“Evolution science” is an oxymoron.

1st, Darwin who seems to many to be the initiator of the “evolution” conjecture, knew nothing of “origins” - despite writing on the concept;

2nd, Darwin knew nothing of how evolution might be explained;

3rd, he made observations of finches that seemed adapted to their environment, without a clue as to how that developed; he further speculated on the notion of “survival of the fittest” without the slightest clue how that developed.

4th, he assumed speciation was the rule among lifeforms, and that that notion was supported by a presumed “adaptation” to environmental change.

Ever hear of Lysenko?? Whereas Darwin was just ignorant, Lysenko was a fraud.

For evolution to have a chance of becoming a solid science, knowledge of “origins” - first appearance of a life form - is essential.

For it to be quite convincing, there is the need to produce, in the laboratory, a life-form that is developed using pure chemicals, using simple components to demonstrate that those simple components are building blocks for complex macromolecules, and that the synthesis is somehow regulated by other chemicals, simple and macromolecular alike, in coordinated biochemical processes.

That ALL remains to be accomplished despite early attempts to shoot electric pulses through a mixture of gases, and more recent attempts by Craig Venter.

I am almost comfortable in the LACK of knowledge of how “evolution by natural selection” remains to be scientifically demonstrated.

I lack the ability to be convinced by faith. Or - gasp - by polls of scientists across scientific - and NON-SCIENTIFIC - disciplines [as has recently been the case with ‘global warming mysticism’].

Analytic - 22 May 2010 09:41 AM

For evolution to have a chance of becoming a solid science, knowledge of “origins” - first appearance of a life form - is essential.

Why? What does the origin of life have to do with speciation? Is medicine also not a science since we cannot explain how life originated?

I find it disgusting that Analytic “taught ” students science.  The assumption that all scientific areas must be able to be completely documented back to the most fundamental laws is foolish.  We have gotten close to the “big bang” but are still a small part of second away from the actual beginning, so we can toss out all of astrophysics.  We can’t completely and accurately document geology back to the formation of the earth so there goes geology.  We can’t produce tornadoes and hurricanes at will so there goes meteorology.  Even mathematics is shot down by chaos theory, Godel, and uncertainty. 

How can one person who claims to be a professor in biological sciences be so scientifically uneducated?

Occam

I find you, sir, to be immoderate.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater:  Extremism in protection of science is no sin.

Occam

Occam - 22 May 2010 04:05 PM

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater:  Extremism in protection of science is no sin.

Occam

um could you moderators move this side discussion off to a separate thread (so this side discussion is not a permanent fixture of the forum).

Jackson

Jackson - 22 May 2010 06:18 PM

Occam - 22 May 2010 04:05 PM

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater:  Extremism in protection of science is no sin.

Occam

um could you moderators move this side discussion off to a separate thread (so this side discussion is not a permanent fixture of the forum).

OK, split off from Resources on Evolution thread.

Analytic - 22 May 2010 09:41 AM

“Evolution science” is an oxymoron.

1st, Darwin who seems to many to be the initiator of the “evolution” conjecture, knew nothing of “origins” - despite writing on the concept;

2nd, Darwin knew nothing of how evolution might be explained;

3rd, he made observations of finches that seemed adapted to their environment, without a clue as to how that developed; he further speculated on the notion of “survival of the fittest” without the slightest clue how that developed.

4th, he assumed speciation was the rule among lifeforms, and that that notion was supported by a presumed “adaptation” to environmental change.

Is there something wrong with my reading skills or do #2, #3 and #4 really just seem to be different ways of saying the same thing?

So Darwin didn’t have an electron microscope to see the double helix of DNA molecules.  So let’s dig up his corpse and burn it.  Whoopee!

Hadn’t farmers been practicing selective breeding for CENTURIES before Darwin?  Do you suppose that was a secret from Darwin?

psik

You can’t possibly be a biological scientist. Even neophyte biologist know that evolution is not about with the origins of life. Methinks sir, you exaggerate your credentials, or else you should get your money back from your university. They gave you an incomplete education.

This is to be expected from those given to believing ignorant demagogues.

Scientific research is the single most competetive, contentious activity there is.

Non-scientists seem determined to be content to make nonsense their view of science.

I taught a laboratory course to upperclass men and women (50% of each) challenging them
at every opportunity to think analytically and not suffer fools or their foolishness.

They went on to study in the medical professions and/or go on to study in graduate school.

The very idea that their might be consensus among active scientists is delusional.

They approved my methods and performance and the COURSE itself which forced them to conduct REAL experiments

on live laboratory animals with the aid of Apple computers for collection of data and its statistical evaluation.

Scientists either proved their hypotheses could NOT be falsified or they published in the least impactful of ‘journals’.

[Some as insightful as “Prevention” or supermarket tabloids.]

I have no doubt that far too many educated, otherwise intelligent people simply follow the leader regardless
of the leader’s qualifications.

And are put-off by skeptical inquiry. Eg, if the signatures of 3,000 putative ‘scientists’ in supposedly relevant disciplines on a petition agree with the “global warming” conjecture,
it is to be believed - blindly.

Sad, very sad indeed.

You wrote: “We have gotten close to the “big bang” but are still a small part of second away from the actual beginning, so we can toss out all of astrophysics.”

I think we can toss the “big bang” conjecture for what it was: a scientist, Fred Hoyle, throwing his hands in the air for lack of ANY plausible hypothesis imagining an infinitely massive and infinitely energetic particle exploding and initiating what we know as the Universe!!

And that’s convincing??

Just one question: where did that infinitely-massive, atom-sized particle come from?? Did Fred know something no one else did at the time??

Based on the apparent level of detail you insist upon, we should scrap ALL science.  After all, we don’t know how all 4 fundamental forces are related, so we might as well throw out all of general relativity and quantum mechanics.  And we don’t know everything about how the human brain works, so we might as well throw out all that junk science about the human brain.  We should scrap the English language, because we don’t know everything about how it came into being.

Come on.

No one will take you seriously if you keep throwing arguments like this into the forum.

Analytic - 23 May 2010 05:06 AM

You wrote: “We have gotten close to the “big bang” but are still a small part of second away from the actual beginning, so we can toss out all of astrophysics.”

I think we can toss the “big bang” conjecture for what it was: a scientist, Fred Hoyle, throwing his hands in the air for lack of ANY plausible hypothesis imagining an infinitely massive and infinitely energetic particle exploding and initiating what we know as the Universe!!

And that’s convincing??

Just one question: where did that infinitely-massive, atom-sized particle come from?? Did Fred know something no one else did at the time??

Your knowledge of the scientific process is shockingly poor.  The Big Bang theory was formed like any other good theory, evolution through natural selection comes to mind as another spectacular example, as a way to explain the observational evidence that many scientists collected, George Lemaitre and Vesto Slipher come to mind specifically.  There is compelling evidence for the Big Bang Theory, the fact that the universe is expanding and the isotropic nature of the CMB radiation are major pillars supporting the theory.

Hubbell developed the BB Theory.  Hoyle coined the term “Big Bang” derisively.  Hoyle and colleagues developed the “Steady State” theory in response.  The steady state theory is moribund now for one simple reason, it does not coincide with what we observe in the universe.  The Big Bang however made predictions that are/were testable and were in fact verified.  Penzias’ and Wilson’s discovery of the CMB in 1965 drove the final nail in the coffin of the steady staters.  The fact that scientists can’t explain the big bang singularity no more invalidates the Big Bang, then the inability to explain why particles have mass invalidates the Standard Model.

dougsmith - 22 May 2010 06:27 PM

Jackson - 22 May 2010 06:18 PM

Occam - 22 May 2010 04:05 PM

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater:  Extremism in protection of science is no sin.

Occam

um could you moderators move this side discussion off to a separate thread (so this side discussion is not a permanent fixture of the forum).

OK, split off from Resources on Evolution thread.

Thanks Doug!

You are correct. Hoyle merely named the theory, the “Big Bang”, because he found it lacking any supportive evidence.

He had an alternative speculation which gained no greater support, and the “Big Bang” moniker became common quasi-scientific parlance.

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

The ignorance of most non-scientists or semi-scientists is in that they enjoy popularizing their unsupported hypotheses, speculations, conjectures or theories (all synonyms according to my Webster’s).

Perhaps such persons should be termed meta-physicians until there is more solid evidence available on which to base a more definitive theory - if ever.

In the meantime, I’ll continue to regale my audience with my favorite topic: the methodology for determining the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin!!

Analytic - 22 May 2010 09:41 AM

“Evolution science” is an oxymoron.

1st, Darwin who seems to many to be the initiator of the “evolution” conjecture, knew nothing of “origins” - despite writing on the concept;
......

Trying to clarify the topic under discussion…

‘evolution science’ includes the work of Darwin plus many scientists since Darwin.  So your first objection seems fuzzy because of the emphasis on Darwin.

Plus - As another poster suggested—are you concerned more about the origin of “LIFE” rather than evolution itself the the origin of SPECIES?—

So you are o.k. with the explanation of how complex life evolved from simple beginnings?

Jackson….