It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

page: 32
14
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
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).


What is is? ...Seriously




posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
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

What do your gods have to do with science and evolution? Why bring them up?
Did I say there was not evidence for evolution or that I do not believe in science?
I have a thick skin and your pitiful attempts to break through it are childish to say the least.
Again, by saying "it just is" is like the Creationist say "God did it".



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

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.


Then why do we have some species that have been the same for millions of years if mutation is a constant?



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Species that haven’t changed much for millions of years haven’t had the environmental factors that would provide a catalyst for change.

For example, the ocean floor environment hasn’t changed much over millions of years, so any mutations of sea sponge won’t necessarily help the mutated individual sponges thrive any more than non-mutated sponges.

No advantage means all sponges, mutated and otherwise, are both having the same amount of offspring. The mutated gene is not being passed along more.


edit on 7/21/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/21/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Observationalist

Gravity? Its a natural phenomenon. Unlike Evolution, we don't know that much about why it happens. Though gravitational waves have been postulated for a long time, they have only been detected recently.

If you mean something else by "what is it?" please clarify



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Quadrivium

Species that haven’t changed much for millions of years haven’t had the environmental factors that would provide a catalyst for change.

So it would seem that some mutations are cause driven. There are catalyst for change as you said. Thus, it would seem there is a purpose for the adaptation.



For example, the oceans haven’t changed much, so any mutations of sea sponge won’t necessarily help the mutated individual sponges thrive any more than non-mutated sponges.

No advantage means all sponges, mutated and otherwise, are both having the same amount of offspring. The mutated gene is not being passed along more.


That is not the same as saying mutation is a constant. If it were, there would not be any "non-mutated sponges".



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

Why bring them up? Why bring up creationists? we had been talking evolution, and by consequence the idea that it must have a purpose or not. Here's the thing, my faith does not postulate that the Gods created the Unierse. Rather they (univese, life etc) sprung into existence on its own.

SO again.

WHY must there be a purpose. Evolution really just is. We know how it occurs. Science does not attribute a purpose to these things. That is speculative, not objective.

QED



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Why bring them up? Why bring up creationists? we had been talking evolution, and by consequence the idea that it must have a purpose or not. Here's the thing, my faith does not postulate that the Gods created the Unierse. Rather they (univese, life etc) sprung into existence on its own.

SO again.

WHY must there be a purpose. Evolution really just is. We know how it occurs. Science does not attribute a purpose to these things. That is speculative, not objective.

QED

Again, I did not ask about your religion and I did not mention mine.
What I said was "Saying it just happens is equivalent to a Creationist saying God did it".
If it just happens, then why does it not happen to all species?
Are some like the platypus and opossum immune to evolution?
edit on 21-7-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Observationalist

Gravity? Its a natural phenomenon. Unlike Evolution, we don't know that much about why it happens. Though gravitational waves have been postulated for a long time, they have only been detected recently.

If you mean something else by "what is it?" please clarify


I asked


What is is?


In regards to you saying “gravity just is”



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

That's why evolution and reason don't go together.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium
Mutation is always happening, but not all mutations lead to something that would benefit the organism in its environment.

If there’s no benefit, then there is no reproduction advantage. If there’s no reproductive advantage, then natural selection won’t happen.

So some species in some situations will evolve and some species in other situations won’t, even though there would be mutations in both cases.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

What I said was "Saying it just happens is equivalent to a Creationist saying God did it".


Evolution is a natural process and doesn’t require a greater purpose.

It’s a natural process just like running water that causes erosion is a natural process. The running water doesn’t have a purpose when it erodes a rock; it just does it.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Quadrivium
Mutation is always happening, but not all mutations lead to something that would benefit the organism in its environment.

If there’s no benefit, then there is no reproduction advantage. If there’s no reproductive advantage, then natural selection won’t happen.

So some species in some situations will evolve and some species in other situations won’t, even though there would be mutations in both cases.


The problem is that mutations can only alter gene sequences which effect protein structure. Proteins are very rarely, if ever, one mutation away from forming into another useful protein. These are vast sequences, and in the case of the titin protein, over 100,000 base pairs (DNA units) long. This would require a VAST amount of beneficial mutations, all accurately picking the precise base pair over time to form the right sequence... 100,000 times?!?! No way.

It is equivalent to a monkey writing a Shakespearean epic.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




It just happens. It just is.


So...Science Happens
Kinda like S#it happens
Or Don’t worry be happy
Science Happens.... “it’s our worry free philosophy”

Seriously though, to say it just happens is a philosophical idea.

Science can’t do it all. If it does then your pushing into Scientism.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




It just happens. It just is.


So...Science Happens
Kinda like S#it happens
Or Don’t worry be happy
Science Happens.... “it’s our worry free philosophy”

Seriously though, to say it just happens is a philosophical idea.

Science can’t do it all. If it does then your pushing into Scientism.



No. There are reasons for the process of evolution -- just like any process in nature -- but evolution has no purpose for happening. It just is. Which was the original question I was answering when I responded to this post:


originally posted by: Quadrivium
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?


As I said in a post above, lets liken the natural process of evolution to the natural process of water erosion. There are reasons for the process of water erosion to occur, but water erosion has no purpose for happening.

Water isn't eroding rock away with some purpose or set goal in mind. Running water doesn't start eroding an area because that area needs a canyon. The water doesn't have the goal of digging a canyon when it starts running over an area.

The running of water is just a thing that water does. Erosion is just a thing that happens when water runs. Canyons are a thing that results when enough water proceeds to erode.

So when someone asks "what purpose does water erosion have for happening" I would answer:
"None. Erosion doesn't need a purpose. Erosion is a natural process that just happens. It just is."

When someone asks "what purpose does evolution have for happening" I would answer:
"None. Evolution doesn't need a purpose. Evolution is a natural process that just happens. It just is."


edit on 7/22/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

So when someone asks "what purpose does water erosion have for happening" I would answer:
"None. Erosion doesn't need a purpose. Erosion is a natural process that just happens. It just is."


Even water erosion has purpose though. The solubility laws of water balance salt-water ecosystems.



When someone asks "what purpose does evolution have for happening" I would answer:
"None. Evolution doesn't need a purpose. Evolution is a natural process that just happens. It just is."



Humans are the theorized product of evolution, so you are stripping humans of purpose. "Life is an accident", etc, etc... This is nihilism. That's where the religion of evolution leads young minds.

It's not a good path

edit on 22-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

So when someone asks "what purpose does water erosion have for happening" I would answer:
"None. Erosion doesn't need a purpose. Erosion is a natural process that just happens. It just is."


Even water erosion has purpose though. The solubility laws of water balance salt-water ecosystems.



That's a result, not a purpose.



When someone asks "what purpose does evolution have for happening" I would answer:
"None. Evolution doesn't need a purpose. Evolution is a natural process that just happens. It just is."

Humans are the theorized product of evolution, so you are stripping humans of purpose. "Life is an accident", etc, etc... This is nihilism. That's where the religion of evolution leads young minds.
It's not a good path


Humans can assign any purpose they want to themselves. There is no natural rule telling humans what their purpose must be.

Evolution doesn't give humans purpose. Evolution did not have a goal of leading to human intelligence. Intelligence is just the evolutionary path human evolution happened to make. Just like the ability of a shark to swim well, smell well, and have sharp teeth is the evolutionary path sharks evolution happened to make.

Through evolution, both sharks and humans forged certain evolutionary paths that resulted in both being able have niche abilities that makes them successful in their respective environments. The Shark's swimming and biting characteristics that resulted from evolution are the niche ability they use to be successful in their environment. Just like Human intelligence resulting from evolution is the niche ability they use to be successful.

Intelligence is not the "better" evolutionary path than the path that gave sharks their hunter characteristics. Both are equally good given the environment in which each compete for resources.


Heck, Let's add cockroaches to the mix. Cockroach evolution made a different path than sharks or humans, but has resulted in the cockroach being successful in its environment. Human evolution isn't "better" than cockroach evolution, nor is it worse. Cockroach evolution is just a different path of evolution, yet just as successful.


edit on 7/22/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Barcs

I knew it was called adapting.


Equivocation fallacy.



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quadrivium

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?


Why does there have to be a purpose, though? It's just a fact of nature that copy errors happen during replication and that the better adapted organisms have a better chance at surviving and passing down genes to offspring.


Oh I totally agree that science is only a tool but how can you say "evolution just is, end of story"?


Since when is evolution stated as "it just is, end of story?" Generally speaking scientists cite research and evidence, they don't just say "evolution did it!" and run away when challenged.


Then why do we have some species that have been the same for millions of years if mutation is a constant?


If an organism is very well adapted to their environment, genetic mutations experienced would mostly be neutral or harmful. That's why some species maintain their similar appearance for so long because they are adapted so well to their respective environments. Also, no species stays EXACTLY the same, even when you look at say a white shark, you will still see differences from their ancestor species, they just won't be as big of changes. Selection is a big part of it, it's not just mutations.




edit on 7 22 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

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.


Well to be fair empiricism IS a branch of philosophy. You can't have science without logical reasoning and expect it to demonstrate things, just like you can't have logical reasoning with unscientific presumptive premises, if you expect to get anywhere in figuring out how things work.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join