The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

From this post, it is obvious that your base position is the "assumption of the existence of god", which is an inflexible and thus brittle philosophy ... basically in any possible logical argument... you lose.

It is significantly more likely that an intelligent force is responsible for the order exhibited in the universe, rather than an unintelligent process.

Break down the math on that one for us, champ. Stating your opinion as fact does not make it hold merit or credible.

originally posted by: Barcs

Break down the math on that one for us, champ. Stating your opinion as fact does not make it hold merit or credible.

Ordered systems require intelligent input to be created. A car doesn't get created through random interactions, a hydrogen fuel cell does not get created through random interactions, etc. To believe that random processes created the ordered systems of the cosmos and biology is actually really dumb. If you don't understand this already your mind is firmly locked, and it is pointless for anyone to talk to you, or you to discuss with anyone, because your mind is cemented shut at a material-reductionist dead-end, offering no hope, which you oddly wish to spread to others.

Just stop

originally posted by: cooperton
Ordered systems require intelligent input to be created.

Prove it please. The universe as a whole is not even close to ordered. Funny how you immediately follow up with a false analogy about technology that we already know is designed, rather than demonstrating your claims about life being designed or the universe being designed.

To believe that random processes created the ordered systems of the cosmos and biology is actually really dumb.

Why do you automatically assume everything is random if it wasn't created intelligently? That, my friend, is actually really dumb. Chemical reactions are not random. Otherwise, by your own criteria, the existence of your designer is random. Is that your position?

If you don't understand this already your mind is firmly locked, and it is pointless for anyone to talk to you, or you to discuss with anyone, because your mind is cemented shut at a material-reductionist dead-end, offering no hope, which you oddly wish to spread to others.

You are the one that claimed that it is significantly more likely that an intelligent force is responsible for the order exhibited in the universe, rather than an unintelligent process and did absolutely nothing to back it up. My mind is always open to new evidence. Problem is you never provide any, you just talk in metaphors and generalization assumptions and make the same flawed arguments from years ago that were already corrected.

originally posted by: Barcs

Why do you automatically assume everything is random if it wasn't created intelligently? That, my friend, is actually really dumb. Chemical reactions are not random. Otherwise, by your own criteria, the existence of your designer is random. Is that your position?

Good, I was waiting for you to finally admit that chemical reactions are not random. They behave according to meticulous mathematical laws. It is the coding of the universe. If you don't think mathematically predictable laws that keep the cosmos and biology in order are proof of intelligence, then we have reached an impasse and I don't think anything would prove it to you. Not even if someone were to perform miracles and be raised from the dead. Seriously, what would even suffice for you as proof??

Regardless, to get back to the topic, there is no proof that biological life could have culminated through unintelligent processes. You partially realize this I think. This is why you scrutinize those who believe that intelligent processes made life. You can't defend your theory, so you scrutinize the alternative.

originally posted by: cooperton
Good, I was waiting for you to finally admit that chemical reactions are not random.

Finally? I've said this dozens of times! You have very selective memory. Random simply means unpredictable. Chemical reactions are consistent and predictable. It has nothing to do with being designed LOL! That is your ASSUMPTION, but you got no evidence.

They behave according to meticulous mathematical laws. It is the coding of the universe.

Blatant lie. Math is our observation of the universe. The universe doesn't actually factor in math when things happen, they just happen because of the laws of physics, not math itself, dummy. LOL @ romanticizing math while ignoring hard scientific evidence. Pathetic, bro.

If you don't think mathematically predictable laws that keep the cosmos and biology in order are proof of intelligence, then we have reached an impasse and I don't think anything would prove it to you.

Again, this is flat out retarded. So because humans use math to describe the natural universe it suddenly means design? Do you have any evidence at all or are your standards that pathetic that you hold evolution to the highest imaginable standards of scrutiny while believing the universe was designed on a WHIM out of emotion???? So dishonest....

Not even if someone were to perform miracles and be raised from the dead. Seriously, what would even suffice for you as proof??

TESTABLE EVIDENCE, as I've said a million times. "Durrr, the universe is complex and amazing" isn't an argument for design, it's an argument based on IGNORANCE. Stop the fallacious BS already.

Regardless, to get back to the topic, there is no proof that biological life could have culminated through unintelligent processes.

Another blatant lie. You are on fire today. There is NO PROOF that biological life was designed, full stop. Complex things form naturally all the time. Stars form into complex fusion reactors from a simple gas cloud collapsing, evolution shows how single celled organisms became complex multi cellular life. You just live in denial and promote faith over fact which is laughably stupid in 2019. Your view hasn't been relevant since the 1800s.

You partially realize this I think. This is why you scrutinize those who believe that intelligent processes made life. You can't defend your theory, so you scrutinize the alternative.

WTF! I have posted the evidence countless times for you and you ignore and dismiss it every #ing time. Sorry bro, your shtick is old and your lies are exposed. You have never ONCE refuted a single piece of supporting evidence for evolution and never ONCE provided testable evidence of an alternative theory. Try starting with that instead of appealing to emotion.

a reply to: Barcs

I told this 4th grader one time that letters are involved in mathematics. He thought it was absurd, stupid even... but he'll realize the truth of it once he learns algebra.

Consider humbling your self in the mean time. Your crass attitude will ruin your life.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Argumentum ad logicam can be used as an ad hominem appeal: by impugning the opponent's credibility or good faith, it can be used to sway the audience by undermining the speaker rather than by addressing the speaker's argument.[3]

William Lycan identifies the fallacy fallacy as the fallacy "of imputing fallaciousness to a view with which one disagrees but without doing anything to show that the view rests on any error of reasoning". Unlike ordinary fallacy fallacies, which reason from an argument's fallaciousness to its conclusion's falsehood, the kind of argument Lycan has in mind treats another argument's fallaciousness as obvious without first demonstrating that any fallacy at all is present. Thus in some contexts it may be a form of begging the question,[8] and it is also a special case of ad lapidem.

Source: Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia

Now I wonder if anyone has already come up with a term to describe this situation when what is stated to be a fallacy (or fallacies) actually isn't a fallacy* (or fallacies). Just painting the 'fallacy'-picture on someone's commentary without proper justification or any supporting evidence why it's supposedly a fallacy that doesn't rely on a line of argumentation that first twists the nature of someone's comment to make it look more like a fallacy and uses other tricks to promote that false impression or elaborate on that argument.

*: regarding what's mentioned above on the wikipage: I'm actually OK with someone pointing out that something is a fallacy without having to go into detail why it is, but only when it actually is a fallacy that is being pointed towards. Apparently some people (see Lycan above) already consider it a fallacy if one just argues someone else is using a fallacy without "doing anything to show that the view rests on any error of reasoning", as Lycan puts it above, even when it is one and even when it really is obvious (or should be at least, if someone is willing to be reasonable about it). I don't consider that a fallacy, it's a legitimate thing to point out without having to go into details (especially when it's obvious or when someone uses them so often and so numerously or repetitively; for example as part of a standardized pattern of propagandistic argumentation or a way of arguing and reasoning affected by propaganda, pride and other emotions playing a major role in this), but when it's a false accusation and used as a discrediting picture or paintjob, then something to show the false accusation not to be false, could have maybe helped make it look less like an incorrect biased assessment of someone's commentary as containing fallacies, that was already made or decided ahead of time, and ready to be made and pointed out regardless as to how I was going to use the quotations that I used and in which context; i.e. any quotation you don't like you're going to paint the argument from authority-picture on to brush them away painting with a broad brush, regardless in what context it was used or whether it was part of a larger response to something you said or asked for, such as your request for an alternative causal explanation for the origin of life and the universe.

I tend to just think of it as the 'Isaiah 5:20,21-thingy'. Painting what is not a fallacy (good) as a fallacy (bad) and painting what is a fallacy (bad) as what is not a fallacy (a good line of argumentation, an honest accurate appraisal of the reality of the situation). Isaiah 5:20,21:

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,
Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,
Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes
And discreet in their own sight!

Spending too much time on arguing about this is what is so conveniently distracting from discussing the acknowledgements made by those who have PhD's in the relevant fields of discussion pertaining to the evolution-creation controversy. Brushing them all away* by basically reasoning that any quotation of what they have to say that is relevant to this thread in any sort of discussion, is an appeal to authority (cause that's what your accusation boils down to), won't negate any of the facts that they are talking about or their relevance to this thread's discussion or my comment at the time (of those quotations). *: that's the way we combine the notions of brushing something under the carpet and brushing something off in my language, not sure if that's the right way to express that in English.

The alternative to evolution is creation. As is well discussed by those I have been quoting in my last few comments. And as is well known in this whole evolution vs creation debate. So any false accusation that no alternative was given or proposed in my commentary, or any implication that that was even necessary in the first place for a logical argument, point or rational comment with relevant considerations about the subject of this thread (the evolutionary philosophies referred to with the term "evolution" as used in the context of this thread), is just more distraction tactics.

It's clear you have very little of substance to say about the quotations you are having issues with other than broad strokes painting with the same brush that labels all of them as arguments from authority because they happen to say things that do not tickle your ears. All that regardless of whether the quotations I used on pages 17 and 18 are coming from scientists that support evolution or creation (or theistic evolution that attempts to combine both). And regardless of the detailed reasons I quoted them in relation to my commentary about this thread's subject; as in not saying anything about that, not responding to those points, painting "fallacy" on it with a broad brush again, this time with a funny term.

A very standardized tactic and behavioural pattern of distraction and using false accusations as red herrings from the earlier comments before I started responding in more detail to your trap (like a pit filled with red herrings one might figuratively say). Not that it matters much whether or not I dig deeper into that pit by putting my spade to it and emptying out all the red herrings if anyone wants to have a look at them and realize how bad they smell. Cause all the distractions will continue with or without my commentary and none of it will change the reality of the situation regarding evolutionary ideas as I described on pages 17 and 18. And there already wasn't all that much to add to what I mentioned on those pages. So you may continue circling around your wagons or running around in circles all you want or feel like. It won't stop me from occasionally responding with what discoveries have actually been made in the sciences and what realities they demonstrate in relation and often contradiction or opposition to evolutionary ideas, storylines and speculations of what may have happened, or what supposedly most likely happened (long live the agnostic code! As the nr.1 cop-out tactic to defy reason and brush away these facts/certainties/realities/truths or things that are certain/absolute/factual/true that demonstrate beyond any doubt for me which evolutionary ideas or parts of the various storylines are "impossible"; to use a term from the thread title).

a reply to: cooperton

Darwin was smart enough to know there were many holes in his theory of evolution. But he was not smart enough to know what they are.

Or actually smart is not even the word to use here. More like not as informed, he lived in the 1800s people. There is only so much you can gather from traveling on ships to different locales and looking at local plant and animals.

But yes there are many instances were something can not literally existed, but if they came as a prepackaged deal and almost fully formed to function at all.

Lets just say evolution is evolving. And at the end of the day its just a word to describe certain principles and concepts.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: whereislogic

... either an Appeal to Authority, or an Appeal to Complexity... both PROVEN fallacious arguments, not a single actual fact.

"Appeal to Complexity", that's a funny term for a fallacy. That was the funny term I was referring to towards the end of my previous comment but I was out of space to elaborate why it sounded funny to me. And of course, as usual, it's misapplied considering how it is defined by those who like this particular term to describe a fallacious way of arguing or reasoning; considering it was never even used in the manner described in such definitions in the first place, in my commentary that is. Of course someone may feel inclined to force fit that picture or paintjob on my commentary or any of the quotations I used though, if you really are determined to find it there and read such a way of reasoning into my commentary, I can't stop you no matter what I say or how I orginally put it, or how I will respond afterwards to explain one has read a supposed "fallacious" so-called "appeal to complexity" in it that isn't there (neither as it is defined nor showing up as anything fallacious*). Because that's what one then desires to paint on the comment, not only for others but also for their own thinking, to ease their minds so to speak that they're right about this; that they aren't doing anything unbecoming, dishonest, propagandistic (or demonstrating its effect: indoctrinated), unreasonable or irrational, fanatically zealous or biased, that it's the others who disagree with you that are behaving in this manner (any, some or all of those descriptions, implied or spelled out) and demonstrating as such, in particular me now when responding to my comments and painting this paintjob picture. Which brings us back to the description: self-assuming. Which is much more appropiate than the term "psychological projection", which also has some relevance here though.

*: I have not looked deeper or thought very long about whether or not I agree with the definition for an "appeal to complexity" actually describing a fallacious way of reasoning (which I consider at this time not to be important enough for my point to consider any longer than I already have, I looked at 1 possible definition and since that already wasn't going on in my commentary that you painted that picture on, what's the point in considering that which I described in this footnote any further)

That's part of what makes it funny to me, but not the main reason. Don't feel like explaining the main reason in too much detail but the clue is in the usage of the word "complexity" in relation to that word being a triggerword when used in arguments or any sort of commentary about the complexity that makes up the machinery of life for example; and of course any considerations regarding what are reasonable proposals regarding a causal explanation for the origin of such technology and design (and what are not reasonable proposals or even impossible ones*).

*: as the word "complex(ity) was used for example in these considerations as mentioned by these people:

originally posted by: whereislogic

And today’s biologists have to humbly admit, with Prof. Jean Génermont of the University of South Paris in Orsay, that ‘the synthetic theory of evolution cannot readily explain the origin of complex organs.’”

In the light of the tremendous odds against such endless variety and complexity of life forms, I find it difficult to believe that it all evolved in the right direction just by chance. I wonder how any creatures could have survived in the battle of the survival of the fittest while they were still evolving eyes. I wonder how cells survived if they existed in an incomplete and inadequate state. [these are reasonable considerations that do not describe a lack of understanding or knowledge, arguing from ignorance so to speak as the definition for an appeal to complexity alludes to, but a lack of explanatory power and reasonability in exclusively natural or evolutionary processes, the implication in such proposed causal explanations being that the cause was: "by chance", or "by accident". This does not fit the facts, including the reality of the level of technology required* as part of the causal explanation for the origin of the machinery that makes up life for example. *: logically]
...
“It is a legend . . . that Charles Darwin solved the problem of the origin of biological complexity. It is a legend that we have a good or even fair grasp on the origin of life, or that proper explanations refer only to so-called natural causes. To be sure, these and other legends of philosophical naturalism have a certain stature. One does not speak too harshly of them in polite company. But neither should one accept them uncritically.”—Origins Research.

originally posted by: whereislogic
After examining current research on the inner workings of the cell, British philosopher Antony Flew, once a leading champion of atheism, stated: “The almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), [show] that intelligence must have been involved.” Flew believes in “following the argument no matter where it leads.” In his case it led to a complete change in thinking, so that he now believes in God.

You never did make it clear whether or not merely using the word "complexity" in any sort of comment that doesn't tickle your ears warrants the accusation of a supposed fallacious appeal to complexity, cause all you did was make the accusation, which would be a fallacy fallacy according to the earlier quoted William Lycan (which I explained I don't entirely agree with depending on the situation). But it's still funny or awkward to see the word "complexity" still functioning as some sort of triggerword regarding a database of irrelevant counter-argumentation regarding what is actually usually brought up when someone on the other side of the fence uses the word "complex(ity)" and brings it up, not as an appeal to complexity, but in considerations regarding causal explanations regarding a very specific type of complexity that bears all the hallmarks of design, creation, engineering, machinery, technology and every other appropiate terminology to describe the realities that make up lifeforms. Which indeed shows “that intelligence must have been involved.” (Flew) And “that ‘the synthetic theory of evolution cannot readily explain the origin of complex organs.’” (Génermont as quoted by science writer Philippe Chambon) The so-called “synthetic theory of evolution” is not a logical or reasonable causal explanation for the origin of auto-assembling, reproducing, self-repairing systems of machinery that can laugh, cry, solve puzzles, build computers, ride a bicycle, write poetry, and look up at the night sky with a sense of reverential awe. It defies all reason, unlike the causal explanation of creation, which fits perfectly (based on induction), albeit requiring a very high level of technological advancement and intelligence in comparison to our own machinery and systems of machinery; which only provides us with more information and detail about this cause (so probably should't have said "albeit", but I like that word).

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Barcs

I told this 4th grader one time that letters are involved in mathematics. He thought it was absurd, stupid even... but he'll realize the truth of it once he learns algebra.

Consider humbling your self in the mean time. Your crass attitude will ruin your life.

You should consider the same. It is extremely arrogant to argue against the most substantiated theory in science when you pretty much know nothing about it. Your arguments are constructed to deceive others, not based on evidence logic or reason. Nobody's buying what you are peddling anymore aside from the other BS peddlers that post here.

My responses might be harsh and in your face, but they are honest and based on actual understanding of the theory, not emotion, not hatred of god, not faith. Maybe if you guys could come up with an honest argument backed by evidence, it would be different but you have proved that your argument cannot evolve at all. Your understand is set in stone, regardless of what other evidence is out there. You just ignore anything inconvenient to your worldview and that's not honest.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Barcs

I told this 4th grader one time that letters are involved in mathematics. He thought it was absurd, stupid even... but he'll realize the truth of it once he learns algebra.

Consider humbling your self in the mean time. Your crass attitude will ruin your life.

You should consider the same. It is extremely arrogant to argue against the most substantiated theory in science when you pretty much know nothing about it. Your arguments are constructed to deceive others, not based on evidence logic or reason. Nobody's buying what you are peddling anymore aside from the other BS peddlers that post here.

My responses might be harsh and in your face, but they are honest and based on actual understanding of the theory, not emotion, not hatred of god, not faith. Maybe if you guys could come up with an honest argument backed by evidence, it would be different but you have proved that your argument cannot evolve at all. Your understand is set in stone, regardless of what other evidence is out there. You just ignore anything inconvenient to your worldview and that's not honest.

Correction: it's an unsubstantiated theory in science.

oops, let me add an unsubstantiated conjecture.

a reply to: edmc^2

If evolution is so unsubstantiated (minus the 500k peer reviewed direct literature, and over a million indirect literature referring to evolution), then there must be a viable, testable alternative right?

... but (other than NOT TESTABLE imagination and fantasy: creationism) there isn't an alternative.

You are welcome to offer an alternative, but even if you do, it won't change the reality that, rather than being impossible... EVOLUTION IS FACT.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

If evolution is so unsubstantiated (minus the 500k peer reviewed direct literature, and over a million indirect literature referring to evolution), then there must be a viable, testable alternative right?

... but (other than NOT TESTABLE imagination and fantasy: creationism) there isn't an alternative.

You are welcome to offer an alternative, but even if you do, it won't change the reality that, rather than being impossible... EVOLUTION IS FACT.

Easy, first off, the majority if not all of the literature/documentation you can bring to the table is 100% peer-reviewed by whom? Is it of the same mind, thinking and persuasion? If so, where's the authenticity and honesty in that? Zero!

Second: What happens to an opposing view? Rejected and ridiculed.

Third: there's no direct evidence of fish changing (evolving) into amphibians, to reptiles, to birds, to mammals, to humans. All you have is conjecture (by evolutionistic people).

As an example, INCOMPLETE bones are dugged up from a certain location and are interpreted as products of evolution - only to be reinterpreted again later as fakes or a mixture of bones from different animals and sometimes contaminated specimens.

talk about science being used as a tool to prop up preconceived ideas.

There's more but the above should suffice.

a reply to: edmc^2

Peer reviewed by potentially anyone with relevant knowledge from within academia.

When I was in academia, I peer reviewed many articles, papers, chapters and books, both from within my discipline/s, and from external disciplines (as an objective reader), some I disagreed with... a few weren't published or were majorly revised before publishing because of my pointing out a flaw in their process or logic... some were published that I disagreed with because their logic was flawless. You can peer-review! Anyone could potentially peer review!... so this argument is compete hogswash!

Ummm... you just wrote more words adding to the evolution argument. I don't want to hear about how wrong evolution is anymore, I'm happy to put evolution to the side to discuss viable alternatives... I want to hear of this testable "opposing view" you speak of!

Are you suggesting there is a viable, testable alternative to evolution?

That's great!

Please tell us all, I would love to discuss it!

a reply to: puzzlesphere

I believe they call it the bible

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

Peer reviewed by potentially anyone with relevant knowledge from within academia.

When I was in academia, I peer reviewed many articles, papers, chapters and books, both from within my discipline/s, and from external disciplines (as an objective reader), some I disagreed with... a few weren't published or were majorly revised before publishing because of my pointing out a flaw in their process or logic... some were published that I disagreed with because their logic was flawless. You can peer-review! Anyone could potentially peer review!... so this argument is compete hogswash!

Ummm... you just wrote more words adding to the evolution argument. I don't want to hear about how wrong evolution is anymore, I'm happy to put evolution to the side to discuss viable alternatives... I want to hear of this testable "opposing view" you speak of!

Are you suggesting there is a viable, testable alternative to evolution?

That's great!

Please tell us all, I would love to discuss it!

Glad to know you were once a peer-reviewer. As such, I'm sure you're very aware of the problems facing the scientific community when it comes to peer-review, especially when it comes to something that can't be replicated or falsified over a period of time - i.e. biological evolution.

As an example of the pitfalls of peer-reviewed journals.




As to this:

Are you suggesting there is a viable, testable alternative to evolution?

Of course, but it will depend on your world view.

For starters, the trunk of an elephant - what would be the logical conclusion if the study and research are conducted and GUIDED through the lens of mechanical engineering.

Would you say it evolved or was it designed?

Here's a mechanical representation of an elephants trunk.








As engineer myself - I can confidently say it was engineered since the probability of it blindly coming together as such is staggering.



I'm sure you'll say it evolved.

a reply to: edmc^2

So no testable alternative is what you are saying?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: edmc^2

So no testable alternative is what you are saying?

As an engineer, it takes an engineer to replicate the trunk of an elephant. We can test it and replicate it many times over because it's a product of design.

Evolution theory, on the other hand, can't be tested since the basis is blind chance. Without outside guidance, biological evolution can't be falsified.

a reply to: edmc^2
The "takes an engineer to replicate what we see in nature...therefore nature must be created" argument is a non sequitur.

If any of the following could be shown, it would destroy the theory of evolution:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
  
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
  
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
  
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
  
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
  
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.
  

These are just a few... all you have to do is show one example of one of these things, and you will have disproved evolution!!!, must be possible right? (... if I believe hard enough i'll be able to fly this time, Ma!!!)... and there's so many others... so yes... falsifiable.

So do you have a testable alternative to evolution or not?

Seems not, as you keep skirting the question...

originally posted by: edmc^2
As an engineer, it takes an engineer to replicate the trunk of an elephant. We can test it and replicate it many times over because it's a product of design.

Evolution theory, on the other hand, can't be tested since the basis is blind chance. Without outside guidance, biological evolution can't be falsified.

This is extremely dishonest. He claims that because an engineer can replicate a trunk that ID is proved and that is his standard (nothing testable), but then blindly denies an entire scientific theory that has been rigorously tested with pure conjecture and assumption.

This just proves these guys are zealots with double standards and don't care about what's true or false. Denial of evolution is like denial of gravity or germs. You can't refute a scientific theory without proving the evidence wrong or offering testable evidence for an alternative, and you have failed at both. In fact every single creationist on this website does the same exact thing. They just post conjecture and expect people to be dumb enough to believe the BS but not once has EVER refuted the evidence or research, they just arbitrarily dismiss it over their religious faith.