Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How to prove evolution is FAKE!!!

page: 43
21
<< 40  41  42   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Buehler
 


How can you not see the interventionism?

How? Lack of objective evidence to support the hypothesis of interventionism.


Our DNA is the most precisely built complex arrangement of building instructions known to man. How could such a complex mathamatical sequence with so much meaning be a result of an accident? Again, I understand how evouluion could have brought us where we are physically, this does not explain how our DNA and biological SETI formed out of nowhere? yeah we may have had human bodies like now but brains of animals, we had no language, nothing in nature could have constructed the genome of language.

This is one big argument from incredulity, specifically a variation on the "god of the gaps" argument that I like to call "aliens of the gaps". It amounts to "I don't know how this happened, therefore... aliens." It's not a positive claim in any sense, it's not a scientific claim in any sense, and it's not a logical claim in any sense. It's a logical fallacy.


Think logically man?

"Logical" deduction without objective evidence to support the thesis isn't "evidence".


Ill believe it when a tornado passes through and makes a perfectly running super computer with debri. That's basically what your saying if you can't accept that there was intervention.

You invoke another logical fallacy -- Hoyle's fallacy -- to support your initial logical fallacy... two wrongs do not make a right.

Present your objective evidence for interventionism. Make positive claims, not "arguments from incredulity", and then show why you make those claims.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Plagiarized post copied from an article by Mario Seiglie in Good News Magazine has been deleted.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Buehler
 

This still isn't positive evidence for your hypothesis of interventionism, it's just more argument from incredulity.

Further, what you just posted would hold true for the DNA of every single organism on the planet, not just humans. But in this post, you said:


Hey, I'm not saying evolution isn't fact. For I know that evolution brought us pretty much to where we are now physically, but something along the line helped us obtain where we are mentally, think about it.

So you just copy-pasted an entire page from another website about how evolution is impossible because of the complexity of DNA, but said earlier that evolution happens.

So which is it?

Is evolution impossible or did it happen and then aliens intervened and gave us "higher" intelligence?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Yesss! I'm not saying evolution is BS cause obviously it's not? I'm saying evolution isn't responsible for giving us our mental capability that far surpasses all other mammals! Because it didnt! that's where the intervention took place.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buehler
Yesss! I'm not saying evolution is BS cause obviously it's not? I'm saying evolution isn't responsible for giving us our mental capability that far surpasses all other mammals! Because it didnt! that's where the intervention took place.


The "intervention" you speak of has been speculated to be psychedelic plants, including mushrooms that our ancestors may have eaten or ingested in some form or another. If speculation is correct, it would probably be the result of accident at first, but then successive "experimenting".

People often explain psychedelic experiences as divine in nature and they tend to completely break down human constructs like time and space and the all important ego.

While this isn't confirmed or denied by science, it definitely has prospects of being legitimate.

I think evolution to be completely real, but human intelligence is an anomaly in terms of other creatures around us. The psychedelic influence could explain that anomaly to some degree as general intelligence is somewhat out of proportion to other creatures. Our body chemistry and reaction to specific organic matter is different than that of a dog's, and therefore would produce different results upon ingestion.

That said..I believe that what is now known as general intelligence, at its core,may have originally evolved as an adaptation to deal with evolutionarily novel, nonrecurrent problems. Evolution has already done all the thinking, so to speak, and equipped the human brain with the appropriate psychological mechanisms, which produce in us the appropriate preferences, desired, cognitions, and emotions, and motivate adaptive behavior in the context of our ancestral environment.

Essentially, all our ancestors had to do to solve their everyday adaptive problems was to follow the dictation of such evolved psychological mechanisms and behave according to how they felt, following their emotions and feelings. Conscious and deliberate reasoning was seldom necessary for our ancestors because most of their adaptive problems were recurrent and familiar, and they had innate solutions in their brains. Even in the extreme continuity and constancy of the ancestral environment, however, there were likely occasional problems that were evolutionarily novel and nonrecurrent, which required our ancestors to think and reason in order to solve.

Such evolutionarily novel problems could have been something like:

Lightning has struck a tree near the camp and set it on fire. The fire is now spreading to the dry underbrush. What should I do? How could I stop the spread of the fire? How could I and my family escape it? (Since lightning never strikes the same place twice, this is guaranteed to be a nonrecurrent problem.)

To the extent that these novel, nonrecurrent problems happened frequently enough in the ancestral environment (a different problem each time) and had serious enough consequences for survival and reproduction, then any genetic mutation that allowed its carriers to think and reason would have been selected naturally, and what we now call “general intelligence” could have evolved as a specific adaptation for novel, nonrecurrent problems. From this perspective, general intelligence may not have been very important. At least no more important than any other specific psychological adaptation in its evolutionary origin but it became universally important in modern life. It only became important because our current environment is almost entirely evolutionarily novel.

I believe scientists and layman alike may have grossly exaggerated the importance of general intelligence in everyday life. Intelligence does not help you with really important problems in your life, such as maintaining a successful relationship, being a good friend, and raising children. It merely helps you with solving unimportant, evolutionarily novel problems like getting formal education, making money in a capitalist economy, and flying an airplane.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Buehler
 


Yesss! I'm not saying evolution is BS cause obviously it's not?

Then why did you copy-paste almost the entire text of an article about how evolution is false to support your hypothesis of interventionism if you subscribe to the theory of evolution?


I'm saying evolution isn't responsible for giving us our mental capability that far surpasses all other mammals! Because it didnt! that's where the intervention took place.

Yes, you keep saying this but you still present no evidence for it. A claim isn't evidence, evidence is evidence. An argument from incredulity isn't logic, it's a logical fallacy.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buehler
Yesss! I'm not saying evolution is BS cause obviously it's not? I'm saying evolution isn't responsible for giving us our mental capability that far surpasses all other mammals! Because it didnt! that's where the intervention took place.


What makes you so sure that evolution is not responsible for this? If you believe evolution is true and that aquatic life can change into air breathing land dwellers over millions of years, then why couldn't it also be responsible for the higher brain function? I'd think the transition from single celled to multi cellular life, or sexual dimorphism would be a much bigger change than an increase of intellect. Keep in mind there are plenty of creatures that use tools, have self awareness, teach their offspring, and communicate with each other. They may not be as intelligent as humans, but they aren't THAT far off. Neither are we from our hominid ancestors. 10-30 thousand years ago the earth was inhabited by many different species of hominid. Neanderthals were our cousins and had bigger brains than homo sapiens, although they had the same brain to body ratio. Comparing humans only to apes and other mammals on earth right now is a farce. You need to look at the big picture of the fossil record beginning with our most recent ancestors.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Okay, explain to me this from your "logical standpoint". Explain how you think our physical attributes come from adapting to our environment? How is that our traits came from being in the wild?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Buehler
 


please eplain the orignis of the alledged " intervener "



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Buehler
 


Okay, explain to me this from your "logical standpoint".

I will do my best.


Explain how you think our physical attributes come from adapting to our environment?

That's an incredibly broad question. Which physical attributes?


How is that our traits came from being in the wild?

Another incredibly broad question. Which traits?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Why is it better to have our feet rather than having opposable thumbs on our feet? Why did we loose all of our hair only to have to wear animal hides to keep us warm? How is walking on two feet better than four? If we evolved because of adaptations necessary to survive in the wild then why is it that every other animal is so much more adapt for the wild than we are? If everything is evolving all the time and our traits are the result of trial and error than why haven't most animals lost their hair by now? why do monkeys continue to have opposable thumbs on their feet as they always have? Don't you think monkeys and apes should be able to learn a language yet? I don't know about you but if I were out living in the jungle I would much rather be a monkey.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buehler
Why is it better to have our feet rather than having opposable thumbs on our feet?


Because we have hands and walk upright, there's no need for opposable thumbs on our feet. What we've built pretty much proves our body type is more efficient.



Why did we loose all of our hair only to have to wear animal hides to keep us warm?


Because not everyone lives in the alps or near lots of shade. Heat is expelled a lot more efficiently as well.



How is walking on two feet better than four?


Try carrying 50 pounds of groceries on four legs, it's a lot easier for us to transport heavy things by being bipedal and having two extra limbs instead of one or none.


If we evolved because of adaptations necessary to survive in the wild then why is it that every other animal is so much more adapt for the wild than we are?


Our culture and society are separate from nature, we don't live in the wild any more. Also, tell the tribes in South America that the animals are better suited to the wild than they are, and they'd probably laugh at you.


If everything is evolving all the time and our traits are the result of trial and error than why haven't most animals lost their hair by now?


There are lots of hairless animals.


why do monkeys continue to have opposable thumbs on their feet as they always have?


Because they live in trees and having thumbs on their feet help them climb, we don't live in jungles anymore like monkeys.



Don't you think monkeys and apes should be able to learn a language yet?


They do have languages. Here's a LINK that talks about it.


I don't know about you but if I were out living in the jungle I would much rather be a monkey.


We don't live in jungles anymore, we live in cities and houses.
edit on 25-4-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Okay so monkeys have their own alphabet and symbolism? What does carrying groceries have to do with having opposable thumbs on our feet? And monkeys can walk on two feet and on four? I think having the option would be the better "trait". And just because we walk on two feet doesn't mean that having thumbs on our feet wouldn't be useful anymore? And we didn't go straight from the jungle to cities? According to you we adapted to the wild by loosing our ability to walk on four legs comfortably, lost our extra hands, lost our hair that protected our skin and kept us warm only to have to cover ourselves up anyways. Why haven't all the animals in hot environments loose their hair if it's better? Yeah it lets the heat expel under you fried and sunburnt and have to put on a shirt.. in the wild I don't think that would be a good adaptation to have. If monkeys had their bodies and our brains they would whoop our asses in every sport, you dont think that a builder for example would find it useful to be able hold a board steady while holding a nail and hammering it with the other hand? Why would we loose all of our strength and agility?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Buehler
 


Evolution isn't just about getting better. Just because in your mind, one thing is better than another, does not mean it actually is or that evolution would definitely follow that path. The changes that survive are dictated by the environment. Humans are better adapted to the earth than any other creature. We can manipulate the environment to our choosing and build incredible things out of what is already here. You should probably read a book or take a course on biology because you don't seem to understand the basic fundamentals of evolution. Things change over time, but don't HAVE to get more complex or better. They adapt to the environment. Hominids that had less hair probably had a higher survival rate because 2.5 million years ago, before Antarctica was a glacier, the temperature on earth was a LOT hotter. That is probably what started the "less hair" movement. And we didn't loose foot thumbs, apes gained them. Remember, evolution is very slow, it's not like you have a creature walking on four feet suddenly give birth to a bipedal creature with hands. If the environment where most great apes live changed suddenly and their lifestyle became more complex to survive, then you'd probably notice an increase in ape intellect over time. You aren't just going to have monkeys suddenly reading and writing just because. Environmental changes force evolutionary changes. If there's no need for increased intellect they won't just magically get smarter. Human intellect and our ability to work with our hands are our prime survival traits. The rest is pretty much irrelevant. Remember, there's a reason humans survived the last ice age while the rest of the bipedal hominids species did not. Chances are, our innovation and creativity saved us. And then there's sexual selection, which plays to smoother skin, and sensitivity.
edit on 26-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





new topics




 
21
<< 40  41  42   >>

log in

join