Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Pseudoscience


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1    genii

genii

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2012

Posted 13 April 2012 - 04:17 PM

Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

Quote

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.

I’m wondering if that is some kind of unscientific thinking masquerading as scientific thinking. Does the thinking appear to be scientific but is, in fact, faithless to science’s basic values and methods? This definition is indebted to Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 13.

Because pseudo-scientific thinking often looks and sounds like real science, it can be quite hard for non-scientists or casual readers to tell them apart. Luckily, there are certain criteria of pseudoscience that any educated person can use to distinguish it from true science, including the following:

· 1. Does it make claims that are not testable?
· 2. Does it make claims that are inconsistent with well-established scientific truths?
· 3. Does it explain away or ignore falsifying data?
· 4. Does it use vague language that almost anything could be counted as confirming it?
· 5. Does it lack of progressiveness?
· 6. Does it involve no serious effort to conduct research using scientific method?

This thread is indebted to William D. Gray, Thinking Critically about New Age Ideas (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991), chap. 5.


#2    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,172 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • I love chocolate

Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:01 PM

Are you asking if that statement about evolution is psuedoscience?  I don't get the purpose of this thread.


#3    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,428 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 13 April 2012 - 05:58 PM

Who ever wrote this is has ignored the existence of fertile hybrids.


#4    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2012 - 01:03 AM

If you are asking if the quote is pseudoscience, the answer is yes. If you are looking for a response to the claim; I've covered how chromosome number changes in evolution here before. You can find that (and how humans went from 48 to 46 chromosomes) on my about me page (I'm a link).


#5    genii

genii

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2012

Posted 14 April 2012 - 10:20 AM

View PostCopasetic, on 14 April 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

If you are asking if the quote is pseudoscience, the answer is yes. If you are looking for a response to the claim; I've covered how chromosome number changes in evolution here before. You can find that (and how humans went from 48 to 46 chromosomes) on my about me page (I'm a link).

1. Does it make claims that are not testable?
This is testable so it does not apply. See below.

2. Does it make claims that are inconsistent with well-established scientific truths?
This does apply.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheep–goat_hybrid
http://en.wikipedia....Hybrid_(biology)
There are fertile and infertile hybrid offsprings with chromosome numbers different from the parents. Given how absolute the statement was on this matter, any example of fertile hybrids would disprove it.

Man could not evolve from a monkey would probably be true as there is no scientific truths that claims that. This is more of creationist claim rather than a scientific claim.

3. Does it explain away or ignore falsifying data?
No data were provided.

4. Does it use vague language that almost anything could be counted as confirming it?
Nothing realy vague detected from the above. The specificness of the statement makes it easy to disprove due to the examples in 2.

5. Does it lack of progressiveness?
Don't quite know what this means.

6. Does it involve no serious effort to conduct research using scientific method?
Pretty sure most of the people on this forum would not be able to do the above whether they are supporting or opposing this view.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users