith is made from map of life's origins to life itself. This is where I believe the person I mentioned was at, or at least close to it. Not knowing how to do it but knowing it meant some kind of union of the heart. Wanting that yet running from it at the same time.

Just to speculate again, it would be impossible to know just how inadequate the map truly is unless it was seen from the vantage point of the reality. IMO. I'm not there, don't get me wrong. But I seek it. It calls to me.
 
The core of evolutionary theory is no doubt correct.
..but that doesn't make all the theories associated with it true.

One needs to define what the ToE actually is first. It seems to me that it is a "big beast" which
tries to explain practically everything :)

i.e. all mind and matter is a product of evolution

What is proven and what is not? It is simply a conjuring trick imo.
 
muhammad_isa said:
One needs to define what the ToE actually is first. It seems to me that it is a "big beast" which
tries to explain practically everything :)
Click to expand...

Well, it's go big or go home, right? And if you're going to take God's place, you have to go big. :)

muhammad_isa said:
i.e. all mind and matter is a product of evolution

What is proven and what is not? It is simply a conjuring trick imo.
Click to expand...

Sometimes conjuring tricks are "safe", also ToE. God? Perhaps not so safe. Perhaps terrifying until you are used to that new frequency. It takes a long time to fall out of love with all things human. o_O
 
Debates on the forums were so polite and civilized in those days, lol ... wish we could get back to learning from one another's beliefs like gentlemen

Also interesting to read evolution debates that happened 18 years ago, and realize how much has happened since then
 
SufiPhilosophy said:
EVOLUTION PART:

Hello. Evolution as we understand it these days is evolution by genes mutating.
That is to say, macro-evolution.

I think this is unscientific as l have not yet seen it demonstrated in the lab. ...

Show me the money.
Click to expand...

Nature and Nurture.

Genetics and Epi-Genetics.

Evidence already presented.

Peace.
 
RJM Corbet said:
Science is hard-nosed unemotional. But it breaks down where 'nature' ends in singularity. The scientific method is limited to study of nature. As @ScholarlySeeker observes, science requires a theory to be falsifiable -- meaning it could in theory be disproved by experiment.

So in a sense where someone says: show me a proven example of evolution by genetic mutation, the answer given by science is: there is study and evidence to show it probably did happen that way, therefore if you do not accept the scientific conclusion -- the onus falls upon you to falsify the theory and demonstrate by evidence and experiment that it could not have happened that way?

(edited ...)
Click to expand...
Look. All l'm asking is that the respondent can give evidence for evolution via genetic mutation. If you have any then give it.

All l am getting in response is:
Actual verbal abuse (by the way, how did that post of yours get removed? And you weren't even warned for calling me names? And how do you end up calling me names when it's an impersonal post?)
Deflection
Circular arguments ("of course evolution is true - therefore it's true!")
Book stacking / link hurling ("oh erm., the answer is in this book haha in your face" "the answer is in these links tee hee" - if you actually have an understanding, then you will put it in your own words)



The falification test for this theory of evolution is to show genetic mutations leading to evolutionary change. It's evident in the OP that this was actually what l was asking.

You are saying you cannot answer it because what l really need is to show evolution to be happening (= falsification test), and so that's why you will not show that evolution is happening. Bizarre.



It is evident now that nobody here has any evidence for evolution by gene mutation.

It is evident therefore that everybody here who supports this idea, doesn't know why they believe in it, they just heard it's a good idea.

There is no rationality here.

I am speaking facts here so don't get personal. The fact is nobody here that speaks in support of evolution, actually knows how evolution works or actually knows that the theory has zero evidence to support it. Please, don't give me natural selection - that was covered in the OP, natural selection is scientific. Evolution by gene mutation (the ONLY way a goldfish could give rise to a cat over time) is not scientific.

As l say: please, just show me the money. And don't insult. Don't talk about software development and progress in whatnot. Just answer the question.
 
ScholarlySeeker said:
I am replying more to the OP title. Evolution is not unscientific, it can be tested, and can be falsified, therefore it is scientific. Is the THE answer? That can be debated, and is so, but there is no question whether it is scientific, since it IS falsifiable, therefore, it IS scientific. I'm just sayin....
Click to expand...



The falification test for this theory of evolution is to show genetic mutations leading to evolutionary change. It's evident in the OP that this was actually what l was asking.

It is evident now that nobody here has any evidence for evolution by gene mutation.

It is evident therefore that everybody here who supports this idea, doesn't know why they believe in it, they just heard it's a good idea.

As l say: please, just show me the money. And don't insult. Don't talk about software development and progress in whatnot. Just answer the question.
 
Explain the evidential basis for evolution by gene mutation.
Do not insult me.
Do not hurl books / links at me. Answer in your own words.
Do not take it around the houses and talk about other stuff.

Let the next response by what l asked for in the OP: evidence for evolution by gene mutation.

Please, just provide this cold, without anger, without abuse. Provide the answer - if you have it. That is all this thread is about.

Prior respondents will not answer the question because they do not actually know of any evidence for evolution by genetic mutation. The next post will likely do anything but answer the question.
 
SufiPhilosophy said:
Evolution by gene mutation (the ONLY way a goldfish could give rise to a cat over time) is not scientific.
Click to expand...
It is scientific. It’s not a goldfish and a cat: it’s how did a primordial aquatic/amphibian life form evolve over billennia to eventually arrive at a sub-feline lifeform? A gene mutation which works for good of a species at that time is retained and passed along, and one that works against it, falls away. An upright posture aids use of tools. Temperature changes, oxidation, drift of continents, etc. Tiny changes/mutations over very many generations. So it can’t be ‘proven’ by watching the process over the few generations that are available for observation.

That’s all. It’s an open scientific exploration of available facts and ideas. The evidence and thought process leads in a probable direction. It figures. It is subject to falsification at any time? The only wrong is to insist that because a literal reading of scripture doesn't like it, therefore it is false.

As I said before: the real puzzle is the one-off-one-time-only miracle 'quantum jump' from prokaryote to eukaryote, by the endobiosis between bacteria and archea, imo
 
Last edited:
Don't fall for the tripe. If he gets on the rope, he will move goalposts. The rules he laid down are not for him to follow.

He isn't interested in dialogue, he is interested in "winning" and converts to fall into line behind him lockstep, to worship his dictatorial eminence.

I don't follow dictators. If he can't be bothered to look at my proofs, I have no interest in re-writing over 250 posts for him to dismiss through whatever sleight of hand he prefers in the moment.

Best to simply ignore Dick. When and if he ever comes around to actually discussing something, like a normal, rational human being, then things would be different. As long as his "rules for thee and not for me" attitude prevails, I want no part of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top