Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[SaiyanZ]

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

You're the one saying that you have a counter argument for any evidence that proves evolution a fact. So you should go ahead and list all the arguments for and against evolution. Other people may miss out stuff that you know since you've already worked out counters to all possible arguments.

 

[Swa]

You're the one saying that you have a counter argument for any evidence that proves evolution a fact. So you should go ahead and list all the arguments for and against evolution. Other people may miss out stuff that you know since you've already worked out counters to all possible arguments.

Nope I didn't. I gave a formula that seems logically accurate in determining the strength of a claim.

But that is not the point though. By both supplying the evidence and countering it it's essentially a one sided debate. Not how it works. If you support a position you provide the evidence otherwise it's assumed there are none. Unless you want an all encompassing reason for rejecting evolution*. I can easily give you one - it's circulatory.

*I'm assuming the term to mean the theory of evolution from common descent and not merely biological change.

 

[DJ...]

Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack.

There is absolutely nothing confusing about requesting this evidence that you have. Your supposed confusion is transparent. Next you're going to have us Technephrony defining everything...

 

[Techne]

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?

I don't think it is rational since it appears to be self-refuting. Claiming that it is "rational" just begs the question, "based on what evidence more than your subjective feelings".

And you can disagree with it pretty easily without fallaciously accepting that "we can assert anything making it just fact".

For example, something can be asserted without evidence and not dismissed. If an evolutionary biologist explains to you that Tiktaalik can be reasonably accepted as an evolutionary fossil demonstrating some sort of transition, you can accept it without having actual evidence for it. You accept it based on the authority of the evolutionary biologist. You are of course then welcome to go and look at the evidence yourself. Point being, you did not dismiss it just because there was no evidence, you accepted it based on authority despite not being presented without any evidence.

 

[Nicodeamus]

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.

those arguments would make any mathematician cry, if x-y = 0 then there are infinitely many solutions, that however is the solution to the problem. Both claim A and claim B is weak because it relies on a faulty and a wrong premise.

If you find a contradiction in logic then you have to look at the premise. Both my be refuted, that implies that both are wrong.
Just because A = x-y doesn't imply that B = x-y = 5-5.
You just justified 1 weak argument by assuming another weak argument is valid
Either way, this has more to do with formal logic and not really with evolution unless you want to address the reasoning of some of the scientists (which might be a valid claim on the condition that you can refuse their premise).


but still that being said, what evidence do you propose counters evolution? Which arguments are you against and what is the counter argument and what is your premise to justify it.

The premise for evolution would be the observable empirical evidence and the mechanism of natural selection. So in a logical sense, you cannot rebut evolution without rebutting both of them.

 

[Nicodeamus]

I don't think it is rational since it appears to be self-refuting. Claiming that it is "rational" just begs the question, "based on what evidence more than your subjective feelings".

And you can disagree with it pretty easily without fallaciously accepting that "we can assert anything making it just fact".

For example, something can be asserted without evidence and not dismissed. If an evolutionary biologist explains to you that Tiktaalik can be reasonably accepted as an evolutionary fossil demonstrating some sort of transition, you can accept it without having actual evidence for it. You accept it based on the authority of the evolutionary biologist. You are of course then welcome to go and look at the evidence yourself. Point being, you did not dismiss it just because there was no evidence, you accepted it based on authority despite not being presented without any evidence.

Evidence have been the means of human reasoning, so if you dismiss the premise that evidence cannot be sufficient then your dismissing the idea of reasoning itself. Which doesn't make sense. Whether or not the observer accepts it because of despite evidence is invalid, because it still doesn't make it logical. For example if I accept that the tooth fairy is real then I do that by accepting a fault premise, this might be logical with that condition that my premise holds, however it doesn't make it more rational, given the assertion that that premise has already been rebutted.

 

[Swa]

Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack Backtrack.

There is absolutely nothing confusing about requesting this evidence that you have. Your supposed confusion is transparent. Next you're going to have us Technephrony defining everything...

Sorry but that is just BULLSCHIT! You can't expect one party in a debate to both supply the proof and refute it. If no proof is supplied then it's assumed there is none.

those arguments would make any mathematician cry, if x-y = 0 then there are infinitely many solutions, that however is the solution to the problem. Both claim A and claim B is weak because it relies on a faulty and a wrong premise.

If you find a contradiction in logic then you have to look at the premise. Both my be refuted, that implies that both are wrong.
Just because A = x-y doesn't imply that B = x-y = 5-5.
You just justified 1 weak argument by assuming another weak argument is valid
Either way, this has more to do with formal logic and not really with evolution unless you want to address the reasoning of some of the scientists (which might be a valid claim on the condition that you can refuse their premise).

I just put forth a simple formula/illustration to determine the strength of any particular claim. Either you accept it or not. It's very simple. You just take the amount of evidence and subtract from it those evidences which are refuted. I don't know what you are on about an infinite number of solutions here.

but still that being said, what evidence do you propose counters evolution? Which arguments are you against and what is the counter argument and what is your premise to justify it.

It's not about the evidence that counters it. There's this assumption that separate evidence needs to exist to counter evolution. No it's about how strong the evidence is for it. Most of it however is circulatory. Take the fossil record for instance and Ronald West's comment:
"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

And let's not even get into how these fossils are constructed.

The premise for evolution would be the observable empirical evidence and the mechanism of natural selection. So in a logical sense, you cannot rebut evolution without rebutting both of them.

Here you have a problem because evolution is NOT an empirical science. Most of its evidence is based on a number of metaphysical assumptions that can't be tested empirically.

 

[rwenzori]

Seldom have I been subjected to such ignorant drivel. Oy vey.

 

[Swa]

"evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there." - Michael Ruse http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm

 

[rwenzori]

"evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.

Apart from the fact that metaphysics is bunk, please be so kind as to state the assumptions on both sides ( as it were ) in plain and simple statements. Because except for the assumption that there is something out there, outside of my head, I can't see what else you need to make scientific beginnings.

 

[porchrat]

Apart from the fact that metaphysics is bunk, please be so kind as to state the assumptions on both sides ( as it were ) in plain and simple statements. Because except for the assumption that there is something out there, outside of my head, I can't see what else you need to make scientific beginnings.

The hilarious part is that science by it's definition makes this a priori assumption. He tries to pretend this is the Theory of Evolution in isolation.

It is really saddening to see all this philosophy crap in the science section. Swa really needs to stop this now. We all do.

 

[Unhappy438]

I don't think it is rational since it appears to be self-refuting. Claiming that it is "rational" just begs the question, "based on what evidence more than your subjective feelings".

And you can disagree with it pretty easily without fallaciously accepting that "we can assert anything making it just fact".

For example, something can be asserted without evidence and not dismissed. If an evolutionary biologist explains to you that Tiktaalik can be reasonably accepted as an evolutionary fossil demonstrating some sort of transition, you can accept it without having actual evidence for it. You accept it based on the authority of the evolutionary biologist. You are of course then welcome to go and look at the evidence yourself. Point being, you did not dismiss it just because there was no evidence, you accepted it based on authority despite not being presented without any evidence.

Nope , im pretty sure you're trying to argue about something you agree with. But you know what since you want to disagree please give me your contact details. I will send some salesman your way who will assert amazing things about their products. You must then accept what they assert and buy the products :erm: .

Edit : So four pages and still no counter evidence to evolution, not that it was ever a contest but i think Swa and co have had enough time. Can we please close this thread before the Science section is infected with more spam. Evolution = Fact

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Skill haven't seen any scientific or logical statements made here in objection to evolution.

 

[Elimentals]

Skill haven't seen any scientific or logical statements made here in objection to evolution.

+1

but its because there are none, if there was the person posting it would have Noble prize already, instead of spewing philosophical mambo jumbo, that belong in the PD section anyway

 

[rwenzori]

It is really saddening to see all this philosophy crap in the science section. Swa really needs to stop this now. We all do.

Is he not rza or whatever that other twit called himself, and was rza not banned?

 

[Swa]

The hilarious part is that science by it's definition makes this a priori assumption. He tries to pretend this is the Theory of Evolution in isolation.

Please show where ever I said this. Hint: I didn't.

It is really saddening to see all this philosophy crap in the science section. Swa really needs to stop this now. We all do.

Stop pulling this crap.

Edit : So four pages and still no counter evidence to evolution, not that it was ever a contest but i think Swa and co have had enough time. Can we please close this thread before the Science section is infected with more spam. Evolution = Fact

Indeed four pages and no evidence for evolution either. Kinda proves my point. Ironically enough the other thread that has been moved into the PD section had more evidence and science in it.

 

[DJ...]

+1

but its because there are none, if there was the person posting it would have Noble prize already, instead of spewing philosophical mambo jumbo, that belong in the PD section anyway

Noble? Certainly not...

Is he not rza or whatever that other twit called himself, and was rza not banned?

He's certainly fundie material on a par with rza but unlikely to be the same twisted soul...

 

[DJ...]

Sorry but that is just BULLSCHIT! You can't expect one party in a debate to both supply the proof and refute it. If no proof is supplied then it's assumed there is none.

And still you pretend to be confused about this all. Let me simplify for the sake of your primitive thought process:

What are your scientific and logical objections to gene flow?

 

[Swa]

What are your scientific and logical objections to gene flow?

Ah now we're getting somewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_flow

In population genetics, gene flow (also known as gene migration) is the transfer of alleles or genes from one population to another.

Does not sound much different from my finches example. I don't know why you would think I'll object to it. I object to it being used as evidence for evolution. Even the wiki article notes:

Maintained gene flow between two populations can also lead to a combination of the two gene pools, reducing the genetic variation between the two groups. It is for this reason that gene flow strongly acts against speciation

Speciation is required for evolution from a common ancestor. Otherwise the only "evolution" you have is one species changing into another. Even that is debatable as more than a simple back and forth exchange of genes is required for a new species to emerge.

 

[DJ...]

So for semantics sake you're not going to call it evolution but will accept that genetic change takes place. Your issue is with speciation, not evolution as a process...