Science against evolution

Most people believe that scientists have proved that humans have evolved from lower forms of life and that every kind of life that exists came from a single source and that the only people who deny that this is true are those who follow their religious beliefs and reject science. The truth is that there is a lot of scientific evidences that contradicts this belief but this evidence is generally ignored by scientists and most people are unaware of it. You can learn about some of this evidence at this site:

scienceagainstevolution.info...

When we talk about "evolution," we don't mean, "any kind of change." Nor do we mean minor variations that result from natural selection. We use the term "evolution" to mean, “The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.”

The site limits itself to examining scientific evidence and doesn't promote any religious beliefs. Each month they publish an online newsletter. Here are the contents of the December newsletter:

scienceagainstevolution.info...

scienceagainstevolution.info...

scienceagainstevolution.info...

scienceagainstevolution.info...

Originally posted by theophilus40

When we talk about "evolution," we don't mean, "any kind of change." Nor do we mean minor variations that result from natural selection. We use the term "evolution" to mean, “The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.”

Erm... that's not what evolution is about at all. Seriously, you're quoting people who can't even distinguish between the abiogenesis hypothesis and the theory of evolution? Riiiiiight.

1. The definition of "evolution" given by those people in no way even remotely resembles the definition given by scientists.
One supposes that it is very easy to disprove the existence of aything at all if you change your own private personal working definiton of it to something else.

2. The definition they use is close to "abiogenesis". So it naturally occurs to ask why they...
a/ didnt know this, and
b/ didnt call their site "scienceagainstabiogenesis"

The only two explanation that come to mind are that they're either idiots or liars.
(or both)

If you are going to attempt to debunk something, at least KNOW what it is you are attempting to debunk.

reply to post by theophilus40


Oh no, the cold, rational, and empirical scrutiny of science against evilution. You have got to be kidding me. All that site excels at is: obfuscating facts, blatant misinterpretation, and dry rhetoric.

Also, the two users above me have correctly stated that abiogenesis =/= evolution.

This is a sad attempt at turning science on itself. Evolution, which is a fact, does not fly in the face of the methodological rigor of science.

While it is true that abiogenesis is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated upon mankind rivalling even that of religion itself, as others have pointed out this particular site is in error regarding their definition of evolution. As pointed out, they ought to be questioning abiogenesis, not evolution.

reply to post by theophilus40

The truth is that there is a lot of scientific evidences that contradicts this belief but this evidence is generally ignored by scientists and most people are unaware of it.

That so struck a chord.

Can you think of something else that there is a lot of scientific evidence against yet is ignored by scientists (mainly because it would mean they would not get grants).

Maybe this is the same 'scientific grant syndrome' manifesting itself?

While I can understand that someone with a religious background may have some difficulty with abiogenesis, fact is, there aren't a lot of other SCIENTIFIC theories with enough evidence-weight to challenge it.
Even Panspermia needs for life to arise somewhere.

Because if life doesn't arises on itself it needs someone to do it. And that someone needs to be born. from someone else... and so on, and so on.

And the concept of a magical being saying "hoopla!" and kickstarting life is quite risible.

So while there are still many many mysterious details to discover, it is, for now, the most accurate theory we have.

Cheers

Pretty much both sides of the argument lack a "smoking gun" in this topic


I'm on the fence... but rooting for Interventions in some cases


I believe life does evolve that is the natural way, but just as we have seen on this planet, sometimes intelligent life plays god, maybe there is such a big question mark around certain parts of the topic is because we are not allowed to to believe there is life elsewhere YET... Oooo i mean "Intelligent Life" elsewhere

I like how you get so many saying "that is not the correct definition of evolution" yet they do not give what they believe to be the true definition.
This is because many in the evolution camp can not agree on one definition.

There is evidence that life on this planet can and will adapt this is what they call micro-evolution and it is really about the only thing the theory has going for it.

Where the entire thing falls apart is at macro-evolution. It is just one big load of bunk.
Quad

abiogenesis not evolution,try again.

why is it the anti-evolution lobby singularly fail to understand what evolution is.

reply to post by Quadrivium

There is evidence that life on this planet can and will adapt this is what they call micro-evolution and it is really about the only thing the theory has going for it. Where the entire thing falls apart is at macro-evolution

Exactly.

The word "Evolution" reminds me of the word "Race" ...because the definitions are not very exact and need a lot of context behind them.

I definitely think Macroevolution and Microevolution need to be distinguished when discussing this topic.

There is proof all around us that Microevolution is happening, but the same cannot be said for Macroevolution.

This is why it is still called the Theory of Evolution.

Originally posted by Quadrivium

I like how you get so many saying "that is not the correct definition of evolution" yet they do not give what they believe to be the true definition.
This is because many in the evolution camp can not agree on one definition.

There is evidence that life on this planet can and will adapt this is what they call micro-evolution and it is really about the only thing the theory has going for it.

Where the entire thing falls apart is at macro-evolution. It is just one big load of bunk.
Quad

Willfully ignorant or too lazy to use google? I'm going with the former, as you were just on a computer.

Evolution is generally defined as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next. This has been dubbed the standard genetic definition of evolution. However, the standard definition of an indivisible gene "as beads on DNA strings" has proven elusive, having no clear beginning nor end, and RNA is now seen as an important part of the heritable or transcribable information package. Evolution covers a much broader scale of study than the competitive fitness of genes, including theories on variation, form, function, adaptation, and how observable patterns at various levels of biological organisation fit into history of the Earth. Evolutionary theory explains macroevolutionary phenomena, such as species formation and divergence, to microevolutionary processes within individual organisms, cells, and biomolecules such as chromosomes, DNA, RNA, and proteins.[16][17][18]
Evolution originally referred to the unfolding of life, but it has since come to generally refer to Darwin's lasting theories on natural selection and principles on variation. Natural selection is only one of several mechanisms in the theory of evolutionary change that famously explains how organisms historically adapt to changing environments. The principles of heredity were re-discovered in 1900, after Darwin's death, in Gregor Mendel's research on the inheritance of simple trait variations in peas.[19] Subsequent work into genetics, mutation, paleontology, and developmental biology expanded the applicability and scope of Darwin's original theory. Evolutionary biologists constantly apply their theories in experimental research on the heritable characteristics of individuals that interact and reproduce to form lineages of biological populations. Genetic drift, gene flow, vicariance biogeography, and niche construction are examples of other evolutionary mechanisms explaining the observable diversity of life.[20][21] Evolution leads to the following additional claims:
1.Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species.
2.All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).

Definition of Evolution

You will notice that is says nothing of beginning of life. You can feel free to pick up a text book and read it cover to cover, if you need any clarification about Evolutionary Theory. I think your, and a lot of peoples, problem is that you keep getting your information from various websites who are writing for economy and more interested in it being able to be understood in simple terms. Here's more examples of this:

Definition: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

UC Berkeley: Evolution 101

Definition:
(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

Biology online

These all say pretty much the same thing and I don't see anything about how life started on or came to this planet . . . or who was responsible. You must also not confuse the standard definition of the word "evolve" or "evolution" with the Theory of Evolution . . . they don't mean the same thing. Evolution is about adaptation and survival, not arbitrary and subjective like "better" or "advanced".

I know the god/alien crowd doesn't actually read up of things they don't believe in, unless it comes from someone that shares their view that science fact is a shell game and faith is fact, but . . . you could answer a lot of your own questions and not fall for the flim-flam of psuedo-science if you did.

Originally posted by dplum517
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

This is why it is still called the Theory of Evolution.

Uhm . . . no it's not.

This is why it is called the Theory of Evolution

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Not a Theory?

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

Theory wiki

How can you determine something in science to be "wrong" or "untrue" if you don't even understand the most basic scientific terminology? Creation/Intervention/Design proponants don't even understand the terms they throw around, which means damn sure they can't understand the actual studies done in biology, biochem, etc.

Evolution deals with the natural world . . . it says nothing of gods or aliens. Stick to your books and go to schools run by those that write and promote your books, that way you don't have to be bothered with reality in the natural world.

Originally posted by solomons path


Willfully ignorant or too lazy to use google?

I guess they were both. Either that or they were afraid of the holes that could be poked in the "thoeory" if they actually posted a definition.
(Yes, I know your little snip was directed at me but I will let it slide this once. Do try to be polite)

Now, on with the show!

Evolution is generally defined as changes in trait or gene frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to the next. This has been dubbed the standard genetic definition of evolution. However, the standard definition of an indivisible gene "as beads on DNA strings" has proven elusive, having no clear beginning nor end, and RNA is now seen as an important part of the heritable or transcribable information package. Evolution covers a much broader scale of study than the competitive fitness of genes, including theories on variation, form, function, adaptation, and how observable patterns at various levels of biological organisation fit into history of the Earth. Evolutionary theory explains macroevolutionary phenomena, such as species formation and divergence, to microevolutionary processes within individual organisms, cells, and biomolecules such as chromosomes, DNA, RNA, and proteins.[16][17][18]
Evolution originally referred to the unfolding of life, but it has since come to generally refer to Darwin's lasting theories on natural selection and principles on variation. Natural selection is only one of several mechanisms in the theory of evolutionary change that famously explains how organisms historically adapt to changing environments. The principles of heredity were re-discovered in 1900, after Darwin's death, in Gregor Mendel's research on the inheritance of simple trait variations in peas.[19] Subsequent work into genetics, mutation, paleontology, and developmental biology expanded the applicability and scope of Darwin's original theory. Evolutionary biologists constantly apply their theories in experimental research on the heritable characteristics of individuals that interact and reproduce to form lineages of biological populations. Genetic drift, gene flow, vicariance biogeography, and niche construction are examples of other evolutionary mechanisms explaining the observable diversity of life.[20][21] Evolution leads to the following additional claims:
1.Differences in trait composition between isolated populations over many generations may result in the origin of new species.
2.All living organisms alive today have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool).

Definition of Evolution

Your link above is talking about Evolutionary biology.
Notice the part of your post above that is in bold and italics?
This is ALSO FROM YOUR LINK.......

Accordingly, evolutionary biologists suggest that the spcientific method reveals truths about "real nature" that is separate from our thoughts on the matter. [3][7][8][9] That all forms of life on Earth are related by common descent

All forms of life on earth are related by common decent.
Common decent has to do with the beginning of life.
Now lets look at another definition....

evolution [ˌiːvəˈluːʃən] n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them See also natural selection
2. a gradual development, esp to a more complex form the evolution of modern art
3. (Chemistry) the act of throwing off, as heat, gas, vapour, etc.
4. a pattern formed by a series of movements or something similar
5. (Mathematics) an algebraic operation in which the root of a number, expression, etc., is extracted Compare involution [6]
6. (Military) Military an exercise carried out in accordance with a set procedure or plan [from Latin ēvolūtiō an unrolling, from ēvolvere to EVOLVE] evolutionary , evolutional adj

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Please read the first definition dealing with evolutionary biology several times to let it sink in.
It states that it accounts for the origins of existing species from ancestors unlike them.
Where does this line of thinking stop but at the beginning?

You will notice that is says nothing of beginning of life.

You will notice that you were mistaken.

You can feel free to pick up a text book and read it cover to cover, if you need any clarification about Evolutionary Theory.

There is really no need to go past the table of contents to show that you are wrong about evolution not including the beginning of life.
As most have a chapter entitled "Origin of Life and Evolution" or something similar.
Quad

I almost forgot to address your other links. I apologize.

Originally posted by solomons path
Here's more examples of this:

Definition: Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

UC Berkeley: Evolution 101

Definition:
(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

Biology online

These all say pretty much the same thing and I don't see anything about how life started

Please look at the bold and italic sections of your links. As you do ask yourself the same question you originally posed to me. Are you......

Willfully ignorant

Quad

reply to post by Quadrivium


I really don't have to reread anything. You are using a common creationist misrepresentation again due to lack of overall knowledge in the field. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you aren't doing it intentionally.

Those lines say nothing about the origin of life.

The first one states the fact that all life can be traced back to common ancestors - that's common descent, regardless of how life started.

The next states origin of "exisiting" species from predecessor and were unlike them (different species).

I'll stop there because you are catagorically wrong in your assertion that this implies "beginning of life on this planet".

Let me try to illustrate what is meant by the language used in defining evolutionary biology.

Let's say you are meeting a friend for dinner at one of those restaurants that uses paper for the cloth, so you can draw on it. The waitress seats you writes her name on the table and leaves a red and blue crayons for you. As she leaves, you notice that where your friend will be sitting there is a small circle, half red, half blue.

As you wait, you start to draw. Reaching across you draw a red line out of the red side and a blue line the other. You attach circles to those and continue on with this toward you. Sometimes you leave a blue circle where a red normally would and vice versa. Sometimes you'll combine them to make purple lines and circles.

When your friend arrives, she laughs and remarks "someone's been busy here". Realizing you filled the whole table with circles, you try to explain how and why all of this came to be and the methods for acheiving the variation. But, you say "I don't know what led to the first one . . . I can explain how and why for all but the first one. That was already here, so I don't know what force caused it."

That's what evolutionary theory is saying. Ask any biologist and they will tell you the same. There is no deviation in definition. It's the anti-evolution crowd that claims it means origin of life. I'm assuming to rally support of the followers behind religious propaganda.

Great replies in this thread to a poorly formulated argument in the OP that confuses abiogenesis and evolution. I don't have much to add to that. But this point can be addressed:

Originally posted by dplum517
I definitely think Macroevolution and Microevolution need to be distinguished when discussing this topic.

Why?

Here's the distinction:
Microevolution

Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different.

They are qualitatively identical.

It's like the distinction between "micro-aging" and "macro-aging", you can see a little difference in your appearance over a short period of time, and a lot of difference over a longer period of time. It's still aging, just a different quantity of it, and so it is with different quantities of evolution. Just because you only see a small difference in your appearance over a year, doesn't mean those annual differences won't add up after many decades. Likewise, small evolutionary changes add up to larger changes over a long enough period of time. It's not such a profound distinctionl but when people say it is, I usually suspect they have a non-scientific agenda.

reply to post b
y solomons path


:lol nice analogy
As far as the original circle on the table? Someone else drew it. It had an Intelligent Designer

Seriously though, when you state.....

That's what evolutionary theory is saying. Ask any biologist and they will tell you the same. Thereis no deviationin definition. It's the anti-evolution crowd that claims it means origin oflife. I'm assuming to rally support of the followers behind religious propaganda.

are you serious.
You seem to be an intelligent person. Can you truly not see all of the holes in the theory? I honestly believe many are willfully in denial. They are scared of the alternative.
How can you honestly believe that evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life?
You told me earlier to pick up a college textbook and read it from cover to cover.
I would ask that you just read the chapter dealing with evolution. Does it not also deal with the origin of life?
It is in every biology textbook I have ever seen.
Common decent has to deal with the beginning of life. There is no way around this and that is the exact reason why evolutionist try to distance themselves from the genisis of life.
Most definitions of evolutionary biology state that it is the study of species (plural) from a common ancestor (singular). Which would mean the first form of life. There is absolutely no evidence of this. It can not be studied, it can not be tested and it can not be observed. It is not scientific.
Truly, it is those who need to believe in evolution who do not understand the definitions of it.
I would also like to state that I have not posted anything about how life began beside at the top of this post when I said an Intelligent Designer drew your original circle.
My original post was about how many posters came on this thread to tell the op that he did not know the definition of evolution, yet none of them offered a definition.
There are many definitions depending on what type you are speaking of.
That being said, evolutionary biology for the most part is a lie. It is not science but wishful thinking on the part of those who deny Intelligent Design. There is very little SOLID proof besides our ability to adapt (micro-evolution).
In most cases we see many evolutionist applying evidence to THE theory when they should actually be applying a theory to the evidence. That is how science is supposed to work. If your theory does not work, find another that does.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Great replies in this thread to a poorly formulated argument in the OP that confuses abiogenesis and evolution. I don't have much to add to that. But this point can be addressed:

Originally posted by dplum517
I definitely think Macroevolution and Microevolution need to be distinguished when discussing this topic.

Why?

Here's the distinction:
Microevolution

Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different.

They are qualitatively identical.

It's like the distinction between "micro-aging" and "macro-aging", you can see a little difference in your appearance over a short period of time, and a lot of difference over a longer period of time. It's still aging, just a different quantity of it, and so it is with different quantities of evolution. Just because you only see a small difference in your appearance over a year, doesn't mean those annual differences won't add up after many decades. Likewise, small evolutionary changes add up to larger changes over a long enough period of time. It's not such a profound distinctionl but when people say it is, I usually suspect they have a non-scientific agenda.

This is the kind of logic that absolutely makes me dumbfounded.
Short answer.....
No matter how long I age, or how long I look in the mirror I will never change into an elkopotimus.
I will be a human no matter how long it takes. Prove me wrong.