Most people, including most atheists, have an inadequate understanding of the scientific contention inherent in Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution (henceforth ToE).

Most adherents to ToE only have a religious attachment to it, and they like to "beat up" people who know even less than they do about the issues. To this end, they would seek out people who say things like,

A) If ToE is true, why aren't chimpanzees turning into people?

B) Why are there still monkeys if they evolved into humans?

C) The Earth is only 6000 years old -- no time for ToE.

These are straw man statements that adherents of ToE like to knock down in order to bolster their own confidence.

Most adherents to ToE do not know the real problem with it:

Absence of a STATISTICAL MODEL.

Let me explain.

I enter a room and see a large table with 50 fair coins on it. I hypothesize that the coins were NOT place there by an intelligent agent, but landed randomly on the table (perhaps, thrown carelessly). That is an HYPOTHESIS.

To support my hypothesis scientifically, I need a STATISTICAL MODEL and statistical analysis of the situation.

Without it, my HYPOTHESIS cannot become a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

In the situation of the coins on the table, I could come up with a statistical distribution to model how the coins have landed (a binomial distribution). I could then work out the probability of the coins landing the way they have. If, out of the 50 coins, 47 are heads and 3 are tails, my hypothesis that the coins landed randomly would be scientifically rejected, because the chance of so many heads happening randomly is vanishingly small. My hypothesis must pass the statistical test (say 23 heads vs 27 tails) in order to possibly become a theory.

Now, replace your table by DNA, your coins by genes, and your coin placement by "mutation".

ToE HYPOTHESIZES that the mutations ARE random. It doesn't say that they could possible be random. It CONCLUDES that they ARE random. But it does so with no statistical model or statistical analysis. Therefore, Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution remains only an HYPOTHESIS.

Some work has been done to start on the long, long road of creating a model, which could turn the HYPOTHESIS into a THEORY. But unfortunately, this work is being led by religious folk with the agenda of disproving ToE. This situation has been allowed to happen because scientists themselves have tried to avoid the science and the real scientific questions. They have gone instead for the "what else could it be?" argument, and indulged in an unscientific squabble with religion.

If God or Dog made man from dust why are there still dust?

OoniOfIfe:
If God or Dog made man from dust why are there still dust?

www.nairaland.com/attachments/4278531_fe002f9fd115397441182bc88b7d8737_jpeg673e6399f97dbe8d87b4a2832a0e653d

Such is the level of your insight.

Read the OP. You will find yourself there.

It explains your knee-jerk reaction that is based on scant understanding and religious attachment.

Same mantra scientific ignorance spew that had been flog to death big time. this is a clear indication of someone who pendown this hogwash from rejected shipment of tilapia fish ending toward Somalia.

I believe in the existence of God (olodumare) and yet I am not in denial of evolution............


Warnning ( scientific ignorance can kill).

I feel like educating you and as well correcting the esteem individual who will be reading this hogwash.

sinequanon:
most people, including most atheists, have an inadequate understanding of the scientific contention inherent in Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution (henceforth ToE).

Evolutionary observation is not a creed of atheist, every enlightened individual from all works of life agree on using observational verified evidence to measure what can be quantify and tested.

Most adherents to ToE only have a religious attachment to it, and they like to "beat up" people who know even less than they do about the issues. To this end, they would seek out people who say things like,

the real struggle of evolutionary observation is not between the athiest and the religion enlightened folks, the main struggle is between enlightened folks and gullible individual who in the face of all observable evidence still denote /reject observable evidence.

A) If ToE is true, why aren't chimpanzees turning into people?

B) Why are there still monkeys if they evolved into humans?

C) The Earth is only 6000 years old -- no time for ToE.

These are straw man statements that adherents of ToE like to knock down in order to bolster their own confidence.

Most adherents to ToE do not know the real problem with it:

This are chin chin for science basic elementry class or called it akara ati eko This fallacy has been beating to stupor already, so the gullible individual repeating this mantra is only speaking from ignorance.

Absence of a STATISTICAL MODEL.

This spew is not new as well, same mantra those who are not expose enough to science as a whole spew. Those who ignorantly forget science is a body of discipline and the aspect that deal with evolution belongs to biological department.....

I enter a room and see a large table with 50 fair coins on it. I hypothesize that the coins were NOT place there by an intelligent agent, but landed randomly on the table (perhaps, thrown carelessly). That is an HYPOTHESIS

(1) fallacy, Evolution in simple term is basically an analogy of species breeding by human, it will be unscientific to hypothesis non observational evidence .

From the horse mouth himself..."".If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501 charlse Darwin..

To support my hypothesis scientifically, I need a STATISTICAL MODEL and statistical analysis of the situation.

hypothesis are even written in a way that are objective, so to claim that there is no intelligent being in the room where the coins is observed can never be scienctifc statement. Science deals with observational evidence either remotely or within as it is the case of quantum physics.

Without it, my HYPOTHESIS cannot become a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

For any hypothesis to become a scientific theory , it must begin with objective evidence. And hence it is this evidence that will be measure and tested to validate the hypothesis claim.

In the situation of the coins on the table, I could come up with a statistical distribution to model how the coins have landed (a binomial distribution). I could then work out the probability of the coins landing the way they have. If, out of the 50 coins, 47 are heads and 3 are tails, my hypothesis that the coins landed randomly would be scientifically rejected, because the chance of so many heads happening randomly is vanishingly small. My hypothesis must pass the statistical test (say 23 heads vs 27 tails) in order to possibly become a theory.

pile of hot trash, even if am going to use your illogical response. evolution still does not depend on chance .natural selection, the principal known which is the mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving desirable (adaptive) features and eliminating undesirable (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in a given short times.

Now, replace your table by DNA, your coins by genes, and your coin placement by "mutation".

illogical analogy from hot pile of trash.

ToE HYPOTHESIZES that the mutations ARE random. It doesn't say that they could possible be random. It CONCLUDES that they ARE random. But it does so with no statistical model or statistical analysis. Therefore, Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution remains only an HYPOTHESIS.

An evidence to show you know nothing about what you spewing .Random’ is a fuzzy concept. And there are several kinds of mutation.Go and relearn biko....commonly they are hotspots for mutations along a chromosome, so mutations are not uniformly distributed as you are naively thought. It happens along a chromosome. Biologically, They are approximately randomly uniform.

Some work has been done to start on the long, long road of creating a model, which could turn the HYPOTHESIS into a THEORY. But unfortunately, this work is being led by religious folk with the agenda of disproving ToE. This situation has been allowed to happen because scientists themselves have tried to avoid the science and the real scientific questions. They have gone instead for the "what else could it be?" argument, and indulged in an unscientific squabble with religion.

hogwash. You should have ask a reasonable question if you don't know, Darwin set up his hypothesis by proposing a mechanism for evolution i.e. variation with differential descent, and this he does by justify his proposal with evidence.

Bumb.......

Vaax has done an awesome job - tackling the op.

kkins25:
Vaax has done an awesome job - tackling the op.

The op is a clown, he set himself up when he called himself a Cambridge graduate,. I don't do this but he pride himself so much on false knowledge. Which he even try to advocate by denying every evidence punching in his face .

If you want to read more of his hogwash, go thru this link...

Even me that I do not subscribe to atheist concept find it hilarious......

https://www.nairaland.com/2038674/why-many-atheists-hate-own

Deleted

vaxx:
The op is a clown, he set himself up when he called himself a Cambridge graduate,. I don't do this but he pride himself so much on false knowledge. Which he even try to advocate by denying every evidence punching in his face .

If you want to read more of his hogwash, go thru this link...

Even me that I do not subscribe to atheist concept find it hilarious......

https://www.nairaland.com/2038674/why-many-atheists-hate-own

kkins25:
Vaax has done an awesome job - tackling the op.

Just went through the thread, hahahaha.. His debate is rather comical. He seems not to understand the concepts he is trying to debunk.
Op as for evolution, let me add to what sir vaxx has stated.
Evolurion is not an overnight process. It takes could take millions of years for an advantageous mutation to even manifest physically. Evolution is taking place every blessed day. Take for instance, people who carry sickle cell anemia(not sufferers but carriers) are actually natures way of fighting back at plasmodium sp.
Sickle cell carriers are not affected at the same rate or level of parasitaemia as people without sickle cell. It is worthy of mention that sickle cell is as a result of mutation, however it has conferred an advantage. Hope you get my little illustration.
The nature of God thrugh the testaments is also changes or rather evolving, isnt it?

A food for thought @Op.
Dogs we know are offshoot of wolves. Can you biblicaly prove that God created the dog.? Ensure to explain how it must have survived during the garden of eden days and how it ended up to becomes mans best friend.. Anticipate your response.

kkins25:



Just went through the thread, hahahaha.. His debate is rather comical. He seems not to understand the concepts he is trying to debunk.
Op as for evolution, let me add to what sir vaxx has stated.
Evolurion is not an overnight process. It takes could take millions of years for an advantageous mutation to even manifest physically. Evolution is taking place every blessed day. Take for instance, people who carry sickle cell anemia(not sufferers but carriers) are actually natures way of fighting back at plasmodium sp.
Sickle cell carriers are not affected at the same rate or level of parasitaemia as people without sickle cell. It is worthy of mention that sickle cell is as a result of mutation, however it has conferred an advantage. Hope you get my little illustration.
The nature of God thrugh the testaments is also changes or rather evolving, isnt it?

A food for thought @Op.
Dogs we know are offshoot of wolves. Can you biblicaly prove that God created the dog.? Ensure to explain how it must have survived during the garden of eden days and how it ended up to becomes mans best friend.. Anticipate your response.

From his response on my thread , he does not appear a Christian but he has something to do with personal experience/opinion which is purely subjective and has no definitive answer .But approaching opinion as a way to interpret facts is clearly an act of ignorance. A rarional induvidual can only talk about the veracity or falsity of the part of the fact considered by that opinion.