Biological Evolution? Biological Interrelation? Biological Religion? Biological Interaction? Biological Revelation?

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Darwin or you or other people have many options to explain the confirmable and testable change of frequency alleles in Biology. Because of many optional explanations in reality, do you think that it is inappropriate to claim and decide Evolution, without considering all options, like

Biological Evolution? Biological Interrelation? Biological Religion? Biological Interaction? Biological Revelation? Biological Creation? you can add...

 

[Temujin]

Darwin or you or other people have many options to explain the confirmable and testable change of frequency alleles in Biology. Because of many optional explanations in reality, do you think that it is inappropriate to claim and decide Evolution, without considering all options, like

Biological Evolution? Biological Interrelation? Biological Religion? Biological Interaction? Biological Revelation? Biological Creation? you can add...

I'm afraid that science tends to look at options that are coherent, make sense and are consistent with the evidence. Which from your list, leaves us with evolution.

 

[The Pixie]

Darwin or you or other people have many options to explain the confirmable and testable change of frequency alleles in Biology. Because of many optional explanations in reality, do you think that it is inappropriate to claim and decide Evolution, without considering all options, like

Biological Evolution? Biological Interrelation? Biological Religion? Biological Interaction? Biological Revelation? Biological Creation? you can add...

Science has a way to sort the chaff from the wheat; the scientific method. It is often used informally, and plenty of papers are published that represent just one step of it, but for a theory to gain acceptance as actual science, it has to pass the scientific method.

As you are an engineer, I appreciate you may not be familiar with the process, so will quickly outline it for it.

1. It starts with observations
2. From observations a hypothesis is proposed
3. From the hypothesis necessary consequences (predictions) are determined
4. The predictions are tested to confirm or refute the hypothesis

If your pet theory can go though that, it will get taken seriously. If it cannot, then it is just chaff, and will be regarded as such.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I'm afraid that science tends to look at options that are coherent, make sense and are consistent with the evidence. Which from your list, leaves us with evolution.

I think that no supporters of Evolution had ever tried discussing all of them, and show that Evolution is correct.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Science has a way to sort the chaff from the wheat; the scientific method. It is often used informally, and plenty of papers are published that represent just one step of it, but for a theory to gain acceptance as actual science, it has to pass the scientific method.

As you are an engineer, I appreciate you may not be familiar with the process, so will quickly outline it for it.

1. It starts with observations
2. From observations a hypothesis is proposed
3. From the hypothesis necessary consequences (predictions) are determined
4. The predictions are tested to confirm or refute the hypothesis

If your pet theory can go though that, it will get taken seriously. If it cannot, then it is just chaff, and will be regarded as such.

Evolution failed on the first Premise:

1. It starts with observations.. EVOLUTION had FAILED HERE! What Evolution had observed: no intelligence or no-intention in Biology? Show me the science.
2. From observations a hypothesis is proposed... Evolution failed.
3. From the hypothesis necessary consequences (predictions) are determined Evolution failed.
4. The predictions are tested to confirm or refute the hypothesis Evolution failed.

 

[The Pixie]

Evolution failed on the first Premise:

1.It starts with observations.. EVOLUTION had FAILED HERE! What Evolution had observed: no intelligence or no-intention in Biology? Show me the science.

I think you misunderstand what the theory of evolution actually is. Darwin proposed evolution on what he observed, for example the different beaks of finches in different environments. You can read his work - it is available free online - to confirm this. If you really want to see the science, you could start there.

You seem to think that because evolution does not address a specific issue then it fails. That is simply nonsense. A theory only addresses what it addresses. No one in science expects a theory to address everything; no one expects relativity to address thermodynamics, for example.

2. From observations a hypothesis is proposed... Evolution failed.

This is laughable, and again only shows how woefully ignorant of evolution - and science - you are. The theory of evolution is the hypothesis you seem to think it does not have! In essence; variation, selection and inheritance.

3. From the hypothesis necessary consequences (predictions) are determined Evolution failed.
4. The predictions are tested to confirm or refute the hypothesis Evolution failed.

Again, this just shows your own ignorance. Evolution predicts, for example, the nested hierarchy. Evolution predicts a pattern of fossil in the fossil record. Predictions that are confirmed experimentally time and time again.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I think you misunderstand what the theory of evolution actually is. Darwin proposed evolution on what he observed, for example the different beaks of finches in different environments. You can read his work - it is available free online - to confirm this. If you really want to see the science, you could start there.

You seem to think that because evolution does not address a specific issue then it fails. That is simply nonsense. A theory only addresses what it addresses. No one in science expects a theory to address everything; no one expects relativity to address thermodynamics, for example.


This is laughable, and again only shows how woefully ignorant of evolution - and science - you are. The theory of evolution is the hypothesis you seem to think it does not have! In essence; variation, selection and inheritance.


Again, this just shows your own ignorance. Evolution predicts, for example, the nested hierarchy. Evolution predicts a pattern of fossil in the fossil record. Predictions that are confirmed experimentally time and time again.

It was you and Evolution's supporters who mis-understood reality...I do not care about Evolution, I just care about reality.

But of course, Evolution is a change of frequency alleles to origin of new species...that is supposed to be the observable Premise 1... But Evolution failed. Change, as verb or noun, has always adverb or adjective respectively, in opposite scenarios like...gradual or quick, intentional or not, random or not, intellen or naturen... You did not only observe the two, you test both. In this, Evolution failed.

 

[The Pixie]

It was you and Evolution's supporters who mis-understood reality...I do not care about Evolution, I just care about reality.

And that is a big problem. You make a lot of statements about evolution, when you clearly have no clue what it is and, as you admit, do not even care what it is.

How can you say evolution is wrong when you do not even care what it actually is?

But of course, Evolution is a change of frequency alleles to origin of new species...that is supposed to be the observable Premise 1... But Evolution failed.

In fact, Darwin said nothing at all about alleles.

Evolution says new species arise through a process of variation, selection and inheritance. All these things are observed. Yes, on a genetic level, that means a change in frequency of alleles, but that is not the observation is was founded on.

I think what you are missing here is that the observation part of the scientific method is the first step where you realise there is something that needs explaining. An example of that would be the beaks of the finches Darwin saw. That was an observation that - along with others - led him to propose a hypothesis.

Change, as verb or noun, has always adverb or adjective respectively, in opposite scenarios like...gradual or quick, intentional or not, random or not, intellen or naturen... You did not only observe the two, you test both. In this, Evolution failed.

Your objection is that evolution does not address your pet issue. In fact evolution fails to address lots of things, such as why the sky is blue and the price of fish. Evolution is focused on just one thing, like every other scientific theory.

Nevertheless, I will help you out. Evolution is gradual, slow, unintentional and natural. Hope this helps.

 

[mikeT]

I think that no supporters of Evolution had ever tried discussing all of them, and show that Evolution is correct.

I think the same is true of supporters of Creation.

And by "I think", I mean "I know".

ps. being unable to discuss <X> is not evidence that <X> is worth discussing. For example, Christian Creationists are universally unable to discuss The Eridu Genesis...