Why is Evolution really science! (Page 3)

BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: I have not convinced myself he is a liar, he gives me those conviction for not being trustfull
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
(Post deleted by BelgianStrider 1 year ago)
axocanth
axocanth: In the following sequence of videos we see David Berlinski seated at the Creationist side of the table. It is perhaps for reasons such as this that he is so frequently mislabeled a Creationist. Pay attention, though, and the situation is perfectly clear: Berlinski is attacking Darwinian theory and not advocating Creationism or Intelligent Design.

Belgian, watch this one from 3:55 - 4:00 mins:

YouTube


Then watch this one from 1:10 - 1:20

YouTube



Next, a different vid. Watch, in particular, from about 43:00 - 45:00 mins:

YouTube

(Edited by axocanth)
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
(Post deleted by BelgianStrider 1 year ago)
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Define 𝐃𝐚𝐫𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 or DARWINIAN-based accounts of evolution
It is asked for the second time
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: deleted for insulting unsustained claim
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Moreover: can berlinski or did berlinski ever gave any evidence contradicting beyond any reasonable doubt evolution! I don't think so !!!!!
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: @ Belgian (3 posts above)

I'd suggest, for consideration at least, that any account which gives an important place to natural selection or phyletic gradualism can be described as a Darwinian-based theory. Does that sound reasonable to you?

And as far as I can discern, most evolutionary accounts (though by no means all) still give a prominent place to natural selection.

Thus I'm a little puzzled by your earlier comment:

"what is DARWINIAN-based accounts of evolution.???? We are now in 2022 not 1850's"

Are you saying that Darwin's ideas have all been abandoned? Or reduced to a minor place?

Richard Dawkins, say, would throw a fit at the very idea!
(Edited by axocanth)
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: "Moreover: can berlinski or did berlinski ever gave any evidence contradicting beyond any reasonable doubt evolution! I don't think so !!!!!" - Belgian


I think he's worth listening to, for all that's worth.

Simply on "a priori" grounds (that is, before even LOOKING at any given theory), I'd say we have good reason to be wary of committing ourselves to the truth of any theory of evolution.

Scientific theories do have a nasty habit of being dismissed by later generations of scientists as being inadequate or incomplete in one way or another, or dismissed as being simply false.

You know this, right?
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
(Post deleted by BelgianStrider 1 year ago)
axocanth
axocanth: P.S.

Evidence does not "contradict" a theory. You are working with an untenable and overly simplistic notion of falsification.
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: We actually know that natural selection is not the sole "force" making organisms evolve.
Btw I suggest you to read Darwins book. he factually starts with artificial selection !!!!!!
Many claiming 𝐃𝐚𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐃𝐚𝐫𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 even have no clue what was written in that book.

No, there are more than one factor besides natural selection that influence evolution.

Darwin's basic idea of evolution is still valid, natural selection on itself as one of the factors for evolution is still valid, though many presuppositions he made are not valid anymore. and for a very simple and stupid reason. Genetics was unknown in that time.

Yes, Dawkins claims himself to be a "Darwinist", just because the fact is that the basics of evolution that Darwin and Wallace made up are still valid! He is not denying at all the progress made that still confirms ToE.

Your berlinski seems to stuck on the pure Darwinian theory of natural selection and seems to ignore all the other disciplines "in spe" genetics that contradicts ALL of berlinski's claims.
Moreover his knowlegde about fossils seems to be extravagantly low!
All what he claims is "we don't know, the probabilities are so low!"
Though: any evidence from him that all the given evidence are false? Well, till now; we don't know what evidence he uses!
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
axocanth
axocanth: "We actually know that natural selection is not the sole "force" making organisms evolve." - Belgian


Well, how do you rate the relative prevalence of these forces? Does natural selection play a major role or a minor one, in your opinion?

If it plays a major role, would it not be appropriate to describe this as a Darwinian-based account? . . . especially since you insist "Darwin's basic idea of evolution is still valid".

If not, why not?
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Of course we know that any finding that contradict a theory, it will fall. That's the beauty of science.
Though, till now ( 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 "𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘸" ), all evidence found give ToE more credibility than a guy claiming that we don't know based on what? Well on pure "𝐚𝐢𝐫". Science stands or falls on evidence only.

What can make ToE fall: a good example seemingly from the notorious biologist J. B. S. Haldane "precambrian fossils of rabbits" !!!
Ever found one till now?
What about the finding of the Tiktaalik? Confirming ToE or not?

You are entitled to think about berlisnki's claims and reasoning might be right.
I, on the other hand, have the same entitlement as you do be a little more dubious about him.
(Edited by BelgianStrider)
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Evidence can contradict or confirm a theory.

There are enough evidence that the Earth is more probably a sphere than a pizza, is that an absolute proof?
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: The proof is all the proven facts (pics, vid, & testimony of astronauts) that are readily available...

Pretending that the earth is anything other than a spheroid in shape is absurd with all the verified evidence that is readily available.
(Edited by zeffur)
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
(Post deleted by BelgianStrider 1 year ago)
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: "
Well, how do you rate the relative prevalence of these forces? Does natural selection play a major role or a minor one, in your opinion?"

I have not enough knowledge to be able to answer that, so my answer will be a flat " I don't know and can not have any opinion about that. Go and look specialised litterature for getting the correct answer."

Who where the first ones to came up with that idea of Biologiocal Evolution ? It seems Darwin and Wallace, half 19th century. Is it still valid till now?
Who was the first that came up with Einsteins relativity theory? It seems to be a guy called Albert Einstein somewhere begin 20th century. Is it still valid now?
Who came up with the Planck constant also somewhere beginning 20th century? A guy called Max Plack; Is it still valid till now?
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: Deleted because of unsustained claim
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
(Post deleted by BelgianStrider 1 year ago)
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: The other is at the utter limit of acceptable
1 year ago Report
0
BelgianStrider
BelgianStrider: deleted as repetitive unsustained claim
1 year ago Report
0