Evolution debate persists because it's not science

The Sun News ^ | February 23, 2009 | By Raymond H. Kocot

[GodGunsGuts]

Opinion

Monday, Feb. 23, 2009

Evolution debate persists because it's not science

By Raymond H. Kocot

...

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.

Because confirmable observations and generating experimental data are impossible for unique events like life's origin and macroevolution theory, world-famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr prompts evolutionists to construct historical narratives to try to explain evolutionary events or processes. In other words, stories are all evolutionists can muster to support macroevolution theory. If macroevolution theory, which must rest on faith in a story and is considered to be scientific, why not the creation story. With that in mind, it is no wonder the molecules-to-man debate has persisted for 150 years...

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Interesting topic (i.e., parallel universe/other dimensions)

The problem comes in when the theorist doesn't know the difference between empirical science and metaphysical cosmology. Or between a fact and a theory.
Between reality and paradigmatic symbols or models.

[GodGunsGuts]

For some reason, I have a very difficult time associating the “R” word with the “D” word. Perhaps if I used the “a” word in front of the “R” word, it would make things a little easier.

(a = apostate)

[ketsu]

Translation: crazy Crevos find something they don’t want to believe, come up with cockamamie theories that only other dumb crevos believe. Thereby sentencing anyone educated by or around crevos to further ignorance and making crevo areas even greater economic backwaters.

[ketsu]

The article says nothing of the sort. It's saying that the general/macro theory of evolution is unobservable and unrepeatable, and therefore does not fall under the definition of empirical science. As such, the macro theory of evolution is story telling based on historical inferences that are based on materialistic ASSUMPTIONS.

Yawn... much of physics is "non repeatable"(e.g., humans have never gone at the speed of light) however much of this "non repeatable" stuff is readable observable in other phenomena. Just as "macro" evolution is observable in fossils and DNA patterns.

This particular crevo lie has been refuted many times. Then again you don't even understand your own talking points, how can you be expected to understand their rebuttals?

[ketsu]

The same cannot be said for Darwinian evolution. It isn’t just that we don’t observe it in nature; we don’t observe it even under artificial, experimental conditions. Fruit flies have been zapped with radiation for fifty years; enough radiation to produce horrible mutants with extra feet growing out of their heads and extra wings on their feet...BUT NO NEW SPECIES. Still the same old fruit flies.

Ummmmmm... no.

[ketsu]

The repeatable measurements are scientific, but the interpretations of those measurements as they relate to the unobservable, unrepeatable past are nothing more than inferences, or educated guesses if you will.

All science is *inductive reasoning*(i.e. inference to save dumb crevos the chance to misinterpret what I'm talking about) . Is there a single Crevo that's gone to a real college that actually teaches logic and rhetoric?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Evolution can only occur with HETEROSEXUAL relationships...

Homosexuality is a religion. It is a fetish... an idolatry of perversion. Excuse me if I refuse to bend my knee in acquiescence.

The same can be said for the temple of evolutionism.

The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same ecclesiasticism.

Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Oldavai Gorge 30 years in vain for.

But, the singularity of all life is the DNA molecule. All living things have it. Like the singularity of the “big bang” theory, evolutionists make the inadvertent admission life is some sort of immaculate conception...

Evolution, the theory, is called more properly “The Origin of Species.” That was Darwin’s title.

Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning must have a beginning.

The flaw in evolutionists’ logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well. Life also came from somewhere else...

[GodGunsGuts]

Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth is nothing more than materialist storytelling about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Darwood was not a scientist, nor did he practice the scientific method. His only earned degree was in religion. All he had to go on was a few minor variations between finches, and from that this med-school dropout, turned reverend, turned amateur naturalist, presumed to reinterpret the entire history of biology based on almost ZERO data. And you guys fell for it...LOL! Even his main claim to fame--natural selection--was discovered by a creationist some 25 years before the pubication of Origins. But only Darwood could take this obvious force for biological conservation and turn it into a nature-god capable of fashioning super-sophisticated biological organisms. But I'm sure none of these absurdities make a dent in your devotion to the bearded Buddha of religious naturalism, as it is quite clear that you have made all the necessary sacrifices to become a life-long Temple of Darwin fanatic.

[Does so]

"...Is there a single Crevo that's gone to a real college that actually teaches logic and rhetoric...?"

If there is one, perhaps he can explain why apes and monkeys have identifiable "friction ridges" on their toes, feet, fingers and palms.

In Homo sapiens, we call ridges on one's palms "palmprints": on one's fingers, those ridges are called "fingerprints".

Apes needed "friction ridges" to enhance their grip on tree limbs.

Humans have them because?

[GodGunsGuts]

As Ernst Mayr points out, Darwood could not experiment in the past, so he invented just-so “historical narratives” for the atheists and materialists in need of intellectual fulfillment of today...and you guys fell for it...LOL!:

“The most widely used method in the physical sciences is the experiment. However, in his evolutionary studies Darwin had to cope with a factor that is irrelevant in most of the physical sciences except in geology and cosmology, the time factor. One cannot experiment with biological happenings in the past. Phenomena like the extinction of the dinosaurs and all other evolutionary events are inaccessible to the experimental method and require an entirely different methodology, that of
the so-called “historical narratives.” In this method one develops an imaginary scenario of past happenings on the basis of their consequences. One then makes all sorts of predictions from this scenario and determines whether or not they have come true.”

Unfortunately for the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism, Darwood’s “historical” narratives are being falsified right and left, thus creating an ever increasing number leaks to develop in the hull of the HMS Beagle. Indeed, it has started to sink so fast, that it has the Evos panicked to the point of publishing articles in the New York Times (of all places!) to the effect that Darwin must die so that evolution might live. Don’t you get it, Ketsu, just about everybody who is anybody knows that the HMS Beagle is going down—except you. Or perhaps you’re just doing the honorable thing by going down with the ship. LOL

[Jeff Gordon]

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution?

It continues to be debated because people who do not grock science continue to offer non-scientific arguments.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Humans have them because?

Because God designed us that way. In addition to stamping each and every one of us as unique, the last I checked humans grip a far greater variety of objects (large and small, coarse and smooth) than do apes.

[GodGunsGuts]

==It continues to be debated because people who do not grock science continue to offer non-scientific arguments.

Darwin’s fanciful creation myth is not a scientific argument. Have you read Origins? It was nothing more than a long argument with practically ZERO data.

[TheWasteLand]

Humans have them because?

If they didn't, television writers would need another way to have their protagonists track down criminals. Granted, this is a anthropic argument, but if it's good enough for Steven Weinberg, it's good enough for me! (well, not really - actually anthropic arguments are the worst kind of pseudo-science)

[Caesar Soze]

Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth blah blah blah.

Nah, he's not upset. Upset is when you post multiple articles per day repeating long-disproven or simply irrelevant talking points, drawn from small pool of like-minded web sites and occasional articles from the opinion pages of small newspapers, even though one's opponents draw freely from a century of technical and lay scientific literature and happily slap down these talking points as a way to pass time during commercial breaks. That's upset. That's a level of upset that, if directed into the electrical grid, could power a small city. It's too bad there's only one of you, GunGodsGuts. A few hundred more and we could solve the country's energy problems.

[GodGunsGuts]

Small newpapers, eh? It’s a very flowery sounding article...until you realize all the flowers are for a funeral. LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html

[ketsu]

Evolution can only occur with HETEROSEXUAL relationships...

Homosexuality is a religion. It is a fetish... an idolatry of perversion. Excuse me if I refuse to bend my knee in acquiescence.

The same can be said for the temple of evolutionism.

The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same ecclesiasticism.

Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Oldavai Gorge 30 years in vain for.

But, the singularity of all life is the DNA molecule. All living things have it. Like the singularity of the “big bang” theory, evolutionists make the inadvertent admission life is some sort of immaculate conception...

Evolution, the theory, is called more properly “The Origin of Species.” That was Darwin’s title.

Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning must have a beginning.

The flaw in evolutionists’ logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well. Life also came from somewhere else...

Uuuum... I know farmers with gay sheep and a friend has gay dogs. Homosexuality is not a religion, although it may be a mental illness.

Evolution is a theory, right up there with relativity and other physical theories. It *is* not indoctrination, although--because it conflicts with the nuttiness of crevos-- it is often projected as such.

As for your "immaculate conception" hypothesis, google "RNA world" and get back to me.

[Jeff Gordon]

Call me a religious fanatic if you want.

Religious fanatic would be far too much of a generalization to define you. You belong to small cult which not only believes that the bible is the word of God but that it is also the literal word of God. Maybe "small time cultist" would be a better fit.

[ketsu]

Boy, you get really upset when creationists point out that Darwood's fanciful creation myth is nothing more than materialist storytelling about the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Darwood was not a scientist, nor did he practice the scientific method. His only earned degree was in religion. All he had to go on was a few minor variations between finches, and from that this med-school dropout, turned reverend, turned amateur naturalist, presumed to reinterpret the entire history of biology based on almost ZERO data. And you guys fell for it...LOL! Even his main claim to fame--natural selection--was discovered by a creationist some 25 years before the pubication of Origins. But only Darwood could take this obvious force for biological conservation and turn it into a nature-god capable of fashioning super-sophisticated biological organisms. But I'm sure none of these absurdities make a dent in your devotion to the bearded Buddha of religious naturalism, as it is quite clear that you have made all the necessary sacrifices to become a life-long Temple of Darwin fanatic.

Yawn... you certainly haven't had any logic or rhetoric education that's for sure. "Argumentum ad hominem" would be a good place for you to start.

[Jeff Gordon]

Darwin’s fanciful creation myth is not a scientific argument. Have you read Origins? It was nothing more than a long argument with practically ZERO data.

Nods and smiles.