Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

I'd like to compare what humans have 'evolved' into another species, with humans that have remained human, and we'll find who has the better argument here.


Perhaps you'd like to compare other species, like cats, or penguins, too...


There's plenty of evidence, right here, in front of you, we'll all see just who is making it all up, and who is not!!

Perhaps you don't knonw that there are billions of humans living on Earth today, which have been 'documented' with billions of birth certificates, that proves they are all human??

You know it now, so what do you have in comparison?


Long-extinct species which don't match living species, that's superb evidence to support your nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1

Again, there is no "evolving into" anything. Life just slowly changes in varying environments. There is no end goal. It's not that complicated to understand but you purposely choose not to so you can spew your verbal diarrhea.

a reply to: Barcs

I knew it was called adapting.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You need to prove it is the right one. We've posted proof of evolution here. YOU have not read a single one. Hell you don't even know what it is.

a reply to: Noinden

It's science vs. reason.

I remember part 1 of this. For some reason the mods had changed Colin42's original title. It was supposed to be a thread to discuss the diversity we see today without invoking evolution.
I enjoyed that thread, for the most part.
I learned new things as well as imparted a few things.
Think that's where I had my first conversation with Barcs.
Haven't read though this one yet put I will leave you with this tid bit:

IF A POSTER SHOWS UP WITH THE SCREEN NAME "ITSTHETOOTH"....................

RUN!

ETA, I started reading through the thread and on the third page I see the following and had to comment. hehe

originally posted by: Barcs
I'd love to see ItstheTooth make an appearance here, but I think he may have been banned.

WHY?
We may disagree on many things but I figured that would be something we would defiantly agree on.
Why would you ever wish to go through that again? ugh!

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: turbonium1

Again, there is no "evolving into" anything. Life just slowly changes in varying environments. There is no end goal. It's not that complicated to understand but you purposely choose not to so you can spew your verbal diarrhea.

Serious questions:
If there is not an end goal then what is the purpose of evolution?
If there is not a purpose to evolution then why evolve at all?
"Life slowly changes in varying environments"- why, if there is no end goal, no purpose?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Again you must prove that. Yo ure doing the whole Pee Wee Herman stick here. The "I know what you are but what am I?". So lets tie it back to the subject of the thread. What is with out reason about the science of evolution? What makes you qualified to say that it is so? Oh and while we are at it, why are you determined to troll so hard?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Why must there be a purpose? To imply a purpose, implies a higher intelligence in the Universe. Science is not concerned with that. Evolution just is. End of story.

I say this as a theistic scientist. Don't anthropomorphize science. Its not a sentient thing, its a tool. Like a hammer .

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Why must there be a purpose? To imply a purpose, implies a higher intelligence in the Universe. Science is not concerned with that. Evolution just is. End of story.

I say this as a theistic scientist. Don't anthropomorphize science. Its not a sentient thing, its a tool. Like a hammer .

Oh I totally agree that science is only a tool but how can you say "evolution just is, end of story"?
That is eerily similar to some Creationist claims that "God did it, end of story"
Have you never wondered why "it" happens? Can there really be no purpose? Without purpose why should it happen at all?
Why adapt?
Why evolve?
Why survive at all?
No purpose seems to negate the term "survival of the fittest".
Seems like a very strange notion.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Why must there be a purpose? To imply a purpose, implies a higher intelligence in the Universe. Science is not concerned with that. Evolution just is. End of story.

I say this as a theistic scientist. Don't anthropomorphize science. Its not a sentient thing, its a tool. Like a hammer .

A hammer in a hand has purpose. Tools are chosen because of their purpose. Science alone is not sufficient. You can’t put a hammer in front of a nail and expect the nail to be driven into the wood. To me Philosophy is the hand and science is the tool.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Why adapt?
Why evolve?

Because mutations happen. Mutations are a natural process and an inevitability.

Mutations bring change. Sometimes just by sheer luck, the mutated change is an accidental benefit to changes that happen to the environment in which a species lives.

That lucky/accidental benefit can make that mutated organism live longer and/or procreate more, passing his or her mutation along to more offspring than non-mutated organism. Do that enough, and the some of the species can gradually become a slightly different species. Do that enough (over a long time), and some species can become a different genus.

So, no...No purpose needed. Evolution has no purpose; no greater goal. Evolution doesn't care "why". There is no mechanism in evolution that strives to give a reason for evolving and adapting. You may as well ask if the falling of a rock from a mountainside has a purpose, or if water has a purpose when it turns into ice.

It just happens. It just is.

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Why must there be a purpose? To imply a purpose, implies a higher intelligence in the Universe. Science is not concerned with that. Evolution just is. End of story.

I say this as a theistic scientist. Don't anthropomorphize science. Its not a sentient thing, its a tool. Like a hammer .

A hammer in a hand has purpose. Tools are chosen because of their purpose. Science alone is not sufficient. You can’t put a hammer in front of a nail and expect the nail to be driven into the wood. To me Philosophy is the hand and science is the tool.

Many of the greatest scientist were philosophers. Yet, science as steered away from Philosophy.
IMHO, this is why science has become sloppy and The Theory of Evolution has become all encompassing and bloated.
I have mentioned the "Philosophy of Science" numerous times, in numerous threads and many of the "modern evolutionist" have no idea what I am talking about.
I have even been told on numerous occasions that philosophy has nothing to do with science.
Many do not know history or science.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Why adapt?
Why evolve?

Because mutations happen. Mutations are a natural process and not just an inevitability, but a constant process.

Do changes in the environment "push" evolution? If Natural Selection is a driving force of evolution how can it be without purposefulness?

Mutations bring change. Sometimes just by sheer luck, the mutated change is an accidental benefit to changes that happen to the environment in which a species lives.

That lucky/accidental benefit can make that mutated organism live longer and/or procreate more, passing his or her mutation along to more offspring than non-mutated organism.

So, no...No purpose needed. Evolution has no purpose; no greater goal.
It just happens. It just is.

Hmmm.... no purpose; no greater goal.
Again, this seems to negate the thought of Natural Selection as well as Survival of the Fittest.
It would seem that if a mutation is cause driven then there should be a purpose, correct?

a reply to: Quadrivium

Unlike proving God, or any deity (why just one? (hint I am a polytheist)). There is a lot of evidence for evolution. You are still anthropomorphizing science. Science does not know or care if you believe in it. It just is. Jehovah however appears to be a thin skinned deity, and says he is jealous. My own gods are not that craven

a reply to: Observationalist

You are confusing the person with the hammer using it, with the fact that the hammer does not know, or care what its used for. Again this is anthropomorphizing science on your part. We are talking the things science studies here. Gravity just is (for example).

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Again, this seems to negate the thought of Natural Selection as well as Survival of the Fittest.
It would seem that if a mutation is cause driven then there should be a purpose, correct?

Mutation is not cause driven. As I said, they just happen. Mutation is a constant natural process.

Mutations happen first, and they truly do just happen, with no rhyme or reason driving what mutations happen. The vast majority of mutations go nowhere.

Natural selection and "survival of the fittest" happen second as a result of how those mutations might affect an organism's reaction to environmental factors.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Right, The foundation of science began with a philosophical questions.

Science and philosophy started to drift apart when Draper and White propped up this conflict between science and religion. The new emerging secular universities needed funding so they made up stuff about how everyone thought the earth was flat before science rescued us from ignorance.

the story of the supposed opposition of the Church and the Popes and the ecclesiastical authorities to science in any of its branches, is founded entirely on mistaken notions. Most of it is quite imaginary. Much of it is due to the exaggeration of the significance of the Galileo incident. Only those who know nothing about the history of medicine and of science continue to harbor it

This is a great explanation about the Conflict Thesis and Scientism.