Question for evolutionists

[Into the Night]

A theory....scientific or not is nothing but CONJECTURE, SPECULATION and the assumption that reality has never changed from the beginning of time.

Not quite, but close. A theory is an explanatory argument. That's it. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. That's it. A theory of science is a falsifiable theory. That's it. That's all.

One such idiotic theory proclaimed as an absolute truth is the theory of radio carbon dating.....with the ASSUMPTION that the universe has not changed over the course of supposed a 13 billion year time period (based upon another assumed THEORY).

The assumption, as you correctly state, is a bad one. Radio carbon dating, however, IS a theory of science. So far as we have been able to test it, it has not failed us. That is the key point: as far as we have been able to test it. That means it's only tested to within the last generation of living things. Within that range, the theory holds up. Attempting to extend that theory to times beyond our ability to test it is the error.

As if something so common a H20 leeching does not have the ability to alter the rate of radio active decay in certain elements. Reality concerning Radio Carbon dating: Such dating has no standard of calibrating any date past 5000 years.

Correct, for the reasons I just mentioned.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. There is simply no way to test to see if that event actually took place.

 

[Into the Night]

Creationism isn’t a scientific theory.

Correct. The Theory of Creation is not a theory of science. No one is saying it is.

It’s a religious teaching.

Also correct. Since the Theory of Creation is not falsifiable, it remains a circular argument (the way all theories, including scientific ones, start). It also has extending arguments from the initial circular argument. That makes the Theory of Creation also a religion.

The same is true of the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogenesis, and the Theory of the Big Bang.

Science has no theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable. There is no way to test it.

Creationism meets none of the criteria to be considered science let alone a theory.

It IS a theory. It just isn't a scientific one.

 

[Into the Night]

Thats what I thought. You don’t know what a scientific theory is.

A theory of science is a falsifiable theory. That means the null hypothesis is available and testable, using a test that is specific and produces a specific result. As long as a theory can survive such tests, it is a theory of science.

Given that why should I, as a Biologist, give any of your comments any credibility?

I don't believe you are a biologist. Bulverism fallacy.

You make arguments from authority,

No, I describe the current philosophy of science.

provide no testable predictions,

Science is incapable of prediction. It is an open functional system. There are no proofs. A theory of science must be transcribed into a closed functional system to gain the power of prediction. One such system is mathematics. That process is called 'formalizing' a theory. The resulting equation is called a 'law'.

ignore observable empirical fact

Learn what a fact is. A fact is not a Universal Truth or a proof. Observations themselves are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Each observation is interpreted by the observer. That interpretation may not agree with another's interpretation. Observations are evidence only.

and are not modeling natural phenomena.

Define 'natural'. Theories are explanatory arguments. A theory of science need not explain 'natural phenomena'. They may not even be inspired from an observation at all.

You also provide absolutely no alternative model that explains speciation.

The Theory of Creation, or the Theory of Creation coupled with the Theory of Evolution, or the Theory of Abiogenesis coupled with the Theory of Evolution.

Why should any Biologist give you any credibility considering you’re not giving us anything but unscientific sophistry to work with?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Biology does have many falsifiable theories. The Theory of Evolution isn't one of them. Neither is the Theory of Abiogenesis. These two theories aren't even biology.

 

[Into the Night]

yes......random shit happening randomly.......incredibly slow.....intelligent design is much more efficient.......

You do bring up a significant problem with the Theory of Abiogenesis. Assuming it to be True for a moment, let's look at what is required for it to succeed:

* It must produce, out of nonbiological materials, biological materials. This must be by random, naturally occurring events.
* The new cell must survive. This is in a world where no cell has survived before. This means that the world around the cell must also, by random naturally occurring events, become hospitable enough to support the new cell.
* The same thing must happen at least twice. The cell must have something to eat in order to reproduce. The result will be two cells. Now there is nothing to eat but each other. Therefore, independent abiogenesis events must happen much more than twice. Photosynthesis can't be used because that is a complex structure requiring many cells.
* The cell must be able to mutate (copy itself improperly). The fuzzy copy must be able to survive as well. Any further deviation means the daughter cell is destroyed. This ability to mutate must be inheritable or the Theory of Evolution cannot take place.

There are a LOT of random events here, that must line up in perfect sequence or there is no life or evolution possible. The odds are so high it would be like winning on every blackjack table in Las Vegas sufficient to break the bank combined.

In my opinion, the Theory of Abiogenesis has a lot of problems.

There is a further argument, regarding the research of possible Abiogenesis. Say we actually DO manage to synthesize a functioning cell in a laboratory from nonbiological materials. Is this evidence of Abiogenesis, or Creation? The cell WAS created by us, after all.

 

[Into the Night]

Just like Creationist do?

Commenting on irrelevant material now? The original question was to produce an example of a circulatory system without blood, or blood without a circulatory system. Jellyfish have neither, so it is irrelevant.

 

[Into the Night]

Thank you for proving my point with more circular reasoning.

And what point is that?

 

[Into the Night]

You’re laughable dude. You’re trying to change the time tested and proven method of science to fit your particular view. Good luck with that.

Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. There are no proofs in science.

 

[Into the Night]

You, again, haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. It goes without saying that homologies create phylogenies and those are easily explained by common descent. Please provide a plausible alternative scientific explanation?

In other words he’s right. You’re wrong.

Not the question at hand, dude. Irrelevant comment. Try to follow the conversation.

 

[Into the Night]

almost as bad as those who try to substitute "predictability" for experimentation in the scientific method.........

No, AS bad as. Science is incapable of prediction. Theories of science only explain, they do not predict. The power of prediction only exists in closed functional systems, like mathematics or logic. A theory of science must be transcribed into such a system to gain the power of prediction. That power comes with the formal proof.

 

[Into the Night]

why do we have to provide a scientific explanation when what you just gave was NOT a scientific explanation?.........common descent is simply your faith assumption.......homologies can be just as much evidence of intelligent design as of macro evolution.......

He had to throw in some fancy looking words to make it 'sound' scientific.

 

[Into the Night]

Yours certainly don’t.

No theory will product anything, so yes, mine won't either.

 

[Into the Night]

See again, you prove you don’t know even something as fundamental as a scientific theory.

A theory of science is a falsifiable theory. That's really pretty simple. That's all it is.

Biological evolution by means of natural selection is a scientific theory.

No, it WAS a scientific theory. It has been falsified. It is no longer a theory at all. It is now just a fallacy (a paradox).

Creationism is religion and has nothing to do with science. It is not a scientific theory.

No one ever said otherwise. The Theory of Creation is a nonscientific theory, just like the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is an unproven scientific hypothesis. It is not a scientific theory.

WRONG. A hypothesis does not explain anything. The Theory of Abiogenesis explains how life began on Earth.
A hypothesis stems from an existing theory, not a theory from a hypothesis. An example is the null hypothesis, used to test a theory.

You really need to try studying some science dude.

Already have, dude.

You have no idea how funny you are.

Insult fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Sorry Thaichi but that’s a philosophical belief. Not a scientific one. Science only explains the factual basis of naturally occurring events or phenomena.

Learn what a 'fact' is. A fact is not a Universal Truth or a proof. It is also not a theory.
Science doesn't explain anything. Theories explain, no science itself.

You seem to be getting into the use of 'supernatural'. Perhaps you had better define 'supernatural' and 'natural'.

It has nothing to say about other philosophical beliefs or faith.

Philosophy is not a belief. It is a knowledge system, just like science is. Like science, it is not itself knowledge.
Faith (or the circular argument, the other name for faith), appears everywhere. ALL theories, whether scientific or otherwise, begin as circular arguments (or arguments of faith). What takes a theory of science beyond the simple circular argument is the test of falsifiability. In addition, the theory must be both internally and externally consistent.

For you to deny faith is to deny ever theory ever created, including every theory of science. It is also to deny the existence of mathematics and logic, for all began through faith.

It would be erroneous to say religious beliefs and scientific understanding are incompatible. That would be an utterly false dichotomy.

That it would Science has nothing to say about any god, gods, or spirits. Science is agnostic.

They are though non-overlapping magesteria.

WRONG. The circular argument, or the argument of faith, pervades ALL of it.

 

[Into the Night]

I see... so why then have a vast number of predictions based on evolutionary theory been independently verified?

They aren't. Self fulfilling prophecies are not verifiable.

Why are most of the applied life sciences in part or are wholly based on evolutionary theory?

They aren't. Biology has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Why are thousands upon thousands of independent scientists wrong but you are right?

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Consensus is not a proof. It is not used in science either.

It boils down to this, as a Biologist,

I don't believe you.

unless you can provide a workable scientific alternative to model speciation,

Already did.

your arguments are simply a waste of our time.

Our time? Are you schizophrenic now? How many personalities do you have? No, dude. You only get to speak for you. You are not dictator over the entire field of biology.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah it is a pretty dumb argument. A circulatory system is useless without blood? The lymphatic system is a circulatory system. It doesn’t use blood.

Is it? Please describe it's path of circulation.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure we do. Circulatory systems evolved before hemopoetic circulatory systems as endothelial systems that overcame the time constraint barriers of simple diffusion.

Do you have an example?

That occurred over 600 million years ago.

How do you know? Were you there?

Around 550 million years ago an endothelial system evolved in an ancestral vertebrate to optimize flow dynamics and barrier functions and/or to localize immune or coagulation functions.

How do you know? Were you there?

Endothelial heterogeneity evolved as a core function of endothelium from the outset reflecting its role in meeting the diverse needs of body tissues.

This doesn't say anything.

 

[Into the Night]

Many people find sciencing to be really difficult.

Science is not a verb. It is a noun. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

I understand religion far more than I want to.

Really? Define 'religion' for us then! Let's see what you know.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah, the mutations are random, but natural selection is simple cause and effect.

Mutations cannot be random as long as the Theory of Natural Selection is True.

 

[Into the Night]

The basic problem with anyone claiming that "MUTATIONS" cause evolution is the documented fact that mutations do occur but when something is MUTATED that simply means that an error has happened within the dna code, SOMETHING IS TAKEN AWAY BY MUTATION NOT ADDED.

Something can be subtracted or added in any mutation.

Take for example.....inbreeding causes mutation. Is that evolution?

Yes.

Hardly...all you get is deformity.

A deformity is evolution, nevertheless.

Why? Because the original DNA chain was corrupted.

That's what mutations do.

Nothing evolves by mutation....especially in a MACO example of life. Some point to germs mutating(micro)...….and becoming resistant to treatment. But are they really mutating or ADOPTING because they already possess the required DNA signature to adapt when required and it lies dormant until required?

Really? That means you are saying a chihuahua can become a german shepherd when threatened.

Every life form has the ability to adapt to a changing environment.....if such were not true mankind would have been wiped from the face of the earth the first time he came into contact with a simple virus.

Are you saying our immune system exists in an amoeba?? What about exposure to UV-B light? That is damaging, but we do not adjust to it. Tanning doesn't help. That only helps against UV-A light. Either frequency band destroys the amoeba.

You seem to be discarding the role of genetics.