Is evolution a valid theory?

[Job-12.7]

I am a former user from the time of The Thinking Atheist. The reason I am back here is very simple: I want to challenge people who believe evolution is a valid theory—not just by today’s standards but by any standards. However, I’m not going to do that by engaging in useless discussions where each camp presents their “watertight” arguments, both sides being genuinely surprised by the lack of understanding from the other side. Moreover, the reason one might have when trying to “convince” someone else about a certain “truth” is always questionable:

Why do you even care what the other people believe? Let them believe whatever they want and you mind your own business! Live and let live!

I would, if what they believe didn’t affect me personally.

How does someone’s belief in evolution affect you personally?”

Simple: I like to watch documentaries and little else—mostly about wildlife.

Good for you!

And it really bothers me when I hear the ludicrous commentary—the “evolutionary” explanation—about a certain animal’s “amazing” behavior.

If it bothers you that much, maybe you should stop watching those documentaries and watch something more relaxing instead... I’ve heard Tom and Jerry cartoons are quite nice and pretty much free of controversial, potentially bothersome content.

Thanks for the suggestion, but we’ll call that plan C.

Plan C? Why not B?

Because sometimes things are not what you expect them to B. C what I did there?

Nice!

There’s plenty more where that came from, so if you found that “nice,” you might as well take a few minutes to read something I’ve written.

Why would I want to do that? Life is too short as it is and I have other things to do.

Fair enough. But I already took the trouble of writing the thing, so I’m going to post it just in case you change your mind.

Thanks!

And if you can’t or don’t want or don’t have time to read it, maybe there are other people here whose conviction about the “truth” is so strong that they won’t feel threatened in any way by the content of my paper.

Is that a dare? “If you believe in evolution so strongly, I dare you to read this!”

I was thinking more of a challenge, but you can take it whichever way you like, my friend!

I’m not your friend.

But I don’t want you to be my enemy either, so let’s meet somewhere in the middle.

What’s in the middle of friend and enemy?
 
I don’t know. Why don’t you surprise me?


PS. I'm new here and I don't know how/where to attach a PDF file for the others to read, so I'd really appreciate some guidance in that regard. Thanks in advance!

[Dānu]

Text too small to read.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not interested in wading through a miasma of misstatements and untruths, which always form the basis of arguments against evolution by natural selection. Enjoy your thread.

[epronovost]

I am a former user from the time of The Thinking Atheist. The reason I am back here is very simple: I want to challenge people who believe evolution is a valid theory—not just by today’s standards but by any standards.

This has got to take the prize for over ambitious statement. The modern synthesis of evolution is not a valid theory by ANY standards. Well, I'm sorry to say that it's a valid theory by the standard of those calling it a theory (the scientific community in that case) thus the modern synthesis of evolution is a valid theory by at least one standard. You might not like that standard, but you said ANY standard. Fuck I could go even further and call it a theory by my own personal standard which, while it might be a terrible standard, is still a standard.

[Paleophyte]

Is electromagnetism a valid theory? Stick your tongue in an electrical socket and find out!

Why do you even care what the other people believe? Let them believe whatever they want and you mind your own business! Live and let live!

I would, if what they believe didn’t affect me personally.

And yet here you are, seeking us out. I'm going to suggest that it has a lot more to do with you seeking validation than anything else. I know how it'd look if an atheist showed up at your church and started carrying on about how Paul hijacked your religion.

PS. I'm new here and I don't know how/where to attach a PDF file for the others to read, so I'd really appreciate some guidance in that regard.

Well, good news, you saved the mods some time clipping it out of your post. I suggest that you read the rules before posting any further. Also, the format of your post was pretty unreadable.

[Antonio]

Are you a project manager on a construction site? That how I interpret your name

Come back when you're on job 12.8

[Fireball]

The OP is some weak-ass AI.

[Kim]

Well, Mom would just say, "Shoo Fly" & wait for someone to swing the hammer.  

If anyone feels like a new chewtoy is necessary, have at it.  Otherwise, it's already just boring.

[brewerb]

Hiya Job. How about slowing your roll and telling us something about yourself in an introduction thread. It may or may not help, looks like some bridges have already been burnt.

[Fireball]

Well, I started out as a processor for an early model chess game...

[Astreja]

I am a former user from the time of The Thinking Atheist. The reason I am back here is very simple: I want to challenge people who believe evolution is a valid theory—not just by today’s standards but by any standards.

My brother is a microbiologist with a doctorate in genetics.  I've seen actual physical evidence of the evolution of a cell culture into two different strains, caused by environmental variation.

Evolution is real.  It is a scientific fact.  The "theory" part is "We're still trying to figure out how and why it happens."

[Mathilda]

PS. I'm new here and I don't know how/where to attach a PDF file for the others to read, so I'd really appreciate some guidance in that regard. Thanks in advance!

Please don't attach or post PDFs.

[Minimalist]

I am a former user 

What drugs were you using?  They have done some serious damage.

[Reltzik]

There’s plenty more where that came from, so if you found that “nice,” you might as well take a few minutes to read something I’ve written.

Why would I want to do that? Life is too short as it is and I have other things to do.

Fair enough. But I already took the trouble of writing the thing, so I’m going to post it just in case you change your mind.

Thanks!

And if you can’t or don’t want or don’t have time to read it, maybe there are other people here whose conviction about the “truth” is so strong that they won’t feel threatened in any way by the content of my paper.

Is that a dare? “If you believe in evolution so strongly, I dare you to read this!”

Last time we had someone on this board giving us a dare (by whatever name) of this sort, it was some guy trying to prove Trinitarianism on the grounds that... the number 3 has some interesting properties in digital roots done in base-10 positional number systems.

Taking that seriously enough to wade through it was one of the worst wastes of our time in a long while.

Lesson:  When someone tries get us to read their stuff with snide assumptions that us not wanting to must be a sign that we're "threatened", that's a big red flag that engaging this person is even less worth our time than we thought it was going to be otherwise.

In any event, this is the wrong forum for that.  Since your original post was talking about science, rather than theism, when you do figure out how to post it you should probably post it in the "Science, Engineering, and Math" forum rather than the "Atheism & Theism" forum.  ... actually, you probably shouldn't post it at all, but if you're going to, that would be the place to do it.

[Rhythmcs]

The creatonists are multiplying. It's not even spring.

[Minimalist]

So are the rats.

[Mathilda]

The creatonists are multiplying.  It's not even spring.

Unfortunately they're not evolving.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Show ContentSpoiler:

I am a former user from the time of The Thinking Atheist. The reason I am back here is very simple: I want to challenge people who believe evolution is a valid theory—not just by today’s standards but by any standards.

However, I’m not going to do that by engaging in useless discussions where each camp presents their “watertight” arguments, both sides being genuinely surprised by the lack of understanding from the other side.

Show ContentSpoiler:

Moreover, the reason one might have when trying to “convince” someone else about a certain “truth” is always questionable:

Why do you even care what the other people believe? Let them believe whatever they want and you mind your own business! Live and let live!

I would, if what they believe didn’t affect me personally.

How does someone’s belief in evolution affect you personally?”

Simple: I like to watch documentaries and little else—mostly about wildlife.

Good for you!

And it really bothers me when I hear the ludicrous commentary—the “evolutionary” explanation—about a certain animal’s “amazing” behavior.

If it bothers you that much, maybe you should stop watching those documentaries and watch something more relaxing instead... I’ve heard Tom and Jerry cartoons are quite nice and pretty much free of controversial, potentially bothersome content.

Thanks for the suggestion, but we’ll call that plan C.

Plan C? Why not B?

Because sometimes things are not what you expect them to B. C what I did there?

Nice!

There’s plenty more where that came from, so if you found that “nice,” you might as well take a few minutes to read something I’ve written.

Why would I want to do that? Life is too short as it is and I have other things to do.

Fair enough. But I already took the trouble of writing the thing, so I’m going to post it just in case you change your mind.

Thanks!

And if you can’t or don’t want or don’t have time to read it, maybe there are other people here whose conviction about the “truth” is so strong that they won’t feel threatened in any way by the content of my paper.

Is that a dare? “If you believe in evolution so strongly, I dare you to read this!”

I was thinking more of a challenge, but you can take it whichever way you like, my friend!

I’m not your friend.

But I don’t want you to be my enemy either, so let’s meet somewhere in the middle.

What’s in the middle of friend and enemy?
 
I don’t know. Why don’t you surprise me?


PS. I'm new here and I don't know how/where to attach a PDF file for the others to read, so I'd really appreciate some guidance in that regard. Thanks in advance!

Good, because there's really no discussion to be had. We have evidence, you have willful ignorance. Of course, even if you could disprove evolution, that does nothing to further whatever argument you're trying to make for your particular flavor of gawd.

[Paleophyte]

In any event, this is the wrong forum for that.  Since your original post was talking about science, rather than theism, when you do figure out how to post it you should probably post it in the "Science, Engineering, and Math" forum rather than the "Atheism & Theism" forum.  ... actually, you probably shouldn't post it at all, but if you're going to, that would be the place to do it.

Please don't pollute the Science forum. I've passed wind with more scientific merit than this drek.

[Kim]

I don't know about anyone else but ... I don't care for the look of that fucker's font.  

[Job-12.7]

I'm not interested in wading through a miasma of misstatements and untruths, which always form the basis of arguments against evolution by natural selection. Enjoy your thread.

My friend, who said anything about wading? If you want wading, try reading On the Origin of Species (all 250 pages of it!), which I'm pretty sure you haven't read. See? I made an assumption there, and it may or may not be true. However, predetermining the value/content of something before you even sample it is definitely not a way to get to the truth, which is what we are all seeking here... (another assumption)

The basic arguments against evolution by natural selection is not a "miasma of misstatements and untruths," as you so confidently declare, but the statements of the theory itself which invalidate it the moment they are stated. In a nutshell, the statements evolution makes lead to an infinite regression which renders the theory a practical impossibility. 

Guess who questioned the validity of Darwin's theory more than anyone else? Darwin himself! I'll copy-paste a few extracts from the aforementioned book and let you "wade" through them at your own pace... maybe next time you'll think twice before assuming something for the sole purpose of preserving your predetermined convictions. 

From On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin:
 
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration."
It hasn't been shown, it has been forcefully presumed in order for the theory to be "consistent" with the facts. And rolling up our sleeved and getting to work in order to find out HOW (as Richard Dawkins likes to say) is not going to help either, cause a practical impossibility remains a practical impossibility no matter how many sleeves you roll up.

"Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, &c., as the only possible cause of variation. In one very limited sense, as we shall hereafter see, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees."
Natural selection is supposed to have "selected" something that already existed, but how can you invoke it to account for that "something" in the first place? Do you see the incongruousness of the claim? The theory of evolution is supposed to have worked by natural selection but the animals had to already exist when "evolution" made the very first "selection."

“In the case of the misseltoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself.” 
The word preposterous used twice in reference to the justification of an animal/plant's existence by natural selection.

By the way, I didn't misspell mistletoe. That was the spelling in the original text.

[Dexta]

Do you believe dinosaurs roamed the earth 100s of millions of years before humans existed, Job?

[Dexta]

I'm not interested in wading through a miasma of misstatements and untruths, which always form the basis of arguments against evolution by natural selection. Enjoy your thread.

My friend, who said anything about wading? If you want wading, try reading On the Origin of Species (all 250 pages of it!), which I'm pretty sure you haven't read. See? I made an assumption there, and it may or may not be true. However, predetermining the value/content of something before you even sample it is definitely not a way to get to the truth, which is what we are all seeking here... (another assumption)

The basic arguments against evolution by natural selection is not a "miasma of misstatements and untruths," as you so confidently declare, but the statements of the theory itself which invalidate it the moment they are stated. In a nutshell, the statements evolution makes lead to an infinite regression which renders the theory a practical impossibility. 

Guess who questioned the validity of Darwin's theory more than anyone else? Darwin himself! I'll copy-paste a few extracts from the aforementioned book and let you "wade" through them at your own pace... maybe next time you'll think twice before assuming something for the sole purpose of preserving your predetermined convictions. 

From On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin:
 
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration."
It hasn't been shown, it has been forcefully presumed in order for the theory to be "consistent" with the facts. And rolling up our sleeved and getting to work in order to find out HOW (as Richard Dawkins likes to say) is not going to help either, cause a practical impossibility remains a practical impossibility no matter how many sleeves you roll up.

"Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, &c., as the only possible cause of variation. In one very limited sense, as we shall hereafter see, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees."
Natural selection is supposed to have "selected" something that already existed, but how can you invoke it to account for that "something" in the first place? Do you see the incongruousness of the claim? The theory of evolution is supposed to have worked by natural selection but the animals had to already exist when "evolution" made the very first "selection."

“In the case of the misseltoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself.” 
The word preposterous used twice in reference to the justification of an animal/plant's existence by natural selection.

By the way, I didn't misspell mistletoe. That was the spelling in the original text.

This is a new level of desperation from a creationist: arguing that OTOOS actually argues AGAINST evolution through natural selection. Wow.

[Mathilda]

I'm not interested in wading through a miasma of misstatements and untruths, which always form the basis of arguments against evolution by natural selection. Enjoy your thread.

My friend, who said anything about wading? If you want wading, try reading On the Origin of Species (all 250 pages of it!), which I'm pretty sure you haven't read. See? I made an assumption there, and it may or may not be true. However, predetermining the value/content of something before you even sample it is definitely not a way to get to the truth, which is what we are all seeking here... (another assumption)

I'm an evolutionary scientist and even I haven't read On the Origin of Species. Why would I? There's been plenty of work since then that builds and refines the theory that's far more useful.

And this is the point. It's not about whether a theory is valid or not but whether it's useful. If it is useful then that's a good indicator of how correct it is.

And what do I mean by useful?

Does it have explanatory power? (god-theory doesn't have that).

Can it predict things? (god-theory doesn't do that).

Can it be used in practice (god-theory has no practical application).

God-theory isn't useful. The theory of evolution is.


Let's take another example, Einstein's theory of general relativity.

It explains Mercury's strange orbit.

It can predict Mercury's position better than Newton's theories.

And it's used in practice for GPS, which wouldn't otherwise be able to work.

Valid scientific theories can explain, predict and be used in practice. None of which can be said of a belief in a god.

[brewerb]

We know micro evolution exists, one form is antibiotic resistance (see Astreja post). It sounds like Job's position is that with, macro evolution, he needs to see it before he'll believe it. 

If that's the hill he wants to die on, fine by me. However, that position kind of fucks up the whole 'god exists' thingy.