Darwin's Myth is not "quite credible"

[pipeline_mike]

Mike, if you can show how a theory is flawed, either by the methodology that was used to prove it or by data that it can't explain, then that's certainly valid and encouraged. But simply using the word "perhaps" and then making some assumptions (without showing how they apply to a specific theory) is just an appeal to people's insecurity.

 

When one argues against a well established concensus usually it takes a lot more than just a post or two. (iirc correctly Einsteins Theory of Relativity was 900 pages long or so). Also because you have to go over everythign that the theory has explained well so far and show how it comes that it is correct in all those areas, but not in another area, and how a new theory can explain both without contradiction.

 

That's not to say, that people can just say "consensus" and then be done, but usually when someone argues against a well established position they very often don't to so very accurately. At times, all it takes is a simple google search to see good arguments against most of the common "anti-consensus"-theories, so when people then don't even list some counter arguments and show how they were misapplied and make their own counterarguments then that's not very thorough research on their part.

Im not capable of competently arguing that the theory is flawed. I'm just pointing out that the way you choose to argue for the theory affects the kind of feedback that you will attract. It might be better to invite scrutiny, and best to say, "It doesn't matter what everyone else says. Let's you and I look at the facts and let us see where we disagree--and find out why."

[TheRobin]

Im not capable of competently arguing that the theory is flawed. I'm just pointing out that the way you choose to argue for the theory affects the kind of feedback that you will attract. It might be better to invite scrutiny, and best to say, "It doesn't matter what everyone else says. Let's you and I look at the facts and let us see where we disagree--and find out why."

Well, again, if the person making a critique isn't thoroughly scrutinizing his own critique beforehand, then I'm not gonna bother and I don't see a reason why I should.

 

It doesn't matter what "people say" but when something has been long established through evidence then that does matter, and if that is not adressed appropriately then I don't see what the benefit would be of going through everythng again. 

 

Alos most of the time I don't even know how the original claim was established in the first way and unless it's a topic of great interst to me personally, then I'm not gonna go through all the science that leads up to it. And most people are in that category, which just means, if you're critiquing mainstream ideas, you're the one who has to put the work in, not the other party.

[dsayers]

Im not capable of competently arguing that the theory is flawed. I'm just pointing out that the way you choose to argue for the theory affects the kind of feedback that you will attract. It might be better to invite scrutiny, and best to say, "It doesn't matter what everyone else says. Let's you and I look at the facts and let us see where we disagree--and find out why."

 

I see a contradiction in simultaneously saying you are not competent in arguing the theory, but that people should argue a theory in lieu of what experts have come to agree upon. I agree with you that consensus isn't as strong as direct proof. However, like you, I am not competent in arguing the theory. In this specific case, I do not personally bow to consensus because I don't feel the item of contention is as important as things that directly impact our daily life and/or that we have control over.

 

Did you notice Mr. Beal's point earlier that even the language you're using is a matter of consensus? Just wanted to reiterate it as it appeared that you were arguing that consensus has no value just because it has less value than direct proof. If I misunderstand your position, please clarify.

[Kevin Beal]

Speciation has been observed. Darwin's theory of natural selection is proven. There is no debate.

[pipeline_mike]

I see a contradiction in simultaneously saying you are not competent in arguing the theory, but that people should argue a theory in lieu of what experts have come to agree upon. I agree with you that consensus isn't as strong as direct proof. However, like you, I am not competent in arguing the theory. In this specific case, I do not personally bow to consensus because I don't feel the item of contention is as important as things that directly impact our daily life and/or that we have control over.

 

Did you notice Mr. Beal's point earlier that even the language you're using is a matter of consensus? Just wanted to reiterate it as it appeared that you were arguing that consensus has no value just because it has less value than direct proof. If I misunderstand your position, please clarify

 

The point is this: When you can say "I know", you ought not resort to "they say." 

 

I raise this as an objection because, from personal experience, it stood as a barrier between myself and consistency. After a quarter century of slowly overcoming inconsistencies that were backed by "they say", hearing "they say" raises the red flag for me. Is it impossible to think that my experience is not unique? I believe that there are others who have learned, as I have, that general distrust for consensus is an effective null hypothesis.  

 

When you overcome an obstacle, you posses the option of trying to remove it for those who come after you. Besides, what value can an appeal to consensus possibly add to the argument? Let the mob point to their ballots. Let us have none of that. 

 

Also, when I say that I am not competent to argue against a theory, I am not saying that I am incompetent to point out that the argument may be less than effective considering the typical FDR truth-seeker. Quite the opposite. Nor do I believe that anyone is competent to argue against the theory---and certainly not me.

I see a contradiction in simultaneously saying you are not competent in arguing the theory, but that people should argue a theory in lieu of what experts have come to agree upon. I agree with you that consensus isn't as strong as direct proof. However, like you, I am not competent in arguing the theory. In this specific case, I do not personally bow to consensus because I don't feel the item of contention is as important as things that directly impact our daily life and/or that we have control over.

 

Did you notice Mr. Beal's point earlier that even the language you're using is a matter of consensus? Just wanted to reiterate it as it appeared that you were arguing that consensus has no value just because it has less value than direct proof. If I misunderstand your position, please clarify.

Sure language is a matter of consensus. Of course, it depends on what your definition of "is" is. Right or wrong?

[st434u]

Pipeline is absolutely right. Appealing to consensus does nothing, even if the consensus happens to be right. That's not to say that you should not appeal to consensus when making up your own mind or making important decisions in your life. If you have no idea about a topic, it's perfectly sensible to appeal to the consensus until you can reasonably question it.

 

But that should be strictly personal, it's not something that you should bring up during an argument, especially with someone who is quite aware that they are questioning the consensus in the first place.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

To what extent might the evolutionary theory community be anti-evolutionary as far as the theory itself is concerned? What insights can we glean from an appeal to consensus?

 

Admittedly, I am no expert in evolution. I do, however, value my own intelligence. Appealing to consensus, rather than simply addressing the topic through reason and observation, demonstrates that my own ability to think rationally has already been discounted by the other party.

That's not true because the appeal to consensus is valid when it comes to evolution. Evolutionary scientists are not just giving their opinion.

 If someone said evolution is true because of the consensus then you'd have a point but I don't think anyone is making a fallacious appeal to consensus (argumentum ad populum).

[Rainbow Dash]

I made an informative post about reasons against evolution on the previous page and I was wondering why no one has responded to it.

[dsayers]

Besides, what value can an appeal to consensus possibly add to the argument?

 

The argument is over something that without time travel, we could never be certain of. I think your likening of this to casting ballots might indicate why you're rejecting the value of consensus.

 

The casting of ballots suggests the ability to create or modify. "Whichever flavor you choose will be what we make next." When it comes to describing the real world, it's not up to us. Consensus in the this context isn't about trying to will what the truth is, but an indication of which theory best stands up against scrutiny and attempts at disproof.

[pipeline_mike]

The argument is over something that without time travel, we could never be certain of. I think your likening of this to casting ballots might indicate why you're rejecting the value of consensus.

 

The casting of ballots suggests the ability to create or modify. "Whichever flavor you choose will be what we make next." When it comes to describing the real world, it's not up to us. Consensus in the this context isn't about trying to will what the truth is, but an indication of which theory best stands up against scrutiny and attempts at disproof.

 

(By time travel, I am assuming that you mean backwards time travel, because we are all traveling through time every moment.)

At some point we will have sufficient information. For instance, you can find out enough about a car, after a 20 minute test drive, to make the decision: buy the car or don't. You don't have to time travel back to the assembly line or mind-meld with all of the previous owners to gain sufficient information to make a purchasing decision.

 

The casting of ballots may well suggest the ability to create or modify....something. That is, after all, how we get herded into the ballot box over and over. However, that is just the justification. For most people, it is little more than an afterthought. The main thing is the re-investing emotionally to one of two groups: the rightfully vindicated majority, or the righteous, misunderstood minority.

 

Sooner or later the truth seekers will see the third option and wander away from the charade to meet one another in reality. 

 

A consensus can tell us one of two things: 1.) The majority at large supports the issue in question. or 2.) The majority at large rejects the issue in question. 

Neither of these has anything to do with whether the issue is right or wrong.

 

As far as indicating which theory best withstands scrutiny, consensus is impotent to do that. Hell, if anything, the body scientific(majority at large) has every motivation to obfuscate and complicate the issue--subsidized as they are by the state and all of the anti-rational incentives that the state provides. Please understand that pointing out that 99 out of 100 government-tenured shills support a theory is going to make SOME folks apprehensive. Some folks...like me. Hearing it makes me fear you, right at the back of my neck. That is a lot for any conversation or relationship to overcome. I do not think I am unique. 

 

Fun mental role play:

 

Imagine yourself on date, watching a film that you have little interest in. Your date senses your disinterest and growing boredom. Desperate to salvage the evening, they loudly direct you to stand up look behind you: "LOOK. Everyone else is enjoying the movie!"

 

-What effect does this have on your opinion of the film?

-What effect does this have on your opinion of your date?

[dsayers]

I think your likening of this to casting ballots might indicate why you're rejecting the value of consensus.

 

Thank you for making my point

 

A consensus can tell us one of two things: 1.) The majority at large supports the issue in question. or 2.) The majority at large rejects the issue in question. 

Neither of these has anything to do with whether the issue is right or wrong.

 

We're not talking about something being moral or not, we're talking about accuracy.

 

Imagine yourself on date, watching a film that you have little interest in. Your date senses your disinterest and growing boredom. Desperate to salvage the evening, they loudly direct you to stand up look behind you: "LOOK. Everyone else is enjoying the movie!"

 

We're not talking about something being enjoyed or not, we're talking about accuracy.

 

At some point we will have sufficient information. For instance, you can find out enough about a car, after a 20 minute test drive, to make the decision: buy the car or don't. You don't have to time travel back to the assembly line or mind-meld with all of the previous owners to gain sufficient information to make a purchasing decision.

 

Again, we're not talking about tastes or personal opinion, we're talking about the occurrence of the birth of the human species. Most of the cars you'll find on a used car lot, most of the people involved in the making of it still live. If you had the cash and the time, it would be no problem for you to ascertain how the creation of your car came to pass. In order for the same to be true, the moment the human species came to pass, it would have had to come to pass with an accurate understanding how it came to be and mastery of the ability to communicate in a way that other humans would find value in.

 

I think if you were interested in the truth, you wouldn't put so much effort into losing what is being talked about. You demonstrate such a profound prejudice against consensus that you are unable to differentiate its ability to identify accuracy of the unknown from its ability to support mob rule from its ability to enhance our capacity for communication, etc. Ironically, you say that at some point we have enough information while rejecting what that enough information could be just because being of the unknown, we are relegated to the consensus of scientific study.

[pipeline_mike]

Thank you for making my point

 

 

We're not talking about something being moral or not, we're talking about accuracy.

 

 

We're not talking about something being enjoyed or not, we're talking about accuracy.

 

 

Again, we're not talking about tastes or personal opinion, we're talking about the occurrence of the birth of the human species. Most of the cars you'll find on a used car lot, most of the people involved in the making of it still live. If you had the cash and the time, it would be no problem for you to ascertain how the creation of your car came to pass. In order for the same to be true, the moment the human species came to pass, it would have had to come to pass with an accurate understanding how it came to be and mastery of the ability to communicate in a way that other humans would find value in.

 

I think if you were interested in the truth, you wouldn't put so much effort into losing what is being talked about. You demonstrate such a profound prejudice against consensus that you are unable to differentiate its ability to identify accuracy of the unknown from its ability to support mob rule from its ability to enhance our capacity for communication, etc. Ironically, you say that at some point we have enough information while rejecting what that enough information could be just because being of the unknown, we are relegated to the consensus of scientific study.

 

What is accuracy but consistency with objective reality?

What is morality but consistency with an objective universal of reality?

What is enjoyment but consistency with objective(or objectively subjective) pleasures?

 

The whole point of FDR is to apply the scientific method. Consensus has no role to play in the scientific method. Why does this Evolution topic get special treatment? Who built up these divisions, and who benefits from maintaining them?

 

How does a crutch serve a man with strong legs? How does an appeal to consensus serve to bolster a sound argument? Why does validity need consensus? Why would truth ever need a sanction to be true? 

 

Why water down a valid argument with an irrelevant fact of agreement? 

Is the result of a compromise between water and milk watered-down milk?

What is the result of a compromise between food and poison?

[Kevin Beal]

The whole point of FDR is to apply the scientific method. Consensus has no role to play in the scientific method.

Yes, it does, actually. It doesn't have anything to do with ontologically objective truth claims, such as the features of objects ("I have an arm hair growing out the top of my head"). But absolutely the scientific method, philosophy etc have a ton to do with consensus. This in the same way that language has meaning.

 

It doesn't actually have anything to do with this question of whether or not Darwin was right, but more of an aside. I go into much more detail here.

[dsayers]

The argument is over something that without time travel, we could never be certain of.

 

Why does this Evolution topic get special treatment?

 

Why do you ask this question as if an answer hasn't been given? We can never know how the existence of mankind came to be. A theory is using what we do know to try and explain what we do not know. There is much we do know that can help to explain the most probable way we came to be.

[JamesP]

Scientists and philosophers concede to reason and evidence.

 

The religious and political concede to propaganda and aggression.

[Rainbow Dash]

Speciation has been observed. Darwin's theory of natural selection is proven. There is no debate.

That article uses an inconsistently applied definition of species. As I already mentioned in my first post, species aren't only defined by whether or not organisms can reproduce with each other, a notable example being polar bears and grizzly bears being able to reproduce and create fertile offspring. "Scientists" pick and choose when to use which definition of species depending on what conveniences them. They define species by whether or not 2 groups can breed only to show speciation which they wouldn't be able to show using another definition of species like sharing a certain amount of DNA, but abandon that definition whenever they don't want it to apply it, like for polar bears and grizzly bears. This kind of picking and choosing is not science.

[Kevin Beal]

That article uses an inconsistently applied definition of species. As I already mentioned in my first post, species aren't only defined by whether or not organisms can reproduce with each other, a notable example being polar bears and grizzly bears being able to reproduce and create fertile offspring. "Scientists" pick and choose when to use which definition of species depending on what conveniences them. They define species by whether or not 2 groups can breed only to show speciation which they wouldn't be able to show using another definition of species like sharing a certain amount of DNA, but abandon that definition whenever they don't want it to apply it, like for polar bears and grizzly bears. This kind of picking and choosing is not science.

Admittedly, I don't know exactly what makes a species another species, but it seems to fit my layman understanding perfectly to accept both things: that grizzlies are not polar bears and that these separate groups expressing different phenotypes not being able to produce fertile offspring. That doesn't bother me at all. Maybe it should and I'm just a dummy, but those things seem natural conclusions to me. Science should at least to some extent prove what we already know to be true, right? And neither is this definition of "species" Darwin's.

 

The requirement in biology for things to have absolutely no exceptions is boloney, frankly. "Cats are quadrupeds" isn't always true either, or that mammals birth live young etc. That doesn't make biology "not quite credible", in fact I don't know of anyone who is bothered by this.

 

What do evolutionary biologists say when confronted with this seeming discrepancy between these two species distinctions? Do they say "shut up! You blasphemer!" or do they have some kind of explanation? I would assume the latter.

[greekredemption]

 

I made an informative post about reasons against evolution on the previous page and I was wondering why no one has responded to it.

 

 

I will try!

 

The Tiktaalik reminds me of the Coelacanth. The Coelacanth is a fish that was once thought to be a transitional fossil between fish and land animals. It has since been discovered that the Coelacanth is not a transitional fossil, and it continues to live today, even though it was believed to be extinct for 70 million years. Another example of a false evolutionary claim is the Neanderthal. Scientists claimed humans evolved from Neanderthals, but we now know that is not true. Evolutionary scientists have proven to not be credible, so I am skeptical that the Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil.

 

There are many things wrong with this paragraph.

 

Firstly: All species are necessarily transitional.

 

Secondly: Where the concept of the transitional fossil may be useful - in that it would also add to the fossil record and provide more exact information on dates, features, etc - is when we can show that a class of animal we see today derived from a class of animal we have identified in the past. Obviously this is not exact, but it doesn't really provide any problems for evolution per se, only for our taxonomic identification. For instance, Coelacanth has features both of tetrapods and primitive fish. This is interesting. It gives a reference around which other discoveries can be based. But in itself it is not crucial.

 

Thirdly: An order can have extant species and yet can still contribute to an understanding of the fossil record. It matters not that two species of Coelacanth still roam the earth today; what's interesting is that a species with an age of ~360 million years has been discovered and yet the extant species are not majorly different. That's interesting!

 

Fourthly: I can't really comment on the neanderthal thing because I don't know the history of it, but in terms of saying 'Evolutionary scientists have proven not to be credible', I'll paste what I said earlier in this thread:

 

You may say that consensus doesn't guarantee accuracy, but you have to temper this. Scientific consensus is typically correct according to information available at the time, and radical changes in information shift the paradigm to a new consensus which is correct in the same way. To say that 'scientific consensus is historically wrong' is to miss the point entirely; in a field whose raison d'etre is to attain and evaluate new information, all consensuses will be wrong to some extent at some point in the future.

 

 

What's next

 

Although species are often classified by whether or not they can reproduce, sometimes this does not work. One example is Polar bears and Grizzly bears. It has been discovered that they can reproduce with each other and their offspring can reproduce, but grizzly bears and polar bears and classified as different species. Another example is that it is believed that humans and Neanderthals reproduced with each other, but we are classified as different species. The difficulty of defining the term species is referred to as the “species problem”. Another popular way of classifying species is by DNA. All humans share 99.9 percent of DNA. If an organism has 99.9 percent human DNA it is human, if its DNA Differs by a certain amount, then it is not human. So saying that group A can't breed with group B doesn't prove speciation.

 

Another great example is that of ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species This seems to defy traditional definitions of species.

 

However... I don't think this is really a problem for evolution. As with the idea of the transitional fossil, the idea of a species only makes sense in a snapshot of time, and even then it doesn't tally with how evolution actually works (i.e. it is to a larger or lesser extent a continuous process and therefore not necessarily discrete, which defies exact categorisation).

 

The simplest answer is to say that taxonomy is created by humans to make it slightly easier to understand the relationships between discovered species fossils. The fact it gets fuzzy around the edges is a problem for taxonomy, not evolution.

 

As for the Richard Dawkins evolution of the eye video, a problem I found is that an eye improving to better observe its surrounding is useless without a brain that can gather valuable information from the improved observation of the eye. The brain being able to make sense of higher quality observation is useless if the eye can't observe in a higher quality. If the eye mutates to learn to detect the location where light is coming from, and the brain doesn't make the connection with the location of light means the location of an object, it gives an evolutionary neutral advantage. If a feature gives an evolutionary neutral advantage, the feature will go away over several generations because mutations that degrade outnumber the mutations that improve. The eye's observation skills can't evolve without the brain's ability to gather information from an image evolving first, and the brains ability to gather information from an image can't evolve without the eye's observation skills evolving first.

 

 

Two things:

 

1) features don't necessarily evolve singularly. This is the same problem as I described earlier with taxonomy. We tend to think of 'the eye' and 'the brain' as discrete entities, but in evolutionary terms this is not necessarily so. In fact, consider how even in two quite closely related species - humans and dogs - their brains are geared more towards certain senses (dogs with smell, humans with eyesight). This suggests the whole system develops together rather than modularly.

 

2) "If a feature gives an evolutionary neutral advantage, the feature will go away over several generations because mutations that degrade outnumber the mutations that improve." Could you expand on this?

Edited March 5, 2014 by greekredemption

[JamesP]

Also, photosensitive cells do not require brains to be useful.

 

There is a significant lack of understanding of biology in this thread.

[greekredemption]

Also, photosensitive cells do not require brains to be useful.

 

Indeed!

 

 

edit: And to build on the criticism of defining species by production of fertile offspring, it should be pointed out that this is the exception rather than the rule. In the majority of cases a animal groups can indeed be defined in that way. 

 

An interesting article on Grizzly and Polar bears: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/05/pizzly_bears.html

 

Again, this is a problem for taxonomy, NOT evolution.

[dsayers]

"Scientists" pick and choose when to use which definition of species depending on what conveniences them.

 

I think Mr. Beal did a good job of addressing your post as a whole. So I wanted just to talk about this sentence. I was curious if you were aware of your bias in this matter and if you understand that "what conveniences them" is a conclusion and a bold one at that. Do you have any reason, other than a heavy bias, to arrive at this conclusion?

 

When I look at philosophical disciplines on the whole, certain features jump out at me. For example, mathematics doesn't describe the real world and works entirely with concepts. Biology deals with a part of nature that is very volatile, which is different from being unpredictable. To me, this volatility, and the deviations we are able to witness lend credibility to evolution.

[Rainbow Dash]

greekredemption,

You are assuming evolution from a common descent is true when stating everything is transitional. When arguing something is true you can't assume it is true.

 

When you compare dogs and humans, you assume they share a common ancestor and that any observed differences between them had to have resulted from evolution. Again, don't assume what you are trying to prove.

 

Please try to give me evidence for evolution that doesn't first assume evolution is true.

[Kevin Beal]

greekredemption,

You are assuming evolution from a common descent is true when stating everything is transitional. When arguing something is true you can't assume it is true.

 

When you compare dogs and humans, you assume they share a common ancestor and that any observed differences between them had to have resulted from evolution. Again, don't assume what you are trying to prove.

 

Please try to give me evidence for evolution that doesn't first assume evolution is true.

That's not always the best approach. It rarely is, in fact. For instance, people first noticed digestion was happening ("hey, when I eat, I poop"), and then afterward tried to give an account of the mechanics of digestion. The phenomenon is taken for granted most of the time in science, and then an account is given after the fact. We don't think "am I a human being? Let's find out".

 

Similarly, evolution describes both the observable phenomena and the mechanics of it. We observe that every living being has similarities, but not just similarities: these similarities follow a specific pattern that we can predict when we observe life with similar phenotypes. And that the exceptions to these rules also support the theory. That is, that certain plants and animals adopted a toxin approach (for example) to predators because it makes evolutionary sense, even if the lineage is entirely different. "Evolutionary sense" being that these species share a gradual adoption of these features due to similar environmental conditions.

 

The very existence of an independently observable, predictive quality to any consistent degree for a theory is strong evidence of that theory.

 

Gould would entirely agree, except on the mechanics. And that's perfectly reasonable, and to be expected, and maybe he's even right.

 

Any debate would be around the origins of the functions of these phenotypes. All evolution as a theory of biology is saying is that, actually, these functions don't exist. That the appearance of "this functions as that" is an inherently intentional matter, and no intention exists beyond the decisions of individual organisms toward their own individual goals.

 

The butterfly doesn't decide that it's offspring are are going to develop blue wings, and even if it did, it would have to have influence over a large enough section of the species to affect this change.

 

The only alternative is that the functions are intentional designed by some conscious entity. That, presumably, being a god.

 

So when you challenge this person to give an account for evolution without assuming evolution, it's as if you are asking a physicist to give an account of mass without assuming mass. It would be incomprehensible. At best, the challenge is far too vague.

[Rainbow Dash]

I think Mr. Beal did a good job of addressing your post as a whole. So I wanted just to talk about this sentence. I was curious if you were aware of your bias in this matter and if you understand that "what conveniences them" is a conclusion and a bold one at that. Do you have any reason, other than a heavy bias, to arrive at this conclusion?

 

When I look at philosophical disciplines on the whole, certain features jump out at me. For example, mathematics doesn't describe the real world and works entirely with concepts. Biology deals with a part of nature that is very volatile, which is different from being unpredictable. To me, this volatility, and the deviations we are able to witness lend credibility to evolution.

 

If evolution was somehow proven false, all evolutionary scientists would lose their job. Thus they have a strong extrinsic motivation to not disprove evolution. You may think even though most scientists don't want evolution to be disproved, the one who disproves it would be famous, and would have extrinsic motivation to disprove evolution. The problem with that is that if a scientist writes a paper disproving evolution, none of the other scientists will peer review it because that may result in them losing their job. Also if an evolutionary scientist doesn't believe in evolution, he will lose his funding, thus scientists who don't believe in evolution have a strong extrinsic motivation to say they believe in evolution whether they do or don't. So logically, it can be assumed that evolutionary scientists are biased.

 

Mathematics can describe the real world; if you have 5 apples and give away 3 apples, mathematics states that in this real world scenario, you would then have 2 apples.

[Kevin Beal]

You may think even though most scientists don't want evolution to be disproved, the one who disproves it would be famous, and would have extrinsic motivation to disprove evolution.

And could make a ton of money, even outside of the peer review process. Christian fundamentalists would pay out the ass for this disproof. And yet the best they can do is Ken Ham. Hmm...

 

How do we know there isn't a cure for AIDS being suppressed? Because the person who developed it would be incredibly rich and famous.

[Rainbow Dash]

The only alternative is that the functions are intentional designed by some conscious entity. That, presumably, being a god.

An alternative theory that is growing in popularity that I agree with is that life on Earth was designed by extra-terrestrials.

 

 

"Similarly, evolution describes both the observable phenomena and the mechanics of it. We observe that every living being has similarities, but not just similarities: these similarities follow a specific pattern that we can predict when we observe life with similar phenotypes. And that the exceptions to these rules also support the theory. That is, that certain plants and animals adopted a toxin approach (for example) to predators because it makes evolutionary sense, even if the lineage is entirely different. "Evolutionary sense" being that these species share a gradual adoption of these features due to similar environmental conditions.

What evidence do you have that plants that have those toxins now did not have those toxins in the past?

 

So when you challenge this person to give an account for evolution without assuming evolution, it's as if you are asking a physicist to give an account of mass without assuming mass. It would be incomprehensible. At best, the challenge is far too vague.

We can show an object has all the characteristics of having mass which would give an account of mass. It would be possible to give an account of evolution, if evolution is true, by waiting millions of years and watching species change into other species with more complex features.

 

And could make a ton of money, even outside of the peer review process. Christian fundamentalists would pay out the ass for this disproof. And yet the best they can do is Ken Ham. Hmm...

 

How do we know there isn't a cure for AIDS being suppressed? Because the person who developed it would be incredibly rich and famous.

Christian fundamentalists won't pay for a disproof of evolution from someone who believes in aliens and not in God, which are those who make the better arguments. People are not willing to pay lots of money to someone to prove we were genetically engineered by extra-terrestrials as opposed to evolving.

 

Also, talking about what could disprove evolution, what specific discovery(s) would have to be made to convince you that evolution could not have happened?

[greekredemption]

greekredemption,

You are assuming evolution from a common descent is true when stating everything is transitional. When arguing something is true you can't assume it is true.

 

When you compare dogs and humans, you assume they share a common ancestor and that any observed differences between them had to have resulted from evolution. Again, don't assume what you are trying to prove.

 

Please try to give me evidence for evolution that doesn't first assume evolution is true.

 

I wasn't giving you evidence for evolution, I was dealing with your objections to it... from what I can see, none of my points begs any question. And anyway, yes, one of the predictions of evolution is that all species are necessarily transitional. This does seem to explain apparent morphological similarities between species and fossils throughout natural history... and is backed up by genetic investigation AND lab experiments where we've observed this perpetual (albeit punctuated) transitioning. But I don't think you need me to give you evidence for evolution; there is a wealth of information on these here Internets, and, being honest, I'm only a layman.

 

If evolution was somehow proven false, all evolutionary scientists would lose their job. Thus they have a strong extrinsic motivation to not disprove evolution. You may think even though most scientists don't want evolution to be disproved, the one who disproves it would be famous, and would have extrinsic motivation to disprove evolution. The problem with that is that if a scientist writes a paper disproving evolution, none of the other scientists will peer review it because that may result in them losing their job. Also if an evolutionary scientist doesn't believe in evolution, he will lose his funding, thus scientists who don't believe in evolution have a strong extrinsic motivation to say they believe in evolution whether they do or don't. So logically, it can be assumed that evolutionary scientists are biased.

 

Mathematics can describe the real world; if you have 5 apples and give away 3 apples, mathematics states that in this real world scenario, you would then have 2 apples.

The problem is that evolution a) describes very well the diversity of life on Earth and b) makes testable and useful predictions. As things stand right now, the reason the theory of evolution hasn't been "disproved" is that the theory explains the facts very, very well indeed.

 

Your point about the self-interest of scientists is well-understood, but it can and does apply to any field of study, so it seems unfair to single out evolution in this way (or indeed to use it as evidence that evolution is a big scam).

 

Also, talking about what could disprove evolution, what specific discovery(s) would have to be made to convince you that evolution could not have happened?

This is the classic answer.

[Rainbow Dash]

I wasn't giving you evidence for evolution, I was dealing with your objections to it... from what I can see, none of my points begs any question. And anyway, yes, one of the predictions of evolution is that all species are necessarily transitional. This does seem to explain apparent morphological similarities between species and fossils throughout natural history... and is backed up by genetic investigation AND lab experiments where we've observed this perpetual (albeit punctuated) transitioning. But I don't think you need me to give you evidence for evolution; there is a wealth of information on these here Internets, and, being honest, I'm only a layman.

Just because a theory explains an observation, doesn't mean that theory is correct. The theory that the sun revolves around the Earth can explain why the sun rises and sets each day, but that theory is not correct. Not only do you need to explain why observations can be explained by evolution, you need to explain why evolution better explains observations better than being designed by extra-terrestrials. If you know of any sources that explain why evolution is more logical than being genetically engineered by extra-terrestrials, I would love to see it.

 

This is the classic answer.

 

A Precambrian rabbit would also be illogical from a non-evolutionist's perspective. Since plants started appearing after the Precambrian era, how could a rabbit exist when plants for it to eat have not existed yet? If the only thing that could disprove evolution is also something that would not be expected to occur if evolution was false, then that is not a good example of how evolution is falsifiable.

[greekredemption]

Just because a theory explains an observation, doesn't mean that theory is correct. The theory that the sun revolves around the Earth can explain why the sun rises and sets each day, but that theory is not correct. Not only do you need to explain why observations can be explained by evolution, you need to explain why evolution better explains observations better than being designed by extra-terrestrials. If you know of any sources that explain why evolution is more logical than being genetically engineered by extra-terrestrials, I would love to see it.

"Just because a theory explains an observation, doesn't mean that theory is correct." You're quite right, it doesn't mean it's correct. It does however mean the theory is the best available explanation. Evolution explains observations and has made predictions which have been borne out by subsequent investigation (e.g. by genetics, which tied up rather well with the existing evolutionary framework). I don't know how else that can be written that will help you understand the nature of a theory.

 

I also think you need to explain this extra-terrestrials hypothesis, because at this point I'm not sure how it explains any observation which may impact evolution, let alone how it may replace evolution.

 

A Precambrian rabbit would also be illogical from a non-evolutionist's perspective. Since plants started appearing after the Precambrian era, how could a rabbit exist when plants for it to eat have not existed yet? If the only thing that could disprove evolution is also something that would not be expected to occur if evolution was false, then that is not a good example of how evolution is falsifiable.

 

Well it would play rather well for creationists, who don't even recognise that there is such a thing as geological layers. So if those gosh darn evolushonists found a rabbit in a layer of rock older than the food rabbits eat, it'd seem to vindicate their point of view, don't you think? And for the theory of evolution it would indeed pose a problem. Of course, if ONE rabbit - or what seems to be a rabbit - was found in the precambrian, against the weight of the rest of the evidence supporting evolution it'd probably not matter. But if it came as one of several animals implicitly predicted by evolutionary theory not to exist before a given time, then, well, evolution would have to be re-thought.

 

So, yes, it is a good example of falsification. If scientists started finding rabbits, camels, bats or even humans in the precambrian, evolution would to some extent be thrown into doubt.

[Ray H.]

The extraterrestrial hypothesis only pushes the question back to explaining the origin of those extraterrestrials. 

 

As creators, wouldn't ET's just be a slightly less perfect God? They would need close to perfect knowledge about the universe to find Earth, create it's climate, and the array of life present now. I mean, without evolution, you are left with a massive intergalactic Noah's ark situation. Every variant of life, in proper population ratios, would need to be transported to and delicately smeared across an Earth surface that had been prepared for such, and then babied wholesale to make sure it took.

 

On top of that, just like God, the ET's would deem it necessary to plant a lot of false evidence of evolution.

 

Also, just like God, they're apparently invisible or at least, not making themselves known to the masses. Why would that be a wise thing to do?

 

What is the physical evidence of ET's?

[Kevin Beal]

Positing that aliens began life on earth is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory, albeit highly unlikely. And you realize that's a very strange thing to say (regardless of whether or not it's true), right?

 

All you have to do is show how things that appear to be functions actually are functions, and not just features resulting from blind forces that we make sense of by describing it functionally. That is, that the intention causes the features to be.

 

We make sense of bee queens as functioning as the producer of workers and drones, but really that's just what sort of happens naturally. The part of us that tells the story "that's her job" is an "as-if" explanation. That is, it's as-if that were her function, her job because she does lay those eggs.

 

The problem with creation myths is that they confuse the function for the feature. That is they don't realize that the description is "as-if", but rather talk about it like the description is literal. This confuses the appearance of intentionality for actual intentionality.

 

Evolutionary theory really only says that it's an "as-if" explanation rather than a literal one. The mechanics of which seem to be given all the available evidence to be gradual changes over time and certain environmental selectors.

 

If we found out tomorrow that punctuated equilibrium was the mechanism, it would still be evolutionary theory. The mechanism is important, but not a make or break thing.

[Rainbow Dash]

The extraterrestrial hypothesis only pushes the question back to explaining the origin of those extraterrestrials.

Evolution also pushes back the explanation of the origin of life by not explaining how the first living cell came to life. You shouldn't reject a hypothesis only because it doesn't explain everything. Also maybe evolution occurred on a different planet, I just don't see evidence that evolution explains life on Earth.

 

As creators, wouldn't ET's just be a slightly less perfect God? They would need close to perfect knowledge about the universe to find Earth, create it's climate, and the array of life present now. I mean, without evolution, you are left with a massive intergalactic Noah's ark situation. Every variant of life, in proper population ratios, would need to be transported to and delicately smeared across an Earth surface that had been prepared for such, and then babied wholesale to make sure it took.

Think of the technological advancement we have had in the last 100 years. Extrapolate that to millions of years and that is how advanced they can be. With this much technological advancements, most things would probably become possible.

 

On top of that, just like God, the ET's would deem it necessary to plant a lot of false evidence of evolution.

They wouldn't have to plant false evidence. They started creating simple life then over time they created more and more complex life as they got better at creating life. They reuse common DNA sequences for different organisms because it is more efficient that way. This explains the fossil record and similar DNA. They wouldn't have to go out of their way to make evolution convincing. Observable evidence is perfectly explained without evolution, but people can't see this because they only look at things from an evolutionary viewpoint.

 

Also, just like God, they're apparently invisible or at least, not making themselves known to the masses. Why would that be a wise thing to do?

People claim to have seen UFO's and others just assume they are either lying or crazy. There are videos of what appears to be UFO's and others just assume they are fake. I have not done much research into UFO's, but I think it is definitely possible that some of these claims are true. Unless you have evidence that all major UFO sittings are fake, for all you know the aliens could be responsible for the UFO's and that they wouldn't have to make themselves invisible.

 

What is the physical evidence of ET's?

http://starchildproject.com/the-project/skullbasics

[greekredemption]

Evolution also pushes back the explanation of the origin of life by not explaining how the first living cell came to life. You shouldn't reject a hypothesis only because it doesn't explain everything. Also maybe evolution occurred on a different planet, I just don't see evidence that evolution explains life on Earth.

Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, and doesn't seek to. It only explains the diversity of life. You're talking about abiogenesis, for which there isn't really a strong explanation.

[Rainbow Dash]

I also think you need to explain this extra-terrestrials hypothesis, because at this point I'm not sure how it explains any observation which may impact evolution, let alone how it may replace evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvqZixAzm4

[Ray H.]

The "starchild skull" wiki puts that one to rest.

 

There are 6 billion cell phone users worldwide. I assume many billions of them have decent quality cameras. Shouldn't there be overwhelming evidence of our alien mothers by now? Point me in the direction of "major UFO siting".

 

 

"They started creating simple life then over time they created more and more complex life as they got better at creating life. They reuse common DNA sequences for different organisms because it is more efficient that way. This explains the fossil record and similar DNA. They wouldn't have to go out of their way to make evolution convincing. Observable evidence is perfectly explained without evolution, but people can't see this because they only look at things from an evolutionary viewpoint."

 

Let's rewrite this paragraph. 

 

Evolution started creating simple life, then over time it created more and more complex life as it got better at creating life. It reuses common DNA sequences for different organisms, because it is more efficient that way. This explains the fossil record and similar DNA. Evolution is convincing. Observable evidence is simply explained by evolution, but some people can't see this, because they like sci-fi and/or God.

 

That's much more accurate and likely.

 

Your ET technological advancement points are more sci-fi dreaming. There's no actual evidence of such things. That something could be true does not mean that we have any reason to believe that it is true. Evolution has evidence: a transitional fossil record that corresponds to a timeline, mechanisms that explain the process, biochemical markers that act as another timeline, etc. Plus, it's not that complicated. If you accept that you are the result of the recombination of your mother and father's DNA, then you accept evolution.  

 

Why would you accept that evolution might occur on a different planet, but not on Earth? It seems like you want to go out of your way to accept the most convoluted scenarios possible. You "just don't see the evidence that evolution explains life here on Earth"!? Read! It's there. Evidence is not really what you're interested in, though. You want a good story with mysterious overbeings who for no known reason would want to populate Earth and then abandon it.