Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

reply to post by Rocketman7


Despite all of your protests the following is half a lie.

Real scientists said the footprints were real and staked their reputation on it.

ALL of those real scientists have decided they were wrong and these are not footprints. ALL of those real scientists have rescinded their claim.

Professors at university, PhD's a long list of collaborators who assisted in putting together the exhibition as well as the research teams, who studied the prints in the field, and made virtual models of the footprints using topographic laser techniques.

Your logical fallacy, an appeal to numbers, is ludicrous. Hardly anyone thought these were footprints.

It was all done completely scientifically and the results are abundantly clear, that for those who cannot recognize footprints in lava ash, (most people have seen footprints on the beach and as such know what footprints look like) but for those who have not seen footprints before, they went over the prints with a microscope, and did every test.

Science is about putting forth and testing ideas. And when the discussion was over everyone agreed these were not footprints.

Stop beating a dead horse. The original proponents rescinding their claim has already been posted in the thread.

Excellent OP, bravo...

My amature research only shows that evolution creates structured groups of entities that are resistant to change. You see, once different groups of entities usurps the environment, they effectively become the environment. And what is the best way to adapt to the environment - if it is a group - if not fitting into the group?

Well, eventually, this causes successful groups to crystillize; the better an entity conforms to it's group, the better it is adapted to it's environment, thus evolution stagnates and becomes micro optimization.

reply to post by Since1981


Your statements sound rather like Lysenkoism where the group works for the good of the whole.

Individuals do compete with others of their kind. Populations change over time since the environment changes over time. A good counter example to your claims are coral reefs and rain forests where diversity is great.

Originally posted by Since1981
Excellent OP, bravo...

My amature research only shows that evolution creates structured groups of entities that are resistant to change. You see, once different groups of entities usurps the environment, they effectively become the environment. And what is the best way to adapt to the environment - if it is a group - if not fitting into the group?

Well, eventually, this causes successful groups to crystillize; the better an entity conforms to it's group, the better it is adapted to it's environment, thus evolution stagnates and becomes micro optimization.

Except...the environment changes. We see evolution take place today as well, it's not "stagnating"

reply to post by edsinger


Evolution and creationism both are unable to prove how life began. There should be no division from both sides.. instead they should work together not to prove their hypothesis but to actually find unbiased truth..

meaning neither side should sabotage each others work if it looks it is detrimental to your claim..

it is counter productive

this thread is mental masterbation

reply to post by stereologist


I can also see great diversity, the problem is how to explain it. It's not enough to point and say "That's diversity, see, evolution works". You have to reproduce it experimentally to validate the theory. In my experiments I happened to find a stagnation in diversity, when population grew. With an ever growing population being the environment, the typical environmental variables (anything that is not a derivative of the population, but influences the population) decreased in relevance, again making it harder to create diversity.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Actually if you look at humans you can see that my results are applicable to the human population. The environment, excluding the population itself, has no or very little part in the selection process. Humans have become their own environment, they impose their own selection criteria. If I would have to predict what would happen next, it would be that human diversity will decrease and eventually become homogenous.

reply to post by Since1981

In my experiments I happened to find a stagnation in diversity

You didn't do any experiments did you? What you have stated is that you made up some story based on your "amature research".

With an ever growing population being the environment, the typical environmental variables (anything that is not a derivative of the population, but influences the population) decreased in relevance, again making it harder to create diversity.

When populations grow they spread out due to environmental pressures: available living space, available food, and so forth. This introduces new environmental issues such as new competitors, new environmental issues, etc.

the better an entity conforms to it's group, the better it is adapted to it's environment

That is the claim that is completely unsubstantiated. In fact, it leads to catastrophic failures. The cheetah is an example of an animal that is nearly identical and that leads to problems with disease and fecundity.

Actually if you look at humans you can see that my results are applicable to the human population. The environment, excluding the population itself, has no or very little part in the selection process. Humans have become their own environment, they impose their own selection criteria. If I would have to predict what would happen next, it would be that human diversity will decrease and eventually become homogenous.

You probably have no idea how diverse primates are in general. Take a human kidney for example. One of the structures in the kidney is a nephron. Some humans have 150K nephrons. Other humans have 1.2M nephrons. That's a 9X range. Such a difference is not seen in other types of animals. Although you might imagine that humans are tending towards some sort of homogeneity is that really the case? Can you show that human when they "impose their own selection criteria" are becoming more homogeneous as you claim?

I think you have no data to support your claims. I think you are creating bad so-called thought experiments that are not based on any data, but are just wishful thinking on your part.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Since1981

 

In my experiments I happened to find a stagnation in diversity

You didn't do any experiments did you? What you have stated is that you made up some story based on your "amature research".

I've been implementing EAs since I was a kid, I'm fascinated with the possibility to simulate life. What have you done, nothing?

With an ever growing population being the environment, the typical environmental variables (anything that is not a derivative of the population, but influences the population) decreased in relevance, again making it harder to create diversity.

When populations grow they spread out due to environmental pressures: available living space, available food, and so forth. This introduces new environmental issues such as new competitors, new environmental issues, etc.

Maybe hard to get this, but when there is growing, the population becomes larger. Being larger it becomes more significant for each entity.

the better an entity conforms to it's group, the better it is adapted to it's environment

That is the claim that is completely unsubstantiated. In fact, it leads to catastrophic failures. The cheetah is an example of an animal that is nearly identical and that leads to problems with disease and fecundity.

Again, and see above, when the environment is dominated by a group, it becomes the dominating factor in the environment. You must adapt to the group, because it's the environment for you.

edit: Just to let you know, I believe inbreeding issues may be an feature evolved by some mechanism, to make sure at least some variation can remain. But I don't see the point of your argument, the cheetahs obviously evolved to be alike, wasn't that my point?

Actually if you look at humans you can see that my results are applicable to the human population. The environment, excluding the population itself, has no or very little part in the selection process. Humans have become their own environment, they impose their own selection criteria. If I would have to predict what would happen next, it would be that human diversity will decrease and eventually become homogenous.

You probably have no idea how diverse primates are in general. Take a human kidney for example. One of the structures in the kidney is a nephron. Some humans have 150K nephrons. Other humans have 1.2M nephrons. That's a 9X range. Such a difference is not seen in other types of animals. Although you might imagine that humans are tending towards some sort of homogeneity is that really the case? Can you show that human when they "impose their own selection criteria" are becoming more homogeneous as you claim?

You are implying, that I mean diversity as in details which has no implication on fitness in the group. Why would I do that? It's more like if you're a wolf but are so diverse, that you happen to look like a rabbit and smell like a chicken, than that is not a good adaptation to the group. It's much better to look and be just like all the other wolfs and they are, this is homogeneous.

"Imposing our own selection criteria", well it is our group being the critera and it's rather self imposed. I'm thinking of a way which will make it apparent why a group, consisting of entities that must fit into the group to survive, converges to homogeneity, but I end up talking in circles. It's too obvious.

I think you have no data to support your claims. I think you are creating bad so-called thought experiments that are not based on any data, but are just wishful thinking on your part.

Well I have a lot of data, probably no use to you though because the hardest part is to analyse and interpret the data. No pictures and textbooks, only bytecode and heaps of statistics.

But wishful is far from it, I've not found anything amazing beyond groups and their dynamics or lack of it (which is pretty interesting when you think about it). No seemingly impossible leaps of adaptation as seen on our planet. Seems to be a far and unlikely way to get there. You can bet I'd wish to see that though.

reply to post by Since1981

Maybe hard to get this, but when there is growing, the population becomes larger. Being larger it becomes more significant for each entity.

Rather vague comment don't you think.

The greater the population the greater the chance of a change in the population.

Again, and see above, when the environment is dominated by a group, it becomes the dominating factor in the environment. You must adapt to the group, because it's the environment for you.

A false claim. There is no "must adapt". That is Lamarckian or Lysenkoism.

You are implying, that I mean diversity as in details which has no implication on fitness in the group. Why would I do that? It's more like if you're a wolf but are so diverse, that you happen to look like a rabbit and smell like a chicken, than that is not a good adaptation to the group. It's much better to look and be just like all the other wolfs and they are, this is homogeneous.

You stated homogeneous and primates are anything but that. And in this case the biological diversity of nephrons does have implications o fitness of the individual. You are confusing the species with the individual.

"Imposing our own selection criteria", well it is our group being the critera and it's rather self imposed. I'm thinking of a way which will make it apparent why a group, consisting of entities that must fit into the group to survive, converges to homogeneity, but I end up talking in circles. It's too obvious.

There is no tendency to fit into the group. Fitting into a group such as a clique does not alter the genetic pool. Ther eis no convergence to homogeneity as you claim. Your talking in circles is confusion on your part.

Sounds like you accumulated all sorts of worthless stats based on bad ideas. Too bad.

I gave the Op a star and flag for thinking out the box.

People need to remember Nothing has been proven.

Evolution AND Creationism are only theories.. someones best guess based on observations which may or may not be accurately perceived.

There ARE NO FACTS. I challenge Science to give me One Fact that's provable beyond any shadow of a doubt no matter what reasoning you employ to either explain it or debunk it.

This is impossible. Therefore science becomes religion. Science masks as something it is not. Science does not, nor can it, produce Facts.

^Perhaps picking up an actual science book is your best bet in this situation, if you are looking for scientific facts. Saying that nothing is proven, is a joke. It's not proven that the earth revolves around the sun??? There are certain realities that we can verify are true. These are facts. Just because we might not know the entire picture and every single detail about the universe, doesn't discount the scientific facts. You can't discount the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, without resorting to guesswork and opinions like, "well how do you know the universe is real?". Science is about objective reality, while faith (creationism) is faith based on personal belief. It will never be the opposite. Scientific theories are not guesses. Hypotheses are works in progress. You can't say something is not a fact, because your personal belief or philosophical arguments go against it, since they aren't based on objective facts and experiments.

reply to post by Since1981


I can see what you're getting at. Humans are intelligent and dominate the world. For many organisms, that IS their environment. With humans, natural selection as far as physical fitness goes, is not as important anymore (at least not in the Western world) because our environment is dominated by money. It's a bit different because the physically weak do not die out, and the competition isn't always life or death. If we are stuck in this system for millions of years, sure there will end up being less diversity, as more races breed together, but evolution itself is still going on, as humans have a pretty high rate of mutations compared to other primates. The traits that involve physical fitness simply aren't as important as intelligence. This will eventually produce smarter humans, regardless of physical fitness, although sexual selection definitely plays a role in that. There is proof in this, with TV shows like "1000 Ways to Die", where people doing stupid things end up dying, so less intelligent genes are still being weeded out. I don't see that as stagnant at all. If a natural disaster strikes and a large portion of the human population dies out, physical traits and fitness will become more prevalent again, but intelligence will still dominate. Remember, there have been several disasters over the past million years and humans almost disappeared from the planet completely not too long ago. These events shape up our genetic diversity more than anything.

Now also, it's not necessary for humans to adapt to the group to survive. Many people still live off the land to this day, separate from society.

Originally posted by Since1981
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Actually if you look at humans you can see that my results are applicable to the human population. The environment, excluding the population itself, has no or very little part in the selection process. Humans have become their own environment, they impose their own selection criteria. If I would have to predict what would happen next, it would be that human diversity will decrease and eventually become homogenous.

Yet we have undeniable proof that humans are still evolving

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Evolution AND Creationism are only theories

Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning the following:

- it's fully backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence, and none of that evidence goes against the theory.
- it's testable.
- we actively apply it in modern medicine. If the theory were wrong, we couldn't do that.
- we have witnessed it both in the lab and in nature.

Creationism ISN'T even a theory. For that it would require objective evidence behind it...which it hasn't.

Evolution also makes no claims regarding how life started, because that's NOT part of theory. It doesn't matter how life started in the first place, evolution would still be happen as it has for billions of years.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Since1981

 

Maybe hard to get this, but when there is growing, the population becomes larger. Being larger it becomes more significant for each entity.

Rather vague comment don't you think.

The greater the population the greater the chance of a change in the population.

I don't think it's vague, the larger group imposes higher pressure.

Again, and see above, when the environment is dominated by a group, it becomes the dominating factor in the environment. You must adapt to the group, because it's the environment for you.

A false claim. There is no "must adapt". That is Lamarckian or Lysenkoism.

Okay, you're marking my words, it's silly. I know and you know, that "must" means there is no alternative, adapt or go away.

You are implying, that I mean diversity as in details which has no implication on fitness in the group. Why would I do that? It's more like if you're a wolf but are so diverse, that you happen to look like a rabbit and smell like a chicken, than that is not a good adaptation to the group. It's much better to look and be just like all the other wolfs and they are, this is homogeneous.

You stated homogeneous and primates are anything but that. And in this case the biological diversity of nephrons does have implications o fitness of the individual. You are confusing the species with the individual.

"primates are anything but that", what do you mean I stated? About nephrons, please expand more on their diversity and any related argument.

"Imposing our own selection criteria", well it is our group being the critera and it's rather self imposed. I'm thinking of a way which will make it apparent why a group, consisting of entities that must fit into the group to survive, converges to homogeneity, but I end up talking in circles. It's too obvious.

There is no tendency to fit into the group. Fitting into a group such as a clique does not alter the genetic pool. Ther eis no convergence to homogeneity as you claim. Your talking in circles is confusion on your part.

If there is no mechanism keeping groups coherent, there would be no groups, but there are. They do very well, and this is obvious. So your argument doesn't make sense. You are trying to be confusing, I do not think it works.

So, I've not reached the same conclusion as you (which is?). I did not validate the ET, but I'm okay with that, because now it is time for you to do it.

reply to post by MrXYZ


There is not a yet, it's a given, there is evolution driven by the pressure from the group, but I can not say it causes any large meaningful diversity, it doesn't produce new species, that is all.

Ther eis no convergence to homogeneity as you claim.

If there would be no convergence, there would be no interracial mixing. But it's not the case, there is definitive mixing, to me this gives less diversity. Larger groups, more mixing, less chance for ET to create new species. I believe you require separation for that, to let different paths evolve on their own.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Evolution AND Creationism are only theories.

There are many theories of evolution, but no theories of creationism.

someones best guess based on observations which may or may not be accurately perceived.

Not at all. Evolution theories are based on facts. They are not guesses. They are tested and tested and retested and changed as problems are uncovered.

There ARE NO FACTS.

You are confusing fact with truth.

I challenge Science to give me One Fact that's provable beyond any shadow of a doubt no matter what reasoning you employ to either explain it or debunk it.

Release a rock and it falls to the ground. That is not truth, but a fact.

This is impossible. Therefore science becomes religion. Science masks as something it is not. Science does not, nor can it, produce Facts.

Please learn what is meant by the words fact and theory to avoid further confusion on your part.

reply to post by Since1981

I don't think it's vague, the larger group imposes higher pressure.

The larger group provides more possibilities for change. Whatever you mean by pressure, maybe physical, social, resource or whatever, a larger population has more chances of change than a smaller population.

Okay, you're marking my words, it's silly. I know and you know, that "must" means there is no alternative, adapt or go away.

Not at all. Your words suggested that change was imperative. It is not.

There is a huge diversity within primate species - huge. Humans may dominate the planet, but that does not mean that there is going to be any loss of genetic variability or that evolution stagnates.

If there is no mechanism keeping groups coherent, there would be no groups, but there are. They do very well, and this is obvious. So your argument doesn't make sense. You are trying to be confusing, I do not think it works.

Now we are getting to some of your misunderstandings. There is no mechanism keeping groups coherent. Groups are what we as human assign to organisms. My argument makes sense because that is what is. It may not make sense to you because you assume that there is some mechanism preventing evolution.

It's all about the genetic pool. Individuals do not evolve. The change of a gene pool over time is what we refer to as evolution. Nothing tries to keep what humans see as a gene pool as a single gene pool. There is no mechanism keeping a gene pool as a single pool.

reply to post by Since1981

There is not a yet, it's a given, there is evolution driven by the pressure from the group, but I can not say it causes any large meaningful diversity, it doesn't produce new species, that is all.

The group does not drive evolution. You are thinking Lamarckian or possibly Lychenkoist. There is no mechanism as you claim driving evolution or hindering evolution or directing evolution.