I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

reply to post by peter vlar


Why do you assume that everyone who disagrees with you must be misinformed about the realities of the scientific process?

I would ask that you stay true to the scientific process and peer review. If it is not testable, it can not be conclusive.

FACT is a strong word......with many consequences. We stop searching when we think we have the answers......

reply to post by peter vlar


They are part of the same genus. They can and DO breed. Their offspring would be able to breed. They are not different species....

chimps and humans cant breed but do share a common ancestor. They are a separate species.

peter vlar
reply to post by tadaman

 

No but a wolf and a dog are different species with the wolf being the common ancestor of all current dog breeds.

Bad example because that is NOT due to natural selection.

That is due to domestication. Very big difference. And depending on who you ask dogs are classified as Canis Familiaris or Canis Lupus Familiaris with the Familiaris being a subspecies of the species Lupus.

Either way the genus is the same.

The wolf is not some kind of common ancestor.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Domestication is still a form of speciation. Ill admit that I was hasty in my reply and the example wasnt one of my best. The better example would have been to include the fox which is a separate genus but still has a common ancestor with wolves which despite
Domestication is still the ancestor, albeit a very recent one, of all modern dog breeds

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

unfortunately according to Richard Dawkins we're not supposed to ask why though, oh well...

Because science is meant to study the how not the why. Religion is for the why. Science isn't designed to answer the why, so there is no reason to speak to it.

edit on 2-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

am I missing something here? because without the Why? we wouldn't have science...

without the Why? you do not question authority either...

there are so many philosophical implications without the Why? it would need a whole new thread

reply to post by SisyphusRide
Seems like a troll thread, but here goes:
Evolution cannot exist, according to scientific facts.
Fact 1: The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Fact 2: The human genome has 6 billion dipole base pairs. (www.edinformatics.com...)
Fact 3: Life evolved on Earth beginning at .8 billion years after Earth began.

Given these facts, there are roughly 3.7 billion years to evolve a successful human being.
However, you need to evolve 6 billion dipole base pairs. You can easily see that there is not enough time.
Also, genetic mutations are repaired by the cells, defeating the process again. www.accessexcellence.org...

It takes too much imagination to believe in evolution...you just have to want to believe it because you want to, not because it's a reasonable theory. Trouble is, science gets going down a particular path and tends to throw out findings that do not fit the model.

So, now that you see evolution is impossible, what's next?

rickymouse
I believe in Evolution but not as it is taught. I believe something is steering it just like we have steered bacteria and other microbes to evolve faster. Something evolved humans, it wasn't random evolution. Something steered us down the path we are going.

So then, I think that the two theories, evolution and creationism need to be combined.

Evolution happens but not in the way it is taught, ie Natural Selection is operative but it is not the driving force of evolution. Evolution is obviously a result of mind but the consensus fights against this in favour of reductive abstraction. Rupert Sheldrake posits the existence of fields as an attempt to resolve the Missing heritability problem. Evolution as taught is largely an article of faith bolstered by copious helpings of propaganda and heavily biased presentation of the facts.

SisyphusRide

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

unfortunately according to Richard Dawkins we're not supposed to ask why though, oh well...

Because science is meant to study the how not the why. Religion is for the why. Science isn't designed to answer the why, so there is no reason to speak to it.

edit on 2-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

am I missing something here? because without the Why? we wouldn't have science...

I guess you are missing something if you find this hard to understand. Science doesn't explain the why no matter how much you want it to. It explains how things happen. How is a studyable aspect, why isn't. Hence the reason the concept of God is unproven. Just because science cannot explain the why doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it is just the wrong tool to do so. You don't use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.

kyviecaldges

peter vlar
reply to post by tadaman

 

No but a wolf and a dog are different species with the wolf being the common ancestor of all current dog breeds.

Bad example because that is NOT due to natural selection.

That is due to domestication. Very big difference. And depending on who you ask dogs are classified as Canis Familiaris or Canis Lupus Familiaris with the Familiaris being a subspecies of the species Lupus.

Either way the genus is the same.

The wolf is not some kind of common ancestor.

edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

The gray wolf is 100% the common ancestor of dogs regardless of artificial selection. Natural selection may also have played a part.

Prezbo369


Ah I see, so its similar if not the same as the Christian story of man being made from dirt? (man crawled up out of the mire). If so, why not include Jesus in that list?

So ancient powers told ancient man that they were monkeys? for what reason?

Did ancient man reject claims of Gods in favor of evolution?

Its about standing with the gods and self perception. Not created in our image but created lower and represented as a monkey. Take the scribe houses of the Maya at Copan and the Egyptians. In both cases considered the smartest and wisest men, well educated in the arts ect but represented in both cases with the monkey icon.

This is the effect sought today with all this ape sh#t. The goal is to deny man of a proper perception of himself. To see himself as a highly evolved ape. Its freekin hilarious.

reply to post by Logarock


Explain to me what is wrong with being an evolved ape (by the way, the term highly evolved is redundant when talking about any multi-celled organisms they are all highly evolved)? Does the knowledge of this change how you go about your life? It doesn't change mine. It just describes where we came from. Apes are some very interesting animals, not to mention we share many traits with them.

Chimpanzees and Humans Share Personality Traits

The chimpanzees, who ranged in age from 8 to 48 and had all lived at the facility for at least two years, were assessed on a scale consisting of 41 different behaviors, such as boldness, jealousy, friendliness and stinginess.

So whenever you feel something like jealousy, you are emoting an apelike trait. It's just part of who we are and there is nothing wrong with understanding why that is the case.

Logarock

Its about standing with the gods and self perception. Not created in our image but created lower and represented as a monkey. Take the scribe houses of the Maya at Copan and the Egyptians. In both cases considered the smartest and wisest men, well educated in the arts ect but represented in both cases with the monkey icon.

This is the effect sought today with all this ape sh#t. The goal is to deny man of a proper perception of himself. To see himself as a highly evolved ape. Its freekin hilarious.

In both cases the monkey gods in question were just one god amongst many, in two religions amongst a great many. To cherry pick these two gods from these two religions and then make make a contentious connection between them and evolution, reeks of desperation.

I know evolution has scary connotations for you, but you shouldn't fear the truth.

Prezbo369

Logarock

Its about standing with the gods and self perception. Not created in our image but created lower and represented as a monkey. Take the scribe houses of the Maya at Copan and the Egyptians. In both cases considered the smartest and wisest men, well educated in the arts ect but represented in both cases with the monkey icon.

This is the effect sought today with all this ape sh#t. The goal is to deny man of a proper perception of himself. To see himself as a highly evolved ape. Its freekin hilarious.

In both cases the monkey gods in question were just one god amongst many, in two religions amongst a great many. To cherry pick these two gods from these two religions and then make make a contentious connection between them and evolution, reeks of desperation.

I know evolution has scary connotations for you, but you shouldn't fear the truth.

No one is cheery picking. You don't have a background with the subject. There not religions their patronal icons.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock

 

Explain to me what is wrong with being an evolved ape (by the way, the term highly evolved is redundant when talking about any multi-celled organisms they are all highly evolved)? Does the knowledge of this change how you go about your life? It doesn't change mine. It just describes where we came from. Apes are some very interesting animals, not to mention we share many traits with them.

Its ultimately not about multi-celled complex organisms or shared traits. Its about mental and spiritual evolution. Convincing man he has more in common with and owes some measure of acknowledgement to lower life forms of which he is only the pinnacle of. Man may eat bananas but apes cant make a watch. This difference is not one of evolution but capacity and that not taken from our ancestor apes.

Logarock
No one is cheery picking.

Then other than the monkey gods, what else is particularly noteworthy in regards to evolution in these two religions?

You don't have a background with the subject.

And what subject is that? monkey gods or supernatural hocus pocus?

There not religions their patronal icons.

Yes the monkey Gods in question are not religions, but they both belong to polytheistic religions...

helldiver

kyviecaldges

peter vlar
reply to post by tadaman

 

No but a wolf and a dog are different species with the wolf being the common ancestor of all current dog breeds.

Bad example because that is NOT due to natural selection.

That is due to domestication. Very big difference. And depending on who you ask dogs are classified as Canis Familiaris or Canis Lupus Familiaris with the Familiaris being a subspecies of the species Lupus.

Either way the genus is the same.

The wolf is not some kind of common ancestor.

edit on 3/12/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Because I made a stupid error. That is why we edit.

The gray wolf is 100% the common ancestor of dogs regardless of artificial selection. Natural selection may also have played a part.

The gray wolf and the dog is the exact same animal.
They can interbreed. Their genetics are the exact same.
What happened with dogs is no different than what Mendel proved with fruit flies.
Animals of the same genus can interbreed, and the ability to interbreed is what truly distinguishes species.

As I have said before, DNA is simply a template. If you were to sequence every single strand of DNA for (insert animal here) then you would simply have a list of possibilities.
That list doesn't change over time.
DNA can only change, and thus the template of possibilities, through mutations.
Genetic drift is speculated to be the cause of certain traits supposedly disappearing, but what may be happening is simply a response to the environment through epigenetics. This would then continually repress the expression of certain phenotypes.

The only thing that can create genetic variation is a mutation.

I actually have a question for you on this.

If natural selection is a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare, then why the sudden explosion in breast cancer rates?
Individuals most certainly have a genetic predisposition to this.
Why has it blown up so suddenly?
Shouldn't it have disappeared by now due to genetic drift?

It is all speculation.

Logarock

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Logarock

 

Explain to me what is wrong with being an evolved ape (by the way, the term highly evolved is redundant when talking about any multi-celled organisms they are all highly evolved)? Does the knowledge of this change how you go about your life? It doesn't change mine. It just describes where we came from. Apes are some very interesting animals, not to mention we share many traits with them.

Its ultimately not about multi-celled complex organisms or shared traits. Its about mental and spiritual evolution. Convincing man he has more in common with and owes some measure of acknowledgement to lower life forms of which he is only the pinnacle of. Man may eat bananas but apes cant make a watch. This difference is not one of evolution but capacity and that not taken from our ancestor apes.

No it is just a difference in brain power and reasoning, a trait that our ape cousins don't share as much of. The folly of man is thinking that we are somehow special in the universe because we can think and reason. That's pure arrogance plain and simple. All evidence points to humans being no more spectacular than any other animal or thing in the universe. The planet isn't the center of the universe. It's not even the center of the galaxy or even the solar system. The planet is a small inconsequential orb located in some random part of the galaxy, orbiting a middle of the road star. It has at least 7 neighbors rotating around that star with it, most of which are bigger than our planet. We share this planet with countless other species with a wide array of abilities and adaptations. While our superior intelligence may be unique (at least in regard to the reasoning aspect, there are other animals that are intelligent too), as I demonstrated in my previous post we share many traits with apes. The only thing that suggests that we are somehow special in this vast universe is us.

Even the God account that He created us in His image seems flawed. He apparently put us on one tiny planet that unless you knew where to look in the universe, would never find (and even then would need some pretty advanced technology to find it). So this WHOLE universe is supposedly created for us? Eh... I don't think humanity could ever even hope to explore all of the universe (if we could ever even leave this planet before destroying ourselves) let alone be arrogant enough to claim that it was made for us.

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide

Krazysh0t

SisyphusRide
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

unfortunately according to Richard Dawkins we're not supposed to ask why though, oh well...

Because science is meant to study the how not the why. Religion is for the why. Science isn't designed to answer the why, so there is no reason to speak to it.

edit on 2-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

am I missing something here? because without the Why? we wouldn't have science...

I guess you are missing something if you find this hard to understand. Science doesn't explain the why no matter how much you want it to. It explains how things happen. How is a studyable aspect, why isn't. Hence the reason the concept of God is unproven. Just because science cannot explain the why doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it is just the wrong tool to do so. You don't use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail.

edit on 4-12-2013 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

science doesn't explain how life began either, or how the universe came into existence... these questions seem to have been addressed before the dawn of writing.

you should know it is part of my lifestyle to figure out the "how" and the "why" things happen on machinery... I am a technician. You posit as science that everything is a machine correct?

I figure out the how and why things work or fail... it has been a part of my life 24 years (full time)

SisyphusRide
science doesn't explain how life began either, or how the universe came into existence... these questions seem to have been addressed before the dawn of writing.

you should know it is part of my lifestyle to figure out the "how" and the "why" things happen on machinery... I am a technician. You posit as science that everything is a machine correct?

I figure out the how and why things work or fail... it has been a part of my life 24 years (full time)

So we can assume you know exactly 'how' your God created everything, right?

Being a technician and all, you wouldn't take anything incredibly vague such as the genesis account as a technicalexplanation would you?