Major component of evolution theory proven wrong

[Immortal4life]

[ralis]

Major component of evolution theory proven wrong

 

Video about cells

 

It would seem these days that they are still teaching people in schools that they have "plant" DNA and "bacteria" DNA in them, meaning that we were at one time more like plants, and even before that point we were more like bacteria than humans.

 

As evidence for this claim, the textbooks claim people have cells in them which were "swallowed" by other cells at some point in the past. They say in the past that a plant cell "swallowed" the bacteria cell, or that one bacteria cell swallowed another bacteria cell, and that led to evolution or is somehow a mechanism that would make macro-evolution possible. They claim the plant cells or Eukaryotes somehow directly came out of bacteria cells or Prokaryotes. They call this the "endosymbiosis" components of the theory of evolution.

 

Evidence which debunks this notion was discovered back in 2003 when for the first time, scientists found a free-floating organelle inside a primitive cell.

 

Sorry, you don't have "plant" DNA in you. Your great grandfather x 100000000000000000, wasn't a plant. Just because plants came later than bacteria doesn't mean plants came directly out of bacteria, or that plants were created by bacteria cells swallowing each other. In fact, if this actually did ever occur, the swallowed cell would be instantly destroyed.

 

Scientists have found an organelle - an enclosed free-floating specialized structure - inside a primitive cell for the first time-

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Cell evolution puzzle

 

 

New discovery contradicts theory of evolution-

Clearwisdom.net - Selected Photos: Scientific Universe : Life Sciences

 

Oh Shit!

 

The Endosymbiosis Hypothesis and Its Invalidity. The new discoveries throw doubt on the idea it could ever be possible

Darwinism Refuted.com

 

 

So do you still believe your great great grandfather x 100000000 was a bacteria flagellum?

 

 

Your clear wisdom site is sponsored by Falun Dafa and the Darwin refuted site is more religious than scientific! In fact, Harun Yahya the author of the site believes evolution is some communist plot.

 

I get the impression that you are an intelligent design advocate and are opposed to science. Just admit it! BTW, where were you educated?

[Immortal4life]

I am not an advocate of what most people would think of as Intelligent Design. Certainly not young earth creationism. I am not opposed to science, but rather, would like to see it expand and develop into the science of the future and the science of this century. A more spiritual, intuitive, and advanced science, as opposed to the purely materialistic, outdated, and old science of the last century. I don't think your attempts to figure me out or read me are particularly accurate.

 

Intelligent design however, does sometimes get misrepresented as being creationism. Inteligent design can mean many different things. For example, Crick, the man who discovered DNA, proposed a theory that life on Earth was seeded by extra terrestrials. That would technically be a type of Intelligent Design theory. However, many christian or biased proponents of Intellient Design are not likely big fans of such a theory.

 

Falun Dafa sites are often great resources. I have found that many scientific professionals write articles on their sites. When it comes to science, don't underestimate these chinese guys. I have also found that chinese scientists are usually not as dogmatic or set in their ways as western scientists, and are not as afraid of merging spirituality, intuition, revelation, and material science together, to advance science for the future world. As science advances, and as human culture advances, the science and history of manknd will begin to resemble what is currently today shown on the Falun Dafa sites. They are ahead of their time, and more advanced, in that sense.

 

Harun Yaha.... not going to comment too much, other than saying that they have cited their sources and you can look them up, so the alleged "biases" of Harun Yaha itself are not all that relevant.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Immortal4life

[doc benway]

I am not opposed to science, but rather, would like to see it expand and develop into the science of the future and the science of this century. A more spiritual, intuitive, and advanced science, as opposed to the purely materialistic, outdated, and old science of the last century.

Science is short hand for "the scientific method." As much as I dislike many wiki articles, the article on the scientific method is pretty good and here is the intro -

 

"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

 

Spirituality and intuition are mostly exempt from the scientific method by necessity due to the lack of observable, empirical, and measurable evidence. This is unlikely to change any time soon. As much as you would like to see science include such ambiguous and subjective fields as these, it would be of absolutely no value. It would not be an expansion of the scientific method. It would render the scientific method useless and return us to the dark ages. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not something that the majority of folks living in modern society would be interested in.

 

There is great value in spiritual and intuitive pursuits and there is great value in the scientific method. Trying to mix the two is an exercise in futility and benefits neither, IMO. Perhaps that will change in time but, to be honest, I have no need of science while practicing Daoist meditation and I have no need of spirituality in performing a scientific experiment. Ultimately, I believe both methods point to the same truths though different avenues. Mixing the two compromises each and adds nothing at this point.

[gendao]

I am not an advocate of what most people would think of as Intelligent Design. Certainly not young earth creationism. I am not opposed to science, but rather, would like to see it expand and develop into the science of the future and the science of this century. A more spiritual, intuitive, and advanced science, as opposed to the purely materialistic, outdated, and old science of the last century. I don't think your attempts to figure me out or read me are particularly accurate.

Again, this highlights the generation gap and inability of Baby Boomers to peer beyond their old polarized filters here. Where, any talk questioning evolution immediately gets one labeled as a "Christian Creationist" - because that is the only duality they recognize - and thus project upon others.

 

Nevermind the fact that this is a Taoist site where all sorts of (majority non-Christian) spiritual people seek a new integration/intersection of spirituality & science and even believe in many siddhis and phenomena that science currently labels pure bunk.

 

But still - you dare question evolution - then you MUST be a Bible-thumping Fundy (in their minds)!

 

When in fact, it's not the same usual suspects here at all - but in a way, represents coming back a full circle while a spiraling up a level.. Similar, yet different.

 

BTW, I'm not taking a stance in the debate here - just noting the knee-jerk reactionism of "outdated" paradigms.

Edited March 28, 2011 by vortex

[Marblehead]

Your clear wisdom site is sponsored by Falun Dafa and the Darwin refuted site is more religious than scientific! In fact, Harun Yahya the author of the site believes evolution is some communist plot.

 

I get the impression that you are an intelligent design advocate and are opposed to science. Just admit it! BTW, where were you educated?

 

Yep, we should always check the sources of information that is presented to us as well as checking the qualification of the persons making these extreme claims.

 

But even beside that, I see nothing creditable that proves a major component of the fact of evolution is wrong.

 

Yes Dear Hearts, evolution is a fact. Doesn't matter how many IDers disagree with it.

[Immortal4life]

Science is short hand for "the scientific method." As much as I dislike many wiki articles, the article on the scientific method is pretty good and here is the intro -

 

"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

 

It would be convenient if it really were that simple, but it's not. The implications of science go way beyond it's methodology. It has become much more than this. It has become a worldview. Just going by the Wiki quote, it sounds so positive, so progressive. "Aquiring new knowledge" "integrating knowledge". But, what happens when the scientists can't quite integrate all the things they find correctly? They will toss to the side a few findings as "anomolous" or "unknown variables", etc. What then happens is that the promise of progress as the great savior is falling apart. With the aquisition of your "new" knowledge, you will lose knowledge of other things, and lose other ways of looking at things. In the end was what you got really an improvement? Or ultimately a limitation?

 

Spirituality and intuition are mostly exempt from the scientific method by necessity due to the lack of observable, empirical, and measurable evidence. This is unlikely to change any time soon. As much as you would like to see science include such ambiguous and subjective fields as these, it would be of absolutely no value. It would not be an expansion of the scientific method. It would render the scientific method useless and return us to the dark ages. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not something that the majority of folks living in modern society would be interested in.

 

I take this to mean you are saying, Science hasn't included spirituality and intuition yet to large degree, therefore it shouldn't and can't. That because there isn't huge widespread research in this area, and because you don't think it will change soon, that it can't or shouldn't.

 

In that case you are using circular reasoning.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#circular_reasoning_anchor

 

"Begging the Question (also called Petitio Principii, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with Circular Reasoning): If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. The most common form of this fallacy is when the first claim is initially loaded with the very conclusion one has yet to prove. For instance, suppose a particular student group states, "Useless courses like English 101 should be dropped from the college's curriculum." The members of the student group then immediately move on in the argument, illustrating that spending money on a useless course is something nobody wants. Yes, we all agree that spending money on useless courses is a bad thing. However, those students never did prove that English 101 was itself a useless course--they merely "begged the question" and moved on to the next "safe" part of the argument, skipping over the part that's the real controversy, the heart of the matter, the most important component. Begging the question is often hidden in the form of a complex question (see below).

 

Circular Reasoning is closely related to begging the question. Often the writers using this fallacy word take one idea and phrase it in two statements. The assertions differ sufficiently to obscure the fact that that the same proposition occurs as both a premise and a conclusion. The speaker or author then tries to "prove" his or her assertion by merely repeating it in different words. Richard Whately wrote in Elements of Logic (London 1826): “To allow every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be on the whole, advantageous to the state; for it is highly conducive to the interest of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments.” Obviously the premise is not logically irrelevant to the conclusion, for if the premise is true the conclusion must also be true. It is, however, logically irrelevant in proving the conclusion. In the example, the author is repeating the same point in different words, and then attempting to "prove" the first assertion with the second one. A more complex but equally fallacious type of circular reasoning is to create a circular chain of reasoning like this one: "God exists." "How do you know that God exists?" "The Bible says so." "Why should I believe the Bible?" "Because it's the inspired word of God." If we draw this out as a chart, it looks like this:"

 

There is great value in spiritual and intuitive pursuits and there is great value in the scientific method. Trying to mix the two is an exercise in futility and benefits neither, IMO. Perhaps that will change in time but, to be honest, I have no need of science while practicing Daoist meditation and I have no need of spirituality in performing a scientific experiment. Ultimately, I believe both methods point to the same truths though different avenues. Mixing the two compromises each and adds nothing at this point.

 

You have to incorporate them. Do you honestly believe your alleged Daoist mediation can't make you a better and more functional person in everything you do?

 

Take a look around these days. So many things are being shut out in favour of a materialistic worldview that many people justify through their understanding of things as they learned them in schools and textbooks. Take a look at Psychology. There are wanna be psychologists all over the place in every University wanting to be able to analyze everything people do, how they think, why they do the things they do, etc. On the other hand Parapychology is rarely mentioned in textbooks, which studies the universe according to much more spiritual paradigms and theories on how the universe and life work. The only real reason for this is that people are developing more materialstic and atheistic worldviews.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Ken]

Yep, we should always check the sources of information that is presented to us as well as checking the qualification of the persons making these extreme claims.

 

But even beside that, I see nothing creditable that proves a major component of the fact of evolution is wrong.

 

Yes Dear Hearts, evolution is a fact. Doesn't matter how many IDers disagree with it.

 

Right on. Intelligent Design is nothing but creationism in disguise, it has no scientific basis, make no valid scientific predictions. I highly recommend anyone to read Judge John Jones highly readable decision on the Dover case back in 2005 for a complete take down of ID's false facade.

[Immortal4life]

While fundamentalist Christian Creationism can be considered a type of ID, ID can and does encompass far more theories than just Christian Creationism.

[Marblehead]

While fundamentalist Christian Creationism can be considered a type of ID, ID can and does encompass far more theories than just Christian Creationism.

 

Read the Bible symbolically, not literally. If you read it literally you become lost. And please always remember that the Bible was written by men who wanted to control the masses. They did a pretty good job.

 

You will never find compatibility between physical reality and the Bible if you read it literally. Read it symbolically and you will be at peace between that religion and science.

 

I dislike fundamentalists and IDers of any religion because they try to force their belief on others. If they would wake up to reality and live in a manner that is compatible with all other belief systems I would have no problem with them at all.

 

And BTW, I have NEVER tried to force Taoism on anyone. Never. Our spirituality is supposed to be a personal thing beyond the reach of all others. That is the only way there will ever be peace amongst the peoples of various belief systems.

[ralis]

Again, this highlights the generation gap and inability of Baby Boomers to peer beyond their old polarized filters here. Where, any talk questioning evolution immediately gets one labeled as a "Christian Creationist" - because that is the only duality they recognize - and thus project upon others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good science, is about observation, critical analysis and questioning one's assumptions. Further, you are drawing conclusions which are irrelevant and has nothing to do with generation gaps or any assumptions you are so attached to! Do you read what you write?

[Encephalon]

Science is short hand for "the scientific method." As much as I dislike many wiki articles, the article on the scientific method is pretty good and here is the intro -

 

"Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

 

Spirituality and intuition are mostly exempt from the scientific method by necessity due to the lack of observable, empirical, and measurable evidence. This is unlikely to change any time soon. As much as you would like to see science include such ambiguous and subjective fields as these, it would be of absolutely no value. It would not be an expansion of the scientific method. It would render the scientific method useless and return us to the dark ages. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not something that the majority of folks living in modern society would be interested in.

 

There is great value in spiritual and intuitive pursuits and there is great value in the scientific method. Trying to mix the two is an exercise in futility and benefits neither, IMO. Perhaps that will change in time but, to be honest, I have no need of science while practicing Daoist meditation and I have no need of spirituality in performing a scientific experiment. Ultimately, I believe both methods point to the same truths though different avenues. Mixing the two compromises each and adds nothing at this point.

 

 

I am in complete agreement with you Steve F, and may even plagiarize you're succinct comments for future use.

 

Unlike some other members who have gone off on unusual tangents or have been banned for psychologically disturbing patterns of thought (I won't name names), Immortal4Life seems to be harmless enough and has enough lucidity to construct sensible sentences. But I still disagree with virtually everthing he's ever posted. I think his anti-science agenda is an unconscious one that naturally stems from the absence of a formal background in hard science, which explains his inability to engage in written rapport with other members or share anything about his alleged academic career. I'm amazed that TTBums haven't gotten tired of it yet.

 

I know some think I should be raked over the coals for being such a meanie, but when the snake oil salesman comes to town, we have a right to speak up.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Blasto

[torus693]

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by torus693

[ralis]

Are you able to verify already established "good science" using "critical analysis"

 

What assumptions must be made to say "good science"

 

What is Bad Science?

 

Faith is the enabler of intuitive. Beliefs are what get challenged during critical analysis. All answers come from intuitive process. All questions from the source of critical analysis ego, mind, polarized self. Belief is polarized.

what is beyond belief?

 

The scientific method (good science) has created technology for myriad applications. Automobiles, toasters, lights, computers, internet access, home heating, food production etc. Practical applications that you take for granted everyday.

 

All the above would not be possible without James Clerk Maxwell's work on electromagnetic fields.

Edited March 29, 2011 by ralis

[Encephalon]

Are you able to verify already established "good science" using "critical analysis"

 

What assumptions must be made to say "good science"

 

What is Bad Science?

 

Faith is the enabler of intuitive. Beliefs are what get challenged during critical analysis. All answers come from intuitive process. All questions from the source of critical analysis ego, mind, polarized self. Belief is polarized.

what is beyond belief?

 

I can appreciate your need for entertainment, but coming in here and regularly pushing the limits of absurdity should be a warning sign to you that your life has reached the critically boring stage.

[torus693]

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by torus693

[torus693]

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by torus693

[ralis]

I can appreciate your need for entertainment, but coming in here and regularly pushing the limits of absurdity should be a warning sign to you that your life has reached the critically boring stage.

 

Well put!

[ralis]

Have I taken these for granted?

 

I can't read your mind, so don't ask!

[torus693]

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by torus693

[torus693]

.

Edited April 8, 2011 by torus693

[Immortal4life]

Apparently the issue of generation gaps is relevant to science and scientific theories. The saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" may apply.

 

http://science.jrank.org/pages/63429/social-studies-science.html

One of the more exciting developments in SSS over the last thirty to fifty years was the opening up of domains of science left unexplored by traditional sociologists of science. The work of Thomas Kuhn had a tremendous impact, although not always for the better, on moving SSS forward. Kuhn, argued, in part, that science was not in a constant march toward the truth. Changes in our view of the physical world are more like gestalt switches than they are the product of accumulated evidence. Further, he suggested that these gestalt switches might be linked to such social processes as generational conflict; a younger generation of physicists may be more likely to adopt new theories than the older generation.

 

Some of the more interesting recent developments in our understanding of science as a social phenomenon have been the strong program, social constructionism, feminist theories of science, evolutionary epistemology, social epistemology, and conflict and critical theories of science. The classifications of these developments seem to be strongly dependent on the traditions to which the classifier belongs. What these new developments in the social studies of science have in common is the continual challenge to a traditional understanding of science.

 

Science is a method, but it is also a social phenomenon.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

Apparently the issue of generation gaps is relevant to science and scientific theories. The saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" may apply.

 

http://science.jrank.org/pages/63429/social-studies-science.html

 

 

Science is a method, but it is also a social phenomenon.

 

What is your point on this hangup you have on a so called generation gap? The writer of the article stated: " he suggested that these gestalt switches might be linked to such social processes as generational conflict; a younger generation of physicists may be more likely to adopt new theories than the older generation."

 

"Might be and maybe" are not absolute certainties and only represent possibilities. To say all older scientists are inflexible in their thinking is preposterous!

 

The case of Stephen Hawking proves my point. He is crippled with ALS and will be 70 next year.

 

I am going to play my guitar now which is infinitely more interesting than your recent attempts here at a fundamentalist narrative.

 

Are we seeing another Vajraji here?

Edited March 29, 2011 by ralis

[Immortal4life]

What is your point on this hangup you have on a so called generation gap?

 

The idea had already been brought up in the discussion, and not by me, when you wrote-

Good science, is about observation, critical analysis and questioning one's assumptions. Further, you are drawing conclusions which are irrelevant and has nothing to do with generation gaps or any assumptions you are so attached to! Do you read what you write?

 

So I don't think your description of me having a "hang up" about it, is accurate.

 

The writer of the article stated: " he suggested that these gestalt switches might be linked to such social processes as generational conflict; a younger generation of physicists may be more likely to adopt new theories than the older generation."

 

"Might be and maybe" are not absolute certainties and only represent possibilities.

 

Keep grasping, keep fighting. Grasp the straws harder.

 

To say all older scientists are inflexible in their thinking is preposterous!

 

I never said anything about "all", or anything so absolutely. It would appear it is only you who is suggesting I implied anything absolutely.

 

I am only speaking in the context of this discussion, as the subject has already been brought up.

 

I am going to play my guitar now which is infinitely more interesting than your recent attempts here at a fundamentalist narrative.

 

My feelings are hurt.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Immortal4life

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

The idea had already been brought up in the discussion, and not by me, when you wrote-

 

 

So I don't think your description of me having a "hang up" about it, is accurate.

 

 

 

 

Keep grasping, keep fighting. Grasp the straws harder.

 

 

 

I never said anything about "all", or anything so absolutely. It would appear it is only you who is suggesting I implied anything absolutely.

 

I am only speaking in the context of this discussion, as the subject has already been brought up.

 

 

 

My feelings are hurt.

 

 

huh?