The So-called "Tree of Life" has been debunked

[Immortal4life]

Your statement implies that evolutionary theory has been debunked. Only in your narrow belief system which is one of extreme polarization.

 

Certainly bit by bit, piece by piece, aspects of evolutionary theory have and are being debunked.

[Jetsun]

Actually much of my interest in this subject came from interacting with Richard Dawkin fanboys on discussion forums. Many of the things I say, are actually direct responses to and come backs to the things that are popular amognst fans od Dawkins.

 

I am actually providing a balance to people like Hitchens and Dawkins. Before they got popular I wasn't as interested in Evolution because no one really talked about it much before a few years ago.

 

I'm not sure why you think people on this site of all places need you to provide our balance for us, Dawkins has his own forum I think although I guess they will be far less polite about your agenda than most are on here.

[Immortal4life]

I am primarily interested in spirituality, and the spiritual implications of a given issue.

[ralis]

Certainly bit by bit, piece by piece, aspects of evolutionary theory have and are being debunked.

 

 

Only debunked in your mind.

[Immortal4life]

Only debunked in your mind.

 

No, in mainstream science journals, by high level scientists in the world's leading universities, and in peer reviewed research.

[Immortal4life]

Evolution makes logical and intuitive sense to me and is in no way anti-spiritual (unless you have a naive concept of spirit/God whatever). But what it lacks is a theory of consciousness. Where does that come in and how does will or decision making by individuals play a part.

 

Many evolutionists have argued that if you take darwinian evolution completely literally, the natural conclusion is to rule out free will. From a completely materialistic point of view, the actions an individual takes can be attributed to 2 things, genetic programming and societal conditioning. Some people call this theory nature vs. nurture.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuVSIG265b4

 

So I agree with you that when it comes to an understanding of mind and comnsciousness in relation to existence and creation, evolution and modern science itself, are lacking in this respect.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

@Immortal4Life,

 

Since you seem to have absolute knowledge, here is one question I have.

 

If, as you have so vehemently argued, that species are created in a state of absolute complexity, then how do you account for genetic and species variation? What that entails is, if all species are in a state of inherent complexity, then structural and genetic differences i.e, intra-species diversity, would be unnecessary. However, in nature, one can observe structural differences across all classes of species. How does your narrative account for this?

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

The forces that maintain genetic diversity among individuals and diversity among species are usually studied separately. Nevertheless, diversity at one of these levels may depend on the diversity at the other. We have combined observations of natural populations, quantitative genetics, and field experiments to show that genetic variation in the concentration of an allelopathic secondary compound in Brassica nigra is necessary for the coexistence of B. nigra and its competitor species. In addition, the diversity of competing species was required for the maintenance of genetic variation in the trait within B. nigra. Thus, conservation of species diversity may also necessitate maintenance of the processes that sustain the genetic diversity of each individual species.

 

 

 

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5844/1561.abstract

[ralis]

No, in mainstream science journals, by high level scientists in the world's leading universities, and in peer reviewed research.

 

Post real references please. Your remarks are vague to say the least.

[ralis]

Actually much of my interest in this subject came from interacting with Richard Dawkin fanboys on discussion forums. Many of the things I say, are actually direct responses to and come backs to the things that are popular amognst fans od Dawkins.

 

I am actually providing a balance to people like Hitchens and Dawkins. Before they got popular I wasn't as interested in Evolution because no one really talked about it much before a few years ago.

 

You narrative is not one of balance and only takes an extremist and absolutist position. Further, that remark is one of condescension to anyone reading your narrative.

[Immortal4life]

My position is ultimately one of balance. When we look at how forceful and condescending many pro-atheist and pro-evolution fanboys can be, yes you have to come back and dish it back to them.

 

As for what you say about diversity and different varieties existing within a species, that is just variation, adaptation, and the so called micro-evolution. It's like dogs, no matter how far we go back and no matter how much they change they are still dogs. Bacteria, no matter how much they change and adapt, they still stay bugs, etc.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Apech]

Many evolutionists have argued that if you take darwinian evolution completely literally, the natural conclusion is to rule out free will. From a completely materialistic point of view, the actions an individual takes can be attributed to 2 things, genetic programming and societal conditioning. Some people call this theory nature vs. nurture.

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=vuVSIG265b4

 

So I agree with you that when it comes to an understanding of mind and comnsciousness in relation to existence and creation, evolution and modern science itself, are lacking in this respect.

 

Its not that they are lacking exactly its more that adequate theories have not been developed. Some of this is because some scientists prefer to rule out consciousness from the equation because it involves difficult philosophical problems. HOWEVER this does not debunk evolution theory it merely points to more sophisticated understanding in the future ... just as current understanding goes beyond that of 19 Century science.

 

Throwing out evolutionary theory and replacing it with ID or any approach that involves beliefs rather than evidence and knowledge just will not wash and is actually a way of preventing proper understanding.

[ralis]

My position is ultimately one of balance. When we look at how forceful and condescending many pro-atheist and pro-evolution fanboys can be, yes you have to come back and dish it back to them.

 

As for what you say about diversity and different varieties existing within a species, that is just variation, adaptation, and the so called micro-evolution. It's like dogs, no matter how far we go back and no matter how much they change they are still dogs. Bacteria, no matter how much they change and adapt, they still stay bugs, etc.

 

You are still missing the point in regards to diversity and the evolutionary cause of.

[Immortal4life]

Throwing out evolutionary theory and replacing it with ID or any approach that involves beliefs rather than evidence and knowledge just will not wash and is actually a way of preventing proper understanding.

 

Intelligent Design theory can and does involve evidence, every bit as much as Evolution theory. The real difference is the paradigm through which the evidence is interpreted.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Apech]

Intelligent Design theory can and does involve evidence, every bit as much as Evolution theory. The real difference is the paradigm through which the evidence is interpreted.

 

Not really because there is no understanding of the way in which the ID works - its just God did it - that's it. Its actually a block to understanding.

[Immortal4life]

You are still missing the point in regards to diversity and the evolutionary cause of.

 

The fact is that it is not only individual species that exist in a state of perfect balance and complexity. The whole round of Nature is in fact one Circle of Life. One interconnected and interdependant cycle. Everything is connected. Everything exists in it's perfect place, in balance and harmony with all else, and is designated to it's proper place within the whole.

 

Complexity and perfect harmony exists at all levels in the universe.

[ralis]

Intelligent Design theory can and does involve evidence, every bit as much as Evolution theory. The real difference is the paradigm through which the evidence is interpreted.

 

As of this very moment, you have not shown any substantive evidence. Only nitpicking at minutia of minor relevance.

 

If your latest theories are so profound and revolutionary, then where are the documents published?

 

In your own words, will you explain this paradigm of yours? We can make it a peer reviewed process right here.

Edited May 8, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

Not really because there is no understanding of the way in which the ID works - its just God did it - that's it. Its actually a block to understanding.

 

It is not true that all Intelligent Design theories have to invoke a God. It has also been argued that evolution theory does not have an adequate explanation of how evolution works.

 

Here is an example of an Intelligent Design theory which does not have to invoke a God as an explanatory mechanism. Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, when faced with how complex DNA and the cell really was, instantly recognized that DNA could not have formed by chance or random processes. He knew some sort of design had to be invovled. He theorized that Life on Earth had been seeded by Extra Terrestrials a very long time ago.

[Jetsun]

My position is ultimately one of balance. When we look at how forceful and condescending many pro-atheist and pro-evolution fanboys can be, yes you have to come back and dish it back to them.

 

One of the reasons why some atheists are forceful at the moment is because something like close to 40% of Americans believe in the literal interpretation of the bible that the earth is only a few thousand years old, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html which is a very frightening statistic for an educated nation, and then there are powerful rich interest groups which want to maintain and promote such ignorance, so if anyone is doing the balancing it is people like Dawkins not you.

[ralis]

The fact is that it is not only individual species that exist in a state of perfect balance and complexity. The whole round of Nature is in fact one Circle of Life. One interconnected and interdependant cycle. Everything is connected. Everything exists in it's perfect place, in balance and harmony with all else, and is designated to it's proper place within the whole.

 

Complexity and perfect harmony exists at all levels in the universe.

 

Who is the designator of proper placement? Perfect harmony? That is an illusory myth that some sort of balance exists in the cosmos. Any attempt to absolutely quantify this dynamic universe is inviting failure. Here is an excellent place to start.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Nonlinear-Dynamics-Chaos-Applications-Nonlinearity/dp/0738204536

 

One other problem with the harmonious theory is; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Edited May 8, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

It is not true that all Intelligent Design theories have to invoke a God. It has also been argued that evolution theory does not have an adequate explanation of how evolution works.

 

Here is an example of an Intelligent Design theory which does not have to invoke a God as an explanatory mechanism. Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, when faced with how complex DNA and the cell really was, instantly recognized that DNA could not have formed by chance or random processes. He knew some sort of design had to be invovled. He theorized that Life on Earth had been seeded by Extra Terrestrials a very long time ago.

 

You are paraphrasing and will you provide an exact quote? The so called ET version would never be in a scientific text.

[ralis]

One of the reasons why some atheists are forceful at the moment is because something like close to 40% of Americans believe in the literal interpretation of the bible that the earth is only a few thousand years old, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html which is a very frightening statistic for an educated nation, and then there are powerful rich interest groups which want to maintain and promote such ignorance, so if anyone is doing the balancing it is people like Dawkins not you.

 

I for one am not interested in returning to the 'dark ages'.

[steve]

I think we should put all the "debunking evolutionary theory" threads in a sub-forum or perhaps Immortal4life would start his own forum. This is really tiresome. I, for one, have better things to do than debate with (un)Intelligent Design advocates.

Better yet, maybe he could post on the Kun Lun forum.

[Apech]

It is not true that all Intelligent Design theories have to invoke a God. It has also been argued that evolution theory does not have an adequate explanation of how evolution works.

 

Here is an example of an Intelligent Design theory which does not have to invoke a God as an explanatory mechanism. Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA, when faced with how complex DNA and the cell really was, instantly recognized that DNA could not have formed by chance or random processes. He knew some sort of design had to be invovled. He theorized that Life on Earth had been seeded by Extra Terrestrials a very long time ago.

 

Sorry that's not a theory. If its ET then where did they come from? It just puts everything back one step.

 

If things are designed then there still has to be a mechanism by which it happens.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Apech
more thoughts

[Marblehead]

Certainly bit by bit, piece by piece, aspects of evolutionary theory have and are being debunked.

 

Debunked only by people who have little or no qualifications for speaking to the issue in the first place.

 

A person who has never understood the theory of evolution and has always accept their religious dogma as the only truth has no right, in my opinion, to speak to the validity of the theory.

 

The theory of evolution is not being debunked except in the eyes of those who wist it to be so but that is only a delusion. The theory has become a fact and to the best of my knowledge no religious dogma has any positive proof that their story of the creation is a demonstrable fact.

[Marblehead]

I'm not sure why you think people on this site of all places need you to provide our balance for us, Dawkins has his own forum I think although I guess they will be far less polite about your agenda than most are on here.

 

Actually, we Tao Bums weren't even talking about evolution until Immortal4life started posting his misconceptions.