Problems I have with evolution

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: Answer

I DO understand the common "understanding" of the evolutionary process. I simply don't accept it.

I don't know the exact mechanism that tells an organism which way to evolve. I believe it's a natural process though. I don't think an individual organism "decides" what it needs to survive. There has to be some way nature knows though, although I have no idea what that process is.

It's called natural selection and genetic drift. both are observable, documented, repeatable processes.

originally posted by: kennyb72

Perhaps so for someone is ‘into’ evolution theory. I personally find the detail rather mundane.

In other words "I don't know what it is, I just know that it's all BS and I don't like it."

You didn’t answer my question because you have no way of knowing if your definition of evolution is correct or not. Ignore it as much and as long as you like but it does not diminish the fact that your narrow definition of evolution cannot be accurate unless you can define life itself.

*sigh*

The Theory of Evolution is based on observable evidence. It does not rely on the philosophical "meaning of life."

You have no right to narrow the scope of this discussion to the mechanics of the process. This thread is an expression of someones doubts regarding evolution.

Um... evolution is ONLY about the mechanics of the process. What the hell are you talking about?

Such an outrageous statement! and why the hell do you alway raise the topic of gravity to deflect from the discussion (a theory that is wrong by the way but that’s another argument.)

Wow... just wow. Let's hear your explanation that proves Sir Isaac Newton wrong... this should be rich.

originally posted by: Autorico
Is there any reason a deity couldn't have created us through evolution?

There's no reason that couldn't have happened.

There's also no reason we weren't created by a giant blue turtle in a top hat.

Frankly, the philosophical possibilities for WHY we are here are absolutely limitless and you can fill in that gap however you choose.

The HOW humans evolved is what science seeks to answer and the WHEN but it doesn't touch the "WHY does life exist" question because it can't be tested.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Noinden

Hello Noinden,

There is a huge logical flaw in your post. Evolution is a scientific theory. It relies on evidence not belief.
Your post is "belief" and "I feel". You post nothing new to this type of debate.

No it isn't! Evolution Theory is a scientific theory. Evolution itself is still up for grabs until the question of origins of life is settled.

How do you reconcile contradicting yourself within the space of a single sentence unless you don't actually know what a scientific theory entails and is comprised of? Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the result of over a century and a half of collecting data, experimenting, documenting and repeating those results. Evolution is not up for grabs and the origins of life is a totally separate topic and field of study investigated by people in very different disciplines. One is the study of a physical process and measuring the changes to organisms over time. The other is a chemical process of how it all started. The two are entirely separate no matter how much you protest.

a reply to: peter vlar

How do you reconcile contradicting yourself within the space of a single sentence unless you don't actually know what a scientific theory entails and is comprised of? Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the result of over a century and a half of collecting data, experimenting, documenting and repeating those results. Evolution is not up for grabs and the origins of life is a totally separate topic and field of study investigated by people in very different disciplines. One is the study of a physical process and measuring the changes to organisms over time. The other is a chemical process of how it all started. The two are entirely separate no matter how much you protest.

And how do you reconcile calling yourself a scientist, who, by definition has to be open to all possibilities when new facts present themselves, and yet make the statement that life is a chemical process. I thought you where supposed to deal with provable facts, or are you another faith based scientist.

Let's talk again when you get a clue about what consciousness is, shall we.

originally posted by: kennyb72

And how do you reconcile calling yourself a scientist, who, by definition has to be open to all possibilities when new facts present themselves, and yet make the statement that life is a chemical process. I thought you where supposed to deal with provable facts, or are you another faith based scientist.

Let's talk again when you get a clue about what consciousness is, shall we.

How can a person who is so wrong be so sure of himself?

It boggles the mind.

a reply to: kennyb72

I am open to all possibilities. I've always maintained that I follow the evidence no matter where it goes, no matter whether it agrees with what I believe to be true or not. But you haven't provided any evidence. The OP has not provided any evidence. All data points to a chemical process being behind the formation of life and its precursor building block on Earth. Please provide something to the contrary as well as something that indicates consciousness has anything to do with evolution or the initial formation of life. Perhaps you are the one who should be seeking out a clue?

a reply to: peter vlar

Peter, you know as well as I do that I cannot provide evidence, so lets not use that old refuge. There comes a time in everybody's consciousness evolution (yes that word again) when you will know the answers you seek, at a completely different level of comprehension.

It is never going to be something you can prove to others. The existence we are experiencing is not designed that way for good reason. How can any of us grow spiritually if we just read the answers in a book or accept facts presented to us by experts. We are all in the same boat, but our individual growth is very personal.

I know who I am, do you know who you are?

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kcgads

There are only so many possible evolutionary developments. Naturally, they will repeat every now and then. That doesn't mean that evolution has a purpose though.

It looks like it has a purpose to me.

It is obvious. It seemed obvious for most of history to most people. Do you think they were all wrong? It's only in the past 150 years that people have thought that it's all purposeless.

Obvious doesn't mean it is true though. You actually have to produce evidence to back up "obvious". It's obvious that if I drop a pencil off the top of a building that it will fall to the planet's surface, but that isn't really what is happening. What is happening is that at the same time that the planet is pulling the pencil to it with its own gravity, the pencil is pulling the planet to it with its own gravity (that force though isn't strong enough to overcome the planet's velocity and direction though).

www.nature.com...

"the new study, published online today in Public Library of Science Biology5, Doebeli and colleague Matthew Herron, also at UBC, went back to the frozen samples from three of their test tubes and sequenced 17 gene samples from various stages of the experiment. The DNA showed that in some cases identical mutations appeared independently in all three test tubes: despite the random nature of mutations, the same changes in the environment favoured the same genetic solutions."

From the study you cite here-

Coyne adds, however, that it may not be practical to extrapolate very much from an asexually reproducing species such as E. coli to organisms that reproduce sexually.

And Stumpf warns that because bacteria live in such large populations, their evolution in aggregate may be more predictable than that of larger, more dispersed species.

Environments also change faster than most species can evolve, Stumpf says, so he would be interested in future studies that examine how predictable evolution is in changing environments. Doebeli agrees: he has dozens of other frozen lines of bacteria, which evolved in environments of varying complexity, waiting for their genomic snapshots.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: peter vlar

Peter, you know as well as I do that I cannot provide evidence, so lets not use that old refuge.

It's not a refuge Its how science is done and you were mocking me and how I use science and the scientific method in the post I was responding to. You can't have it both ways.

There comes a time in everybody's consciousness evolution (yes that word again) when you will know the answers you seek, at a completely different level of comprehension.

A process which you admit there is no evidence for yet you make a statement of fact concerning it when its nothing more than your opinion.

It is never going to be something you can prove to others. The existence we are experiencing is not designed that way for good reason.

Again, a statement of fact that can not be supported and is merely an oped piece.

How can any of us grow spiritually if we just read the answers in a book or accept facts presented to us by experts. We are all in the same boat, but our individual growth is very personal.

and not all of us are so naïve or shallow that we neglect due diligence. My knowledge on the subject at hand is not from books alone, it is backed up and supported by actual work. This can be said for many others who post here as well.

I know who I am, do you know who you are?

Absolutely

a reply to: peter vlar

Absolutely

Apparently not!

Perhaps you need to take some time out to discover who and what you really are. You seem to think you are a body with a chemically induced mind. When you are actually a conscious being experiencing life within a biological body.

Prove me wrong, it works both ways.

and not all of us are so naïve or shallow that we neglect due diligence. My knowledge on the subject at hand is not from books alone

Did you purposely misread my words or where just blind to the fact I was referring to spiritual growth.

a reply to: kennyb72
A chemically induced mind? No, its all electrical signals. Some states of altered consciousness can be achieved chemically though.

As for your challenge and claim that it works both ways...You can not prove a negative and its not my claim that what you insist is reality is such. The onus lies on you to support your conclusions with something beyond anecdote and opinion. It's not my job to do your work for you.

Did you purposely misread my words or where just blind to the fact I was referring to spiritual growth.

I'm not blind, are you? ignoring verifiable physical evidence is either blindness or willful ignorance. Which do you fall under?

a reply to: peter vlar

Remember he distrusts science and scientists. So judge his response on that

a reply to: Noinden

Thanks for the heads up, there are so many of them around here lately I can't be bothered to keep track anymore. It's like I need a spread sheet or something lol

a reply to: peter vlar

As for your challenge and claim that it works both ways...You can not prove a negative and its not my claim that what you insist is reality is such. The onus lies on you to support your conclusions with something beyond anecdote and opinion. It's not my job to do your work for you.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.
source Wiki

Given that the universal understanding for thousands of years is that we all possess a soul, what you are proposing is an argument against that belief, my understanding is that the burden of proof is on you. You can dig up bones for the rest of eternity if that's what floats your boat, but you will never understand the true nature of reality from the evidence and the conclusions you draw from it.

You don't have all the facts and are jumping to conclusions. This brings me back to my first post in our discussion. When science understands what consciousness is, you will be presented with a whole new dimension of possibilities. Then it will be time to test your resolve about being open to new evidence.

Thanks for the heads up, there are so many of them around here lately I can't be bothered to keep track anymore. It's like I need a spread sheet or something lol

Excel won't save you.

I'm not blind, are you? ignoring verifiable physical evidence is either blindness or willful ignorance. Which do you fall under?

in response to

Did you purposely misread my words or where just blind to the fact I was referring to spiritual growth.

You have either misread it again or you are just presenting a straw man.

a reply to: kcgads

Read. The. Link. I. Gave. You.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: peter vlar


When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.
source Wiki

The wiki quote is bsolutely true, you are making unsupported claims though, not me. Go support them. You challenged me to prove a negative, which is an impossibility. I didnt make a claim, you refused to support or even explain your own claims and then tried to turn it around on me to further avoid the issue. Its entirely dishonest on a good day to utilize such sketchy avoidance tactics.

Given that the universal understanding for thousands of years is that we all possess a soul, what you are proposing is an argument against that belief, my understanding is that the burden of proof is on you.

Your understanding is incorrect. Please demomstrate that it was a universal understanding that we all posess a soul and show how a religious belief is equitable with evidence or proof that the comcept is actually true. There are multiple comcepts of souls as well. Some insist thst only humans have a soul, animism believes all animals and even non biological things(rivers mountains streams)have them. Jainism believes all biologicsl organisms have souls. Then theres the concept of Anima Mundi. Pythagorean beliefs state that the soul is lifeless when it leaves the body and returns to Hades, never to return to a human body again.There simply isnt even a consensus between groups who believe in a soul let alone a "universal understanding" of the soul.

You can dig up bones for the rest of eternity if that's what floats your boat, but you will never understand the true nature of reality from the evidence and the conclusions you draw from it.

Well thank goodness anthropology isnt the only scientific discipline then!

You don't have all the facts and are jumping to conclusions. This brings me back to my first post in our discussion. When science understands what consciousness is, you will be presented with a whole new dimension of possibilities. Then it will be time to test your resolve about being open to new evidence.

Just like anyone utilizing the scientific method, my stance is based on the sum of all data currently known. If something new can be verified that contradicts current thoughts then I'm completely open to it. The implication that I am being disingenuous in that assertion is quite honestly disturbing and outlandish. Particularly when you are making unsubstantiated claims amd presenting them as facts. At least Im open minded enough to acknowledge I could be wrong and will be more than willing to look at any papers coming from recent studies conducted by various neuroscientists and physicists investigating the human soul. But Im the one jumping to conclusions while youve got your mind completely made up about both myself and the science and leave no wiggle room for error? The exact opposite of what I stand behind time to get of the very tall horsey before he throws you off.

Excel won't save you.

Youre probably right. I'm leaning towards a power point presentation now!

You have either misread it again or you are just presenting a straw man.

Thats an interesting charge coming from the person who keeps stating their opinion/belief as though its a fact despite admitting that you can't support tge statements with any sort of evidence.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Ghost147

Perhaps so for someone is ‘into’ evolution theory. I personally find the detail rather mundane.

You didn’t answer my question because you have no way of knowing if your definition of evolution is correct or not. Ignore it as much and as long as you like but it does not diminish the fact that your narrow definition of evolution cannot be accurate unless you can define life itself.

Actually, we can define life. Here's an entire article surrounding the definition:

Article

I only used my very vague example to get my point across, but since you insist that I have somehow dodged the question, here's some evidence.

Essentially there are seven pillars that a thing must have in order to be considered alive (point form version of the article, because I know you're not going to read it):

1) Programing: By program I mean an organized plan that describes both the ingredients themselves and the kinetics of the interactions among ingredients as the living system persists through time.
2) Improvisation: Because a living system will inevitably be a small fraction of the larger universe in which it lives, it will not be able to control all the changes and vicissitudes of its environment, so it must have some way to change its program.
3) compartmentalization: All the organisms that we consider living are confined to a limited volume, surrounded by a surface that we call a membrane or skin that keeps the ingredients in a defined volume and keeps deleterious chemicals—toxic or diluting—on the outside.
4) Energy: Life as we know it involves movement—of chemicals, of the body, of components of the body—and a system with net movement cannot be in equilibrium. It must be an open and, in this case, metabolizing system.
5) Regeneration: Because a metabolizing system composed of catalysts (enzymes) and chemicals (metabolites) in a container is constantly reacting, it will inevitably be associated with some thermodynamic losses.
6) Adaptability: Improvisation is a form of adaptability, but is too slow for many of the environmental hazards that a living organism must face. For example, a human that puts a hand into a fire has a painful experience that might be selected against in evolution—but the individual needs to withdraw his hand from the fire immediately to live appropriately thereafter. That behavioral response to pain is essential to survival and is a fundamental response of living systems that we call feedback.
7) Seclusion: By seclusion, in this context, I mean something rather like privacy in the social world of our universe. It is essential for a metabolizing system with many reactions going on at the same time, to prevent the chemicals in pathway 1 (A→B→C→D for example) from being metabolized by the catalysts of pathway 2 (R→S→T→U).

You can read the more elaborate version in that article (but I know that you wont). That is essentially what traits we would need in order to define life.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Ghost147
You have no right to narrow the scope of this discussion to the mechanics of the process. This thread is an expression of someones doubts regarding evolution.

Yes, except you were stating that the "Achilles heel" of 'evolutionists' are questions that all involved the demand for evolution to explain how, why, when, and to what purpose life began. Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of life, it only consists of what occurs to it while life already exists.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Ghost147
Such an outrageous statement! and why the hell do you alway raise the topic of gravity to deflect from the discussion (a theory that is wrong by the way but that’s another argument.)

It was meant to be as an example, not to derail the topic at hand. You clearly have no ability to conceive what Evolution means and is at a standard scale, so I figured giving you some humble examples will let you're mind grasp what we're talking about.

Have you never heard of an example being used to explain something before?

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Ghost147
You can’t hide behind the royal ‘our’ and ‘we’ forever Ghost, at some point in your life you will start to think for yourself and will then understand our point of view.

In the meantime your deflection of my question was a miserable fail.

So what you're saying is, instead of actually thwarting any of the information that i've given you, you just insult them and supply no evidence in return which would actually have any effect on the validity of what I've stated?

And you say we're the ones who plug our ears and yell to escape confrontation...

originally posted by: Autorico
Is there any reason a deity couldn't have created us through evolution?

That could have very well been the case. The issue is that we do not know if one did or if one didn't. But that's not really the issue at hand is it? I would make no difference if a deity used evolution as a way to form us, or if there was no deity that used evolution. Evolution still exists nevertheless.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Noinden

Hello Noinden,

There is a huge logical flaw in your post. Evolution is a scientific theory. It relies on evidence not belief.
Your post is "belief" and "I feel". You post nothing new to this type of debate.

No it isn't! Evolution Theory is a scientific theory. Evolution itself is still up for grabs until the question of origins of life is settled.

No... it isn't. Why? Because the origin of life has nothing to do with Evolution. You want to say that a god created the first organic material on the planet 3.8 billion years ago? go ahead and claim that. You want to say that it was aliens who brought this organic material to earth 3.8 billion years ago? That's very possible as well. You want to say that it was due to specific conditions on earth where proteins started the organic matter 3.8 billion years ago. Be my guest!

The thing is, those are all cases of Abiogenesis. It has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution only exists once life is already in existence.