The Human Body Could not have Evolved

[BoddhiBody]

 

 

 

 

CUT

CUT

 

In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...?

 

 

hope it helps

 

This is, for want of a better word, crap.

 

You're ascribing layers of superficial, faulty analogous meaning to complicate or manipulate something to a point beyond what it is. Genes are not ''software'', nor are they bound by the rules of computer code. You've no idea what your'e talking about and nor does anybody who spouts this nonsense. Read some real scientific papers, written by a vast majority of worldwide qualified scientists who, funnily enough, have provided and continue to provide overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection.

 

 

 

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

This is, for want of a better word, crap.

 

 

A well thought out and measured response; detail oriented.

CUT

 

An appeal to popularity (the informal fallacy) is different from an appeal to the overwhelming majority of QUALIFIED scientists specializing in their fields who attest to the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection and its overwhelming evidence.

 

You assert evolutionary theory isn't science. Give me one peer reviewed & published paper that states such. 

 

People who are qualified, doctored, or mastered, in their fields, have AUTHORITY, or ETHOS, expunge relevant logic (or logos) without the inflection of PATHOS (appeal to emotion). You assert that they are wrong, and you are right, but you cannot give any evidence as to why. In fact, all you're doing is misapplying logical premises to support your own viewpoint.

 

The majority of doctored scientists agree that evolution by natural selection happened. You do not agree with them, but you are not QUALIFIED enough to present an argument that disproves what they say.

 

See this website "an Index to Creationist Claims", where every creationist argument I've ever read is explored in detail, backed up and referenced to peer-reviewed published content by QUALIFIED scientists.

 

 

 

Evolutionary theory is not science? Scientists disagree: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIFnotscience.shtml

Edited April 27, 2015 by BoddhiBody

[udx]

It IS a  divine plan.  Why would God create a universe and then just let it run itself?  Makes no sense.

The Bible states that the current creation is subject to law of thermodynamics, which means it falls apart and wears out. God's divine plan is to make destroy the old creation and create a new creation. Extinction of species is part of the wearing out process because it is a net loss of variety and information in the world.

 

"Hebrews 1:10-12 

 

And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”"

 

The way you argue that extinction is a divine plane doesn't make sense, in it itself. This way you argue, you can say absolutely anything as part of divine plane, this is beyond the realm of reason and logic but an emotional appeal.

[Guest]

Evolutionary theory is not science? Scientists disagree: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIFnotscience.shtml

 

 

Yes, As I Read It Even In New Pagan Berkeley

Evolutionary Science On The Fly

Is Still Suspect

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25

 

...scientists suspect that changes in developmental genes have helped bring about large-scale evolutionary transformations. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_23

[Enoch2021]

An appeal to popularity (the informal fallacy) is different from an appeal to the overwhelming majority of QUALIFIED scientists specializing in their fields who attest to the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection and its overwhelming evidence.

 

You assert evolutionary theory isn't science. Give me one peer reviewed & published paper that states such. 

 

People who are qualified, doctored, or mastered, in their fields, have AUTHORITY, or ETHOS, expunge relevant logic (or logos) without the inflection of PATHOS (appeal to emotion). You assert that they are wrong, and you are right, but you cannot give any evidence as to why. In fact, all you're doing is misapplying logical premises to support your own viewpoint.

 

The majority of doctored scientists agree that evolution by natural selection happened. You do not agree with them, but you are not QUALIFIED enough to present an argument that disproves what they say.

 

See this website "an Index to Creationist Claims", where every creationist argument I've ever read is explored in detail, backed up and referenced to peer-reviewed published content by QUALIFIED scientists.

 

 

 

Evolutionary theory is not science? Scientists disagree: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIFnotscience.shtml

 

 

 

===========================================================================================================

 

 

Ahhh, do you even read my post?

 

 

An appeal to popularity (the informal fallacy)

 

 

And it's still a Fallacy.

 

 

An appeal to popularity (the informal fallacy) is different from an appeal to the overwhelming majority of QUALIFIED scientists specializing in their fields who attest to the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection and its overwhelming evidence.

 

 

No, it's the same.  Consensus/Majority doesn't = TRUTH.  In Science, we VALIDATE Hypotheses via Hypothesis TESTING....NOT by "attesting".

 

And you have some problems...

 

Denis Noble: Department of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics; Oxford...

"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis; one that would allow a reintegration of physiological science with evolutionary biology." {Emphasis Mine}

Noble, D., Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology; Exp Physiol 98.8 (2013) pp 1235–1243

http://biophilosophy.ca/Teaching/6740papers/Noble2013.pdf

 

 

And, how about these Scientists (A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM) ??: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

 

 

You assert evolutionary theory isn't science.

 

 

I did much more than "Assert"; more like Step by Step Illustrated.  See Here:   

 

 

You assert evolutionary theory isn't science. Give me one peer reviewed & published paper that states such.

 

 

 

http://creation.com/is-evolution-scientific

 

http://creation.com/evolution-and-the-science-of-fiction

 

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-1-evolution-creation-science-religion-facts-bias

 

 

And, You've already seen this one (which you obviously didn't read)...

 

Lets take a Look @ what evolution is by arguably the TOP evolutionist of the 20th Century (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist---Stephen Jay Gould).......

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. (evolutionist)....

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}

Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/

 

More?

 

 

People who are qualified, doctored, or mastered, in their fields, have AUTHORITY, or ETHOS, expunge relevant logic (or logos) without the inflection of PATHOS (appeal to emotion).

 

 

Factually Incorrect.

 

Not according to Professor Gould....

 

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology." {Emphasis Mine}

Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.

 

 

You assert that they are wrong, and you are right, but you cannot give any evidence as to why.

 

 

Well because "evolution" isn't science, that's the Elephant in the Room.  I thought my detailed explanation as to why was more than comprehensive.

 

There aren't any "Valid" Hypotheses concerning evolution, so it's difficult to refute something that has yet to offer a shred of Scientific Evidence.

 

 

In fact, all you're doing is misapplying logical premises to support your own viewpoint.

 

 

Generalized Sweeping Baseless "bare" Assertion (Fallacy).   How so....?

 

 

The majority of doctored scientists agree that evolution by natural selection happened. You do not agree with them, but you are not QUALIFIED enough to present an argument that disproves what they say.

 

 

Well:

 

1. I'm degreed in Biochemistry...and more than qualified to refute their fairytales.  In fact, I'm their Huckleberry 

 

"Geneticists have observed in small scale a general resistance of the molecular components of the genome to change from the "norm" or "wild type". For this reason, if any biologist were to be anti-evolutionist, it would typically be one who works at the molecular level, such as a molecular geneticist or biochemist. "Emphasis Mine"

http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution

 

2. From Above, and again: 

 

Denis Noble: Department of Physiology, Anatomy & Genetics; Oxford...

"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis; one that would allow a reintegration of physiological science with evolutionary biology." {Emphasis Mine}

Noble, D., Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology; Exp Physiol 98.8 (2013) pp 1235–1243

http://biophilosophy.ca/Teaching/6740papers/Noble2013.pdf

 

3. "Natural Selection" as the mechanism, eh?

 

Natural Selection is Immaterial, a "Concept".  If you disagree, please post the Chemical Structure and Location of "Natural Selection"....?  You wouldn't be giving causal/directive powers to Inanimate Objects would you?  

 

Saying Natural Selection... a "Concept" is responsible; is Tantamount to....

 

The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.

"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.

The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.

 

 

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....

 

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets." {Emphasis Mine}

Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

 

 

See this website "an Index to Creationist Claims http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html", where every creationist argument I've ever read is explored in detail, backed up and referenced to peer-reviewed published content by QUALIFIED scientists.

 

 

  @ one time or another,  I've refuted each of their refutations.   And can do so now....fire away!!  Be sure you can speak to the topics or I'll expose you (like here) in less than a Planck Time.  

 

and "Talk Origins", eh? ...

 

"The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk.origins

 

What's next, The National Inquirer?  

 

and fyi, just posting links without speaking to "Specifics" is @ best Intellectually Lazy and will get you BANNED on actual Science Forums.

 

 

Evolutionary theory is not science? Scientists disagree: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIFnotscience.shtml

 

 

 

See again, just posting "links" above.

 

They Disagree, eh?  Well agree/disagree is for "Political" science, Cake Decorating, Sports, and Favorite Color Forums; they feature Subjectivity.  We're talking "Science"... Objective...Empirical.

 

Ok, First:

 

Define the theory of evolution.....?  THEN,

 

Show ONE Validated Hypothesis in Support....?  I triple dog dare ya.

 

Are Peppered Moths an example of evolution in action?

 

 

regards

[Tristen]

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

 

An appeal to popularity (the informal fallacy) is different from an appeal to the overwhelming majority of QUALIFIED scientists specializing in their fields who attest to the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection and its overwhelming evidence.

 

You assert evolutionary theory isn't science. Give me one peer reviewed & published paper that states such. 

 

People who are qualified, doctored, or mastered, in their fields, have AUTHORITY, or ETHOS, expunge relevant logic (or logos) without the inflection of PATHOS (appeal to emotion). You assert that they are wrong, and you are right, but you cannot give any evidence as to why. In fact, all you're doing is misapplying logical premises to support your own viewpoint.

 

The majority of doctored scientists agree that evolution by natural selection happened. You do not agree with them, but you are not QUALIFIED enough to present an argument that disproves what they say.

 

See this website "http://evolution.ber...otscience.shtml”

 

Ignoring the obvious Appeal to Authority, I find 3 problems with this page;

 

1) It’s not peer-reviewed. Surely with your appeals to peer-review, for the sake of consistency, you should have found a more authoritative resource to support your position. As a putative statement claiming to explicitly and exhaustively represent the view of “Scientists”, why are you content to settle for an unreferenced, unsupported statement?

 

2) The statement applies circular reasoning that fails to consider the argument of its detractors. It attempts to answer the question by claiming that other disciplines are subject to the same weaknesses. Yet creationists readily agree that the same weaknesses should mitigate confidence in these other disciplines – so the question itself is not addressed.

 

3) The title states that the claim considering “evolution” to be “not science” is based on the inability to “observe or test” evolutionary claims. Yet that fundamental departure from the scientific method is not addressed in the answer whatsoever.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

=========================================================================================

 

 

An appeal to popularity (the informal fallacy) is different from an appeal to the overwhelming majority of QUALIFIED scientists specializing in their fields who attest to the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection and its overwhelming evidence.

 

You assert evolutionary theory isn't science. Give me one peer reviewed & published paper that states such. 

 

People who are qualified, doctored, or mastered, in their fields, have AUTHORITY, or ETHOS, expunge relevant logic (or logos) without the inflection of PATHOS (appeal to emotion). You assert that they are wrong, and you are right, but you cannot give any evidence as to why. In fact, all you're doing is misapplying logical premises to support your own viewpoint.

 

The majority of doctored scientists agree that evolution by natural selection happened. You do not agree with them, but you are not QUALIFIED enough to present an argument that disproves what they say.

 

See this website "http://evolution.ber...otscience.shtml”

 

Ignoring the obvious Appeal to Authority, I find 3 problems with this page;

 

1) It’s not peer-reviewed. Surely with your appeals to peer-review, for the sake of consistency, you should have found a more authoritative resource to support your position. As a putative statement claiming to explicitly and exhaustively represent the view of “Scientists”, why are you content to settle for an unreferenced, unsupported statement?

 

2) The statement applies circular reasoning that fails to consider the argument of its detractors. It attempts to answer the question by claiming that other disciplines are subject to the same weaknesses. Yet creationists readily agree that the same weaknesses should mitigate confidence in these other disciplines – so the question itself is not addressed.

 

3) The title states that the claim considering “evolution” to be “not science” is based on the inability to “observe or test” evolutionary claims. Yet that fundamental departure from the scientific method is not addressed in the answer whatsoever.

 

 

 

================================================================================================================================

 

 

Excellent Post Tristen, I was particularly interested in these (You cracked this one out of the park    ) ....

 

-(Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G & Cronin B (2013) ‘Bias in Peer Review’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64(1), pp. 2-17.)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784/pdf

 

-(Smith R (2006) ‘Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99, pp. 178-182.)

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full.pdf

 

 

Did you read through them?  Who Peer Reviews the Peer Reviewers? 

 

It screams 'Good Ole Boy' Network.

 

regards

[Bonky]

Getting back to the topic, the last paragraph is a gem:

 

Could the human body have evolved? According to Kuhn, to change another creature into a human "would require far more than could be expected from random mutation and natural selection."1 However, a wonderfully constructed human body is exactly what an all-wise Creator would make, and He promised that those who trust in Him will one day inherit new bodies "that fadeth not away."54

Ok I'll bite, so evolution can't explain the complexity that we see in the human body. But now tell me more about these bodies that "fadeth not away". I'm curious to hear more about the evidence for this. Also, how did the author find out what a "wise Creator would make" if it were to make an organic being??

Edited April 29, 2015 by Bonky

[Tristen]

 

Excellent Post Tristen, I was particularly interested in these (You cracked this one out of the park    ) ....

 

-(Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G & Cronin B (2013) ‘Bias in Peer Review’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64(1), pp. 2-17.)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22784/pdf

 

-(Smith R (2006) ‘Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals’, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99, pp. 178-182.)

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full.pdf

 

 

Did you read through them?  Who Peer Reviews the Peer Reviewers? 

 

It screams 'Good Ole Boy' Network.

 

regards

 

 

Hey Enoch,

 

I particularly like;

 

“peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review) …

Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked ‘publish’ and ‘reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom. When I was editor of the BMJ I was challenged by two of the cleverest researchers in Britain to publish an issue of the journal comprised only of papers that had failed peer review and see if anybody noticed. I wrote back ‘How do you know I haven’t already done it?’ (p178)

 

there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a good paper or a good research proposal. …

we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused. …

People have a great many fantasies about peer review, and one of the most powerful is that it is a highly objective, reliable, and consistent process. …

peer review is a subjective and, therefore, inconsistent process.” (p179)

(Smith 2006)

 

 

Also, from an older paper;

 

“Confirmatory bias is the tendency to emphasize and believe experiences which support one's views and to ignore or discredit those which do not. The effects of this tendency have been repeatedly documented in clinical research. … In addition to showing poor interrater agreement, reviewers were strongly biased against manuscripts which reported results contrary to their theoretical perspective.” (p161)

(Mahoney MJ (1977) ‘Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System’, Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 161-175)

[Available at: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1097087/908376224/name/mahoney.pdf ]

 

 

Theoretically, peer-review should be robust. As usual, it is the human element that spoils the party. This is where the process breaks down in practice. Nevertheless, it is still a few steps better than no review (most of the time).

 

Pesky humans!

Live long and prosper

[Bonky]

Aw gee, nobody has evidence for these bodies "that fadeth not away"? Such a shame, leaves one with the idea that this is just complete delusion by those that feed off the gullible.

[Tristen]

Aw gee, nobody has evidence for these bodies "that fadeth not away"? Such a shame, leaves one with the idea that this is just complete delusion by those that feed off the gullible.

 

 

Hey Bonky,

 

My reluctance to engage you on 'evidence for supernatural claims' is based on having previously discussed this issue with you – and you refusing to give reasonable consideration to my arguments.

 

So to briefly recap;

Supernatural claims are evidenced by their mention in the Bible which Christians consider, on faith, to be the reliable word of God. This faith is rational in the sense that the reliability of scripture can be tested through several strategies; including (but not limited to) consistency between the Biblical model and the archaeological evidence.

 

 

In a previous conversation you asked for “an example” of this strategy.

()

 

We (myself and other posters) provided you with several examples

(

)

 

 

Your first response was to interpret our provision of a few examples to mean that there are only a few examples – which you then took as a mitigation of our position – even though you only asked for “an example” (i.e. the logical fallacy called Moving the Goalposts). Similarly in this thread, you have interpreted no response to mean that there are no arguments. By doing so you are employing a fallacy called Argument from Ignorance.

 

 

Your second strategy was an Appeal to Ridicule. You characterised the Bible as “poorly written”, then described our examples as “poor” and “unimpressive” – though you provided no rational justification, argument or standard supporting these accusations.

(

)

Likewise in this thread, you resort to calling an opposing position as “complete delusion by those that feed off the gullible”

 

 

Then finally, when rationally challenged for being unreasonable, you default to an Adhominem fallacy; implying (without supporting argument) that opponents are being dishonest.

( )

This is a strategy that you have previously used to avoid engaging in rational discussion on the issue at hand.

( )

And again in this thread, a claim of deception is implied by characterising our position of being held “by those that feed off the gullible”

 

 

 

So my question is, why should I waste my time formulating a response when you have demonstrated a clear and consistent pattern of refusing to give fair and reasonable consideration to my position?