Confusing Speculation in Evolutionary Theory

Is it truly a theory when there are various explanations which are very much inclusive but yet very much incompatible with each other? Do you think this is getting closer to reality or farther apart? In order to justify such funding and faith, there is always artificial hope that perhaps some day, an explanation will appear and explain everything in a secular way.

Your food cannot be cold or hot at the same time nor can you have two explanations that oppose one another for cooking your food and then in both instances claim that it will get you the same results.  And call this getting closer to the truth! When there is increased complexity with an explanation such as mentioned above, it means the explanation is distancing itself even more from the desired outcome.

Take origin speculation in evolution theory for example, it’s a paradigm in crisis! You see an array of proposals that are exclusive to one another and also falsifies one another. Here is an old theory which was discredited but now reborn as researchers try to come up with new ideas to save it according to phys.org

“A new look at the early solar system introduces an alternative to a long-taught, but largely discredited, theory that seeks to explain how biomolecules were once able to form inside of asteroids. In place of the outdated theory, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute propose a new theory – based on a richer, more accurate image of magnetic fields and solar winds in the early solar system, and a mechanism known as multi-fluid magneto-hydrodynamics – to explain the ancient heating of the asteroid belt.”

“Although today the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is cold and dry, scientists have long known that warm, wet conditions, suitable to formation of some biomolecules, the building blocks of life, once prevailed. Traces of bio-molecules found inside meteorites – which originated in the asteroid belt –could only have formed in the presence of warmth and moisture. One theory of the origin of life proposes that some of the biomolecules that formed on asteroids may have reached the surfaces of planets, and contributed to the origin of life as we know it.”

What all origin speculation in evolution sadly lacks is, where does all the biological information come from? Just like cooking food, you need information on how to cook it and you need information that makes the tools as well as production of those tools required to cook it such as a stove! Even if you have the information on how to build a stove but if the machinery doesn’t exist, a stove cannot be produced and if a stove cannot be produced, you can’t go out and buy one to cook your food either.

The genetic code is exclusive, it requires certain machinery in order to read and then translate it, encased in a cell with active transport! All these things are required and must be in operational working order from the beginning in order to build a genetic code. Origins in evolution is regressing, when was the last time you read about a new proposal? It appears that evolutionists have settled on particular origin theories along with reviving old ones. This is nothing more than confusing speculation in evolutionary theory that gets one further from reality rather than closer to it…

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Confusing Speculation in Evolutionary Theory

  1. Michael needs to retake Remedial Philosophy of Science 010 again.[1]

    Is it truly a theory when there are various explanations which are very much inclusive but yet very much incompatible with each other?

    – – – – – –

    Your food cannot be cold or hot at the same time nor can you have two explanations that oppose one another for cooking your food and then in both instances claim that it will get you the same results.

    ALL scientific theories are overdeterminined by any finite set of evidence.[2] That is, for any given set of facts, there are ALWAYS multiple different theories that will fit all of the facts, and are inconsistent with each other as to causation.

    The best theory is the one that provides the greatest predictive power as to as-yet unobserved facts.

    Michael, this may be a nadir in your knowledge of science and its philosophy. Your whole point is ridiculous.

    ===========================

    [[1] No, that is not redundant—in Michael’s case.

    [2] The analogy to hot and cold food is stupid. “Hot” and “cold” are FACTS, not theories. Theories can be mutually inconsistent, but facts cannot.

  2. Michael, what the bejeepers is your point in this post??

    It has “speculation in the title, but nothing in the post concerns speculation. A “crisis” in evolution has nothing to do with speculation. They are totally independent of each other.

    Then you talk about complexity of explanations, which has nothing to do with whether a theory is true or false. These are independent of each other.

    The you switch fro biology to astronomy, and falsely assume that asteroid origin is the only hypothesis concerning origin of life on earth. It’s not..

    Despite all evidence, you insist that new theories in origin-of-life are totally lacking. Apparently, like Stephen Meyer, you haven’t read anything in the past few years. New OOL hypotheses crop up every month, as new knowledge increases. It is creationism that has no new theories, and continues to peddle the stale ones way past their sell-by dates.[1][2]

    Fin ally, as lagniappe, you foist on us the analogy that life requires an outside intelligence because life is like cooked food. But why does cooked food require intelligence? If I stumble over Bambi’s mother after the forest fire, she’s cooked and ready to eat. That’s how the cave men did it at first.

    So this post seems to be not much more than a diarrhea of all the things Michael hates about science.[3]

    ==============================.

    [1] “Information” i being hawked in place of “entropy” these days, but this is merely old wine in new skins. Only the terminology is different; the flaws are the same..

    [2] Michael still confuses origin-of-life with evolution. BY DEFINITION they are not the same. But he’ll never learn.

    [3] Mainly that science will not admit the creationist mongrel to its dinner, because it beings nothing to the table. No predictive power, no causative mechanisms, no consistency with observed facts.

  3. And obviously Michael cannot separate evoution and abiogenesis … the theory of evoluton is all about the evolution of biological species, not the origin of life.

    And MIchael also hasn’t got a clue what ‘information’ means …

  4. Ah, Olorin already covered my points in his notes … should read all the way down. Olorin’s cmments are the only thing worth reading here, including the notes !

  5. .. . . . . . . . .Confusing Speculation in Evolutionary Theory
    Speculation is confusing only to Michael.
    Convergent evolution is speculation only to Michael..
    Evolutionary theory is very confusing to Michael.
    . . . . . And to many other people, because of Michael.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s