Evolution

[JillSwift]

You cannot falsify evolution.  It adapts to any evidence discovered because evolution supports a worldview, which is naturalism.  It adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain an unobserved event, such as convergence, analogous, panspermia, atavism, incompleteness, conserved, trait replacement,  trait loss, lamarkism, concerted evolution, etc.  Trust me, you can't falsify it.

Any evidence that is contrary to what was predicted is when you read in a peer reviewed journal and says "we were surprised", or "didn't expect that", and it happens often.  But to give some examples, many decades evolutionists believed that junk DNA was...well, junk.  And it made sense and was a good argument against a Creator.  But they were wrong in that prediction.  Another example would be that the molecular data would match fairly well with the fossil record.  Well it didn't do so well, but to save a theory, they use cladistics and then go with "incomplete fossil record".  Another would be that single celled organisms were simple.  That prediction was wrong also.

This is a fine example of something I've had to say about creationists since first hearing their claptrap.

It has nothing whatever to do with evidence, reason, or science. It is purely a cultural phenomenon, specifically about morality. It's the idea that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, in that without a moral law-giver man will be "just an animal" and act amorally - no holds barred anarchy with the strong repressing the weak.

No reasoned argument will budge them, the basic premise is held as an ultimate truth. It assumes humans are without instincts that make us "moral".

Here is where this argument against evolution fails, however. Even if it were true that humanity would degrade into snarling packs of hedonistic and uncivilized wild-men once convinced of evolution, it does not detract from the veracity of evolution at all. This is the fallacy of "appeal to consequence".

So, no "Childofgod", there are no attempts to save a world-view by "saving" evolutionary theory. The changes you list aren't a desperate attempt to shore up a bad idea, but the very effects of falsifiability. That's how science works, new evidence demands modification of theory.

Though, I have to ask where you get these ideas. Can you cite even one of your claims? I'm especially curious about this silly claim that the DNA evidence didn't well fit the predictions of evolutionary theory.

[Tank]

In my experience attempting to explain evolution to a creationist is like attempting to teach a pig to sing. Ultimately futile and it annoys the pig!  

[Squid]

Who wants to take bets on how long before Karl Popper is mentioned?

[Tank]

Who wants to take bets on how long before Karl Popper is mentioned?

You just did it!  

[pinkocommie]

"Evolution is entirely falsifiable, perhaps you would be kind enough to present some of this evidence, which is "contrary to what was predicted"?"



You cannot falsify evolution.  It adapts to any evidence discovered because evolution supports a worldview, which is naturalism.  It adapts by concocting terms that attempts to explain an unobserved event, such as convergence, analogous, panspermia, atavism, incompleteness, conserved, trait replacement,  trait loss, lamarkism, concerted evolution, etc.  Trust me, you can't falsify it.

Any evidence that is contrary to what was predicted is when you read in a peer reviewed journal and says "we were surprised", or "didn't expect that", and it happens often.  But to give some examples, many decades evolutionists believed that junk DNA was...well, junk.  And it made sense and was a good argument against a Creator.  But they were wrong in that prediction.  Another example would be that the molecular data would match fairly well with the fossil record.  Well it didn't do so well, but to save a theory, they use cladistics and then go with "incomplete fossil record".  Another would be that single celled organisms were simple.  That prediction was wrong also.

The funniest thing I find about people who try to argue away evolution is that the argument often centers around that person's inability to understand evolution.  You have effectively made evolution into some kind of ideology and are arguing against it as if it's not verifiable.  And I can kind of understand why you guys do it - you have no other avenue to take at this point.  It's the desperate last ditch effort of an antiquated position.  The fact is, for the last 150+ years, every single attempt to scientifically disprove evolution has failed.  The theory has been tweaked and changed of course, but that's how science works.  Your argument that the theory of evolution 'adapts' and is therefore false, to me, is like you saying "I don't understand how science works, therefore I distrust it and it's wrong."  Well, no, it just means you don't understand how it works.

Look, you're not going to get very far coming to a forum and making claims about evolution when you've made it so glaringly obvious that you lack even a remedial understanding of it.  People here have even been nice enough to give you a really helpful lesson, but you ignored that, changed your OP for no obvious reason, and now you've moved on to the 'there isn't sufficient evidence for ME, therefore evolution is wrong' argument, while making it clear that there is no amount of evidence that is going to convince you since you've decided that somehow the evidence itself is evidence that evolution can't be verified.

So what exactly are we meant to debate here?  That you believe evolution is wrong?  Ok, you believe evolution is wrong.  Luckily that's not going to effect reality, evolution and all, one bit.

[Asmodean]

The funniest thing I find about people who try to argue away evolution is that the argument often centers around that person's inability to understand evolution.

Mewonder how long creationism would last if the creationists applied the same standards for separating fact from hypothesis to their own screwed-up worldview as they do to the actual scientific basis of evolution...  

[elliebean]

Mewonder how long creationism would last if the creationists applied the same standards for separating fact from hypothesis to their own screwed-up worldview as they do to the actual scientific basis of evolution...  

Allowing time for the slowest thinkers to catch up..... about 20 seconds.

[Albino_Raptor]

Wow, not in the mood for this right now... try learning what the theory of evolution is before professing knowledge that it isn't true.

While you are at it, learn what "theory" means in a scientific process.

[Tank]

Wow, not in the mood for this right now... try learning what the theory of evolution is before professing knowledge that it isn't true.

While you are at it, learn what "theory" means in a scientific process.

Oh don't you just love it when you read 'It's just a theory!'

[Squid]

Who wants to take bets on how long before Karl Popper is mentioned?

You just did it!  

Or how long it takes to accuse me of cutting and pasting from a website that isn't my work - I get that one a lot.  I was actually warned and had a post removed on a forum before for "plagiarizing" myself...no joke...

[pinkocommie]

Or how long it takes to accuse me of cutting and pasting from a website that isn't my work - I get that one a lot.  I was actually warned and had a post removed on a forum before for "plagiarizing" myself...no joke...

That's awesome.  

[KDbeads]

Or how long it takes to accuse me of cutting and pasting from a website that isn't my work - I get that one a lot.  I was actually warned and had a post removed on a forum before for "plagiarizing" myself...no joke...

That's awesome.  

I second that!

[JillSwift]

Or how long it takes to accuse me of cutting and pasting from a website that isn't my work - I get that one a lot.  I was actually warned and had a post removed on a forum before for "plagiarizing" myself...no joke...

Talk about your backhanded insults.  

[Squid]

The funny thing is that when I PMed the moderator he simply regurgitated the forum rules...so sad [/hijack]  We now return you to the debate at hand...where were we, oh yeah with CoG's misunderstanding of cladistics and patterns of change in the fossil record....

[kaithiwilliam]

Hello
I need to find someone either to interview or something to use as a primary source for my research essay on if evolution is a science or a religion. If no where I can go to ask an expert or if someone here I can e-mail interview questions to that would be great.Pleas help me what should I do.Thank You.
___________________________________
Essay