|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 19:47
Shi: "How pathetic it is that a law (NDE) that is supposed to teach how to survive (survival of the fittest) must be rejected by humans for the sake of human survival."
Neither 'NDE' nor the Theory of Evolution is a law, but a scientific theory. It isn't supposed to teach in the sense you mean, but to describe and predict empirical phenomena. "Survival of the fittest" is an imprecise terminology with the modern scientific description being "differential reproductive success due to heritable characteristics". And rejecting the scientific truth will do nothing to aid human survival.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 19:52
Shi: "I hope you agree that the behaviors advacated by Hitler and Marx who are inspired by Darwin are not the kind that will aid human survival."
War and destruction are not new human behaviors. Marx's Communist Manifesto predates Darwin's Origin of Species. But certainly extremists who advocate murder and other destructive policies should be condemned.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 15. June 2006 19:53
I am sure you also know that 90% of the public does not believe in Darwinism, let alone to use it to guide their survival. Most of public believe life has a purpose, in direct contrast to the teaching of NDE.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 15. June 2006 20:01
quote:
And rejecting the scientific truth will do nothing to aid human survival.
NDE teaches that life has no meaning and purpose. If this is truth that human should follow, is human going to survive better? You can find the answer in the book by Viktor Frankl 'Man's search for meaning'. The authors concentration camp experience convinced him that the believe in meaning and the will to find it is essential to human survival. The majority of the public (80%) agrees with him as many poll showed that the primary concern of man is not money but is to find a meaning and purpose to their life. So here rejecting the partial truth/lie of Darwinism is a no brainer for most people and is essential to aid their survival.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 20:08
Shi: "Most of public believe life has a purpose, in direct contrast to the teaching of NDE."
Planetary Theory predicts that the Earth will be impacted by meteors without regard for human purpose. Storm Theory predicts that hurricanes will wreak destruction without regard for human purpose. The Theory of Plate Tectonics predicts that volcanos will erupt and earthquakes will occur without regard for human purpose.
Germ Theory predicts that microorganisms will create pandemics without regard for human purpose; yet this theory concerning the indifference of microorganisms to human purpose is capable of preventing much human suffering.
These are scientific theories. They describe, within limited domains of study, empirical phenomena. Scientific theories don't become invalid because you think they imply the universe is indifferent.
Shi: "NDE teaches that life has no meaning and purpose."
There is nothing in the understanding of evolution that prevents people from finding a purpose in life. It's perfectly natural that they do so. (And theories don't teach. They describe and predict empirical phenomena.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 15. June 2006 20:13
quote:
differential reproductive success due to heritable characteristics
NDE teachs that reproductive success is all that counts in life. Show me one poll that shows more than 1% of the public believing such 'scientific truth'.
NDE is rejected by the public, pure and simple. It is for a good reason. It simply feels wrong and it is.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 20:18
Shi: "NDE teachs that reproductive success is all that counts in life."
You have apparently stopped listening.
Humans are, at times, compassionate, caring, nurturing, social, cooperative and even self-sacrificing. People often get great satisfaction from doing good for others. And apparently, these traits have led to great reproductive success.
Shi: "Show me one poll that shows more than 1% of the public believing such 'scientific truth'."
Irrelevant as science is not a democracy. What makes a theory scientifically valid is its ability to predict and explain empirical phenomena.
You must be an American.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 15. June 2006 20:22
quote:
Planetary Theory predicts that the Earth will be impacted by meteors without regard for human purpose. Storm Theory predicts that hurricanes will wreak destruction without regard for human purpose. The Theory of Plate Tectonics predicts that volcanos will erupt and earthquakes will occur without regard for human purpose.
Natural disasters serve to drive humans' search for better ways of survival, with the ulimate goal of timeless survival.
Isn't it interesting that none of the disasters has wiped out the human race? That is the point. The death of a few human beings are inevitable price to pay in the search for purpose and meaning and laws of timeless survival.
If, as NDE teaches, nature is a giant accident, one should really wonder why the Earth and human race have not been wiped out by an accident. Perhaps the hands of God is helping us, just enough accidents to drive us to figure out the laws but not enough to wipe us out.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 15. June 2006 20:30
quote:
There is nothing in the understanding of evolution that prevents people from finding a purpose in life. It's perfectly natural that they do so.
There is nothing in the understanding of evolution that says people should waste their energy in finding a purpose in life. It's perfectly un-natural that they do so, if NDE is right.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 21:47
Shi: "Natural disasters serve to drive humans' search for better ways of survival, with the ulimate goal of timeless survival."
Theories of natural disasters (e.g. hurricanes, earthquakes, lightning strikes) do not include a "teaching a lesson to humans" component. Finding meaning in such events is a human characteristic.
Shi: "There is nothing in the understanding of evolution that says people should waste their energy in finding a purpose in life. It's perfectly un-natural that they do so."
You do not have an accurate view of the Theory of Evolution.
[ 15. June 2006, 22:28: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 15. June 2006 23:29
quote:
"There is nothing in the understanding of evolution that says people should waste their energy in finding a purpose in life. It's perfectly un-natural that they do so."
You do not have an accurate view of the Theory of Evolution.
Let us try to see it this way. The opposite of NDE/accident position is the God/purpose position. Now obviously, the God position naturally predicts that it is natural for human to seek purpose. Now if purpose is a natural prediction of the God position, there is no way it is also a prediction of its opposite position, ie, NDE.
NDE wants to account for all natural phenomena, including those that are best accounted for by its opposite. In doing so, it undercuts its own credibility.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 02:40
quote:
peter borger: "How come I always and everywhere here it was all settled since 1859?"
Huh? There has been no biology since Darwin? If anything, Origin of Species, like all great theories spurred a huge outpouring of new research which continues today.
peter borger: "So, if darwin was wrong how can evolutionary theory be Darwinian?"
Please define "Darwinian".
peter borger: "The new biology data show genetic redundancy without an association between gene duplication."
Cite, please.
AS USUAL THE DARWINIANS AMONG US ARE DELIBERATELY OBTUSE. ZACHRIEL BACK TO START, PLEASE. READ THE THREAD AGAIN AND YOU WILL ENCOUNTER ALL MY TREASURES THAT OBLITERATE DARWINIAN THEORY. I WISH YOU GOOD LUCK.
peebee
[ 16. June 2006, 03:00: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 02:44
quote:
Yet, Penny suggests a valid mechanism to account for the "relativity" inherent in molecular clocks.
I discussed Penny and Ho in this thread. I showed that the relativety is due to the false assumption of common descent.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 02:59
quote:
All I see is that they ignore the vast majority of the evidence and finds gaps in knowledge on the peripheries of what is known. That's why the bacterial flagellum is such an issue in ID circles -- because it is at the very base of the evolutionary tree just beyond the sight of current scientific investigation.
All theories, however beautiful they may have been set up, will be terminated by only one single falsification of the basic principle. Selection theory is the basic mechanism of darwinism, neodarwinism, standard evotheory (or whatever you call it). If one falsifies that concept it overturns the theory as a whole. That is the scientific method.
peebee
[ 16. June 2006, 03:33: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. June 2006 03:13
quote:
Common Descent can be falsified by finding violations of the nested hierarchy.
I know a few good examples which can be directly checked in the genome: To explain the incongruence in the gene tree and to reconcile it with the ("known") spceies tree standard theory predicts an additional IL-1 copy in the human genome. I checked it (somebody must check the predictions made by Darwinians), and wonder o wonder, it is not there. All you can claim now it was eliminated from the genome... As a scientist I do not like this type of non-expalantions.
quote:
Variation and mutation are directly observed.
Yes, and how does it explain microbe to man evolution? It doesn't. Variation is merely the result of preexising genetic elements (VIGEs). They are found in all organisms and it has been shown that they have an ability to shuffle the genome to produce adaptations. Lenksi showed it. The genomes of varieties demonstrate it.
quote:
Evolution as the change in allele frequencies is directly observed.
That is the Neo-darwian trick: Evolution equals changes in alelle frequencies. It is population genetics, however. Why would population genetics and evolution from microbe-to-man be equivalent?
quote:
By Jove, the continents move, seas form, mountains rise from the oceans.
Panta rhei. And leave the roman Gods out of it.
peebee
[ 16. June 2006, 03:36: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
