Evolution is Unscientific

UPDATE:

It has become evident from this thread that none of the respondents can provide any evidence for evolution by gene mutation. Instead, all l have gotten is verbal abuse, deflection, circular logic, book references and links submitted by people that clearly don't understand evolution but believe in it nonetheless and so just pass me a book ref or a link that they have no idea of the meaning of.

Please, dear reader, read through this thread. You will see not one shred of evidence for evolution by gene mutation. You will see many respondents just taking it around the houses, deflected, talking about anything but evolution by gene mutation.

They have literally done all the things l admonished against in my OP. They do not have any real answer. Please carefully read this opening post and then be shocked at the responses.

The science non-literate will always fanatically - and dramatically - defend evolution by gene mutation and get angry when challenged. Please, calmly give me the evidence.

Show me the money.





EVOLUTION PART:

Hello. Evolution as we understand it these days is evolution by genes mutating.
That is to say, macro-evolution.

I think this is unscientific as l have not yet seen it demonstrated in the lab. Before you say it's a slow process, please: there are about 8.7 million species on earth. Some of these species exist in ginormous quantity, and also breed very rapidly. Plus we can breed fruit flies and bacteria in the lab quite fast.

In all that, where is the evidence for evolution by genetic mutation?

Some websites purporting to give examples will bait and switch and offer up something else. They will even say, evolution by genetic mutation happened because blue eyes, brown eyes. No, these traits existed from the start. Also, where is the laboratory evidence for these traits emerging in nature via mutations?

They will even, no irony, say it must have happened because how else we get these traits? This is unscientific. Also why can't it be that there are no dragons because they were exiled to Pern after the 4th Dragon War? Why is the evolutionist's backstory deemed cooler than dragons? I've even read that cats flatten ears and hiss in order to look like snakes. How would a cat know what itself looked like when hissing? How would that trait be inherited?

Evolution by genetic mutation is like saying you can download a corrupted software file, and it will still run. In fact, if you have enough instances of corrupted files, they will somehow be inherited to the server, and furthermore, you'll get NEW APPS developing within the download!

I'd love for an actual bioscience student to answer.

Please, can an atheist or a believer in evolution please take me on and show me the evidence for evolution by mutation?

That is, the type of evolution that causes a fish to give rise to a cat?


The science non-literate will always fanatically - and dramatically - defend evolution by gene mutation and get angry when challenged. Please, calmly give me the evidence.



NATURAL SELECTION PART:

I don't have an issue with Natural Selection, which l guess we would call micro-evolution. Natural selection is scientific, it is demonstrable in the lab.

I've seen a few sites purporting to list examples of evolution but do a bait and switch and offer up *drum roll*

... natural selection.


Antibiotic resistance is natural selection. Natural selection = nothing new under the sun. A species of bird might gradually gain a higher frequency of longer necks. But they are still the green necks of the green kiki bird of some Ecuadorian island. Nothing new under the sun. No new genetic information created.



LOGICAL FALLACIES:

Please don't sophistry. Please consult the Wikipedia list of logical fallacies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

It's not that l'm being arrogant in demanding eloquence. It's just intellectual honesty.



ANGER:

I have no hatred to you in this message and in fact l don't know you and it's not about your or me. So please, don't show anger.



RUSH MIGHT WORK?

Please don't rush me with responses hoping that some eventually go unanswered and therefore victory woo woo. Just, wait for replies and if l say l'm done and explain why we've reached an impasse, l hope you follow suit and explain why you think there's an impasse too.



MODERATOR GOTTA MEAN SOMETHING:

I respect all moderators. Thank you. But l'll take an argument as l find it, regardless who puts it forward.



DON'T HURT LINKS / BOOK REFERENCES:

Please don't link stack or book hurl, just put it in your own words - if you actually have an answer, and understand it.

 

Please, can an atheist or a believer in evolution please take me on and show me the evidence for evolution by mutation?

That is, the type of evolution that causes a fish to give rise to a cat?

Please don't link stack or book hurl, just put it in your own words.

 

I'm probably not a believer in science in the same sense as there are believers in religion, so I'm not sure I meet your expectations. And why should atheists be especially qualified to answer your questions?

I'd like to question if a religious forum is the best place to get serious information or debate on this topic. Why not hit the library and read a textbook and a few recent papers, and discuss with evolutionary biologists?

All that said, we can banter a little. Don't expect any depth of knowledge on my part. I'm not a trained biologist.

Here's my 2 cents:

As far as I know, there is no single, unified theory of evolution. There are observable facts: The vast age of the earth (4.5 billion years), the fossil record of changing populations, the rise and fall of ecologies like the Cambrian one, the common descent of all life on this planet, and probably many more I am ignorant of. Just like in any scientific discipline, there is debate about the relative importance of the many mechanisms that have been discovered and studied regarding this complex and long-term process we call evolution.

Here's a back-of-a-paper-napkin estimate calculation of the number of species that have ever lived. Let's assume diversity at the beginning of the Cambrian was much lower than what it is today, so we'll get a conservative estimate. Let's assume a steady rise in diversity from 10% of today's at the time of the Cambrian, to the diversity we observe today. If we assume a linear increase in diversity, then over the 540 My since the beginning of the Cambrian, the result is that over the course of this period, almost 300 times as many species have become extinct as there are today, or, that the number of species alive today is only about 0.3% of the species that have ever lived.

Also, paleontologists' estimates for the "lifetime" of a species is about a million years. Some last longer, some disapper more quickly, but that is about the average visible in the fossil record.

So the extremely long time frames (comapred to our lives), and the vast number of species involved in the evolution of today's population, puts the fruit-fly-in-a-lab scenario of macro-evolution out of the question, to my understanding.

 

This is not about me or my needs.

I never said they should. However, the belief in evolution is synonymous with atheism today, even if there are religious believers in evolution too.
No, it's not synonymous?
Well, l have observed it to be. Plus it doesn't really matter, l mean, let's just get on with dissecting this.

I'm sorry but l see this a lot. This is evasion. This is an interfaith forum. This is the sciencey subforum. It should go here. And it did go here. Right to the back of the net. With gusto and i loved it. Feel free to answer the topic.

Erm. I have specified one single theory of evolution: the theory of gene mutation leading to evolutionary development of a species and its eventual transformation into new species. This arose in the light of Watson & Crick's discovery of DNA. This is macro evolution via gene mutation, already specified in the OP.

As already anticipated in the OP, there are enough species in the world with enough quantity that evolution will be observed. You say many species died out. So if you mean there were even more species before then gosh, the rate of change per unit of time across the entire biosphere would be even higher. Especially when you take into account mass extinctions destroying many species, and thus we essentially need to start over.

It's the unit of time l'm talking about. Within the frame of a lab study, we should have observed change. A fruit-fly study is reasonable as many generations can be bred and in fact to my knowledge there have been claims of evolution in such studies, or at least in studies of bacterial replication, very fast and in huge quantities, which l also mentioned in the OP.

Say the lineage from primordial starter to human = 2 billion years.

Say that involves about 2 million mutations (which personally l think is conservative, because the path is meandering, not direct by the numbers). That's a rate of 1 per thousand years.

Then take into account about 8 million, nearly 9 million species. Their lineage from primordial starter to today = 2 billion years if it's that for humans as well. Let's say about an average of 1,000 mutations to get each new species which frankly is hilariously conservative even to my dusty knowledge. It would surely take far more steps to get from pond slime to a blade of grass. Far more.

So, we get 1000 mutates per 2 billion yeas = 1 mutation per 2 million years.
Divide by 8 million species. Is that 4 mutations per annum?

And then you got the species you say fell by the roadside, Their Mutations Matter. Gosh there would have been even more mutations per annum on this pale blue dot.

And then you got the lab experiments throwing it all out the window anyway and breeding bacteria like crazy and getting thousands / millions of generations in billions of individuals within just a few months.


... Where are the mutations that lead to development of a species?

 

Anyone truly interested in recent (2016) knowledge about origin of life and evolution encouraged to read this:

The Vital Question by Nick Lane






It's honest science. Religious/philosophical prejudices are not part of science. Open mind required ...

 

It would be nice to expand interest in this 'Science and the Universe' forum, imo

 

I personally have no problem merging my own deism with abiogenesis and evolution/natural selection. Why could God not have set it up to go that way? God created Adam from the dust. That's abiogenesis.

One may argue against evolution/natural selection, but it's hard to dispute science without a very good working knowledge of the science involved? Faith has to be able to accept science.

96% of the universe remains a mystery, so there's still plenty of area left for the Divine, imo. Look at the astounding Hubble pics. That's science. Look at the pics of Pluto; watch the Mars Perseverance landing sequence; we converse with one another instantly and free via the internet, that's science. Our cities could not survive more than a few weeks without the science that goes with them.

However I cannot look at those beautiful Hubble images, or contemplate the astounding complexity and structure of even one single cell, or a single electron, without knowing there is a God. An underlying intelligence to it all. IMO, of course

 

Hi there, please can you put it in your own words, if you got anything from it?

 

I think a lot of what you describe is strictly speaking tech not science but okay.
I don't see what most of it has to do with the topic.

Please may l ask: do you know why you believe in Evolution? If not, why do you believe it? Because other people said it's good?

Why would god not do evolution?
1. It goes against his role as creator
2. We are the focus of his revelations, so even if other things evolved, we should not, we are primary and his the role of creator is primal to god being god or at least primal to his relationship with us.
3. It raises the spectre of beastiality, we were once half human half beast? Or great great great great.... grandparents picnicked with apes and so made us?
4. There's just no basis for it, as per my OP

 

I have some ideas about the speciation of the great apes, which I was reading up on a few years ago. But I'd have to dig it up, re-read... like I mentioned, I'm not a trained biologist.

Are you interested for its own sake, or looking for an opportunity do give testimony? (Nothing wrong with the latter, but in that case I'd let you have the stage and concentrate on other topics).

Also @Aupmanyav, want to chime in, as the other active atheist around here?

 

I am interested in the topic.
I don't know what you mean about giving testimony.
In a wider sense l am interested in areas of conflict between my beliefs and others. Evolution is a major area of conflict.

I have a biological sciences background but it's getting a bit rusty now.

 

Do you genuinely know how intellectually dishonest these replies are?

Let me repeat something l put in the OP, which should be default method anyway:

LOGICAL FALLACIES:

Please don't sophistry. Please consult the Wikipedia list of logical fallacies here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

It's not that l'm being arrogant in demanding eloquence. It's just intellectual honesty.

So, your errors, as you well know, are:

1. You are making the Appeal to Authority fallacy

2. Following from that, you are implying that l am mentally inferior so it doesn't matter what l think. It matters only what these others think, at least if they contradict me.

3. You do not even know what the inventors of the Space Spoon think on this matter, and you seem to think they think as one

4. You haven't demonstrated any relevance of what Space Spoon tech has to do with evolution by genetic mutation, which is what this thread is predicated on. Why not just destroy this site and replace with image of Space Spoon with mp3 trumpet fanfare on repeat. This is probaby the Begging the Question fallacy because you make it a foregone conclusion that alignment with Space Spoon ideology is the gold standard. Then after a quick test Lo! you discover that l am not in alignment with Space Spoon ideology. From there quick jump to dismissing my argument entirely. Well done, blue star!

5. You are making the Reductio Ad Absurdum that my only evidence is a book in which l believe without any evidence or at least without strong evidence

6. Appeal to Ignorance: you are pretending you did not see my entire OP where l put forward my case in some detail, plus the recent reply to another poster, where l elaborated on the frequency of gene mutations on earth (which it must be borne in mind is amplified by the sheer number of individuals within each species ... think blades of grace, bacteria, insects, as well as the much less numerous elephants etc.).

I have to say l'm disappointed at your responses on this thread.

I am also disappointed that @Cino must interrogate me over and over as to why am l asking the question? Am l preaching? Come on you can confess, you are preaching and you want the thread to be deleted don't you? don't you? please say yes? Also, why you posting the thread on this website in the sciencey part of this interfaith forum? Why not the sciencey bit of another forum, where it belongs?

Ugh.

If you really dislike this question so much you can lock the thread and l will leave the forum and you can then revert to echo chamber configuration with occasional disagreement over trifles such as green is good, no, turquoise is good, no, oi! turquoise has blue in it.

Please, if you are going to dismiss my admonitions and just use logical fallacies, leave the topic or give me reason to leave the forum.

 

Which logical fallacy is that, in itself?

 

But this is based on a preference for the pronouncements of ancient scripture over the expert evidence of 21st Century scientists like respected working biologist Nick Lane whose book I linked above. Sorry. There just isn't a way in a forum post to explain everything a working expert says in just a few of my own words.

Granted he is mostly researching abiogenesis and early origins of life, but evolution begins at the origin of life on earth of course fundamentalist religion fiercely disputes abiogenesis also.

In fact the greatest coincidence is probably the once-only-in-the-entire-history-of-life 'quantum' leap from bacteria/archea to eukaryote life. It's all quite astounding really. The odds are mind boggling. One can Google this stuff, but the complexity needs to come from deeper reading, imo.

 

Another point I want to make is that, scientifically, human existence was not a goal of the universe. It just came out that way. It requires a complete shift of approach.

I'm not saying I believe that. But belief is belief and science is science?

 

Unsure what you mean. What are you referring to?

 

The whole subject of evolution by genetic mutation it's far too complex to be sorted out on a casual layman's science forum like this, imo

So the more specific the examples that can be provided, the better imo

 

I was answering your question, which was in response to my OP question. I however don't answer questions with questions, unless l immediately then drive home with the answer to the original question.


As l have previously explained:
- Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy
- No book hurling. Say it in your own words if you really understood.
- No space in the forum to explain how you are right? Mmmkay. Why don't l just say l have incontro.... wait why am l even responding to this?
- Your logic would prevent your stated faith (a sect of which you just accused me of belonging to) from forming, because are you gonna say the builders of the Parthenon's gods were false? No i think i'll stick with the olympians gods and the people that know the truth, they built athens and they did all that hydrological stuff with the pipes and stuff.
A hallmark of the cognitively dissonant is the confusion between asking and telling. I did not say that l believe in a specific book. Though l do. The point of this thread is as per the OP. You need only answe..... gosh wait again, why am l even talking about the thread?

All l want to do is talk about evolution by genetic mutation, not talk about the thread. The subject matter not the thread.
This is about what l see as bad science.
There are alternative ideas. But whatever the alts may be, bad science is bad science.


And yes l read your deleted replies, all of them. Contrast that with the stuff about a spirit that needs to feed on souls in this epoch and that's why babies are born sinful ... oh my years. A lot to unpack.

 

All you need to do is give an example of evolution happening via gene mutation.
As per the OP.
In your own words, if you understand your belief.
No book hurling, no link stacking.