|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Exposing the evolution theory. Part 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Porkncheese Member (Idle past 516 days) Posts: 198 From: Australia Joined: |
Introduction
With so many facts disputing the naturalistic theory I’ve decided to lay out the biggest ones individually. As this is presented to public school students as a fact Im going to use the higher scientific standards of evidence which is used in the applied sciences where evidence has to be 100% accurate. I may also use the standard of evidence beyond reasonable doubt as required by criminal law. Not the balance of probability which is used in civil law. That means anything speculative will be deemed unacceptable.
Part 1. The Cambrian explosion. Darwin’s Doubt. The Cambrian explosion of life has long been a major hurdle for the naturalistic theory. The fossil record shows the first three quarters of the earth’s history to have nothing but very simply structured organisms. Then all of the sudden, 542 million years ago, vast quantities of complex creatures emerged without any of the evolutionary precursors demanded from Darwin’s theory. In fact Darwin himself was perplexed by this event and in his book stated; It’s as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history. He concluded that the fossil record was incomplete and said To the question of why we do not find rich fossil deposits belonging to theseperiods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. This fact caused great doubt in Darwin’s mind. He proposed that the fossil evidence was yet to be found and that without it his theory would collapse. Since publishing his book, The origin of species, there have been new discoveries. Advanced life forms from the Cambrian era were discovered all around the world. However the findings only served to refute Darwin’s theory as there was no evolutionary species found for the Cambrian animals. It is clear that the fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory of a common ancestor but in fact it undoubtedly refutes it. Yet the Cambrian explosion is not even mentioned in many text books and when it is mentioned it is not presented as evidence against Darwin’s theory but instead as an event that requires no further justification. Similar situations also occur throughout time including the period after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This is where many modern animals, including primates, appear without any evolutionary evidence. From observing the fossil data of the pre Cambrian period we should find evidence of evolution and a common ancestor as predicted by Darwin. We find no such evidence therefore, as Darwin himself knew, the theory is falsified. It also fails both criminal and civil legal standards of evidence.
Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given. Edited by Porkncheese, : Change title due to popular demand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator |
Thread copied here from the Exposing the naturalistic theory. Part 1 thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
P&C writes: With so many facts disputing the naturalistic theory I’ve decided to lay out the biggest ones individually. As this is presented to public school students as a fact Im going to use the higher scientific standards of evidence I was impressed that you intend to use the 'highest standard of evidence in you arguments but you then spoiled it by immediately not using any standards of evidence at all. Just taking your very first example of A false representation of an evolutionary tree that would be typically presented as factual to young school kids you need to show, 'with the highest standard of evidence' where that diagram is used in schools, to whom and when, then show where it is wrong and why any errors might give a fatally false impression to its intended audience. Finally you have to show why it affects the ToE's validity as settled science. Maybe when you've done that to everyone's satisfaction, you can move on to your second claim.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Since publishing his book, The origin of species, there have been new discoveries. Advanced life forms from the Cambrian era were discovered all around the world. However the findings only served to refute Darwin’s theory as there was no evolutionary species found for the Cambrian animals. quote: quote: Full paper follows giving details and references Your thesis is refuted by the evidence of (a) precambrian fossils that have been found, and (b) the cambrian "explosion" occurred over millions of years and is characterized by the evolution of hard parts that fossilze easily.
Similar situations also occur throughout time including the period after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This is where many modern animals, including primates, appear without any evolutionary evidence. This too is false.
quote: More at THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES LINK including the evolution of the mammal ear ("... reptiles, as we have noted, have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw, and mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. On the other hand, the jaw joints in the reptile are formed from different bones than they are in the mammalian skull. ..."). The evolution of mammals was well underway before 65 million years ago. We talked about the evolution of primates before in Message 109 of thread True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing -- which was in response to Message 89 (which you edited to delete information, however I had a pre-edit version that I posted in Message 106). Note on symbols used: └─┬─A A and B are sister clades with a common ancestor, and an equivalent cladogram would be └─┬─B while └─A shows A is a parent clade and B is a daughter (nested) clade
quote: (Note this site is interactive and you can move up and down the cladograms.) Also see the Primate Cladogram I developed to flesh out the bushiness of evolution since out last discussion and reduce the apparent linear evolution by filling some branches from Primates to Humans. That's two falsified assertions you made in your post. One you were corrected on earlier, but left the discussion when you got disturbed by the responses. Not learning from past mistakes is a sign of someone with very strong beliefs that their knowledge is correct, and who are unwilling to adapt their learning when they are shown what they believe is wrong. This is not skepticism, it is denial. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member (Idle past 223 days) Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Porncheese writes: What on earth is 'the naturalistic theory'? With so many facts disputing the naturalistic theory... Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17906 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
It’s funny that these facts should be posted so shortly after this thread New Cambrian Discoveries
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
Porkncheese writes: With so many facts disputing the naturalistic theory I’ve decided to lay out the biggest ones individually. I had never used naturalistic theory before, so I googled it and the 1st 3 hits were this thread. I assume you decided to to use that term because you picked it up from some creationist or another and wanted some all inclusive Big Bang to the Theory of Evolution target. I will not spend any time defending naturalistic theory because it is not a concept I spent any of my scientific career thinking about and it certainly is not a subject I have heard colleagues discussing at conferences or in the literature.
Porkncheese writes: As this is presented to public school students as a fact Im going to use the higher scientific standards of evidence which is used in the applied sciences where evidence has to be 100% accurate. Do you have some examples of evidence that is 100% accurate? When you say higher scientific standards of evidence could you explain what you mean? What are higher scientific standards of evidence and what are they higher than? Are these higher standards listed in a "standards of evidence handbook"? Oh, and do you have a list of what you call applied sciences?
Porkncheese writes: A false representation of an evolutionary tree that would be typically presented as factual to young school kids. I'm guessing you mean kids 8-10 years old. Do you have a source for this diagram? I agree it is a pretty crappy representation of the evolution of animal life as understood in biology today. That's all I have time for right now. Edited by Tanypteryx, : spellingWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10293 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
Porkncheese writes: Then all of the sudden, 542 million years ago, vast quantities of complex creatures emerged without any of the evolutionary precursors demanded from Darwin’s theory. How did you determine that the fossils found in the Cambrian have no evolutionary precursors?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
Porkncheese writes: Then all of the sudden, 542 million years ago, vast quantities of complex creatures emerged without any of the evolutionary precursors demanded from Darwin’s theory. Sudden is hardly an accurate description for events that took place over a period of 30-50 million years. "Without any of the evolutionary precursors demanded from Darwin’s theory" is simply not the case in 2018. Numerous fossils of ancestral species to many Cambrian species have been discovered and more are being found as new fossil bearing formations are discovered. I don't know about "demanded from Darwin's theory", but the modern Theory of Evolution predicts that ancestors of Cambrian fossil species existed and that some may have left fossils. This prediction has turned out to be true as more Precambrian fossils are being found.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
What on earth is 'the naturalistic theory'? It's 'darwinism' for people that don't want to be labeled creationist, but post creationist arguments. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
Porkncheese writes: Advanced life forms from the Cambrian era were discovered all around the world. What do you mean by advanced? Do you have some examples? Advanced compared to what? All around the world implies that they are found everywhere, but actually they are only found in a few scattered localities around the planet. Only a very small percentage of exposed Cambrian rocks contain fossils from the early Cambrian, such as those found in the Burgess Shales. ABE: Minnemooseus pointed out an error in my timing for the Burgess Shales Message 12 quote: Porkncheese writes: However the findings only served to refute Darwin’s theory as there was no evolutionary species found for the Cambrian animals. What? What is your definition of evolutionary species? Species that evolved? Species that are evolving? Species that will evolve? Do you mean transitional species?
Porkncheese writes: It is clear that the fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory of a common ancestor but in fact it undoubtedly refutes it. Since it is clear to you I assume you can support this.
Porkncheese writes: Yet the Cambrian explosion is not even mentioned in many text books Well, neither is E=MC^2. Scientists have been complaining about the quality of information in science and math textbooks for decades. Most science textbooks for grades 7-12 in the U.S. are not written by scientists. If you are trying to blame science for the piss poor quality of primary and high school texts you don't know what you are talking about. If you want to learn about science there are plenty of good books, popular, as well as college texts, all the way to highly technical books by specialists.
Porkncheese writes: and when it is mentioned it is not presented as evidence against Darwin’s theory but instead as an event that requires no further justification. Well, that would be because it is not evidence against Darwin's theory. Textbooks may be crappy, but you wouldn't want them to put in clear lies about science, would you? I have no idea what you mean by "an event that requires no further justification."
Porkncheese writes: Similar situations also occur throughout time including the period after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. This is where many modern animals, including primates, appear without any evolutionary evidence. Sadly, you have been completely misinformed. I hope it wasn't by one of those crappy high school texbooks, but there have been many excellent books written about life during the Cretaceous and after the extinction event. The animals that survived the extinction event and that left descendants and fossils have been studied intently and scientists know a lot about them.
Porkncheese writes: From observing the fossil data of the pre Cambrian period we should find evidence of evolution Yep, and we do.
Porkncheese writes: and a common ancestor as predicted by Darwin. Well, Darwin didn't get everything correct, but the best thing about science, it builds on what we learned in the past, and tries to correct mistakes in the past. We realized that it would probably be impossible to look at a fossil of a single celled common ancestor and determine if it was an ancestor or not. Recently, molecular analysis from living organisms has started to give us data on how they are related. At the same time this may guide us in describing what characters the common ancestor had.
Porkncheese writes: We find no such evidence therefore, as Darwin himself knew, the theory is falsified. As I said earlier, you are sadly misinformed. We have abundant evidence of evolution in the past and in the present. The Theory of Evolution itself has evolved a lot in the almost 160 years since Origin of Species and you are going to have to study the modern theory if you want to falsify it.
Porkncheese writes: It also fails both criminal and civil legal standards of evidence. Well, sadly for you, you forgot that you need to present valid evidence to support a case for an alternate theory that explains life better than the Theory of Evolution. All you did was bumble an attempt to poke holes in a theory that is 160 years out of date. The only way you're going to succeed is with a lot of study. Edited by Tanypteryx, : Correct dates of Burgess Shales Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelleingWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3971 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
Only a very small percentage of exposed Cambrian rocks contain fossils from the early Cambrian, such as those found in the Burgess Shales. Kudos for the link. I believe, however, that the Burgess Shale is actually middle Cambrian (per Wikipedia- Cambrian=541 to 485.4 mya (million years ago); Burgess Shale=508 mya; I also seem to recall your cite site saying the Burgess was 40 million years into the Cambrian). Anyway, this makes me wonder what the fossil record is for the 541 to 508 mya period. Too tired and/or lazy to do the research myself. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Add Wikipedia links.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Thanks for the information. Like you said tired....
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17906 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
quote: There are some pretty amazing fossils from Chengjiang dated at 518 mya.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6074 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
I have to agree with Tanypteryx's concerns (Message 7). Just what the hell are you talking about when you say "naturalistic theory"?
When I started college in 1969, one of the first classes I enrolled in was Logic (admittedly inspired by CDR Spock, what with Star Trek:TOS having just been cancelled for the second and final time). One of the many things that I learned in that class is a basic rule in all valid debates: the first order of business is to define all your terms and come to an agreement with your opponent what those terms mean. That is vitally necessary to ensure that both sides are talking about the same things. Without that necessary first order of business, the two sides will end up just talking past each other by using the same words but with entirely different meanings. That kind of situation would defeat the very purpose of a valid debate, but rather it would support the efforts of one side to deceive the audience. That is exactly what creationist debates are about and how they operate. For example, Aron Ra and Kent Hovind are having a YouTube debate. Aron Ra keeps working with the actual definition of evolution whereas Kent Hovind clings to his own misrepresentation of evolution -- HINT: when a creationist starts talking about different kinds of evolution including stellar evolution, then he is practicing Kent Hovind's deception. Thus Hovind repeatedly makes assertions about "evolutionism" (another red flag for creationist deception) which have absolutely nothing to do with actual evolution while ignoring all attempts to explain to him what evolution actually is. Another problem with creationism's "evolutionism" is that they explicitly define it as being "atheistic", whereas that is not even remotely true of the science of evolution. The point is that creationists have created a misrepresentation of evolution which is loaded with a plethora of prejudice. Imagine entering a creationist debate snake-oil show as the opponent of the creationist. He's called a creationist, so what should you be called? When your opponent refers to you as an "evolutionist", you think that that sounds about right so you accept it without thinking too much about it. Well, you just played into his hands. The creationist portion of the audience which is usually in the majority knows the keywords and hears an admission of being an "evolutionist" as an admission of being an atheist as well as admitting to being dedicated to attacking and destroying Christianity. Of course, you as the opponent to the creationist believe no such things, but that is still what the creationist audience members see you as admitting to. So then, here you are wanting to refute some stupid creationist strawman which you call "the naturalistic theory". Typical dishonest deceptive creationist trick. Well, fuck you and fuck your stupid evil deceptive God of Lies (contrasted with the Christian God of Truth). Sorry, but you really do need to do much better that that. So what do you need to do? Well, the first step would be that you need to present what your "naturalistic theory" is supposed to be. Completely. What are your assumptions? What are your precise definitions of all terms? IOW, just what the hell are you talking about? Of course, you also need to be ready and willing to engage in sincere discussion with the other side in order to arrive at common terms and common definitions. Until you do that, we have absolutely no idea just what the fuck you are talking about. In that case, nothing you could possibly say could possible be of any value at all.
I may also use the standard of evidence beyond reasonable doubt as required by criminal law. Not the balance of probability which is used in civil law. That means anything speculative will be deemed unacceptable. It was on an episode of Nova that I first heard of the "Intelligence Design" founder lawyer Phillip Johnson and his book, "Darwin On Trial" (1991, though somehow my memory of that episode keeps trying to place it a decade earlier). His main point, which you have just echoed, is that courtroom rules of evidence must be applied to the work of science. At the time, my immediate response was, "What a fucking idiot!" Science is not a courtroom procedure, but rather a police investigation. Applying courtroom rules to science as it conducts an investigation would prevent that investigation from ever happening. Rather, courtroom rules of evidence apply to the end results of an investigation. A police investigation needs to follow all possible clues, not only "evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'". Trying to apply rules to science that are contrary to the nature of science is complete and utter bullshit deception.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024