falsification of evolution

[belverron]

Definition of "science."
If you want to just take my word for it, it's very dependent on the word knowledge. Since we have no knowledge of a creator, ID cannot be science.

[Starboy]

Quote by: belverron Definition of "science." If you want to just take my word for it, it's very dependent on the word knowledge. Since we have no knowledge of a creator, ID cannot be science.

Don't much care for that definition of science. The "scientific method" is very overblown.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: jeafl If the intelligent designer/creator is super-natural, we would not find its (or his) origin within the bounds of the physical universe and whether or not that designer/creator originated need not be a burning question. But, in the Judeo-Christian view the intelligent designer/creator is the Lord God and He is eternal so your questions are answered.

Big surprise.

Would you concede that Evolutionists are no better? As a Creationist I see no reason why I should not be willing to consider the views of Evolutionists. But how many Evolutionists are willing to give similar consideration to any type of Creationist- say in places like a high school biology class?

And you will have no problem if you are taught science during your sunday service. You have a place practice your religion. But for some reason that doesn't satisfy you.

Starboy

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: jeafl How is intelligent design not science?

Okay, I want to test it. I'll need to set up a control where I know the Intelligent designer isn't present. Please tell me how this can be achieved.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: jeafl Would you concede that Evolutionists are no better? As a Creationist I see no reason why I should not be willing to consider the views of Evolutionists. But how many Evolutionists are willing to give similar consideration to any type of Creationist- say in places like a high school biology class?

No, I would concede that you are blinded by your faith, so blind that you can't see a reality and thus no matter what is shown to you, you will always to delude yourself into thinking that you're right and the majority of scientists are wrong.

Creationism has no place in our science class, it isn't science. There is just no comparison, we have greater certainty over evolution than gravity itself. If you want to go back to the archaic beliefs of a bygone era then fine but don't expect us to drag ourselves back down there.

[samsara15]

ID does not presupoose a Christian solution. For example, the 'creator(s)' could be some super-advanced race of beings from a previous universe, now extinct. What is lacking from ID is any sort of positive evidence for the existence of a creator(s), which makes ID religion. Genetic mistakes such as two headed babies and so forth make one wonder if the 'design' is very 'intelligent' at all.

[RickSp]

Quote by: samsara15 ID does not presupoose a Christian solution. For example, the 'creator(s)' could be some super-advanced race of beings from a previous universe, now extinct. What is lacking from ID is any sort of positive evidence for the existence of a creator(s), which makes ID religion. Genetic mistakes such as two headed babies and so forth make one wonder if the 'design' is very 'intelligent' at all.

A quibble. ID does not require a Christian creator. It was however created by Christian anti-evolutionists as an attempt to use phony science to promote religion.

Your comment about how intelligent, intelligent design may indeed be is excellent. I think Jerry Falwall and/or Tom Delay may be a fine argument for DD. (Dumb-ass Design).

[Agent007]

I find the probability of evolution occurring quite low, since the chances proper adaptions by random genetic drift and natural selection are quite low. If evolution was true, then eventually all life would be wiped off of Earth because its random adaptions were not sufficient enough. Thus, creationism in valid.

[gallo]

Quote by: Agent007 I find the probability of evolution occurring quite low,

How did you "find" that probability? Please show your math. I suspect that you are just trying to sound intelligent instead of saying what is true. You don't know enough to understand it and therefore don't believe your incorrect views.

Quote by: Agent007 ...since the chances proper adaptions by random genetic drift and natural selection are quite low.

Trying to act intelligent again? What is a "proper adaption?" How does that differ from an improper adaption. What is genetic drift. Under what conditions is genetic drift most likely to occur? What is natural selection? What about all of the other mechanisms of evolution. Don't they matter at all?

Quote by: Agent007 If evolution was true, then eventually all life would be wiped off of Earth because its random adaptions were not sufficient enough.

What about the non-random aspects of evolution - like natural selection, for example? Aren't you aware that natural selection is not random?

By the way, there is not doubt that evolution happens because it has been observed. Evolutionary principles are used in agriculture, medicine, animal husbandry, and on and on. I suppose you find the probability of gravity to be improbably too. That makes as much sense as your statements.

Quote by: Agent007 Thus, creationism in valid.

Nope. Whether or not evolution is true has no impact on whether or not creationism is. If creationism can't stand on it's own, it has no validity. So give us the evidence for your position instead of showing how ignorant you are of evolutionary theory.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Agent007 I find the probability of evolution occurring quite low, since the chances proper adaptions by random genetic drift and natural selection are quite low. If evolution was true, then eventually all life would be wiped off of Earth because its random adaptions were not sufficient enough. Thus, creationism in valid.

Even if your tautology made some particular sense, which I don't think it does, when you reach "thus" it completely falls apart. If whatever you represent "evolution" to be is not valid, that does nothing to argue that creationism is the only alternative explanation. To the contrary, your choice of a wholly non-science based explantion casts doubt on the value of your initial scientific "refutation".

[Agent007]

Gallo, in order for populations to survive, they had to adapt to their environments. However, these adaptions are random; however, we do not always see the organisms that failed to mutate properly, because they died due to some environmental effect. For this part of environmental effects, there is also randomness. Thus, natural selection is extremely random in that those populations that get the proper adaptions are the ones that survive and are the ones that we ultimately see as new species, while other members of the old species, which compose a population that did not adequately adapt, do not survive the environmental effects. The probability of this change happening properly to all the various effects is very slim; if evolution is true, then eventually all life would have been wiped out for lack of proper adaptions in a given time. However, since living beings are in existence, evolution is false and therefore truth points to a more creationist viewpoint on this issue. Although your ontology is flawed gallo, I find that there is generally no way to change it; your belief that you are rational and I am a lunatic is inherently unfounded.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Agent007 Although your ontology is flawed gallo, I find that there is generally no way to change it; your belief that you are rational and I am a lunatic is inherently unfounded.

I would say it is quite observable.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Agent007 Gallo, in order for populations to survive, they had to adapt to their environments. However, these adaptions are random; however, we do not always see the organisms that failed to mutate properly, because they died due to some environmental effect. For this part of environmental effects, there is also randomness. Thus, natural selection is extremely random in that those populations that get the proper adaptions are the ones that survive and are the ones that we ultimately see as new species, while other members of the old species, which compose a population that did not adequately adapt, do not survive the environmental effects. The probability of this change happening properly to all the various effects is very slim; if evolution is true, then eventually all life would have been wiped out for lack of proper adaptions in a given time. However, since living beings are in existence, evolution is false and therefore truth points to a more creationist viewpoint on this issue. Although your ontology is flawed gallo, I find that there is generally no way to change it; your belief that you are rational and I am a lunatic is inherently unfounded.

I want to see the actually population statistics. I'm not expert of bioinformatics but I'm still very interested.
I think you're still confused as to why natural selection isn't random, you're too focused on the mutations. All populations of organisms have varying allele frequencies (expect when they're clones) because mutations happen all the time and most are silent.
You say that adaptations are random, this is clearly untrue and highlights the flaw in your thinking.

[gallo]

Quote by: Agent007 [i]n order for populations to survive, they had to adapt to their environments.

Right. All populations adapt to their environments. That is observed all the time.

Quote by: Agent007 However, these adaptions are random;

No, they're not. Adaptions are to the environment, not at all random. You have made a terrible error of understanding of evolutionary theory. From you comments below you seem to equate mutation with adaptation. Wrong.

Quote by: Agent007 however, we do not always see the organisms that failed to mutate properly, because they died due to some environmental effect.

One understanding of evolutionary theory is that evolutionary change is generally slow, so we do see the less well adapted organisms along with those who are better adapted. It works by a process of natural selection, which is not random. But neither is it like a machine that operates without variance in each and every case. Natural selection is a tendency for the better adapted organisms to produce offspring. Natural selection produces a differential reproductive success. Unless some characteristic is lethal, we are likely to see it in a population.

Quote by: Agent007 For this part of environmental effects, there is also randomness.

And that is why bad characteristics are not eliminated immediately. There is a chance that by accident a good characteristic will be removed while a bad one will be preserved. Of course, whether a characteristic is good or bad depends on how it fits into the environment. It is not some absolute judgement.

Quote by: Agent007 Thus, natural selection is extremely random in that those populations that get the proper adaptions are the ones that survive and are the ones that we ultimately see as new species, while other members of the old species, which compose a population that did not adequately adapt, do not survive the environmental effects.

Your "thus" doesn't follow from your argument, not to mention the fact that your arguments are based on your misunderstanding of evolution.

Mutations are random, and although they are not common, relatively speaking, the number of reproductive events, some species produce offspring by the hundreds of thousands, makes then common and easy to find in any given generation. Some mutations are lethal, some are advantageous in some given environment, but most are neutral. There are enough mutations always present supply considerable genetic diversity in any population. And it is genetic diversity upon which natural selection acts. And natural selection isn't random. It imparts differential reproductive success on those organisms that carry advantageous characteristics.

Quote by: Agent007 The probability of this change happening properly to all the various effects is very slim; if evolution is true, then eventually all life would have been wiped out for lack of proper adaptions in a given time.

That's nonsense. There are several types of genetic change that are known as mutations. There are also the mechanisms of redistribution and gene flow that tend to increase the genetic diversity within a population. These may be random, but nevertheless, they are real and the effects have been observed. In addition, sexual selection, gene flow and natural selection act to reduce the genetic diversity. And natural selection is anything but random. The effects are also real and have been observed and measured. Natural selection is anything but random.

Quote by: Agent007 However, since living beings are in existence, evolution is false and therefore truth points to a more creationist viewpoint on this issue.

Nope. Just because you wish to substitute mythology for science doesn't mean that you don't have to support your view with real evidence. Even if evolution were impossible does not lend support to you position. Unless you can offer real theories based on real evidence, then you have offered nothing of value.

Quote by: Agent007 Although your ontology is flawed gallo, I find that there is generally no way to change it;

And I find that even if my ontology is flawed, you haven't shown that to be true. All you have done is to demonstrate that you have failed to grasp the essential points of evolutionary theory.

Quote by: Agent007 your belief that you are rational and I am a lunatic is inherently unfounded.

Now you are adding dishonesty to your ignorance. I never said that you are a lunatic. You may very well be, and since you suggest it, you are in a better position to know that than I. I will concede the point. Nevertheless, you are also profoundly ignorant of evolutionary theory.

Previously I asked you some questions about some of your remarks. You ducked every one of them. Is that because you don't know enough to answer? For example, you talked about genetic drift and I asked you to define it. You haven't done so. Why not. Additionally, in what situations would genetic drift be more significant. Since you probably haven't taken a course in population genetics I suspect that you were just using a word that sounded scientific. You probably didn't imagine that there might be several people here who actually know what it is.

However, I must congratulate you on your spelling and grammar. Even though your science is ridiculous, you are a rare creationist who can spell correctly. As Mr. Gallup has decried, his polls have shown that creationists tend to be less educated than average. However, the fact that you "find" probabilities without actually doing any math is astounding. How does one do math without doing math?