|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Why I Don’t Believe the Theory of Evolution 2
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 There MUST be some good reasons for there to be a "theory". But do those reasons need to include testing and observing? Are there any reasons that could exist that might eliminate the requirement for testing or observing? |
|||||||||||||||
|
But that hasn’t stopped scientists from trying to demonstrate speciation through decades-long experiments with bacteria and fruit flies, which have very short generational spans. As far as I know, neither experiment has demonstrated speciation. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Use AI to test the plausibility of Neo-Darwinism? <<A new bold paper in the Elsevier journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology states, “Darwinian evolution has become dogma; AI can rescue what is salvageable.” Authors Olen Brown and David Hullender note, “The publication of scientific disagreements with elements of Darwinian evolution including its modern variants is increasing” and they cite various examples from the literature: The publication of scientific disagreements with elements of Darwinian evolution including its modern variants are increasing. The view that “Evolution is both a fact and … the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every situation” (Russo and André, 2019) is being challenged. Wray and Hoekstra in the Comment Does evolutionary theory need a rethink” published in Nature (Wray and Hoekstra, 2014) reported that Kevin Leland and seven colleagues responded “Yes, urgently”, while Gregory Wray and five colleagues responded: “No, all is well”. Typical of balanced questioning is Dennis Noble who wrote “Something has gone deeply wrong in biology” (Noble, 2021). The paper thus argues “that the theory of biological evolution, including its modern variants, suffers from several logical deficits, is absurdly improbable mathematically, and also biologically mechanism-deficient.” However, as the title suggests, the authors believe that “Darwinian evolution has become dogma” and some new method is needed to move past non-objective adherence to evolutionary models. They believe this method is artificial intelligence (AI). Use AI to Challenge Evolution? The authors propose that “the new approach of AI … is required to move forward scientifically.” They note that AI provides “powerful analytical tools” that can be used for evaluating the merits of scientific theories and ask, “[C]ould a complex computer be programmed to evaluate the theory (many say the fact) of biological evolution? Or perhaps test particular postulates essential to the theory?” They believe AI is well-suited for this task, since it has already been used to “rediscover fundamental equations” in fields such as physics and chemistry, and has been highly successful at playing games and solving puzzles. They believe this makes AI applicable to studying evolution: Evolution, also, is a puzzle. It necessarily involves the absurdly improbable self-assembly of many complex biological machines using simpler parts (Brown and Hullender, 2023). Gartner et al. (2020) stated, “self-assembly of a large biological molecule from small building blocks is like finishing a puzzle of magnetic pieces by shaking the box.” AI works well for chess; we propose that it would work well for assessing ideas about biological evolution, especially the problem of self-assembly. Initially, it should be applied to testing the limits of the usefulness of ‘survival of the fittest’ for microevolution and the highly-improbable self-assembly required for macroevolution. If AI were used to test and evaluate evolution, would people trust its results? Some May Not Like This Approach They believe that using AI to test evolution will lead to a problem: evolution will be challenged, and some may not want AI applied in this manner. They write that this should not matter because dogmas should never prevent scientific questions from being asked:>> More at: evolutionnews.org |
|||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro 01-May-24, 16:15 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Neo-Darwinism is going down the tubes lol And for the 1,000th time, no one disputes evolution takes place within a common-sense definition of species. But the idea that an unguided, blind-chance process created millions of different species of plants and animals, and humans, is absurd on its face and just demonstrates the lengths atheists will go to deny the existence of God. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I agree with that as well. Modern humans are not at all like Neanderthals and Denisovans, which were early human species. The key question is how many scientists believe life began as a single-celled organism and that an unguided, blind-chance process created millions of different species of plants and animals, and humans. That’s what Darwin claims happened, though he had no evidence to back it up. |
|||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro 01-May-24, 21:50 |
www.ncregister.com christianscholars.com. Nobody with any sense wants to talk about a strawman. The real concern here is just that evolution doesn’t prove God either exists or doesn’t. That isn’t acceptable is it? |
|||||||||||||||
|
What happened to random mutations and natural selection? And, FWIW, Darwin said in a letter to a colleague that he viewed natural selection as “my Deity.” Darwin came up with his theory first and then spent 20+ years in fruitless attempts to find evidence to support it - the exact opposite of how science should be conducted. |
|||||||||||||||
|
“William Lane Craig on Evolution: ‘Ain't No Universe Got Time for That!’ “... youtu.be Video is 1:38 |
|||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 21-Jun-24, 05:34 |
<<While there are arguably various fields of study which provide at least some presumptive evidence for the viability of The Theory of Evolution, the fossil record is not one of them. Contrary to academia and evolutionary popularizers in general, there are many problems regarding the evidence revealed by the fossil record. Problems include: (1) The sudden emergence of complex organisms; (2) Missing intermediate forms; (3) Mass extinctions; (4) Stasis in animals; (5) Out of order fossils; (6) Compressed time lines; (7) The Burgess Shale discovery of more complex organisms at the Cambrian; and (8) Precambrian only offers microscopic organisms and no precursors. err no Suggesting that evidence for evolution is based only on the prescence or otherwise of fossils is daft. Just one simple example, viruses, we can see them evolve, we notice it when they hit us In other words we can see it happening, in a very short period of time Imagine that same process over millions of years, what might that achieve ? |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 21-Jun-24, 06:49 |
Here is another www.popsci.com All I disagree with there is the comment regarding how are it is How could anyone possibly know how often it happens ??? |
|||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 21-Jun-24, 06:50 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Many evolutionists on here regard the theory of evolution as an umbrella term under which any natural process can be placed and the mechanisms don’t matter. But the mechanisms do matter because that’s where the validity of the theory is determined. Scientists at the Third Way of Evolution believe the Darwinian mechanism of random variation (now random mutations) and natural selection is not valid. They’re looking for other ways evolution could have taken place. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 21-Jun-24, 07:14 |
But that is usually what happens with new theories, it takes time for them to be complete, if indeed they ever are |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic |
|||||||||||||||
|
@apatzer |
|||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 21-Jun-24, 08:36 |
Those who claim it is a fact are just being blockheaded |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<Lol “If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” If we came from dust, why is there still dust?>> The Bible doesn’t say humans *evolved* from dust. I don’t think the first quote is evidence against molecules-to-man evolution (plenty of other evidence against it exists.) But the second quote is not a valid comparison at all to the first quote. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I suspect their answer would be, “But there are no legitimate problems or flaws with Neo-Darwinism!” Don’t get me wrong - I’m not in favor of the Bible being taught in schools. But I’m also not in favor of molecules-to-man evolution being taught **without including all of its problems and flaws.** And there are plenty of them! That’s one way in which I’m far less dogmatic than evolutionists on here. The truth of Christianity doesn’t need deceit and hyperbole to be believed. The fiction of Neo-Darwinism does. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 01-Jul-24, 13:22 |
But people just choose a "side" and then dismiss those flaws which relate to their choice of belief People like certainty ,even if it is a false one |
|||||||||||||||
|
Tell me how Christianity doesn’t hold up when subjected to “proper scrutiny.” |
|||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 01-Jul-24, 15:15 |
No dinosaurs in the bible ! |
|||||||||||||||
|
Birdlad 15:15 The Bible does not explicitly mention dinosaurs by name, as the term "dinosaur" was not coined until the 19th century. However, some passages in the Bible describe large creatures that some interpret as possibly referring to dinosaurs or dinosaur-like animals: Behemoth: Job 40:15-24 describes a powerful creature called Behemoth, which some believe could be a reference to a large dinosaur like a sauropod. The passage mentions its strength, powerful limbs, and tail "like a cedar". Leviathan: Job 41 describes another massive creature called Leviathan, which is portrayed as a fearsome sea monster. Some interpret this as possibly referring to a large marine reptile. Tanniyn: This Hebrew word, often translated as "dragon," "sea monster," or "serpent," appears in several Old Testament passages. Some young-earth creationists argue this could refer to dinosaurs. However, it's important to note that the identification of these creatures as dinosaurs is debated among scholars and theologians. Many interpret these passages as referring to known animals like hippopotamuses, crocodiles, or whales, or as metaphorical descriptions |
|||||||||||||||
|
Also The shortest day in the solar system belongs to the planet Jupiter. Here are the key details about Jupiter's rapid rotation and how it compares to other planets: Jupiter's Day Length Jupiter has the shortest day of any planet in our solar system, completing one rotation on its axis in just 9 hours, 55 minutes and 30 seconds. Venus has the longest day of any planet in our solar system. Here are the key details about Venus's extremely long day: Venus takes 243.16 Earth days to complete one rotation on its axis. The Sun and our solar system take approximately 225-250 million years to complete one orbit around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. |
|||||||||||||||
|
@bridlad No dinosaurs in the bible !>> Are you confusing Christianity with the creation account in Genesis? Someone is not a Christian by believing or not believing the creation account. I was referring specifically to Christianity - what about the Gospel, also known as the New Covenant, do you think doesn’t hold up when subjected to “proper scrutiny?” And if you don’t know what the Gospel is, you’re really not in a position to say that it doesn’t hold up to “proper scrutiny.” |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic 12:49 |
|||||||||||||||
|
@apatzer Not that I’m knowledgeable on this, but I think early Americans misused the Bible to justify slavery and the identification and execution of accused witches. But I really don’t think the Bible oughta be part of the curriculum in public schools at the secondary level. I could see the value in the Bible being part of elective courses at universities, though. |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
