Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[SaiyanZ]

So you suggest the single cell had becoming homo sapiens in mind all along? Of course its accidental then. Accidental means occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

Accidental also implies to some people that evolution is unlikely or improbable. However with millions of possible configurations the development of complex life was inevitable. The changes were random due to the specific environment but there was no stopping it.

 

[Techne]

Google says evidence?

Hitchens says otherwise?
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
"Less than Miraculous ", Free Inquiry 24, February/March 2004, ISSN 0272-0701

Which is funny, since the assertion itself is not proven so that means I can dismiss it without proof. Self-refuting funniness by Hitchens.

 

[Unhappy438]

Hitchens says otherwise?
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
"Less than Miraculous ", Free Inquiry 24, February/March 2004, ISSN 0272-0701

Which is funny, since the assertion itself is not proven so that means I can dismiss it without proof. Self-refuting funniness by Hitchens.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." appears by itself in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007).

 

[Techne]

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." appears by itself in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2007).

I see, he said both.

So, I am just curious. Hitchens' assertion that "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Any evidence that this is true? It's a catchy phrase, but without any evidence for the truth of this phrase, I guess we can dismiss it... without evidence.

 

[Swa]

Join www.sciforums.com.

And isn't it "That which can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof"? Not sure which one it is.

I'll say it's the intended meaning that matters. Anything that's asserted can be dismissed on the same or greater level of proof/evidence.

Accidental also implies to some people that evolution is unlikely or improbable. However with millions of possible configurations the development of complex life was inevitable. The changes were random due to the specific environment but there was no stopping it.

Sure about that? Your computer can be made with trillions of different configurations. Doesn't mean it will actually work.

 

[FrankCastle]

I have a question.
Why aren't the most evolved species (humans) more adept to water when:

A-we basically consist of water
B-most of the earth is covered in water.

surely we should have by now developed the ability to breathe underwater as well as on land, since the source of food can be found in both places.

 

[porchrat]

I have a question.
Why aren't the most evolved species (humans) more adept to water when:

A-we basically consist of water
B-most of the earth is covered in water.

surely we should have by now developed the ability to breathe underwater as well as on land, since the source of food can be found in both places.

Hasn't really been a need to move to the water. There is plenty of delicious stuff on the coast where we can easily get to it ourselves naturally and for the rest we have fishing trawlers.

 

[Techne]

I have a question.
Why aren't the most evolved species (humans) more adept to water when:

A-we basically consist of water
B-most of the earth is covered in water.

surely we should have by now developed the ability to breathe underwater as well as on land, since the source of food can be found in both places.

Most evolved species? There are not "more" or "less" evolved living things. Humans just have a different evolutionary path. We are different, created differently with different evolutionary paths. All living things are different from one another. What makes us different is our ability to intellectually abstract universals from particular observations and reason and understand the logical relationships between these abstractions. That makes us different and special if you want.

 

[DJ...]

Good idea. The only problem with this is it can't happen here. See 2nd post.

There has been a lot of logical and scientific objections to evolution but it always happens that someone injects their anti-religious garbage into it. Just look at all the threads so far and you'll see. Granted these are only a few bad apples but it nonetheless means that while this happens no real debate can take place. If you want real debate then get a place where everyone is allowed to post and where these sidetracks are not allowed.

Let's work on the assumption that people are able to control themselves...

For now I think the following will suffice:

'That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.'

Are you really saying that all evidence brought forward for evolution is pseudo-science? This would be a scientific breakthrough of incredible proportions if you were able to dismiss all of the evidence outright, and is precisely the sort of evidence this thread requires. Please do post it all...

 

[DJ...]

I have a question.
Why aren't the most evolved species (humans) more adept to water when:

Why would we be? We hardly spend time in water and our tool-making abilities do not require us to change physiologically to cope in water...

A-we basically consist of water
B-most of the earth is covered in water.

So? Just because the earth is covered in water doesn't mean that any specific species has to evolve to cope in that environment. They evolve to survive in their own environment/habitat, of which water is not one for humans...

surely we should have by now developed the ability to breathe underwater as well as on land, since the source of food can be found in both places.

We fish with tools. Why would we have evolved underwater breathing? Are you sure you understand the time-frames involved here? This is the same argument as expecting a crew of space explorers to evolve to survive on photosynthesis rather than lungs because there is no oxygen in space...

 

[Elimentals]

I have a question.
Why aren't the most evolved species (humans) more adept to water when:

A-we basically consist of water
B-most of the earth is covered in water.

surely we should have by now developed the ability to breathe underwater as well as on land, since the source of food can be found in both places.

I am not so sure about that claim, seeing that bacteria both, beat us to space and can survive in conditions humans do not dare to enter like volcano geysers and freezing continents, let alone the fact that we need them to survive but not they us. in the same manor they can also take us down with ease, yet we struggle to eliminate some of them.

We also not the most complex either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome_size

 

[Unhappy438]

I see, he said both.

So, I am just curious. Hitchens' assertion that "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Any evidence that this is true? It's a catchy phrase, but without any evidence for the truth of this phrase, I guess we can dismiss it... without evidence.

Evidence for this is just its rationality, unless of course you're telling me you disagree with it and therefore we can assert anything making it just fact?

Are you really saying that all evidence brought forward for evolution is pseudo-science? This would be a scientific breakthrough of incredible proportions if you were able to dismiss all of the evidence outright, and is precisely the sort of evidence this thread requires. Please do post it all...

I have Swa on ignore so i didn't see his initial comment but we all know he is lying through his teeth when he say evolution has no evidence, just more reason to ignore the guy seeing as how i hate liars. Im guessing we are still waiting for him to bring forth counter evidence to evolution, he would rather just spam the thread.

 

[alloytoo]

Evolution:

Similar to the 'thousand monkeys typing on a thousand typewriters'- eventually a novel will be produced. However unlikely, its possible that given enough time the novel will be produced - accidentally. Likewise with evolution a single cell or a collection of lifeless chemicals will accidentally undergo changes and/or mutations caused by random factors leading to the variety of life as we know it today - accidentally.

Your analogy breaks down when you consider that the editor is waiting to swoop down on anything that's good and trash anything thats bad.

 

[scotty777]

Pffft, I've all but given up with these arguments. I suggest the same to you guys, just jump ship .

 

[Freshy-ZN]

Your analogy breaks down when you consider that the editor is waiting to swoop down on anything that's good and trash anything thats bad.

There is no editor in my first scenario.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

I have a question.
Why aren't the most evolved species (humans) more adept to water when:

A-we basically consist of water
B-most of the earth is covered in water.

surely we should have by now developed the ability to breathe underwater as well as on land, since the source of food can be found in both places.

We evolved from primates which evolved to live mainly in trees, we then evolved to walk on land as climate change forced us out from the diminishing forests. There were no oceans in the vicinity which is why we had no need to live under water. If you use this argument then we can also ask why every living creature on the planet cannot live underwater too.

 

[alloytoo]

There is no editor in my first scenario.

Then you're not describing evolution. Random mutation is filtered by natural selection.

 

[Swa]

Are you really saying that all evidence brought forward for evolution is pseudo-science? This would be a scientific breakthrough of incredible proportions if you were able to dismiss all of the evidence outright, and is precisely the sort of evidence this thread requires. Please do post it all...

As I said previously it's bad science. Let's just get past this point first. The evidence is it's own counter evidence if it's weak. So I think we can all agree logically that evidence which can be interpreted differently in a different context is not evidence. We can therefor illustrate this with a formula where the evidence for claim A and B is given by x for the claimed evidence and y for the evidence that's been discredited:
A = x - y = 0 - 0
B = x - y = 5 - 5
Claim A may look weak on the face of it but if we look at claim B it's not any weaker than it because claim B's evidence has been discredited. Now let us see the evidence for evolution and more importantly the metaphysical assumptions accompanying that "evidence"...

PS: I can give a guarantee that if we stick to that and not resort to insulting each other's religions it all comes down to unproven assumptions when logic is applied.

 

[DJ...]

So go ahead and post this supposed bad science. Stop going on and on and on and on about it now. Just post it, with your evidence to the contrary...

 

[Swa]

So go ahead and post this supposed bad science. Stop going on and on and on and on about it now. Just post it, with your evidence to the contrary...

So you want me to post both the evidence for evolution AND counter it? Is that not a bit one sided?