Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
genii

Pseudoscience

5 posts in this topic

Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.