Re:Survival of the Prettiest
by pdonis on Friday September 22, 2017 @09:08PM
(#15317402)
> Antibiotic resistant bacteria is not a "prediction" of evolutionary theory/model that distinguishes it from any other model.
Really? What other models make this prediction?
> Nor is this feature of the bacteria a definitive example of evolution as such.
Why not? It's change in the genes of a population in response to selection pressure, that increases its fitness under that selection pressure.
> I was and had no problems with the evolutionary model/theory until I started seeing the major dissonance between the experimental results being obtained and the interpretations that the evolutionary biologists were making on those results.
Can you give some specific examples? From actual peer-reviewed literature, not pop science presentations? I agree that in their pop science books, articles, etc., evolutionists say all kinds of things that they would never get away with in an actual peer-reviewed paper (Dawkins is a particularly egregious offender in this regard). But pop science is not actual science, and you can't judge the actual science by its pop science presentations. The same thing happens in every field. I see pop science presentations of physics all the time, even by Nobel Prize winning physicists, that are full of misstatements and misrepresentations that would never pass in a peer-reviewed paper. But that doesn't make the physics itself wrong.
> There is a potential model (actually the merging of two models) that could merge the strong force, electromagnetic and gravity into a single consistent electromagnetic model.
Really? What other models make this prediction?
> Nor is this feature of the bacteria a definitive example of evolution as such.
Why not? It's change in the genes of a population in response to selection pressure, that increases its fitness under that selection pressure.
> I was and had no problems with the evolutionary model/theory until I started seeing the major dissonance between the experimental results being obtained and the interpretations that the evolutionary biologists were making on those results.
Can you give some specific examples? From actual peer-reviewed literature, not pop science presentations? I agree that in their pop science books, articles, etc., evolutionists say all kinds of things that they would never get away with in an actual peer-reviewed paper (Dawkins is a particularly egregious offender in this regard). But pop science is not actual science, and you can't judge the actual science by its pop science presentations. The same thing happens in every field. I see pop science presentations of physics all the time, even by Nobel Prize winning physicists, that are full of misstatements and misrepresentations that would never pass in a peer-reviewed paper. But that doesn't make the physics itself wrong.
> There is a potential model (actually the merging of two models) that could merge the strong force, electromagnetic and gravity into a single consistent electromagnetic model.
Do you have a reference?