If 'The Origin of Species' is correct then why?

fretmeister

Chalky said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Chalky said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Chalky said:

Drew_TNBD said:

For godsake people... can you not even start the criticism at the right fucking place?!

How about this...

NO-ONE EVER SAID THAT THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS CORRECT! NOT EVEN SCIENCE!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/what-darwin-didnt-know-45637001/

There were big gaps in Darwin's knowledge. He did not know anything about 'inheritance' for example. There are mistakes in the Origin of Species and that is what science even to this very day are working on improving.

It's not a fucking bible!!

Perhaps the science zealots can expand on, for example, what Mr Darwin changed in his second edition from the first edition and why?

The modern post-Darwinian theory of evolution is a very good model on which to base further study. But suggesting only details are left is nonsense.  It beats Creationism and Lamarkism hands-down, but it is not a mature and complete theory. Widely accepted, yes, and for good reason.  Hopefully, in 200 years, scientists will look back and smile that we were "close but no cigar" on our evolutionary understanding.

You have very little understanding of what you're talking about. Neither do I really, which is why I can't answer your questions specifically. But at least I admit it, whilst you just castigate people using dullard terms like 'science zealots'.

The world around you exists because of scientific thinking. Without it you'd be eating your own shit in a mud hut, and cutting off the clits of baby girls in the desert. End of fucking story.

Oh dear @Drew_TNBD, we've had this discussion before. For my first 40 years I was a science nerd and read about evolution, even Dawkins and Darwin, although the latter is an exceptionally boring writer - like many I didn't finish and turned to other books that precis'd his work.  There is zealotry in all belief systems, as you just demonstrated: "The world around you exists because of scientific thinking" - bit of an overly zealous grand statement considering science has played zero part in the formation of areas such as law, politics, religion, the arts and family life, all of which are generally considered to be the drivers for creating civilisation.

It's just a statement of fact. Before the enlightenment period and the early beginnings of science, humanity was a hellish cocktail of bullshit. You just can't argue this. Every time you wash a cup in your kitchen, or every time you visit the doctor and get prescribed medicine, you're benefiting from the scientific method and it's application.

That isn't zealotry. It's appreciation.

You're just a nobcheese keyboard warrior.

Looks more like irony.  Being savaged by you is like feeling the full force of a kitten's breath.

Just after it's licked it's anus clean?

Drew_TNBD

Chalky said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Chalky said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Chalky said:

Drew_TNBD said:

For godsake people... can you not even start the criticism at the right fucking place?!

How about this...

NO-ONE EVER SAID THAT THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS CORRECT! NOT EVEN SCIENCE!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/what-darwin-didnt-know-45637001/

There were big gaps in Darwin's knowledge. He did not know anything about 'inheritance' for example. There are mistakes in the Origin of Species and that is what science even to this very day are working on improving.

It's not a fucking bible!!

Perhaps the science zealots can expand on, for example, what Mr Darwin changed in his second edition from the first edition and why?

The modern post-Darwinian theory of evolution is a very good model on which to base further study. But suggesting only details are left is nonsense.  It beats Creationism and Lamarkism hands-down, but it is not a mature and complete theory. Widely accepted, yes, and for good reason.  Hopefully, in 200 years, scientists will look back and smile that we were "close but no cigar" on our evolutionary understanding.

You have very little understanding of what you're talking about. Neither do I really, which is why I can't answer your questions specifically. But at least I admit it, whilst you just castigate people using dullard terms like 'science zealots'.

The world around you exists because of scientific thinking. Without it you'd be eating your own shit in a mud hut, and cutting off the clits of baby girls in the desert. End of fucking story.

Oh dear @Drew_TNBD, we've had this discussion before. For my first 40 years I was a science nerd and read about evolution, even Dawkins and Darwin, although the latter is an exceptionally boring writer - like many I didn't finish and turned to other books that precis'd his work.  There is zealotry in all belief systems, as you just demonstrated: "The world around you exists because of scientific thinking" - bit of an overly zealous grand statement considering science has played zero part in the formation of areas such as law, politics, religion, the arts and family life, all of which are generally considered to be the drivers for creating civilisation.

It's just a statement of fact. Before the enlightenment period and the early beginnings of science, humanity was a hellish cocktail of bullshit. You just can't argue this. Every time you wash a cup in your kitchen, or every time you visit the doctor and get prescribed medicine, you're benefiting from the scientific method and it's application.

That isn't zealotry. It's appreciation.

You're just a nobcheese keyboard warrior.

Looks more like irony.  Being savaged by you is like feeling the full force of a kitten's breath.

Oh you think that was a savaging? How cute. Keep the toughness going Shirley, 11 more rounds of this shit to get through.

Maynehead

So what exactly is the counter argument here? That modern humans just one day spawned out of a crack in a rock? 

It that really more credible than the fossil records showing the gradual changes in the skull and skeletal structures of homo erectus into homo sapiens? Or the fact that genetic analysis has shown that homo sapien DNA contains both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA? Or the fact that we share 50% of our DNA with a fruit fly?

Drew_TNBD

Maynehead said:

So what exactly is the counter argument here? That modern humans just one day spawned out of a crack in a rock? 

It that really more credible than the fossil records showing the gradual changes in the skull and skeletal structures of homo erectus into homo sapiens? Or the fact that genetic analysis has shown that homo sapien DNA contains both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA? Or the fact that we share 50% of our DNA with a fruit fly?

Chalky doesn't care about any of that. He only cares about playing semantics and drinking semen.

Reverend

Maynehead said:

So what exactly is the counter argument here? That modern humans just one day spawned out of a crack in a rock? 

It that really more credible than the fossil records showing the gradual changes in the skull and skeletal structures of homo erectus into homo sapiens? Or the fact that genetic analysis has shown that homo sapien DNA contains both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA? Or the fact that we share 50% of our DNA with a fruit fly?

Pretty sure we are made from mud.

or the storks bring us. It's one of those anyway. 

earwighoney

Haych said:

To answer the original question posed; because the Origin of Species isn't correct, IMHO.

I've really tried to buy into evolution but it just does not compute.  In fact I'd go as far to say that the only thing that has evolved is the theory of evolution.  Each time it hits a dead end because of lack of evidence it evolves to take a different turn that can somehow explain the gap in evidence.

The other thing that really gets my goat is that if the principle behind evolution was applied to any other area of scientific investigation it would be laughed out the lab.  Evolution has been decided as fact and the evidence is contorted to support the desired conclusion. That's not science, that's fraud!

What do you believe is correct? 

Do you believe in Creationism?  That the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?  

Do you believe that fossils were planted by Satan? 

EricTheWeary

Maynehead said:

So what exactly is the counter argument here? That modern humans just one day spawned out of a crack in a rock? 

It that really more credible than the fossil records showing the gradual changes in the skull and skeletal structures of homo erectus into homo sapiens? Or the fact that genetic analysis has shown that homo sapien DNA contains both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA? Or the fact that we share 50% of our DNA with a fruit fly?

From what I've read the fossil record for the evolution of humans is incredibly sparse, you can't just put thousands of bones on a big table in the right order and go 'right that's obvious.'  So the details of how the evolutionary process works or happened seem open for some interpretation. You could even put God into the mix ( as early evolutionists had to do). 

Interesting man Darwin, I read a biography of him a couple of years ago. A lot less interested in scientific method ( he wasn't a professional scientist) and a lot less responsible for the theory of evolution than seems held in the popular imagination ( he basically won the race to popularise it, certainly wasn't his original idea) . He liked nonsensical medical remedies and shagging probably more than botany or evolution.

Chalky

Drew_TNBD said:

Maynehead said:

So what exactly is the counter argument here? That modern humans just one day spawned out of a crack in a rock? 

It that really more credible than the fossil records showing the gradual changes in the skull and skeletal structures of homo erectus into homo sapiens? Or the fact that genetic analysis has shown that homo sapien DNA contains both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA? Or the fact that we share 50% of our DNA with a fruit fly?

Chalky doesn't care about any of that. He only cares about playing semantics and drinking semen.

Er, m'lud, if you read my interchange with @ICBM you'd see I believe science's theory of evolution as taught today, but I also expect that future study will result in much better understanding, not just filling out some small details. As in ICBM's example, Newtonian physics compared to today's understanding of physics is remarkably different, not just "details".

Science zealots are as blinkered as potty Creationists, and see anyone who disagrees with them as just plain wrong. In that way they are no different to religious zealots.

Drew_TNBD

Chalky said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Maynehead said:

So what exactly is the counter argument here? That modern humans just one day spawned out of a crack in a rock? 

It that really more credible than the fossil records showing the gradual changes in the skull and skeletal structures of homo erectus into homo sapiens? Or the fact that genetic analysis has shown that homo sapien DNA contains both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA? Or the fact that we share 50% of our DNA with a fruit fly?

Chalky doesn't care about any of that. He only cares about playing semantics and drinking semen.

Er, m'lud, if you read my interchange with @ICBM you'd see I believe science's theory of evolution as taught today, but I also expect that future study will result in much better understanding, not just filling out some small details. As in ICBM's example, Newtonian physics compared to today's understanding of physics is remarkably different, not just "details".

Science zealots are as blinkered as potty Creationists, and see anyone who disagrees with them as just plain wrong. In that way they are no different to religious zealots.

No mate. You're a science denialist. Doesn't matter how many lies you tell to people, I've got your number!

fields5069

So, popcorn. My favourite flavour is toffee.

DarnWeight

Science cannot be classified as an ideology, and therefore it's impossible for it to have or support zealots.  Small point, but worth making.

marantz1300

Drew_TNBD said:

Maynehead said:

So what exactly is the counter argument here? That modern humans just one day spawned out of a crack in a rock? 

It that really more credible than the fossil records showing the gradual changes in the skull and skeletal structures of homo erectus into homo sapiens? Or the fact that genetic analysis has shown that homo sapien DNA contains both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA? Or the fact that we share 50% of our DNA with a fruit fly?

Chalky doesn't care about any of that. He only cares about playing semantics and drinking seamen.

he must have a huge blender for that.

TheMarlin

earwighoney said:

Haych said:

To answer the original question posed; because the Origin of Species isn't correct, IMHO.

I've really tried to buy into evolution but it just does not compute.  In fact I'd go as far to say that the only thing that has evolved is the theory of evolution.  Each time it hits a dead end because of lack of evidence it evolves to take a different turn that can somehow explain the gap in evidence.

The other thing that really gets my goat is that if the principle behind evolution was applied to any other area of scientific investigation it would be laughed out the lab.  Evolution has been decided as fact and the evidence is contorted to support the desired conclusion. That's not science, that's fraud!

What do you believe is correct? 

Do you believe in Creationism?  That the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?  

Do you believe that fossils were planted by Satan? 

There has been a lot of dubious behaviour in the fossil hunting world. The late Victorian period was awash with bizarre shenanigans. There was a great deal of fakery during “The Great Dinosaur Rush” or “Bone Wars,”
Edward Drinker Cope of the  Academy of Natural Sciences and Othniel Marsh of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, began a life-long rivalry in the field of “dinosaur hunting.”  They started out as friends but quickly became bitter enemies. Marsh is said to have discovered over 500 different ancient species including 80 dinosaurs, while Cope discovered 56.  Out of the 136 dinosaur species supposedly discovered by the two men, only 32 are presently considered valid; the rest have all proven to be falsifications and fabrications! 
Unfortunately, a lot of their work is still used to prop up Darwins theory.  The same can be said for much of the human fossil record. Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Calaveras Skull, Cardiff Giant, Johann Beringer Vs Professor Roderick, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Orce Nan etc etc all proven fakes, but many are still referred to when propping up this theory.  Many of these fossils are still on display today as genuine fossils. 

I'm no creationist, I'm not religious.  I'm not offering any alternative theory, I'm just a chap with a curious mind, and a nose for bullshit. 

Its a theory, and that's all it is. Fact, it is not. 

fretmeister

TheMarlin said:

earwighoney said:

Haych said:

To answer the original question posed; because the Origin of Species isn't correct, IMHO.

I've really tried to buy into evolution but it just does not compute.  In fact I'd go as far to say that the only thing that has evolved is the theory of evolution.  Each time it hits a dead end because of lack of evidence it evolves to take a different turn that can somehow explain the gap in evidence.

The other thing that really gets my goat is that if the principle behind evolution was applied to any other area of scientific investigation it would be laughed out the lab.  Evolution has been decided as fact and the evidence is contorted to support the desired conclusion. That's not science, that's fraud!

What do you believe is correct? 

Do you believe in Creationism?  That the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?  

Do you believe that fossils were planted by Satan? 

There has been a lot of dubious behaviour in the fossil hunting world. The late Victorian period was awash with bizarre shenanigans. There was a great deal of fakery during “The Great Dinosaur Rush” or “Bone Wars,”
Edward Drinker Cope of the  Academy of Natural Sciences and Othniel Marsh of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, began a life-long rivalry in the field of “dinosaur hunting.”  They started out as friends but quickly became bitter enemies. Marsh is said to have discovered over 500 different ancient species including 80 dinosaurs, while Cope discovered 56.  Out of the 136 dinosaur species supposedly discovered by the two men, only 32 are presently considered valid; the rest have all proven to be falsifications and fabrications! 
Unfortunately, a lot of their work is still used to prop up Darwins theory.  The same can be said for much of the human fossil record. Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Calaveras Skull, Cardiff Giant, Johann Beringer Vs Professor Roderick, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Orce Nan etc etc all proven fakes, but many are still referred to when propping up this theory.  Many of these fossils are still on display today as genuine fossils. 

I'm no creationist, I'm not religious.  I'm not offering any alternative theory, I'm just a chap with a curious mind, and a nose for bullshit. 

Its a theory, and that's all it is. Fact, it is not. 

Are you going to ignore the explanations of the different definitions of "theory" every time?

It's getting a bit pathetic. 

Theory of Gravity
Germ Theory of Disease.

Both facts and both theories.

Ravenous

TheMarlin said:

...Piltdown Man... (snipped)

I'm no creationist, I'm not religious.  I'm not offering any alternative theory, I'm just a chap with a curious mind, and a nose for bullshit. 

Its a theory, and that's all it is. Fact, it is not. 

Who uses Piltdown Man (an established fake) to prop up the theory these days? Can you show me a credible modern reference?

You may not realise this, but you're trying to shoot down a whole field because you can list people in it who've been crooks.

Classic debating tactic.

Drew_TNBD

fretmeister said:

TheMarlin said:

earwighoney said:

Haych said:

To answer the original question posed; because the Origin of Species isn't correct, IMHO.

I've really tried to buy into evolution but it just does not compute.  In fact I'd go as far to say that the only thing that has evolved is the theory of evolution.  Each time it hits a dead end because of lack of evidence it evolves to take a different turn that can somehow explain the gap in evidence.

The other thing that really gets my goat is that if the principle behind evolution was applied to any other area of scientific investigation it would be laughed out the lab.  Evolution has been decided as fact and the evidence is contorted to support the desired conclusion. That's not science, that's fraud!

What do you believe is correct? 

Do you believe in Creationism?  That the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?  

Do you believe that fossils were planted by Satan? 

There has been a lot of dubious behaviour in the fossil hunting world. The late Victorian period was awash with bizarre shenanigans. There was a great deal of fakery during “The Great Dinosaur Rush” or “Bone Wars,”
Edward Drinker Cope of the  Academy of Natural Sciences and Othniel Marsh of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, began a life-long rivalry in the field of “dinosaur hunting.”  They started out as friends but quickly became bitter enemies. Marsh is said to have discovered over 500 different ancient species including 80 dinosaurs, while Cope discovered 56.  Out of the 136 dinosaur species supposedly discovered by the two men, only 32 are presently considered valid; the rest have all proven to be falsifications and fabrications! 
Unfortunately, a lot of their work is still used to prop up Darwins theory.  The same can be said for much of the human fossil record. Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Calaveras Skull, Cardiff Giant, Johann Beringer Vs Professor Roderick, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Orce Nan etc etc all proven fakes, but many are still referred to when propping up this theory.  Many of these fossils are still on display today as genuine fossils. 

I'm no creationist, I'm not religious.  I'm not offering any alternative theory, I'm just a chap with a curious mind, and a nose for bullshit. 

Its a theory, and that's all it is. Fact, it is not. 

Are you going to ignore the explanations of the different definitions of "theory" every time?

It's getting a bit pathetic. 

Theory of Gravity
Germ Theory of Disease.

Both facts and both theories.

Absolutely. Every time someone says 'it's just a theory' I think they should be sent to a gas chamber and sprayed with zyklon-J (that's jizz btw)

TheMarlin

fretmeister said:

TheMarlin said:

earwighoney said:

Haych said:

To answer the original question posed; because the Origin of Species isn't correct, IMHO.

I've really tried to buy into evolution but it just does not compute.  In fact I'd go as far to say that the only thing that has evolved is the theory of evolution.  Each time it hits a dead end because of lack of evidence it evolves to take a different turn that can somehow explain the gap in evidence.

The other thing that really gets my goat is that if the principle behind evolution was applied to any other area of scientific investigation it would be laughed out the lab.  Evolution has been decided as fact and the evidence is contorted to support the desired conclusion. That's not science, that's fraud!

What do you believe is correct? 

Do you believe in Creationism?  That the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?  

Do you believe that fossils were planted by Satan? 

There has been a lot of dubious behaviour in the fossil hunting world. The late Victorian period was awash with bizarre shenanigans. There was a great deal of fakery during “The Great Dinosaur Rush” or “Bone Wars,”
Edward Drinker Cope of the  Academy of Natural Sciences and Othniel Marsh of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, began a life-long rivalry in the field of “dinosaur hunting.”  They started out as friends but quickly became bitter enemies. Marsh is said to have discovered over 500 different ancient species including 80 dinosaurs, while Cope discovered 56.  Out of the 136 dinosaur species supposedly discovered by the two men, only 32 are presently considered valid; the rest have all proven to be falsifications and fabrications! 
Unfortunately, a lot of their work is still used to prop up Darwins theory.  The same can be said for much of the human fossil record. Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Calaveras Skull, Cardiff Giant, Johann Beringer Vs Professor Roderick, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Orce Nan etc etc all proven fakes, but many are still referred to when propping up this theory.  Many of these fossils are still on display today as genuine fossils. 

I'm no creationist, I'm not religious.  I'm not offering any alternative theory, I'm just a chap with a curious mind, and a nose for bullshit. 

Its a theory, and that's all it is. Fact, it is not. 

Are you going to ignore the explanations of the different definitions of "theory" every time?

It's getting a bit pathetic. 

Theory of Gravity
Germ Theory of Disease.

Both facts and both theories.

All I did was present some evidence. What's so pathetic about that?

Debunk away!

fretmeister

TheMarlin said:

fretmeister said:

TheMarlin said:

earwighoney said:

Haych said:

To answer the original question posed; because the Origin of Species isn't correct, IMHO.

I've really tried to buy into evolution but it just does not compute.  In fact I'd go as far to say that the only thing that has evolved is the theory of evolution.  Each time it hits a dead end because of lack of evidence it evolves to take a different turn that can somehow explain the gap in evidence.

The other thing that really gets my goat is that if the principle behind evolution was applied to any other area of scientific investigation it would be laughed out the lab.  Evolution has been decided as fact and the evidence is contorted to support the desired conclusion. That's not science, that's fraud!

What do you believe is correct? 

Do you believe in Creationism?  That the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old?  

Do you believe that fossils were planted by Satan? 

There has been a lot of dubious behaviour in the fossil hunting world. The late Victorian period was awash with bizarre shenanigans. There was a great deal of fakery during “The Great Dinosaur Rush” or “Bone Wars,”
Edward Drinker Cope of the  Academy of Natural Sciences and Othniel Marsh of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, began a life-long rivalry in the field of “dinosaur hunting.”  They started out as friends but quickly became bitter enemies. Marsh is said to have discovered over 500 different ancient species including 80 dinosaurs, while Cope discovered 56.  Out of the 136 dinosaur species supposedly discovered by the two men, only 32 are presently considered valid; the rest have all proven to be falsifications and fabrications! 
Unfortunately, a lot of their work is still used to prop up Darwins theory.  The same can be said for much of the human fossil record. Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Calaveras Skull, Cardiff Giant, Johann Beringer Vs Professor Roderick, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Orce Nan etc etc all proven fakes, but many are still referred to when propping up this theory.  Many of these fossils are still on display today as genuine fossils. 

I'm no creationist, I'm not religious.  I'm not offering any alternative theory, I'm just a chap with a curious mind, and a nose for bullshit. 

Its a theory, and that's all it is. Fact, it is not. 

Are you going to ignore the explanations of the different definitions of "theory" every time?

It's getting a bit pathetic. 

Theory of Gravity
Germ Theory of Disease.

Both facts and both theories.

All I did was present some evidence. What's so pathetic about that?

Debunk away!

1: you didn't present anything.
2: You haven't answered my point about you refusing to accept that Theory doesn't mean what you claim it means.

Keep moving those goalposts though.

TheMarlin

theory

ˈθɪəri/

noun

1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

   "Darwin's theory of evolution"

   synonyms:

   hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion; More

   • a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.

     "a theory of education"
   • an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

     "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

Drew_TNBD

Dude... in SCIENCE... the word theory has a different meaning to general every day use - this should be so simple! Edu-ma-cate yoursen!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_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. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (see Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

The only reason to get this stuff wrong is if you're scientifically illiterate. Sorry, but that's my scientific theory... based on the observable evidence of this thread!