[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

Almost all of them, for if not, then, ToE will still stand on its ground.

Give me one example and tell me why you think there is something inconsistent about it.

the origin of species

[Kryptid]

the origin of species

You mean the book or what? You also need to give an argument as for what is wrong with it.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

the origin of species

You mean the book or what? You also need to give an argument as for what is wrong with it.

Not the book, but the ToE. I told you that I am sorting them out... I must use a limited space of science journal to falsify a 163 years old erroneous theory. But that would be probably the last topic in falsification process... I will be discussing age of earth, fossils, phylogeny tree, and ERVs, RLN, tiktaalik, ...too many to sort out... but you will enjoy them..

[Kryptid]

but you will enjoy them..

I have my doubts.

By the way, if your arguments are the same ones you've already seen used by young Earth creationists, then you are wasting your time.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

but you will enjoy them..

I have my doubts.

By the way, if your arguments are the same ones you've already seen used by young Earth creationists, then you are wasting your time.

Of course, you will doubt me, but I do not doubt reality.

So, you are suggesting that I should not discuss the age of the earth and universe in the falsification? Probably, if I don't have space to write.. How could someone falsify ToE when not falsifying all of ToE's explanations, if space is not limited?

[Kryptid]

I do not doubt reality.

Nor do I.

So, you are suggesting that I should not discuss the age of the earth and universe in the falsification?

No, I'm suggesting that you don't use old arguments that have been very thoroughly debunked over and over by now. Use new ones with actual evidential support.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

I do not doubt reality.

Nor do I.

So, you are suggesting that I should not discuss the age of the earth and universe in the falsification?

No, I'm suggesting that you don't use old arguments that have been very thoroughly debunked over and over by now. Use new ones with actual evidential support.

Thank you for the advice. I will surely do it, for if not, I cannot falsify ToE.

[Bored chemist]

Do you know why they could not falsify ToE?

Because it's true.

I hope that they will be fair this time.

They are; you just don't understand it.

Remember, I am dealing with 163 years old erroneous theory... too many things to sort out..too many things to clarify...

you need  only provide one counter-example.

But, if you can't do that then, no matter what you do, you will not falsify the theory.
And if you didn't understand that, you have very little chance of success.

[puppypower]

Evolution is based on natural selection. The question becomes, what would happen, to evolution, if the selection was not natural but was instead, artificial? For example, domestic dog breeds have changed over time, based on human selection. Human selection, is not always natural can be subjective, while natural selection is more objective; environmental potentials. The result of subjective and artificial selection will not be natural, and therefore it appearance cannot be based on the current theory of evolution. Domestic dogs exists where natural selection broke down.

As a good example, both wolves and dogs share the same canine DNA. Because of this similarity of DNA, both are considered part of the same species. The path of natural selection only created a very limited number of dog breeds , such as wolves and a few other wild dogs. The unnatural selection of humans created over 150 breeds, most in the past 100 years. These were selected based on various needs and wants of humans. Human selection created something similar to a mini-Cambric explosion for dog and cat breeds. Natural selection remained targeted.

There is one very important distinction between wolves and all the man made dog breeds. Natural selection dogs, like wolves, remain wild and natural. On the other hand, nearly all the manmade dog breeds have become what we call domesticated. They both have the same canine DNA, so the superficial shell makes it easy to see they are related. However, they differ by the operating systems within their brains. Wolves are more fit in the wild while domestic dogs are more fit living among humans, with humans not noted for being natural. 

Wolves and dogs can still breed and make puppies since they have the same DNA. However, the puppies always revert back to the wolf side of the operating system and tend to lose their unnatural brain update.The result of their breeding is not based on a random model of distribution of temperaments. Humans have been trying to breed wolves and large dogs for decades to create super dogs for military applications. The puppies always end up with too much of the natural nature of the wolf dominating; deterministic.

Could the same thing have happened to humans to create a fork in the road about 6000 years ago; natural versus domesticated humans? The Bible appears to define modern humans in terms of a domesticated version of the human species. The Bible has God domesticating Adam and Eve, within a unique garden, instead of migrating like their natural ancestors. Both Adam and Eve, were not selected based on procreation, but rather Adam and Eve, were molded and selected based on tech methods, outside the range used by natural selection. Adam is formed from the dust of the earth and Eve was cloned from Adam'a rib; bone marrow stem cells. These unnatural processes were chosen to show a distinction, which is not used again in the Bible. The rest of genealogy is based on sexual procreation.

In the story of Cain and Abel, Abel was a herder of animals and Cain was a tiller of the soil. When Cain kills Abel this symbolized farming/civilization; unnatural selection, superseding eons of natural migratory herding; natural selection. We go from natural selection, to a version of manmade selection within civilization, to breed domesticated humans; modern humans. This also creates a wider bandwidth of unique modern humans temperaments; will and choice, which comes from a new operating system of the brain, which the older pre-humans did not have. They remained more consistent and natural like wolves, until they were superseded.

Science show that the invention of written language appeared about 6000 years ago. Would this create an unnatural social environment; manmade laws of good and evil, that could set an unnatural selection process, into motion? Law and good and evil is not natural and is not used by natural selection. This method would cause repression of natural instinct out fear of punishment and desire of reward. In my next post I will show how to disprove the random genetic assumptions half of modern evolution theory. This complements how unnatural selection can undermine the natural selection half of evolution, to create diverse breakaway states of the same breed; ego.     

 

[Origin]

Could the same thing have happened to humans to create a fork in the road about 6000 years ago; natural versus domesticated humans?

You think humans were domesticated?  By whom?  Why did you pick 6000 years?

The Bible appears to define modern humans in terms of a domesticated version of the human species.

What?  Why are you bringing up the bible in a science thread?

The Bible has God domesticating Adam and Eve,

Oh, God domesticated humans got it.  This is not science, it is off topic and idiotic.

In my next post

Please don't and spare us you more of your absurd pseudoscience tripe...

[puppypower]

To understand how the random genetic change; mutation, aspect of modern evolution is not exactly correct, we need to look at the 2nd law; entropy. The entropy of the universe has to increase, which also by itself is sufficient to drive evolution. Energy is conserved; changes form by remains constant, but entropy has a vector to the future. If life stayed the same this would satisfy energy conservation, but the second law will be violated. It needs to become more complex over time to satisfy the time vector of the 2nd law.

Science can show that entropy is a state variable. This means any given state of matter will have a constant amount of entropy. Water, for example, at 25C and 1Atm pressure is a state of water that has a constant entropy value of 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is always the same no matter how we reach this state or which lab measures it. Entropy is a measurable quantity that tells us something of complexity of each state.

If we look at a mole of water at 25C and 1atm; 6.022 x 10²³ molecules of water, this is usually modeled with a random approach due to the large the number of atoms and molecules and the wide range of degrees of freedoms for each moiety at those particular conditions. However, since the entropy value is always a constant for the entire state; all the 6.022 x 10²³ molecules, and all that apparent random, has to add up to a constant. Degrees of freedom and all the motion is part of the complexity defined by the constant entropy.

The question becomes can  6.022 x 10²³ and all their random events always add up to a constant if random was leading? On the other hand, since order stems from a constant entropy, can this constant entropy of that state, make all the random align so the state does not change? The former, would be based on odds and would only occur in a very rare instance with near zero probability; once in a lifetime. Entropy leading would be analogous to a sealed contained, adiabatic, so all levels of random would have to add up to a constant to be able to define a fixed energy balance. This Is a more likely explanation that could make it a sure thing. 

What is seen as random changes on the DNA is actually part of evolving entropic state constants, which define the quantum states of life; sweet spots, with gaps between states. There is no continuity of missing links in evolution. The data seems to show quantum jumps based on evolving and quantum entropic states; 2nd law. Random processes have to work within the sealed containers of these constants;  integrated approach. This makes sense for cells, since they are unique container; unique lifeforms with physical boundaries, with a given amount of entropy; states of matter. The sum of its random atomic and molecular parts has to add up to a constant.
 
The quantum nature of these living states, with gaps in the middle, appear to be due to environmental potentials. Adding the dynamic input and output with the environment will alter the state, placing the quantum living state in the gap between; new state based on environmental extras. There is still an integrated response in terms of random due to the new constant entropy. However the base state; base life form, by being in the gap between, has to change until a new quantum state of higher entropy is expressed for its base life materials; evolves.

[puppypower]

Could the same thing have happened to humans to create a fork in the road about 6000 years ago; natural versus domesticated humans?

You think humans were domesticated?  By whom?  Why did you pick 6000 years?

The Bible appears to define modern humans in terms of a domesticated version of the human species.

What?  Why are you bringing up the bible in a science thread?

The Bible has God domesticating Adam and Eve,

Oh, God domesticated humans got it.  This is not science, it is off topic and idiotic.

In my next post

Please don't and spare us you more of your absurd pseudoscience tripe...

I picked 6000 years ago since this data aligns with the science discovery of the invention of written language. This invention would alter how human responded to the natural and manmade environments, that was not necessarily natural. Laws of good and evil, using the new invention, when carved into stone, could outlive their usefulness and cause repression. The brain would see unique unnatural potentials for change that linger too long.

If you consider today, computers and the internet, these inventions are causing people to depend too much on virtual data, instead of natural data, from their natural sensory systems. People take the word of others instead of prove things to themselves. Since about Windows 98; 1998, people have changed considerably. The invention of written language would have been even more profound, forming a new state of mind; first domesticated humans. I am sure it was not brain science, 6000 years ago, to see the differences.

I added God to the discussion, no so much to make the atheists squirm, but to repeat the bible traditions, to show that it is not talking about the science of natural selection. It was addressing a new type of selection process. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was connected to written language. If we made a law, carved in stone, that said, thou shall not pee in public spaces, selective advantage would not longer be natural, but based on who had the will to avoid peeing in public. The change is from natural urination to manmade. As it was written, so was it done, using a carrot and stick for positive and negative reinforcement.

This type of  law would have outlived it usefulness, but since it was part of a very early publication with social value; traditions, this law may linger beyond its usefulness, causing repression, as much as selection. This new type of conditioning impacted the human brain. In my entropy post, before this post, modern evolution is not valid, but has outlived it usefulness, due to being carved into stone by the atheists. it is not consistent with the 2nd law. The old  helped to perpetuate an unnatural view of reality since at least the 1950's, when problems began to appear, but were repressed by bureaucratic science law.

[Origin]

Energy is conserved; changes form by remains constant, but entropy has a vector to the future.

Wong as usual entropy is not a vector nor is time, but you refuse to learn.

This means any given state of matter will have a constant amount of entropy.

Wrong as usual the entropy will change with temperature, but you refuse to learn.

Bla, bla, bla...

Wrong as usual, but you refuse to learn.

[Origin]

I picked 6000 years ago since this data aligns with the science discovery of the invention of written language. This invention would alter how human responded to the natural and manmade environments, that was not necessarily natural.

Of course it is natural, people are natural, so every thing man makes is natural.  If it ain't supernatural then it's natural.
 

The invention of written language would have been even more profound, forming a new state of mind; first domesticated humans.

So people domesticated themselves?  I thought you said God domesticated people?  How exactly do people domesticate themselves?  Do you know what domesticated means?
 

I added God to the discussion, no so much to make the atheists squirm, but to repeat the bible traditions, to show that it is not talking about the science of natural selection.

You think mentioning God makes atheist squirm?  Really? 
References to the bible should be made in the religious subforum, this is the science forum and the bible is not a good reference source for science.

In my entropy post, before this post, modern evolution is not valid, but has outlived it usefulness, due to being carved into stone by the atheists.

This as usual is false and absurd.  Your 'entropy post' is a mismash of false an silly assertions.  Evolution is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with atheist sculptors.

it is not consistent with the 2nd law.

You think that because you do not understand the 2nd law.

The old  helped to perpetuate an unnatural view of reality since at least the 1950's, when problems began to appear, but were repressed by bureaucratic science law.

There is no need to respond to anything I wrote except I would be very interested to here you point out the problems that began to appear in the 1950's with evolution.
Do you really think scientist are actively trying to prevent new knowledge?

[Kryptid]

In my entropy post, before this post, modern evolution is not valid, but has outlived it usefulness, due to being carved into stone by the atheists.

Atheism has quite literally nothing to do with evolution.

it is not consistent with the 2nd law.

You've basically just admitted that you don't understand how evolution works, how the second law of thermodynamics works, or both.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

Do you know why they could not falsify ToE?

Because it's true.

I hope that they will be fair this time.

They are; you just don't understand it.

Remember, I am dealing with 163 years old erroneous theory... too many things to sort out..too many things to clarify...

you need  only provide one counter-example.

But, if you can't do that then, no matter what you do, you will not falsify the theory.
And if you didn't understand that, you have very little chance of success.

To tell you the truth, today, my mind cleared one of my problems: sorting too many info for falsification... I always think the falsification process everyday, every minutes, every seconds, while I am driving, working, typing...... the way I tried to nail down the topic of intelligence... Now I got it...I will surely finish the article, and ready to go...

[Origin]

To tell you the truth, today, my mind cleared one of my problems: sorting too many info for falsification... I always think the falsification process everyday, every minutes, every seconds, while I am driving, working, typing...... the way I tried to nail down the topic of intelligence... Now I got it...I will surely finish the article, and ready to go...

You keep saying you got these falsifications of the ToE, but you never say what these little gems are.  Gee wiliikers that's strange, it's almost like you are full of crap!

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

To tell you the truth, today, my mind cleared one of my problems: sorting too many info for falsification... I always think the falsification process everyday, every minutes, every seconds, while I am driving, working, typing...... the way I tried to nail down the topic of intelligence... Now I got it...I will surely finish the article, and ready to go...

You keep saying you got these falsifications of the ToE, but you never say what these little gems are.  Gee wiliikers that's strange, it's almost like you are full of crap!

"To tell you the TRUTH, I cannot beat the ToE..ToE is very strong, too much evidences, too much power..I will surely surrender to ToE" Is that you want me to say?

NO! NEVER!!!

[Kryptid]

NO! NEVER!!!

So if you were to find through your research that evolution is strongly supported by the evidence, you still wouldn't accept it?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

NO! NEVER!!!

So if you were to find through your research that evolution is strongly supported by the evidence, you still wouldn't accept it?

There are two types of evidences: incorrect and correct evidences. The new ID can correctly decide the two, the ToE cannot. Do you know why? Then, why should I accept ToE? Nonsense, right?