Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
1i3i6--
Posts: 30
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 6:23 pm

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by 1i3i6-- »

Darwinian evolution is part theory and fact.
It is a solid and amazing scientific work that was framed and detailed much before Darwin wrote about it. Darwin praises a particular author for his elegant framing of the design that Darwin then went on to look for and detail. Rarely do you find people praising the work that so inspired and framed Darwin's search.

People do mistake, over-apply, and misattribute Darwin's work. Thankfully, Darwin left details about his though process, his beliefs, inspirations, and respectfully gave honor to the works that deeply influenced him.

For controversial works such as these, I often research the author, their beliefs, their thought process, and their attributed influences. Therein lies the deeper root as to their work. It would seem that many people lack the skill to decipher such roots, deny them, or quite frankly never seek to find them. As such, they often times replace the Author's roots and foundations with their own so as to feel strengthened in their own personal beliefs. This is mistaken and dishonest.

Having researched an author's self-proclaimed roots and foundations, it is quite interesting when someone praises their works and attempts to use their works to bash a particular philosophy that the author themselves maintained and cites as their inspiration.

You really have to just laugh and the absurdity of such mistakes which I do often. Interestingly, when you point this out and highlight the author's roots, you'll often note silence, a lack of responses, childlike questions from supposed intellects, or fits/tantrums/philosophical squirming as one fights the glaring contradiction that manifests within themselves.

It's quite the scene... :lol:
Raymond
Posts: 317
Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by Raymond »

Darwinian evolution is dogmatic. It's modern incarnation, the kind of evolution propagated by Dawkins, is based on the dogma the dogma that that the information between DNA and the organism is unidirectional, which means that the organism can't influence the structure of DNA. Only accidental mutations of DNA will cause changes in the organism. The organism cannot have an influence on the structure of DNA. Which of course is the question, hence the dogma. Lamarckian evolution is the opposite.

There are a lot of observations that could make you question the dogma. The dogma is well suited for people with a certain attitude.
Buzzard3
Posts: 19
Joined: January 26th, 2022, 12:09 am
Favorite Philosopher: Catdinal Robert Sarah
Location: Australia

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by Buzzard3 »

Atreyu wrote: July 19th, 2015, 3:25 am Excellent points. I agree.

I do not dispute that natural selection and genetic drift play some role in the change of species over time. But to think that that is all there is to it is absurd, and precisely because of the reasons you just delineated. Obviously there is much more to it than science could ever suppose, and their model cannot adequately explain the growth and formation of entirely new "functional infrastructures" such as limbs, wings, eyes, ears, etc. The standard explanation (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html) simply does not suffice.....
Well said.

I very much doubt if mutations, natural selection, etc (the Modern Synthesis) can account for the evolution of sight, for example. And when Darwinists do offer "explanations" of such, they are invariably based on a bunch of untestable hypotheses, which means their "explanations" don't even qualify as science, but are just pseudo-scientific stories.

But of course, the theory of evolution is not about advancing science - it's raison d'etre is to promote the idea that the history of life on earth is not the work of a divine Creator (aka God), but is the result of a purely natural process that is now clearly "understood" by science ... atheism, in other words.
Raymond
Posts: 317
Joined: January 23rd, 2022, 6:47 pm

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by Raymond »

Buzzard3 wrote: April 14th, 2022, 2:41 am
Atreyu wrote: July 19th, 2015, 3:25 am Excellent points. I agree.

I do not dispute that natural selection and genetic drift play some role in the change of species over time. But to think that that is all there is to it is absurd, and precisely because of the reasons you just delineated. Obviously there is much more to it than science could ever suppose, and their model cannot adequately explain the growth and formation of entirely new "functional infrastructures" such as limbs, wings, eyes, ears, etc. The standard explanation (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html) simply does not suffice.....
Well said.

I very much doubt if mutations, natural selection, etc (the Modern Synthesis) can account for the evolution of sight, for example. And when Darwinists do offer "explanations" of such, they are invariably based on a bunch of untestable hypotheses, which means their "explanations" don't even qualify as science, but are just pseudo-scientific stories.

But of course, the theory of evolution is not about advancing science - it's raison d'etre is to promote the idea that the history of life on earth is not the work of a divine Creator (aka God), but is the result of a purely natural process that is now clearly "understood" by science ... atheism, in other words.
,"
But of course, the theory of evolution is not about advancing science - it's raison d'etre is to promote the idea that the history of life on earth is not the work of a divine Creator (aka God), but is the result of a purely natural process that is now clearly "understood" by science ... atheism, in other words"

How do you know that the stuff that is needed for evolution, space and preons, is not created by gods?
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by psyreporter »

Something of interest may be the Cambrian explosion (it wasn't mentioned yet in this topic). It is a period of the early earth ~530 million years ago in which all the basic structures of life forms of earth suddenly appeared on earth.

(2020) The Cambrian Explosion Mystery: Fossils still say no to Darwin
In the Cambrian Explosion, all the major animal groups first appear as fossils. They appear suddenly, fully-formed, and functional, and the older rock layers below them contain no ancestors.
https://www.icr.org/article/the-fossils ... -explosion

It was known and unexplainable during Darwin's time but he said that science would find the 'missing' transition fossils.

Until today, those transition fossils haven't been found which may indicate that the evolution theory isn't valid.

Another clue that Darwin's evolution theory is invalid may be what is named carcinization. In nature, crustacean animals keep evolving into asymmetrical crab-form with one big claw and a smaller claw, and many features that are specific to crab-form. It received its own name: carcinization.

crab.jpg
crab.jpg (38.9 KiB) Viewed 2643 times
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

According to Greek philosopher Plato, kind or form (e.g. specie) is of substance separate from individual life forms.
Plato wrote:According to Plato, an individual 🐕 dog, Fido, for example, since he is not 'dog as such', but only a dog, is not fully real. To be fully real, Fido would need to be the universal essence, "Dog in himself", existing in a separate world of universal Essences (subsisting forms, or Ideas).

Since Fido is merely a dog, he is not fully real; its reality is merely a participation in the reality of the universal essence. Hence, he is merely a shadow (albeit a real shadow) of the "really" Real, the separated Form, or Idea, existing in the World of Ideas.
A recent study discovered that all particles in the Universe are entangled by 'kind'. This would have implications for physical reality as a whole and it may provide a substantiation for Plato's ideas.

(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

Another indication that the development of life forms may be caused by an other factor than random natural selection is a recent study that showed a correlation between supernovae explosions and an explosion of life forms on earth.

(2022) Supernovae and life on Earth appear closely connected
A remarkable link between the number of nearby exploding stars, called supernovae, and life on Earth has been discovered.
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-supernova ... earth.html

There is an indication that life on earth may be tied to Solar-neutrino energy from the 🌞 Sun. In a Supernovae explosion, 99% of a stars energy is released into the Universe in the form of neutrinos. It may not have been considered or investigated yet, but perhaps the link between supernovae and life on earth may be neutrinos.

In the concept that Solar-neutrino energy is the source of life on Earth, it would be a 'topical' source of life.

Philosopher William James, the father of American psychology mentioned the following about the mind in The Principles of Psychology:

"all that is able to be affirmed is that it [mind] is something that: perceives, reflects, remembers, imagines and wills but what it is that exerts these energies is unknown"

The mentioned characteristic properties of mind are the same for intelligence or life in general. When it can be said that those characteristics require energy, then perhaps Solar-neutrino energy is a potential source of life.

Many people find it difficult to comprehend that Solar-neutrino energy from the 🌞 Sun is reaching the inside and dark side of Earth.

Even while knowing that neutrinos are so tiny that they can pass straight through the core of stars, people have a difficulty with visualizing that they themselves are bathing in a continuous stream of Solar-neutrino energy at all times, including after sunset.

On Earth's region around the Sun, it is estimated that 10 trillion neutrinos travel through every square centimeter of space per second. This includes underground, on the dark side of Earth and in the center of the Earth.

When Solar-neutrino energy is the origin of life on Earth, life could be bound to a region around a star. This could help explain why the Universe is not crowded with 👽 alien activity.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Buzzard3
Posts: 19
Joined: January 26th, 2022, 12:09 am
Favorite Philosopher: Catdinal Robert Sarah
Location: Australia

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by Buzzard3 »

Renee wrote: November 7th, 2016, 7:55 pm Leave the evolutionary theory alone. It stands, it is reasonable, it is logical, and it is shown to have worked.
No one has shown that the theory of evolution produced the changes evident in the fossil record. Nor can anyone show that ... it's impossible to prove.
Buzzard3
Posts: 19
Joined: January 26th, 2022, 12:09 am
Favorite Philosopher: Catdinal Robert Sarah
Location: Australia

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by Buzzard3 »

Buzzard3 wrote: August 5th, 2022, 3:52 pm
Renee wrote: November 7th, 2016, 7:55 pm Leave the evolutionary theory alone. It stands, it is reasonable, it is logical, and it is shown to have worked.
No one has shown that the theory of evolution produced the changes evident in the fossil record. Nor can anyone show that ... it's impossible to prove. No one can ever know what process produced the history of life on earth.
d3r31nz1g3
Posts: 122
Joined: November 19th, 2022, 11:39 am

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by d3r31nz1g3 »

Atreyu wrote: July 19th, 2015, 3:25 am Excellent points. I agree.

I do not dispute that natural selection and genetic drift play some role in the change of species over time. But to think that that is all there is to it is absurd, and precisely because of the reasons you just delineated. Obviously there is much more to it than science could ever suppose, and their model cannot adequately explain the growth and formation of entirely new "functional infrastructures" such as limbs, wings, eyes, ears, etc. The standard explanation
What do you mean? According to all evidential reality that IS all there is to it.

Through an incredibly slow "process" robotics incarnated the building blocks of life and very slowly, through natural selection exclusively, formed in to larger and more advanced robotical forms.

It was simply how slow it all occurred and it was all the application of robotic functions to environment and survival.
ernestm
Posts: 433
Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by ernestm »

d3r31nz1g3 wrote: November 19th, 2022, 12:59 pm
Atreyu wrote: July 19th, 2015, 3:25 am Excellent points. I agree.

I do not dispute that natural selection and genetic drift play some role in the change of species over time. But to think that that is all there is to it is absurd, and precisely because of the reasons you just delineated. Obviously there is much more to it than science could ever suppose, and their model cannot adequately explain the growth and formation of entirely new "functional infrastructures" such as limbs, wings, eyes, ears, etc. The standard explanation
What do you mean? According to all evidential reality that IS all there is to it.

Through an incredibly slow "process" robotics incarnated the building blocks of life and very slowly, through natural selection exclusively, formed in to larger and more advanced robotical forms.

It was simply how slow it all occurred and it was all the application of robotic functions to environment and survival.
This is a very common misconception of science, and I repeated this at least 20 times this week alone, so hopefully i am getting better at stating it.

Science explains how things happen. All its theories are inductions. Now I have to actually point out that an induction is not the same as a deduction. An INDUCTION is NOT A CAUSE. Science makes no statement of cause. An induction is a method in formal logic for formulating an abstraction of relations between states and events that generalizes from empirically observed specifics. For an induction to be scientific, it must be testable. INDUCTIVE REASONING first declares the induction as VALID, and by evidence, CORROBORATED. There is no way to prove an induction true, that is necessary according to the rules of formal propositional logic.

Evolution as science, rather than scientism, is exactly such an induction. From it, generalizations can be made to describe and predict observed events. That's all science does. It cannot make any statement about AGENCY, that is, it cannot make statements of CAUSES. In formal logic, CAUSES are different from INDUCTIONS in that they are considered to need an agent. That's not how CAUSE is often used in natural language, but science does not rely on populist definitions of such words, it has its own vocabulary defined by formal logic as to what is TRUE, FALSE, and VALID.

Thus theories such as evolution are not true or false. They are valid or invalid. FOR EXAMPLE, the induction that the earth was the center of the solar system is still a theory. It was never invalidated. When you see a sunrise, you are seeing a demonstration of the validity of the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system. Subsequently, Newtonian physics provided simpler explanations for the movement of planets in the solar system that are useful for other purposes, such as sending rockets to the moon. In fact, ANY point can be regarded as a 'center' in Euclidean space, for which different scientific theories are more, or less, valid depending on the context and purpose of the observation being explained. In science, the concept that anything is a necessary center in any way at all is now called 'a 'Copernican fallacy.'

Likewise, there could be explanations of why animals choose mates that are not theological, but still teleological. That means, animals could have their own purpose in choosing mates. They could have a sense of beauty. They could have personal likes and dislikes. The former is more disputed, but in herd species its now rather established that animals make choices between mates on many occasions.

The theory of evolution is considered very useful because it unifies many disciplines in biology, from animal behavior to microbiology. One subtheory in evolution is natural selection. There are other possible selection processes. Currently, virtually everyone working in evolution assumes that natural selection is the only source of 'selection pressure' (paradigmatically, it should be \called 'selection force'). Other selection forces may be in operation, but mostly they are difficult to measure empirically.

AS WELL AS there being other possible selection forces, there is also the fact that science has no ability to assess any type of agency, consciousness or theistic. It can only see the results. Attempts to state what agency might or might not exist based on science is not part of science. It is called scientism, and scientism is extremely common among both naive theists, and naive atheists. Like you.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7932
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by LuckyR »

ernestm wrote: November 20th, 2022, 8:46 pm
d3r31nz1g3 wrote: November 19th, 2022, 12:59 pm
Atreyu wrote: July 19th, 2015, 3:25 am Excellent points. I agree.

I do not dispute that natural selection and genetic drift play some role in the change of species over time. But to think that that is all there is to it is absurd, and precisely because of the reasons you just delineated. Obviously there is much more to it than science could ever suppose, and their model cannot adequately explain the growth and formation of entirely new "functional infrastructures" such as limbs, wings, eyes, ears, etc. The standard explanation
What do you mean? According to all evidential reality that IS all there is to it.

Through an incredibly slow "process" robotics incarnated the building blocks of life and very slowly, through natural selection exclusively, formed in to larger and more advanced robotical forms.

It was simply how slow it all occurred and it was all the application of robotic functions to environment and survival.
This is a very common misconception of science, and I repeated this at least 20 times this week alone, so hopefully i am getting better at stating it.

Science explains how things happen. All its theories are inductions. Now I have to actually point out that an induction is not the same as a deduction. An INDUCTION is NOT A CAUSE. Science makes no statement of cause. An induction is a method in formal logic for formulating an abstraction of relations between states and events that generalizes from empirically observed specifics. For an induction to be scientific, it must be testable. INDUCTIVE REASONING first declares the induction as VALID, and by evidence, CORROBORATED. There is no way to prove an induction true, that is necessary according to the rules of formal propositional logic.

Evolution as science, rather than scientism, is exactly such an induction. From it, generalizations can be made to describe and predict observed events. That's all science does. It cannot make any statement about AGENCY, that is, it cannot make statements of CAUSES. In formal logic, CAUSES are different from INDUCTIONS in that they are considered to need an agent. That's not how CAUSE is often used in natural language, but science does not rely on populist definitions of such words, it has its own vocabulary defined by formal logic as to what is TRUE, FALSE, and VALID.

Thus theories such as evolution are not true or false. They are valid or invalid. FOR EXAMPLE, the induction that the earth was the center of the solar system is still a theory. It was never invalidated. When you see a sunrise, you are seeing a demonstration of the validity of the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system. Subsequently, Newtonian physics provided simpler explanations for the movement of planets in the solar system that are useful for other purposes, such as sending rockets to the moon. In fact, ANY point can be regarded as a 'center' in Euclidean space, for which different scientific theories are more, or less, valid depending on the context and purpose of the observation being explained. In science, the concept that anything is a necessary center in any way at all is now called 'a 'Copernican fallacy.'

Likewise, there could be explanations of why animals choose mates that are not theological, but still teleological. That means, animals could have their own purpose in choosing mates. They could have a sense of beauty. They could have personal likes and dislikes. The former is more disputed, but in herd species its now rather established that animals make choices between mates on many occasions.

The theory of evolution is considered very useful because it unifies many disciplines in biology, from animal behavior to microbiology. One subtheory in evolution is natural selection. There are other possible selection processes. Currently, virtually everyone working in evolution assumes that natural selection is the only source of 'selection pressure' (paradigmatically, it should be \called 'selection force'). Other selection forces may be in operation, but mostly they are difficult to measure empirically.

AS WELL AS there being other possible selection forces, there is also the fact that science has no ability to assess any type of agency, consciousness or theistic. It can only see the results. Attempts to state what agency might or might not exist based on science is not part of science. It is called scientism, and scientism is extremely common among both naive theists, and naive atheists. Like you.
I can't wait for responses to this post, though I am not optimistic.
"As usual... it depends."
d3r31nz1g3
Posts: 122
Joined: November 19th, 2022, 11:39 am

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by d3r31nz1g3 »

ernestm wrote: November 20th, 2022, 8:46 pm
d3r31nz1g3 wrote: November 19th, 2022, 12:59 pm
Atreyu wrote: July 19th, 2015, 3:25 am Excellent points. I agree.

I do not dispute that natural selection and genetic drift play some role in the change of species over time. But to think that that is all there is to it is absurd, and precisely because of the reasons you just delineated. Obviously there is much more to it than science could ever suppose, and their model cannot adequately explain the growth and formation of entirely new "functional infrastructures" such as limbs, wings, eyes, ears, etc. The standard explanation
What do you mean? According to all evidential reality that IS all there is to it.

Through an incredibly slow "process" robotics incarnated the building blocks of life and very slowly, through natural selection exclusively, formed in to larger and more advanced robotical forms.

It was simply how slow it all occurred and it was all the application of robotic functions to environment and survival.
This is a very common misconception of science, and I repeated this at least 20 times this week alone, so hopefully i am getting better at stating it.

Science explains how things happen. All its theories are inductions. Now I have to actually point out that an induction is not the same as a deduction. An INDUCTION is NOT A CAUSE. Science makes no statement of cause. An induction is a method in formal logic for formulating an abstraction of relations between states and events that generalizes from empirically observed specifics. For an induction to be scientific, it must be testable. INDUCTIVE REASONING first declares the induction as VALID, and by evidence, CORROBORATED. There is no way to prove an induction true, that is necessary according to the rules of formal propositional logic.

Evolution as science, rather than scientism, is exactly such an induction. From it, generalizations can be made to describe and predict observed events. That's all science does. It cannot make any statement about AGENCY, that is, it cannot make statements of CAUSES. In formal logic, CAUSES are different from INDUCTIONS in that they are considered to need an agent. That's not how CAUSE is often used in natural language, but science does not rely on populist definitions of such words, it has its own vocabulary defined by formal logic as to what is TRUE, FALSE, and VALID.

Thus theories such as evolution are not true or false. They are valid or invalid. FOR EXAMPLE, the induction that the earth was the center of the solar system is still a theory. It was never invalidated. When you see a sunrise, you are seeing a demonstration of the validity of the theory that the earth is the center of the solar system. Subsequently, Newtonian physics provided simpler explanations for the movement of planets in the solar system that are useful for other purposes, such as sending rockets to the moon. In fact, ANY point can be regarded as a 'center' in Euclidean space, for which different scientific theories are more, or less, valid depending on the context and purpose of the observation being explained. In science, the concept that anything is a necessary center in any way at all is now called 'a 'Copernican fallacy.'

Likewise, there could be explanations of why animals choose mates that are not theological, but still teleological. That means, animals could have their own purpose in choosing mates. They could have a sense of beauty. They could have personal likes and dislikes. The former is more disputed, but in herd species its now rather established that animals make choices between mates on many occasions.

The theory of evolution is considered very useful because it unifies many disciplines in biology, from animal behavior to microbiology. One subtheory in evolution is natural selection. There are other possible selection processes. Currently, virtually everyone working in evolution assumes that natural selection is the only source of 'selection pressure' (paradigmatically, it should be \called 'selection force'). Other selection forces may be in operation, but mostly they are difficult to measure empirically.

AS WELL AS there being other possible selection forces, there is also the fact that science has no ability to assess any type of agency, consciousness or theistic. It can only see the results. Attempts to state what agency might or might not exist based on science is not part of science. It is called scientism, and scientism is extremely common among both naive theists, and naive atheists. Like you.
Fairly certain that robotics and logic indicate that evolution occurred exclusively by trial and error.

Or through perhaps pre-encoded forms and technologies.
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Ruskin wrote: July 12th, 2015, 1:59 pm I would never support young Earth Creationism but I find it of some interest that Creationists do generally accept Darwins natural selection they just see it as a minor modification within a particular related group of organisms. So for instance if you were to take Darwins Finches shown below they are quite happy to accept that this was brought about by natural selection and adaptation to their environment and food sources.


[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8xVTEt69rD0/UeBF8bh93lI/AAAAAAAAAKM/0LMthGEvbzc/s1600/adaptive-radiation.gif[/img]

The argument they would make here is that you have natural selection and you have different finches they aren't accumulating genetic changes toward anything that isn't a finch or something that isn't even a bird. The natural selection is only operating on the genetic structure of a particular kind of bird which in this case is a finch. So regardless of how long you would leave this natural selection to occur you would ever have on your hands would be a group of finches living on different islands. They wouldn't become anything else through random genetic mutation and selection upon that change because there isn't any non-finch or non-bird genetic material entering the population and building towards something entirely new. Another similar point is you can breed all kinds of different dogs but all you can ever breed from dogs are dogs you couldn't eventually breed a dog into a cat even if you had millions of years in which to do it. They would say to conclude that given a million years you could change dogs to cats is an assumption without any evidental basis in anything that can be observed. So this may be interest it's even if it's coming from people who believe in a literal Adam and Eve and Noahs Ark.
Yes! There are indeed a lot of problems with Darwin's theory. First and foremost, he only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one/ex nihilo. Then there are all sorts of qualitative properties or entities that correspond with biological organisms themselves, like humans, which in-turn confer little if any biological survival advantages. You know, like understanding the laws of gravity, music theory, instinct versus the Will, and other quality of life stuff important for human survival and the species. Purposeful anthropic kinds of stuff! Of course, existentially, we know people without a quality of life or purpose who often choose either to live, thrive, and/or propagate, or not live and choose to die.

Beyond that, he never reconciled the paradox associated with the opposing conceptual landscapes of information and matter. Remember, emergence itself corresponds to genetically coded instruction for self-organized, self-directed propagation of the species. I think the biggest takeaway from Darwin is the concept of emergence. Like many theories relative the nature of reality or existence, it's only a half-theory.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
User avatar
Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD
Posts: 230
Joined: December 14th, 2023, 6:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD »

Raymond wrote: April 10th, 2022, 5:14 am
Darwinian evolution is dogmatic. It's modern incarnation, the kind of evolution propagated by Dawkins, is based on the dogma the dogma that that the information between DNA and the organism is unidirectional, which means that the organism can't influence the structure of DNA. Only accidental mutations of DNA will cause changes in the organism. The organism cannot have an influence on the structure of DNA. Which of course is the question, hence the dogma.

This dogma is well suited for people with a certain attitude (the Atheists).
The Atheists had been desperate to come up
with a materialistic-atheistic alternative to God creating all Life.

Darwinian Evolution is NOT a scientific theory for a simple
reason that it is NOT experimentally testable.

Small genetic variations among populations of the Finches (birds)
is NOT a scientific evidence of Darwinian Evolution of species.

So, what is Darwinian Evolution, really ?

Darwinian Evolution is a Religion of the Atheists
and of the Scientific Materialists. :D

DOES GOD EXIST ???

I remain an Agnostic in respect to this issue.

However, there have been more than enough of scientific evidence
in support of the scientific theory of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.




Dr. Bernardo Kastrup — Materialism is baloney!!! :D
Youtube. com/watch?v=FcPyTgLILqA

Dr. Jonathan Österman, Ph.D., ETH Zürich, Switzerland

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7089
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: December 17th, 2023, 2:13 pm
However, there have been more than enough of scientific evidence
in support of the scientific theory of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.


The idea of intelligent design is a non starter when you have a little knoweldge of natural history.
There are so many oddities that no intelligence would have eer allowed as to make the idea completely absurd.
User avatar
Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD
Posts: 230
Joined: December 14th, 2023, 6:07 pm
Favorite Philosopher: The BUDDHA
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Could the theory of Darwinian evolution be mistaken?

Post by Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 17th, 2023, 8:25 pm
Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD wrote: December 17th, 2023, 2:13 pm
However, there have been more than enough of scientific evidence
in support of the scientific theory of INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
The idea of intelligent design is a non starter when you have a little knoweldge of natural history.
There are so many oddities that no intelligence would have eer allowed as to make the idea completely absurd.
Sculptor, listen carefully, because I will tell you
which idea is a non starter, pal.

The idea that a single living cell could be naturally
evolved via RANDOM mutations into Homo sapiens
over a mere 4 billion years is much worse than a non starter.
It is a step backward, a natural counter-evolution,
or de-evolution, of human intelligence. :D


Dr. Bernardo Kastrup — Materialism is baloney!!! :D
Youtube. com/watch?v=FcPyTgLILqA

Dr. Jonathan Österman, Ph.D., ETH Zürich, Switzerland

Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021