DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

Like this?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ZEN-SOLID-amid-56C-conditions-Kazakhstan.html

 

It's a good reflection on what it is now. However it's far from being an accurate description of truth. What humans confirmed and accepted are results under human capability. So the definition above can only be accurate for those phenomena completely under our control.

A scientific fact is closely tied to how our brain shall accept a truth to a level beyond doubt. Our brain can reckon a truth as scientifically true simply because science is all about how a repeatable phenomenon behaves. If we can predict the next occurrence of its repetition without mistake, then our brain will have to accept that the "tool" used to predict this not yet occurred instance is holding a truth. This is the true nature of the predictability of science. In a nutshell, only when such a prediction keeps coming to pass that our brain is "forced" to accept it as a truth as it can't be anything else.

On the other hand, the prediction itself is not an arbitrary one. It's a prediction on how the phenomenon repeats but not something else. It's a prediction on an end-to-end complete cycle of the repetition.

That said, and for an example. BBT is confirmed and accepted only under our human capability. So by the definition quoted in OP, it's thus to humans a scientific fact. However as a repeatable phenomenon, we can't predict how this phenomenon repeats by making a big bang happen repeatedly for us to make a prediction on a not yet occurred big bang instance, BBT can't be a truth at a level beyond doubt. It's because of the this unconfirmable nature of BBT that other theories can co-exist. If on the other hand BBT is truly confirmed, all other theories are considered falsified as there can only be one truth on how our universe started.

 

Micro-evolution is about how species keep changing alongside our environment. In certain cases, micro-evolution can be repeatedly predictable. It's thus scientific. Macro-evolution is about a repeatable phenomenon which we cannot yet make it actually repeat by our human capability. It's thus at best a human consensus as BBT.

It can actually be logically falsified.

We all know that lion and tiger interbreeding gives liger. After billion years of micro-evolution (and possibly waves of interbreeding), can our theory at hand (which is ToE) tell apart that the billion-year-evolved liger is actually not from a single cell? ToE can't. All ToE can come up to is that this evolved (billion years) liger can only be evolved from a single cell.
So if a scientific theory can consistently be demonstrated to get to a wrong conclusion, it is thus falsified!!!

 

That is so convoluted I cant tell if you are trying to support or deny evolution...could you clarify?

 

Cite please.

 

Lions and tigers haven't been separate species long enough to totally preclude interbreeding.

However, Ligers can not breed more ligers. The two species have evolved separately and now are too far apart to have fertile progeny.

Tigers, lions, humans, fir trees, salmon - NONE of these are an evolutionary conclusion. Evolution does not have a goal and it does not have a conclusion. Humans are evolving today - like other life forms.

How that relates to "single cell" is clearly stated in the theory of evolution. I don't know what you are trying to say with that.

 

There is nothing that says a specific case of macroevolution must be repeatable.

Let's remember that in the main, macroevolution comes about through numerous microevolutionary events over periods of many generations. A population of one species gets divided (by food, mountains, or whatever) and the two populations gradually drift apart through microevolutionary events over many generations - with the micro changes not getting spread to the other population.

Since a tiger generation isn't that different from a human generation, we're not going to be able to watch tigers evolve very much.

 

Facts are documented observations. But, they certainly are not accepted as true.

Not even theories are accepted as true. They are accepted as the best answer, but are always available to be proven false.

There could be all sorts of reasons for an observation to be discarded. And, an observation such as a temperature recorded by a specific method at a specific time and place can not be "repeated". It would take logic to decide if a "repeated" observation was indeed repeated (whatever repeated could possibly mean) and facts are NOT the result of logic.

Facts are recorded observations.

 

WillReadmore:

Your above comment, bolded in red, translates to fairytale. Nobody knew what the early environments were. Stanley Miller speculated. This is confirmed by Science Daily, at paragraphs 1 and 2 when you click the weblink.

"The study discovered a path from simple to complex compounds amid Earth's prebiotic soup. More than 4 billion years ago, amino acids could have been attached together, forming peptides. These peptides ultimately may have led to the proteins and enzymes necessary for life's biochemistry, as we know it.

In the new study, scientists analyzed samples from an experiment Miller performed in 1958. To the reaction flask, Miller added a chemical that at the time wasn't widely thought to have been available on early Earth."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140625132629.htm

Now, pray, tell, how anyone could possibly have known what earth's atmosphere was like 4 BILLION years ago.

Alter2Ego

 

WillReadmore:

I gave you the definition of "scientific fact" from an independent source. Below is another independent source.

"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow."
https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work​

I suggest you write to the two sources and tell them your opinion that, to quote you:

Be sure and inform the rest of us within this thread as to their response.

Alter2Ego

 

Distraff:

Stanley Miller could not have simulated the early earth environment because he wasn't there. He merely speculated. To top it off, he proved that it requires the intervention of an intelligent being to guide the outcome--Miller being the intelligent being who intervened and who guided the outcome.

Don't forget, the argument of atheists is that that life appeared by itself WITHOUT the intervention of Jehovah.

Alter2Ego

 

We know the early earth environment from the rocks and fossils we find. Miller did not guide the formation of these chemicals, he simple set up the environment and let them form completely on their own, given the right environment, they will form on their own. We find these building blocks in many meteorites, we so know they are being formed naturally in our solar system.

 

Our k-12 education system is a mess and this is part of it.

Note that your cite says that a fact is an observation. That is the correct answer.

But, THEN it suggests repeated observations can form something accepted as "true". How can an observation NOT be "true"? If my thermometer says it's 32F, that is what my thermometer said, period. Suggesting it is NOT 32F would require a process involving logic, testing, confidence levels, assurance of accuracy of the numerous methods of temperature measurement, questions concerning what is actually wanted (the temp just outside my window? in the field next to the town?), etc. - FAR more than an observation and fully subject to the full range of natural effects, objectives, methods, etc., that science must address. THAT comes with hypotheses and testing.

The best "truth" from science is theory. Suggesting there is a back door to "true" through repeated observation that involves no testing, no logical analysis, no review, etc., is at the very least an improper assessment of what your cite is suggesting. But, worse than that your cite is at the very least hugely misleading.

Facts are observations. Not all observations may agree. But, that is just part of being an observation. More observations are better than fewer observations, but all observations are facts. They happened.

Look at NOAA or NASA data on temperature - collections of observations. You will see outliers. Those observations were not simply discarded in favor of what someone thought was "true" as these data were gathered.

 

I don't understand your point here.

One guy did some experiments. There is no possibility that his experiments could have falsified the idea of natural abiogenesis. The most you could gather from this is that he didn't succeed in forming life using his techniques within the duration of the experiment - which was far less than the billion years that nature had.

 

Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky, Doubleday 1950, Pocket Book edition 1977 pg. 43.

 

WillReadmore:

No human existed 4 billion years ago to know what the earth's atmosphere was like. Therefore, Miller's experiment DID NOT replicate earth's previous atmosphere. What is it about that don't you get?

QUESTION #1 TO WillReadmore: Did Stanley Miller (or anybody else for that matter) know what Earth's early atmosphere was like--4 BILLION YEARS AGO--in order to replicate it in the laboratory? YES or NO.

I will watch for your answer to Question #1.

Alter2Ego

 

WillReadmore:

There is no such thing as "natural abiogenesis." Abiogenesis requires that nobody can intervene to guide the outcome.

DEFINITION OF ABIOGENESIS:
" the origin of life from nonliving matter"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abiogenesis

abiogenesis
[ ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh- ]
|
noun
"the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter.Compare biogenesis."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/abiogenesis

abiogenesis
"The theory of ‘spontaneous generation’-the long-discarded notion that living organisms can be formed from non-living matter. Louis Pasteur's work (see PASTEURIZATION) did much to overthrow this idea which wasbased largely on the observation that maggots often appeared on rotting meat." (Source: Collins Dictionary of Medicine)​

As all reading this thread can see, abiogenesis is defined as life coming to life from nonliving matter--BY ITSELF, a theory that has been DISCREDITED, according to dictionary.com and that has been LONG-DISCARDED, according to Collins Dictionary of Medicine.

Stanley Miller proved that it requires the intervention of an intelligent being (Miller himself) so that anything would happen. What happened in his case was that he produced a few amino acids from PRE-EXISTING materials but failed to produce anything resembling life.

QUESTION #2 TO WillReadmore: Where did the pre-existing materials come from that Stanley Miller was forced to use in his experiments, since he clearly did not create those materials?

 

WillReadmore:

I suggest you write to all of the scientific dictionaries and all scientists in academia who reject theory as "the best truth," while they believe scientific fact is more reliable than scientific theory.

Alter2Ego

 

Distraff:

Nobody knows what earth's environment was 4 billion years ago, based upon rocks and fossils. Why not? Because even the dates given to rocks and fossils are based upon speculation.

Try again.

Alter2Ego

 

Distraff:

Wrong. Miller guided the outcome. He guided formation of a few amino acids, using materials that pre-existed, and he did all this in a controlled, laboratory environment:

"The Miller-Urey Experiment
[paragraph 3]
Miller connected two sterile, glass flasks by a series of glass tubes. One flask contained water and the dissolved molecules. This flask was heated, and the water vapor and gases released into the tubing. They could freely move into the second flask, which was sparked by electrodes to simulate lightning strikes. The gases were then condensed into a liquid that was carried back to the original flask. The cycle went on continuously for two weeks."
https://study.com/academy/lesson/stanley-miller-theory-experiment-apparatus.html​

According to the above quoted source, under paragraph 3 of the subheading The Miller-Urey Experiment, not only did Stanley Miller control the experiment within a laboratory, he intervened when he "CONNECTED two sterile, glass flasks by a series of glass tubes." He then further intervened by using a heated flask to produce water vapor and gases that were then released into tubing.

Not only did sterile glass flasks and glass tubes NOT exist 4 Billion years ago during Earth's early atmosphere--because those are all man-made materials and no humans existed at the time to create glass flasks and glass tubes--but since there were no glass flasks in existence 4 Billion years ago within which to heat water and produce water vapor, and since there was no glass tubing into which the resulting gases could then be released, Miller guided the outcome, using man-made materials.

MILLER FAILED TO PRODUCE LIFE DESPITE HIS INTERVENTION. What he proved was that it required the intervention of an intelligent being (Miller himself) to produce the few amino acids he got.

So come back again with your ridiculous claim that "Miller did not guide the formation of these chemicals."

Alter2Ego

 

Thanks. That figures. I'm not so sure he has EVER gotten anything right, and that's not a surprising result when methods of science are not used in exploring how things work.

 

Speculation based on logical data far exceeds fantasy based on ancient myth.

 

I absolutely DO get that. (With the exception that we can know quite a lot about early earth due to records laid down in rock, what we have today, and other factors.)

Remember that I am the one who stated that ANY failure to create life does not support an assumption that life required supernatural help.

I think you cited Miller in support of your attack on abiogenesis. I'm saying that nothing Miller did (or could possibly have done) could disprove abiogenesis.

 

More "Speculation".

 

I added the redundent "natural" for clarity and emphasis.

Again, nothing Miller did could possibly have disproved abiogenesis.

Your question #2 is irrlevant to the question of abiogenesis being possible.

If you were to successfully discredit his work it would NOT disprove abiogenesis. So, I don't see any reason to delve into exactly what Miller did or didn't do.

Failing to create something doesn't mean it is impossible to create something. People fail in attempts to create stuff all the time, and then someone figures out how to do it.