The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zenithar
reply to post by nophun
 

Dawkins likes his mount improbable eh? and a good point you make, but technically there is no such thing as down, up or anyway in a random world, only further randomness you know!!!



By down I thought it was clear I mean something that hurts survival chances.

Up mount improbable is obviously when a beneficial change is completed.
If a bad change got passed though generation to generation how long would it last ?
this is natural selection.

Say a bug who had great camouflage turned bright pink .. this would be going down mount improbable.

You are not understanding what I am saying about random.

Lets look at convergent evolution.

If it natural selection was just random changes why do we same traits in unrelated lineages ?


Like ... a fish and a dolphin ?
There bodies are best suited for what they do.


List of examples of convergent evolution
en.wikipedia.org...

See ! The change may be random but the result is not my friend

Because natural selection is not blind random chance


We do not see deer looking animal under water because that body type even with gills would SUCK under water


If it was just random chance we we see all kinds of crazy weak animals!

I hope this helps


[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]

[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]




posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Zenithar
 


The fact of the matter is that most spontaneous mutations cause an animal to die before it is ever born, or if it is born it will usually not make it to an age where it can procreate. An organism is dependent on certain proteins being produced at specific times in order for it to develop properly. A change at a single loci can throw this off completely. Occasionally though a mutation will create an organism that is slightly better at surviving and providing. This then makes them a better candidate for mates. In almost every case though these changes are so slight that they are almost imperceptible. However, as this organism's genes get passed on to other generations and other mutations occur and eventually a completely new species is produced. Its a slow, lengthy, almost imperceptible process that in most cases produces failures, who don't even have the chance to mate.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


I understand that the natural selection process is not random, but is IS blind, It doesn't make a choice its just a term used to describe the survival of the fittest mechanism..

maybe i was not clear enough, but i know that natural selection is not random and that the mutations are.

......it does not matter how long it would last(the animal with bad genes_, it proves my point that bad genes get passed on, its random mutation, can happen anywhere, natural selection may not only work for the "fittest" but also for the "luckiest" if you know what im saying?


now think about this, you just said that "We do not see deer looking animal under water because that body type even with gills would SUCK under water

If it was just random chance we we see all kinds of crazy weak animals!

but you only considering this in terms of natural selection, think about it in the same sense of RANDOM mutation, if random mutation is the driving force behind the initiation of the evolution of a spaces then where are all the crazy weak animals? after all its just random, surely such a process would result in failed specimin upon specimen under each layer of earth crust? maybe i'm wrong?

do you get me?



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Zenithar
 


The fact of the matter is that most spontaneous mutations cause an animal to die before it is ever born, or if it is born it will usually not make it to an age where it can procreate. An organism is dependent on certain proteins being produced at specific times in order for it to develop properly. A change at a single loci can throw this off completely. Occasionally though a mutation will create an organism that is slightly better at surviving and providing. This then makes them a better candidate for mates. In almost every case though these changes are so slight that they are almost imperceptible. However, as this organism's genes get passed on to other generations and other mutations occur and eventually a completely new species is produced. Its a slow, lengthy, almost imperceptible process that in most cases produces failures, who don't even have the chance to mate.



so most spontanes mutations cause an animal do die? i did'nt know that and i've read a few books now on evolution...surely this random process must be more destructive to the dna then anyting?



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 


So how exactly is evolution proven 100%? Creation? If we use our thinking caps, the only thing that can be proven 100% is our own existence "I think therefore I am".

So take a chill pill to come down off your "I'm right and your wrong" high, really think about the non-effect posting your snippy remarks have on the rest of the world, and accept that *gasp* "science" could be wrong or someone else could be right and the world keeps spinning regardless.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Globalization has homogenized the world's view of this



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
reply to post by nophun
 

the intelligent design theory.

It doesn't take much brain power


I agree with part of your statement anyhow



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 





make you explain what you are asking ... genius

Genius is that like name calling or just name calling.
please ask me to explain the question you didn't answer and can't.

How does it matter who asked the question in the past. When I'm asking it now, especially when your OP was so inviting. Your spiritually dead
and blinded by hate . Genius. Grow up.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by afterschoolfun
So how exactly is evolution proven 100%? Creation? If we use our thinking caps, the only thing that can be proven 100% is our own existence "I think therefore I am".


The Theory of Evolution has not been proven 100% because it's still a theory. However, it is a theory still backed and validated by science.

Descartes quote falls strictly in the realm of philosophical musings regarding our existence. Once again, philosophical musings does not equate to science.



So take a chill pill to come down off your "I'm right and your wrong" high, really think about the non-effect posting your snippy remarks have on the rest of the world, and accept that *gasp* "science" could be wrong or someone else could be right and the world keeps spinning regardless.


There is nothing wrong discussing this issue in a civilized manner, which I have been striving to do. This is not about science being right and philosophy being wrong. It's about the not so small notion that there is no scientific validity to any form of Creationism or Intelligent Design, and no amount of philosophical waxing is going to change that because they (science/fact and belief/philosophy) fall into two distinct and separate realms. This entire thread is devoted to the discussion that there is a very real conspiracy by Creationists and IDer's to undermine the Theory of Evolution because it simply does not fit into their personal belief system.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zenithar
reply to post by nophun
 


I understand that the natural selection process is not random, but is IS blind, It doesn't make a choice its just a term used to describe the survival of the fittest mechanism..

maybe i was not clear enough, but i know that natural selection is not random and that the mutations are.

lol Well at the start you said "HOW DOES apparent randomness(which is just a term describing the unpredictable or misunderstood!)".

I wont argue anymore
All I am saying it Natural selection not random, unpredictable, or misunderstood


It seems very predictable and understood to me.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by nophun
 


Genius is that like name calling or just name calling.
please ask me to explain the question you didn't answer and can't.


I will answer your question that your silly Young Earth YouTube video told you to ask a evolutionist as soon as you explain to me what is a 'genetic mutation" in your own words . gogogo

.. ya I know you have a YouTube video telling you that too


Well I refuse to explaining anything to anyone that agree with these tactics.



In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists — Richard Dawkins


Here is the story and your answer.
www.skeptics.com.au...

Bravo
Shady creationist !


I am spiritually dead! .. ?
And your God is not real ?
we even ?



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by nophun




  • Evolution is just a theory not fact.
  • Carbon dating is wrong.
  • There is no evidence of Evolution.
  • The gaps, the gaps!
  • Cambrian explosion.
  • Crocoduck has STILL not been found.
  • Proof of Dinosaurs and humans walking side by side. (foot prints)
  • fossils do not show ancestry.
  • The second law of thermodynamics.


    Unfortunately we have no proof of anything. Creationism or Evolutionism could both have arguments in their favor.

    Evolution is just a theory not fact. Well give me empirical evidence that we evolved along time line. Prove Forbidden Archeology wrong and mainstream Archeology right.

    Carbon Dating is wrong. Prove that it is right. Carbon dating burning and Nuclear are based on assumptions with Algorithms programed in using specifications based on said assumptions.

    There is no evidence of Evolution. No there isn't in fact as far back as modern human has been unburied as far back as 300,000 or many as millions of years. www.forbiddenarcheology.com... evolutionary changes have been remarkably lacking. A fringe group that is growing in the Archeological field seem to think that bi pedal apes and humans co existed, maybe as far back as the Cretaceous or further back.

    The Gaps, The Gaps. This could be explained by once again primitive bi pedal apes having thicker bones hanging out in more mineral rich areas making them preserve better. We may not have buried our dead as we learned to do all the time leaving our bones to be eaten or dissolve to dust.

    The Cambrian Explosion. We don't have any hard evidence, but with complex cycles one should prescribe to Chaos for order in non linear equations.

    Proof of Dinos and Humans walking side by side. Is it really hard to believe. Once again the lack of physical proof in bones could be caused by our small bones and the highly acidic world of say the Cretaceous. Ancient Cultures have drawings of what we currently know as dinosaurs. www.genesispark.org... since we can't assume ancient cultures working to make sure they didn't want to starve would find time for excavation of old bones.

    Fossils do not show Ancestry. Maybe, maybe not. We just mapped the Genome and it's kinda arrogant to think we would know what millions of years of evolution would do to genetic code.

    The Second law of Thermodynamics. yeah, yeah...

    This isn't for or against, but rather just my musings on your thoughts, and an attempt to open a mind or two to possibilities other than those given.

    If the Theologians are right, then infinity is wrong, if the Astronomers are right then we know more about positive numbers than negative numbers.

    With infinity +

    There is also infinity -

    If that is the case the earth could be infinitely small to an infinitely large body. If we are infinitely small in an infinitely large body then our math, and science could be wrong as far forces acting on us.

    Just because we can "critically think" doesn't make us right.



  • posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 02:48 AM
    link   
    reply to post by oppaperclip
     





    Unfortunately we have no proof of anything. Creationism or Evolutionism could both have arguments in their favor.

    Yes we do.
    (see below)



    Evolution is just a theory not fact.

    en.wikipedia.org...




    Carbon Dating is wrong. Prove that it is right. Carbon dating burning and Nuclear are based on assumptions with Algorithms programed in using specifications based on said assumptions.

    Your right the universe is 6000 years old, care to explain why we can see a galaxy 13 billion light-years ?

    and I am going to bed
    forget it.

    [edit on 28-2-2010 by nophun]



    posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 03:13 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by DeathShield
    reply to post by wayaboveitall
     


    But doesn't saying that "no need for adaptation" imply that there is an inherent design?

    I dont know freind, you tell me, it's simply fact.

    For example you mentioned reptiles not losing limbs. In a godless/creator-less environment ( such as proposed by atheistic/ natural evolution) where all physical change is dictated purely by genetic mutation then all species should still be evolving or mutating regardless of how well adapted they are to their particular environment.

    Some are still evolving freind. This last part makes no sense. Again, evolution is driven by adaption, Not random inexplicable and spontaneous mutations. Make of that what you will.

    You can't say that they evolved something out of "need" or didn't evolve something out of "lack of need" without implying that the evolution or lack there of was deliberately activated or unactivated.

    Freind, I Imply nothing, I cannot say anymore than you exactly how the adaptive mutation required is triggered, only that it is and that there is evidence enough of it. Take the loss of limbs in some lizards for example,
    one assumes the habitat began to change, giving rise to plant life that was difficult to navigate with limbs, or that other food sources were evolving which fled down holes in the ground where the luckless lizards were hampered to follow with limbs. The connection between the need to adapt and the genetic mutation/s required to bring about this physical adaption over time, remains the great mystery even to science. I dont pretend to know. You seem to imply that evolutionary adaption is an ongoing juggernaut, entirely random and unnessary accidents, without purpous, yet this is clearly not the case. How would it benefit a species to randomly mutate to such degree that it can no longer successfully compete, feed, survive in its enviroment? What benefit to a girraff to randomly mutate again and revert to a shortnecked species, purely by chance, where it needs to survive in a habitat where its primary food source is the leaves of tall acacia trees? Clearly then evolution DOES have purpous and therefor is NOT purely random, would you not agree?


    It's like when whales evolved from land mammals to oceanic mammals. What was the likelihood that the right amount of whales would develop the right set of genetic mutations over a given period of time that somehow ends up making them more adept at hunting in the water? In order for it to work two whales would have to have an identical genetic mutation in order for them to pass the trait on to their offspring, and then their offspring would either run into the same problem or they would face the rigors and issues of inbreeding. How does the genetic mutation that forms the basis for an overall complex evolution get passed without being stonewalled by either chance or nature?


    You seem to overlook the sheer amount of time and hence generations, along with the probable minuteness of incremental mutations involved.
    Evolution IS still ongoing, research bares this out.
    An example....

    {physical evolution driven by adaption, can be faster than expected too, see below, this may explain some oddities in the fossil records too}

    www.owlnet.rice.edu...

    www.canetoadsinoz.com...

    www.abc.net.au...

    Post note: Certainly I would love science to be able to explain exactly what causes a particular series of mutations to occure that the result, or ongoing change, so perfectly suit the species and circumstance in which it occurs. I dont know what 'turns on, or off' genes, and frankly, neither does science, but this dosent lead me to the equally unsatisfying and unproven/unexplained conclusion, that some Uber

    [edit on 28-2-2010 by wayaboveitall]



    posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 03:24 AM
    link   
    reply to post by afterschoolfun
     


    Evolution is a fact, the theory is the mechanisms involved which drive it. And intelligent design and creationism are completely based on faith. They are not scientific and this propaganda that actually makes people think it is anything more than blind faith is very sad in this day and age.



    posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 03:32 AM
    link   
    Last post continued.....

    Entity, simply decided it should be so, which is the definition of 'Intelligent design' that both creationists and science alike seem to accept.
    Maybe our very genes themselves are intelligent, selfaware?


    Again I say The design of adaptive evolution, IS intelligent, whats behind that intelligence is a mystery, until either god appears or science unlocks the secret of gene function in this regard.

    P.S there are no 'bad' mutations, unless your speaking of cancer for example, but then, this neither hinders nor benifits the species as a whole in anyway, and therefore does not effect evolutionary adaption
    as such, it only effects the individual. Cancer could be called an enviromental mutation, but not evolutionary.
    I would be very surprised if anyone could give me an example of a singular mutation (as opposed to one of a series of mutations leading to adaptive change) that kills a species. It dosent happen, as you might expect if evolutionary mutations were indeed blind, random chance affairs.
    Rather history and the fossil records show that failure to adapt (for whatever reason) were and have been (atleast until mankind hit the scene)
    the primary triggers of extinction of species.
    (yes, I hear you, enviromental changes too rapid for adaptive response (extinction meteors/ice ages perhaps) are also reasons, but failure to adapt still applies)


    Sorry, i missed this...


    I agree, though one could argue that it is not perfect because of things such as Genetic anomalies. This in turn leads to the slippery slope argument that since it is not perfect -because it doesn't meet criterias such as "fairness" towards humans or other emotions and ideals we would attribute to a loving or "perfect" creator- that it somehow means that there is no god therefore no creation is involved.



    The biosphere is evolutionarily perfect. Peoples subjective ideas of perfect
    have little to do with it. Nature is self sustaining and self repairing without our intervention, genetic anomalies are part of the process.
    I make no argument for or against the concept of God and all that entails,
    I never met him, saw him, heard him, however I never met, saw or heard
    Gallileo either, but I have no cause to beleive he never existed, likewise I reserve judgement on God.
    That said, if such a being is indeed behind 'creation', why should he not
    have it so, that life here should develop via adaptive evolution?
    Again, adaptive evolution is both, self evident and ongoing.

    The bible and religious doctrins are altogether another breed of fish, The bible and similar books were written and rewritten by men, the concept of religion was a creation of men, and I beleive that if there is a God, he/she/it had bugger all to do with either.
    I cant claim to actually beleive in God, atleast not as various religions describe, but Im in awe of the natural world and not against the idea of "something' behind it all. Im not arrogant enough to attribut everything to random chance, empty and meaningless, nor too arrogant to accept that there are facets of life that remain beyond science or human reasoning.




    [edit on 28-2-2010 by wayaboveitall]

    [edit on 28-2-2010 by wayaboveitall]



    posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:18 AM
    link   
    reply to post by nophun
     



    How can science have 90% of everything RIGHT until it comes to disagree with a old book ?


    Because creationists cannot and refuse to use logic and reason.



    posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:28 AM
    link   
    There is nothing more scary than people who do not understand science seeking to convince people who do understand science of the validity of their ideas.

    The real problem is the strange need to take the bible as a literal document. We might as well take the Star trek series as a matter of fact.

    T

    [edit on 28-2-2010 by Tiger5]



    posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:41 AM
    link   

    Because creationists cannot and refuse to use logic and reason.
    Is there reason in a reasonless universe? If the universe is completely pointless, why should anything matter?



    posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:46 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD

    Because creationists cannot and refuse to use logic and reason.
    Is there reason in a reasonless universe? If the universe is completely pointless, why should anything matter?


    Reason: decide by reasoning; draw or come to a conclusion

    It's clear he didn't mean the other sense, that of purpose. And yes, there is purpose in a purposeless universe. It's a human constructed purpose, but purpose nonetheless.





    new topics
    top topics
     
    9
    << 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

    log in

    join