Evolution vs Science

I randomly found THIS article, replete with SCIENTIFIC references to how evolution sucks. :D
So, I’d like you to discuss it, with SCIENTIFIC references, too. :DDD
It’s VERY LONG, so don’t just shrug it off at the first sentence YOU don’t like, rather READ ON for a page or two, you’ll be surprised…
Oh, just found a huge list of scientists that doubt evolution.
(Courtesy of this site. They also have links: micro-vs-macro; cambrian-explosion; fakes?!)

Here is an even larger list of scientists that say that evolution does exist. Notice two things: They all have the first name of Steve, and the list is over 1200 people.

Posting a list of dissenters is pointless when they are a rather insignificant minority.

I’d respond to the actual thread if I had any substantial knowledge of evolution. To be honest, most of my knowledge on evolution relates more to machine learning/genetic algorithms than it does to actual biological systems.

Aka “propaganda overweights research” as it always did before.
That’s why, READ THE ARTICLE.
And if you confess of “not having substantial knowledge of evolution”, then you also “confess” of taking its propaganda for granted.
And who said, scientists don’t do the same?
(They DO so in other fields, when it’s not THEIR field of DIRECT research. Why any difference here?)
Also, mocking is the surest way of CONFESSING DEFEAT, otherwise, they’d make a similar (to the ABOVE) article to PROVE evolution.
Can you link to such an article, so we can READ it too?
(If yes, you’re WELCOME to do so, so we can COMPARE their contents. If not, PROPAGANDA…)
Oh, they somewhat have it.
Well, let’s READ then. :DDD

EDIT.
The MAYBE’s of SCIENCE (none CERTAIN, just GUESSES/PREMISES – VERY RELIABLE, aha):
Biogenesis
First molecules
Past lifeforms
Make-me-a-theory
How files can grow into folders
Speculation is part of science
I was there to see the first lifeform
Adaptation is speciation
One person can’t be expected to answer any question, but he can be used as proof
I was there, so I should know, how dare you question my credibility
Just read the LAST sentence
Another example of multiple simultaneous changes taking place in an otherwise-dead animal
There are many examples that do look to be complex inseparatable systems, so this is again – evolution works, cause it does
Aha, like it says: He created them both, male and female – at once
Again, the LAST sentence
Faking is OK, if it adds to your point
Yup, and we do know, that Noah’s sons’ wives weren’t his daughters, thus we have a large time gap between the last common male and female
OK, they look alike, so how is it PROOF of common origin – and NOT common construction plan, like DNA is anyways?
We love fuzziness – it helps us prove our theories; somebody613 holds THIS to be the strongest actual anti-proof for the very concept of macro-evolution, cause even micro is fuzzy
Ahem, I’d like to see a single experimental fact of a single cellular organism evolving into a multi cellular – as it’s definitely more efficient and easy to do in laboratory; THIS I’d call macro, all the rest depends on the above fuzziness
Fossils as proofs are as reliable, as ‘Recently opened files’ is a proof for recent file activity; hint – I turned it off on my laptop, or you can simply edit it yourself
How I played my game of Spore… OR Lego…
Someone got messed up in sentence 1 – he meant ‘for evolution’
They forgot about the flightless fast-running ostrich – the closest resemblance of the supposed ‘pre-bird dinos’
Nah, I’ll stick to the ‘half-bird’, like above
I just thought of a weird discrepancy – insects/spiders have 6 or 8 legs, but land vertebrates have only 4; but having more would be beneficial muscle-wise, less tension, so why didn’t fish use 6 limbs to walk?
The PERFECT anti-evolution example
Even better, and I’d like to see an answer to how did it survive for so long, if it was ‘upgraded’ to frogs; according to the ‘survival of the best’, it doesn’t make sense
The last one is a winner see THIS link as how Flood makes sense SCIENTIFICALLY (as a plausible theory [1,2,3a,3b,3c,3d,3e,3f,4], the same level as the other way around).

Originally posted by Ketsy:

Here is an even larger list of scientists that say that evolution does exist. Notice two things: They all have the first name of Steve, and the list is over 1200 people.

Posting a list of dissenters is pointless when they are a rather insignificant minority.

I’d respond to the actual thread if I had any substantial knowledge of evolution. To be honest, most of my knowledge on evolution relates more to machine learning/genetic algorithms than it does to actual biological systems.

Further, that list shows scientists that know about the area of evolution, etc. The other list does not.

I’ll remind you that the topic isn’t the list, but rather the article.
Also, all non-scientists are welcome to shut up about credibility of scientists on EITHER list. :DDD

Somebody, I really think you should stop assuming believing in scientific theories is all about your religious beliefs and what the majority says. It is true that you can religiously believe in scientific theories, but it is not necessary, since you can scientifically believe in them. It is also true that the more people finding objective evidence for claims, the more reliable it is, but it’s not a simple majority rule.

If I had known you made a thread about this before I replied in the other thread, I’d have ignored it there and posted here instead. I’ll make it more detailed.

Just because a bunch of scientists say (macro)-evolution did not occur, it does not immediately point out it didn’t. It shines a new light on the topic. In fact, it is usually more interesting if theories constantly receive criticism than when they don’t, since this will allow scientists to look more closely at the topic and improve their observations. I doubt anyone has read all of the articles available for evolution, so I can’t make a global call here. I’m, once again, open to evolution being false, but with the intense amount of scientists having evidence for it you can’t so easily dismiss it like that.

DR
This and other above-linked articles discuss in-depth a huge lot of “proofs” taken for granted for YEARS.
Until NEW researchers started doubting it, and found CONTRADICTIONS.
Exactly what YOU always claim, SCIENCE is all about. :DDD
I do recommend you to read everything, even if it takes you an hour.
If you have something to say AGAINST the contents (with links, of course, and yours are typically NOT as childish as some others’), I’m ready to READ about it, too. :DDD

Until NEW researchers started doubting it, and found CONTRADICTIONS.
Exactly what YOU always claim, SCIENCE is all about.

Science is all about correcting each other, if only to improve on our current views on truth. It is a rather huge article, so I’m not sure if I will be reading it very thoroughly, but once again, there is nothing new about people doubting evolution.

DR
SCIENTIFICALLY doubting?
As in, bringing scientific logics and sources, names, etc.
Or, maybe you have encountered similar articles before (unlike me), so just tell me that, and that’s it. :D

Oh look, creationism trying to pretend to be science. Never seen that before!

Also, as is traditional, argument via avalanche of bullshit, no matter to much time you spend debunking the claims, you will inevitably miss some as there are just so many.

I have no interest in playing that game, somebody. I counter your gallop with this offer. Pick your best 5 arguments, and those I will deal with. Just 5, the best ones, the ones you think the most unassailable. And we’ll see the quality of your position from that.

SCIENTIFICALLY doubting?

Science, once again, is not an on/off button. A theory can very well have many arguments against it. That does not mean it’s suddenly invalid.

I’ve read a few articles arguing against evolution, but they at least gave reasons for doubt, trying to explain various phenomena in different ways. This one, however, already in the first page shows complete ignorance towards genetics and biology in general. Flawed arguments bring flawed conclusions.

Originally posted by somebody613:

Aka “propaganda overweights research” as it always did before.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

DR
REAL/TRUE arguments?
Are you saying, if someone witnessed an act of creation (and could scientifically prove it, etc – not my point here, just an EXTREME example) – it STILL left place for a non-creation THEORY?
Isn’t it simple stubbornness in the face of facts?
Or didn’t I get your point right?
(You can change it to any other theory and in-the-face fact, the idea is that what you say sounds weird.)

SW
Mind linking to them?
I’m more interested in SCIENTIFIC debunks, cause it shows that it’s for REAL.
(This was a RANDOM article I encountered, I wasn’t specifically looking for it.)
Also:
1. I told that you rather read MORE than just the beginning, it has a lot of scientific REFERENCES, with SOURCES.
2. What exactly is “flawed”? I’d like to hear it specifically.

tenco
YOU are a very good example of a propaganda result. :DDD

Originally posted by somebody613:
YOU are a very good example of a propaganda result. :DDD

As are you.

See how easy it is to say that and technically not be wrong?

tenco
The problem here is, I made my mind after personally reading a lot of books – it was MY choice.
(And according to DR’s terminology, due to “personal experience”.)
In your-type cases, very few people have the adequate KNOWLEDGE about the subject they chose to take for granted.
It’s much less of personal experience, but rather “floating by the stream”, which is the easiest way in life – with the least responsibility for one’s actions.
“All do this” – is an excuse for the WEAK. :DDD

1. I told that you rather read MORE than just the beginning, it has a lot of scientific REFERENCES, with SOURCES.

And the quality of those references and sources? And as well as that, are they accurately representing the sources and references? I highly doubt it.

I’m with tenco1 on this. You, somebody613, have claimed time and again that the beliefs of others are a result of propaganda. It’s becoming tedious. What exactly makes your own large list the result of intellectual skepticism, and my own large list the result of propaganda?

Beyond that, my point was that your large list served no purpose. My best guess is that you tacked it on to show that scientists weren’t unanimously for evolution. My own list is larger, and with a much more severe restriction. If you feel evolution is wrong, just use your evidence, not populous arguments.

Originally posted by somebody613:
The problem here is, I made my mind after personally reading a lot of books – it was MY choice.

And you did it the right way, unlike everyone else, who did it the wrong way… Wait, how do you know what everyone else has or hasn’t done?

Originally posted by Ketsy:

I’m with tenco1 on this. You, somebody613, have claimed time and again that the beliefs of others are a result of propaganda. It’s becoming tedious. What exactly makes your own large list the result of intellectual skepticism, and my own large list the result of propaganda?

Wait, someone got my name right? There is a God!

Ketsy
I just asked for specific “faults” in one of the above posts.
So, show me them, and we can discuss THEM, not what you THINK about my OPINION (which boils down to war-of-opinions, not facts or references).
Neither of us is an evolution scientist, so I can only refer to other scientists as REFERENCES.
So can you, OK.
My entire point was, it’s not as “FACTUAL” as TOO MANY want it to BE.
(And THEY use it for propaganda of their own opinion – in this case, fighting religion.)
Check my discussion with DR on this.

Redem
OK, do you know (can prove) the other way around?
Your sources for that, apart from “not liking their opinion”?
I’m all EYES.

tenco1 :DDD
I only said, I made the opinion myself, not got fed by others.
I’m not sure, you can feel the difference in my example, but there IS a slight one.
And it’s not about “right/wrong”, it’s about MY vs ADOPTED (view).

Redem
OK, do you know (can prove) the other way around?
Your sources for that, apart from “not liking their opinion”?
I’m all EYES.

Probably, but as I’ve already said, I have no interest in taking on the whole thing, which is the entire point of the tactic. Pick 5, your best 5 out of all that nonsense, and we will look at those specifically. I await with bated breath.

Originally posted by somebody613:
I only said, I made the opinion myself, not got fed by others.

Am I the only one who sees irony in this?

And it’s not about “right/wrong”, it’s about MY vs ADOPTED (view).

Which you then equate to right/wrong.

Are you saying, if someone witnessed an act of creation (and could scientifically prove it, etc – not my point here, just an EXTREME example) – it STILL left place for a non-creation THEORY?

This is a very vague example, and I can’t really give an answer to that. It’s especially hard to grasp since there has been so much evidence for evolution already. Besides that, creation does not automatically exclude evolution. It all depends on when this creation took place.

Isn’t it simple stubbornness in the face of facts?
Or didn’t I get your point right?

Probably. What I’m saying is that there can be a solid theory, but still many arguments about flaws within it. The theory in itself still holds, but there are details that must be worked out. This does not make the theory as a whole invalid, it just means there are questions not yet answered.

I like how this article does absolutely no science of its own, and is just an amalgamation of logical fallacies applied to real science in order to come to an already decided upon conclusion. The overall fallacy being applied here is strawman, as it implies things biologists do not. For example, “new data” isn’t necessary for evolution. A species can slowly, over time, have incredible variation without any amount of genetic mutation. The giraffe neck is likely do to gradual changes. Furthermore, the idea that one creature becomes another is simply false. The short necked giraffes died off due to an environmental stress, and the long necked giraffe persisted. There were lots of variations, but the one that became a genetic staple was long necks. Of course, even this is an incredibly shallow way to describe evolution, because the long neck of the giraffe isn’t it’s defining evolutionary characteristic: all of it in itself is.

Interestingly, as far as I was able to read into, the article mentions an actual phenomenon but, of course, fails to explain the threshold of that phenomenon. The limitation of variation is in reference to a given ecosystem. Two different creatures cannot occupy the same niche within an ecosystem, so especially if a fruit fly has to compete with its genetically superior offspring, or even in the same conditions in which the former fruitfly flourished, as it is genetically specific to that niche. If a species experiences a genetic variation that allows it to fulfill the niche of a different animal that isn’t in competition with itself, the species flourishes and is pushed further and further away, genetically, from its former kin.

I’m really setting myself up trying to address this non-scientific pile of shit, but I have a disorder where I have to correct stupidity, and it ends up causing me all kinds of issues. Bad genetics, eh? By the way, no one should take anything seriously that calls people “evolutionists.” I don’t “believe” in evolution because I want it to be true. If there was definitive science that disproved evolution, I’d be arguing in favor of that, instead. You’re the one grasping at straws to validate your beliefs, not evolutionary science.

Redem
I liked the article as a fact, that there are scientific facts against evolution.
I have no desire to waste my time on details, cause it won’t affect me either way.
If YOU laugh at it – so prove WHY.

tenco1
Grow up. :D

DR
I disagree with “solid theory having flaws that need to be worked on” – for me it’s binary, either right or wrong, not MAYBE.
To say it the funny way – I believe in evolution of theories, each one can only be called “solid”, if there’s no known flaws in it.
Theories “evolve” gradually, one discrepancy at a time.
But the NEW theory is a totally new entity, even if similar to the previous.
Meaning, the moment it changes, it has to be newly reconsidered, whether it’s worthwhile.
(Sounds like a joke, but it reflects my attitude quite right.)

theBSG
Since I didn’t write that article, I have a better idea for the current discussion.
I want you to look through my links on my SECOND (#3) post.
They’re short, precise and obvious.
Let’s rather discuss those a bit.
Shall we?