Why Can't We Deal With Shop Lifting?
News4 mins ago
Evolution "a load of flawed crap"?
40 Answers
On another thread here blu3wave used the above expression to describe Darwin's "theory".
Would he or she like to back this invective with some fact, evidence or reasoning?
Would he or she like to back this invective with some fact, evidence or reasoning?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Against the theory of creationism, the theory of evolution may provide some overwhelming evidence, but that does not mean that neither is flawed or questionable."
No one has said it's not questionable (which is why so many people have attempted to forge a reputation by disproving it (and failing)) and no one who has read it would ever claim it was without flaws. It absolutely has flaws and the scientific community has added added to what Darwin originally proposed. The point is that Darwin's underlying conclusion is determined to be correct - because the huge weight of evidence and repeated testing against that evidence show it to be.
"Also, the Cambrian explosion, in which many of the major groups ("phyla") of animals appeared in a geologically short time with no fossil evidence of common ancestry - which Darwin himself considered a "serious" problem that "may be truly urged as a valid argument against" his theory. (not e he used the word theory)"
That quote from Darwin does appear quite damning when given like that. However, in context, you'll see that Darwin goes on to hypothesis why there might be such a lack of fossils. Quite a lot of his hypothesis has been discovered to be true, but some relevant mechanisms behind the lack of fossils - techtonic subduction, for example - he was unable to incorporate, simply because it hadn't been discovered at that time.
In some places he was in error (he discusses the difficulty raised by 'Eozoon', for example, later discovered to be pseudofossils caused by metamorphic processes) in the specific, but not in any way that undermines the overall theory, and that's the key point.
(cont)
No one has said it's not questionable (which is why so many people have attempted to forge a reputation by disproving it (and failing)) and no one who has read it would ever claim it was without flaws. It absolutely has flaws and the scientific community has added added to what Darwin originally proposed. The point is that Darwin's underlying conclusion is determined to be correct - because the huge weight of evidence and repeated testing against that evidence show it to be.
"Also, the Cambrian explosion, in which many of the major groups ("phyla") of animals appeared in a geologically short time with no fossil evidence of common ancestry - which Darwin himself considered a "serious" problem that "may be truly urged as a valid argument against" his theory. (not e he used the word theory)"
That quote from Darwin does appear quite damning when given like that. However, in context, you'll see that Darwin goes on to hypothesis why there might be such a lack of fossils. Quite a lot of his hypothesis has been discovered to be true, but some relevant mechanisms behind the lack of fossils - techtonic subduction, for example - he was unable to incorporate, simply because it hadn't been discovered at that time.
In some places he was in error (he discusses the difficulty raised by 'Eozoon', for example, later discovered to be pseudofossils caused by metamorphic processes) in the specific, but not in any way that undermines the overall theory, and that's the key point.
(cont)
(cont)
Incidentally, the person you're quoting all this from - Jonathan Wells - is a big time ID proponent from the Discovery Institute. One anti-evolution, pro-ID book he wrote has been described by the pro-evolution website 'The Panda's Thumb' as "not only politically incorrect but incorrect in most other ways as well: scientifically, logically, historically, legally, academically, and morally." Decide for yourself whether they're merely being biased in that.
This man has written, 'Since whilst we can see the possibility that humans came from apes, what did the apes come from?' It's simply impossible to imagine that Wells wouldn't be entirely aware that this sentence is disingenuous at best in that it allows the ignorant reader to understand the oft told lie that humans evolved from apes.
Parenthetically, you're talking about a man that also denies that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, so all round someone whose credibility is... well... decide for yourself...
His take on speciation of finches is roundly trounced too: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/finches.html
"Darwin could not theorise on the ORIGIN, merely the �How Species Have Evolved And Changed Over Time�. Whilst his theory plugged a certain hole, it is only a very small part of a very big question."
What do you mean by that? Darwin's theory is the origin of species, not the origin of life, and he has absolutely shown how speciation occurs.
"Using the argument that creationism is rubbish because Darwinism is fact, doesn't really open out the prospect that all theories have flaws, may not be true and can by some sectors of society be called crap, on all sides of the fence, whether scientific, religious, belligerent or deluded."
Creationism isn't rubbish in scientific terms merely because Darwinism is considere
Incidentally, the person you're quoting all this from - Jonathan Wells - is a big time ID proponent from the Discovery Institute. One anti-evolution, pro-ID book he wrote has been described by the pro-evolution website 'The Panda's Thumb' as "not only politically incorrect but incorrect in most other ways as well: scientifically, logically, historically, legally, academically, and morally." Decide for yourself whether they're merely being biased in that.
This man has written, 'Since whilst we can see the possibility that humans came from apes, what did the apes come from?' It's simply impossible to imagine that Wells wouldn't be entirely aware that this sentence is disingenuous at best in that it allows the ignorant reader to understand the oft told lie that humans evolved from apes.
Parenthetically, you're talking about a man that also denies that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, so all round someone whose credibility is... well... decide for yourself...
His take on speciation of finches is roundly trounced too: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/finches.html
"Darwin could not theorise on the ORIGIN, merely the �How Species Have Evolved And Changed Over Time�. Whilst his theory plugged a certain hole, it is only a very small part of a very big question."
What do you mean by that? Darwin's theory is the origin of species, not the origin of life, and he has absolutely shown how speciation occurs.
"Using the argument that creationism is rubbish because Darwinism is fact, doesn't really open out the prospect that all theories have flaws, may not be true and can by some sectors of society be called crap, on all sides of the fence, whether scientific, religious, belligerent or deluded."
Creationism isn't rubbish in scientific terms merely because Darwinism is considere
Unfortunately somethings are too important just to agree to disagree on.
For example I don't mind religious people thinking what they want but if I were to hear that creationism or "Intelligent design" were being given syllabus time at my childrens school I'd be round there with my pitchfork in hand like a shot
For example I don't mind religious people thinking what they want but if I were to hear that creationism or "Intelligent design" were being given syllabus time at my childrens school I'd be round there with my pitchfork in hand like a shot
Jake, no doubt you would also turn up at school to gouge the teacher who taught the class that our primary existence comes from distant comets that crashed into the earth biullions of years ago, and that we are in fact, aliens.
I agree with Ludwig also, but the thing is that when you agree to be agreeable about a vast array of agreeable things, there is always someone to disagree on a point that you don't agree with in the first place.
I agree with Ludwig also, but the thing is that when you agree to be agreeable about a vast array of agreeable things, there is always someone to disagree on a point that you don't agree with in the first place.
Octavius I don't claim to be a great theologian (I'm not as well read as you on such matters) I don't claim to be a great anthropoligist either, but one thing I respect about you is that you know what your talking about without resorting to name calling or condescion. I don't dispute that perhaps other contributors know more about the subject than I do, but I feel I know enough to at least proffer an opinion without the need to insult.
When one rads the apopoplectic replies of some only later to hear them concede that it is a theory and it does have flaws. Serves only to prove their desire to create heat not light. The shortest reply were the most pointed ones, "to each their own", I don't understand why some people find it so hard to be civil about it? It's not the disagreeing that I find objectionable it's the nature of their disagreement that reveals their true character.
But it's ok, God loves you! ;-))
When one rads the apopoplectic replies of some only later to hear them concede that it is a theory and it does have flaws. Serves only to prove their desire to create heat not light. The shortest reply were the most pointed ones, "to each their own", I don't understand why some people find it so hard to be civil about it? It's not the disagreeing that I find objectionable it's the nature of their disagreement that reveals their true character.
But it's ok, God loves you! ;-))
Fair point Jake, it would therefore be an acceptable theory for school, provided a teacher someone somewhere did not say that the comet was a celestial body and was probably sent by God! But the fact we could have evolved (or indeed originated in life form) by extra terrestrial means is not that improbable according to some scientists.
In this thread it was the anti-religious that generally mixed the scientific with the religion (incorrectly calling us anti-evolutionist) wasn�t it?
In this thread it was the anti-religious that generally mixed the scientific with the religion (incorrectly calling us anti-evolutionist) wasn�t it?
Octavius, returning to those earlier points of yours:
Men do not �come from� apes. The human being is an ape, one of the five Great Apes, the other four being the bonobo, the chimpanzee, the gorilla and the orang-utan.
None of these �came from� any other, but split off from successive common ancestors.
The orang-utan split from the common ancestor of all five, then the gorilla from the common ancestor of the remaining four. Then the chimp line split from the homo line and further split into bonobo and modern chimp. This is all explained in Richard Dawkins� splendid and copiously-illustrated book The Ancestor�s Tale.
On your other point, it is not, strictly speaking, the job of evolution to explain where life came from (though it would be an odd evolutionist who didn�t give his mind to this) but how modern complex life developed from extremely primitive life � the only sort that could have come about by chemical chance. Again, the above book traces mankind back as far as bacteria, particularly the prokaryote, the common ancestor of all plant and animal life on earth.
We cannot go much further back than that yet, but, even so, this is a stunning achievement in only a century-and-a-half since Darwin.
Once primitive life is established then everything else follows automatically and inevitably, through the evolutionary process of random mutation and natural selection, to produce the complex plant and animal life of today.
Men do not �come from� apes. The human being is an ape, one of the five Great Apes, the other four being the bonobo, the chimpanzee, the gorilla and the orang-utan.
None of these �came from� any other, but split off from successive common ancestors.
The orang-utan split from the common ancestor of all five, then the gorilla from the common ancestor of the remaining four. Then the chimp line split from the homo line and further split into bonobo and modern chimp. This is all explained in Richard Dawkins� splendid and copiously-illustrated book The Ancestor�s Tale.
On your other point, it is not, strictly speaking, the job of evolution to explain where life came from (though it would be an odd evolutionist who didn�t give his mind to this) but how modern complex life developed from extremely primitive life � the only sort that could have come about by chemical chance. Again, the above book traces mankind back as far as bacteria, particularly the prokaryote, the common ancestor of all plant and animal life on earth.
We cannot go much further back than that yet, but, even so, this is a stunning achievement in only a century-and-a-half since Darwin.
Once primitive life is established then everything else follows automatically and inevitably, through the evolutionary process of random mutation and natural selection, to produce the complex plant and animal life of today.
This is seriously off-topic but the reason I think life originating from a comet is improbable is not because of the ability of microbes to travel on comets.
We've learnt about some pretty incredible bacteria more than capable of surviving space travel.
It's a case of occam's razor - Life starting on another planet and travelling here does not solve any problems in the initial creation of life and actually makes the scenario more complex.
It's exactly the same as adding a creator who's origin is a mystery.
There are also some technical arguments about how far comets travel and the age of solar systems from which one might come.
But in general extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I don't see much for that scenario.
We've learnt about some pretty incredible bacteria more than capable of surviving space travel.
It's a case of occam's razor - Life starting on another planet and travelling here does not solve any problems in the initial creation of life and actually makes the scenario more complex.
It's exactly the same as adding a creator who's origin is a mystery.
There are also some technical arguments about how far comets travel and the age of solar systems from which one might come.
But in general extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and I don't see much for that scenario.
Jake, concepts and ideas are put forward for discussion, dilution, further investigation and decision or dissection. All discoveries start with an idea, often seemingly outlandish. Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution; he was investigating propositions that were put forward (albeit improbable for the time) by other people long before he trotted into the world. He was seeking confirmation of an original concept.
Whilst the possibilities of the origins of life coming from extra terrestrial means may seem a bit far fetched as we know it today (or is it?????), we can still entertain the idea and concept until we know something more or have tangible evidence. Even I as a ��religionist�� am open minded enough to give credence to the actual concept whether in several years to come it is proven true or false.
If we are to teach our schoolchildren only to sit back and wait for the evidence to be plonked in front of them, or the latest book to be published, rather than feed their minds with cold hard facts as well as concepts and ideas. Then this lack of vision and exposure to the possibility of further discovery (scientific, philosophical, religious or other) does not bode well for the future of British scientific breakthroughs.
Whilst the possibilities of the origins of life coming from extra terrestrial means may seem a bit far fetched as we know it today (or is it?????), we can still entertain the idea and concept until we know something more or have tangible evidence. Even I as a ��religionist�� am open minded enough to give credence to the actual concept whether in several years to come it is proven true or false.
If we are to teach our schoolchildren only to sit back and wait for the evidence to be plonked in front of them, or the latest book to be published, rather than feed their minds with cold hard facts as well as concepts and ideas. Then this lack of vision and exposure to the possibility of further discovery (scientific, philosophical, religious or other) does not bode well for the future of British scientific breakthroughs.
Octavius, Jake is right to invoke Occam's Razor here. There is simply no need for us to moot the idea that life came to us from space. It explains nothing and solves no problems.
If we could prove that life could not possibly have originated here then we would have to cast around for other explanations. As it is, every ingredient for the formation of life exists on this planet, so there is no requirement to look elsewhere.
I'm sorry that this has spread into a general discussion about evolution and the inability of some people to understand it - a discussion we have had several times before.
My aim was to find out what was in blu3wave's mind but he seems have gone to ground. Don't blame him really.
If we could prove that life could not possibly have originated here then we would have to cast around for other explanations. As it is, every ingredient for the formation of life exists on this planet, so there is no requirement to look elsewhere.
I'm sorry that this has spread into a general discussion about evolution and the inability of some people to understand it - a discussion we have had several times before.
My aim was to find out what was in blu3wave's mind but he seems have gone to ground. Don't blame him really.
Seeing many of your posts, it doesn't surprise me that your mind is closed to the idea chakka. You seem more often to look backwards without ever looking forwards.
The idea of life originating from outer space is not my idea. Cosmic Ancestry and Astrobiology are very much mainstream areas of scientific research and theorem. Whether we think they are deluded scientists and astrologers or not.
The mere fact that the theory of the big bang asserts that our own planet earth was assembled from intergalactic debris crashing together, and we have physical evidence of comets crashing inot earth, is enough to spark the concept that life began from out in space.
It is this idea that also presents the concept that there may also be other life forms elsewhere in or out of our solar system.
The idea of life originating from outer space is not my idea. Cosmic Ancestry and Astrobiology are very much mainstream areas of scientific research and theorem. Whether we think they are deluded scientists and astrologers or not.
The mere fact that the theory of the big bang asserts that our own planet earth was assembled from intergalactic debris crashing together, and we have physical evidence of comets crashing inot earth, is enough to spark the concept that life began from out in space.
It is this idea that also presents the concept that there may also be other life forms elsewhere in or out of our solar system.
Octavius, that was the most extraordinary mish-mash of wildly unconnected ideas. Taking them one at a time:
My mind is not closed to the idea that life came here from somewhere else. I merely say that the idea is so far unnecessary, in the absence of any evidence for it, when we have all the ingredients here on Earth.
I know it�s not your idea. Famously it was mooted (again without evidence) by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.
I was unaware that Cosmic Ancestry and Astrobiology were �mainstream areas of scientific research�. Please point me towards those areas in the scientific journals.
And what has the nonsense of astrology got to do with it?
The Big Bang says nothing about the formation of Earth. It is an unproved hypothesis (on which science is working) of what happened to form the universe about 12,000 million years ago. The formation of Earth is a very parochial and recent affair concerning our solar system only about 4500 million years ago.
That life might exist outside our solar system, which I consider very likely indeed, is a different matter entirely. The nearest possibility of such life is an unimaginable distance away; it is not reasonable to think that it has anything to do with our life, which our planet is perfectly capable of having produced in its own right.
Get your thoughts in order, Octavius. Some of them are sometimes interesting but they need discipline. Cheers.
My mind is not closed to the idea that life came here from somewhere else. I merely say that the idea is so far unnecessary, in the absence of any evidence for it, when we have all the ingredients here on Earth.
I know it�s not your idea. Famously it was mooted (again without evidence) by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.
I was unaware that Cosmic Ancestry and Astrobiology were �mainstream areas of scientific research�. Please point me towards those areas in the scientific journals.
And what has the nonsense of astrology got to do with it?
The Big Bang says nothing about the formation of Earth. It is an unproved hypothesis (on which science is working) of what happened to form the universe about 12,000 million years ago. The formation of Earth is a very parochial and recent affair concerning our solar system only about 4500 million years ago.
That life might exist outside our solar system, which I consider very likely indeed, is a different matter entirely. The nearest possibility of such life is an unimaginable distance away; it is not reasonable to think that it has anything to do with our life, which our planet is perfectly capable of having produced in its own right.
Get your thoughts in order, Octavius. Some of them are sometimes interesting but they need discipline. Cheers.
Oh chakka, I can accept your surreptitious antipathy and walk forwards and away from you with some sense of adventure. I feel that fortunately for us Galileo and Darwin (and many others) shared that sense of excited wonderment and quest, to bring us much of what we know today.
I don�t think anyone particularly agreed with blue3�s original sentiment, but I find your pursuance of this individual more than a little creepy.
Tutty bye
Ps, astrology in the basic sense (pre modern era) refers to the study of the stars and celestial mechanics (how Newton expanded on his studies for gravity dontcha know). In context to the thread, only a buffoon would assume I was referring to �the nonsense� of Horoscopic astrology.
I don�t think anyone particularly agreed with blue3�s original sentiment, but I find your pursuance of this individual more than a little creepy.
Tutty bye
Ps, astrology in the basic sense (pre modern era) refers to the study of the stars and celestial mechanics (how Newton expanded on his studies for gravity dontcha know). In context to the thread, only a buffoon would assume I was referring to �the nonsense� of Horoscopic astrology.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.