I no longer believe in Evolution as currently being used

I thought that this was a thread about Darwinian Evolution.

Anyone got an answer for the Pre-Cambrian explosion?

Anyone got an answer for the rapid development of cranial capacity of homo sapiens sapiens, but more specifically, the rapid development of a frontal lobe with executive functions?

Or what about the fact that a random mutation is the foundation for this pseudoscience.
If an event that is completely random in nature and is so enigmatic that it can only be referred to as a mutation, if this is the foundation for change- the motor of 'evolution'- then how can you apply causation to anything?

Mutations are not understood. That is why they are random.

It would be nice if someone could stick to the topic and answer some questions rather than make this a personal competition about God- probably the most absurd concept ever created, simply because it is totally personal and everyone's view is different, but presumably the ONLY correct view.
ABSURD.

Please folks. Let's talk Darwinian Evolution.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

I'm not sure how that qualifies as a god...?

yes sir... that is God to me.

It honestly doesn't matter if you believe what I believe, but what does matter is that you feel that what I believe is not what you believe therefore it is wrong.

on the contrary my good man... you would be much wiser to respect what others believe, moreover you may what to respect what others believe when there is a global majority involved. Nearly 3 billion people disagree with you and your minority... of which the Buddhist do not belong to the atheists either, they are not actively engaged in demoralization and aggression towards other beliefs.

reply to post by rickymouse


Again, altruism and learned behaviour. Why do you think they contradict natural selection? You scratch my back i'll scratch yours. Know what i mean?

kyviecaldges
I thought that this was a thread about Darwinian Evolution.

Anyone got an answer for the Pre-Cambrian explosion?

Anyone got an answer for the rapid development of cranial capacity of homo sapiens sapiens, but more specifically, the rapid development of a frontal lobe with executive functions?

Or what about the fact that a random mutation is the foundation for this pseudoscience.
If an event that is completely random in nature and is so enigmatic that it can only be referred to as a mutation, if this is the foundation for change- the motor of 'evolution'- then how can you apply causation to anything?

Mutations are not understood. That is why they are random.

It would be nice if someone could stick to the topic and answer some questions rather than make this a personal competition about God- probably the most absurd concept ever created, simply because it is totally personal and everyone's view is different, but presumably the ONLY correct view.
ABSURD.

Please folks. Let's talk Darwinian Evolution.

Well obviously, It's called adaptive radiation. Pretty basic stuff to be honest.

kyviecaldges
I thought that this was a thread about Darwinian Evolution.

actually that can't happen on ATS, it always devolves into anti-Christianism and antisemitism...

honestly I'd rather much just duke it out with the atheists in this thread, who reflect very much into the atheistic mind and ill effects of people like Richard Dawkins and Madalyn O'Hair.

it is much more interesting anyway to see the effect of dividing people in the world and my nation has had on civility and sociology.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

It honestly doesn't matter if you believe what I believe, but what does matter is that you feel that what I believe is not what you believe therefore it is wrong.

If you choose to reject science and rationality in favor of assuaging your insecurities, yes, that concerns me. But not for the reason you just described. This species did not get to where it is today by jumping to the wrong conclusions and building an empire around them. And those groups that HAVE done so are only around because of those who reached the right conclusions using the right means for the right reasons.

It's a matter of principle. The reasons and motivations you have for believing in your god are not restricted to simply religion. They influence EVERYTHING about you, from what you wear to what you say to who you associate with. Your behavior, compounded with that of other similarly influenced people, affects society like waves on a beach.

Your god doesn't affect me, my friends, my family, my work, my social life, my hospitals and schools and law enforcement and local politics and even more distant social interactions and constructs. But you do. You, and thousands of other people like you, and your beliefs and theirs influence how all of you handle that. Can you tell me with perfect honesty that your beliefs and philosophies have no affect on the world around you? That you don't leave a mark on your community every time you interact with it? And that the mark you leave is just as much a result of what you believe in as anything else? I know the people around me do. They speak of these things as though it were the best and greatest lifestyle they can imagine. So of course they're going to encourage such behavior and practices and beliefs in their friends and fellow members of the community.

So if your beliefs are founded irrationally, what are the chances that only your beliefs are irrationally based? Is it in your personality as well? Or do you just change whenever you think of God? Do you morph into an entirely different person every time you enter a religious state of mind?

Do you get what I'm saying?

reply to post by helldiver


They don't contradict natural selection but they are not part of the theory. They are different concepts. They could work synergetically to create a better theory. If the theory of evolution and natural selection were worked on to include a lot of variables than I would better accept them. Add on theories that are not mentioned in the original theory can't fix the original theory though. What if someone knows one theory and says the others do not apply to reality, many theories possess this problem. This causes conflicting loopholes in interpretation of these. I don't much like conflict, I would rather someone evaluated this stuff and write something that is better.

The problem is that is this person's new interpretation right? Consensus of the time and society is the determining factor.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

I thought that this was a thread about Darwinian Evolution.

Anyone got an answer for the Pre-Cambrian explosion?

Anyone got an answer for the rapid development of cranial capacity of homo sapiens sapiens, but more specifically, the rapid development of a frontal lobe with executive functions?

Or what about the fact that a random mutation is the foundation for this pseudoscience.
If an event that is completely random in nature and is so enigmatic that it can only be referred to as a mutation, if this is the foundation for change- the motor of 'evolution'- then how can you apply causation to anything?

Mutations are not understood. That is why they are random.

Baboons Shed Light on Human Brain Evolution

MONDAY, Nov. 11 (HealthDay News) — Research with baboon brains has provided new insight into the evolution of the human brain, a new study contends.

The genetics behind the development of folds in the human brain have been a mystery, but there are new clues in a study scheduled for presentation Sunday at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, in San Diego.

As the human brain evolved, there was a dramatic increase in the number of brain cells and connections, the researchers said. But this growth was restricted by the size of the skull in relation to the birth canal, leading the brain to fold into ridges and valleys.

“The evolution of the human brain over time is a very complex process,” Elizabeth Atkinson, of Washington University in St. Louis, said in a Society for Neuroscience news release. “Our study connects the folding of the brain with the underlying genetics, and provides unique insight into how the evolution of our genes has driven the shape, and ultimately the function, of our brains.”

The researchers analyzed nearly 1,000 baboon brain scans and pinpointed a handful of chromosome segments and genes that affect the way the brain is folded.

It’s thought that thinking capacity is determined by the growth these folds can accommodate.

Human brains have 30 percent more folds than chimpanzee brains, our closest evolutionary relative, according to the news release.

Research presented at meetings typically are considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

Science is good about these things if it doesn't have the answer for something it doesn't try to fill the gap with the supernatural it keeps digging for the real answer.

helldiver
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Again, altruism and learned behaviour. Why do you think they contradict natural selection? You scratch my back i'll scratch yours. Know what i mean?

It all depends upon your definition of natural selection, and this definition as applied by Darwinian Evolution is stated explicitly in the full title of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.
Which is- On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

How can any behavior of one specific race toward another be considered altruistic when natural selection favors specific races? That would obviously mean that one race has a very good reason to minimize survival of other races through behaviors that are directly opposed to altruism.
Darwin tells you why in the very next sentence- because this is due to the struggle for life.

Any struggle will always require competition if one species is favored for survival and another is not favored.
Struggle will not produce altruism and cooperation, because that favors the survival of EVERY race and not just the favored ones.

Please refute that statement, because I don't think that you can.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Altruism is invested survivalism, the result of higher functioning brains. You are able to think further into the future, consider greater possibilities, forge more mental connections and thus grasp the concept of sharing with others in order to produce a greater possibility of all around survival. Singular survivalism isn't nearly as successful as social survivalism, and the higher our brain functioned, the better we were able to grasp that.

We're not the only animal to practice social survivalism, although since they are in deeper touch with their primal roots, they are less likely to favor self-sacrifice over self-service should the ratio thin out. Us? We're more creative, so we can figure it out. Also, we're able to recognize emotions like empathy and regret. Perhaps we were meant to be a social survivalist species, and empathy and regret are mechanisms developed to curb us in that direction, because that's how our biology and psychology best operates.

reply to post by rickymouse


Generosity cooperation are traits found throughout the animal kingdom which have helped each species survive. Think of cleaner fish for sharks or even pet dogs. Evolution encompasses those as survival traits and they apply to humans as well.



Generosity leads to evolutionary success

reply to post by Grimpachi


Do you not see that these scientists are making confirmation biased speculations through the template of Darwinian Evolution?

This is straight up confirmation bias.

They readily admit to all of this in the article that you both quoted and linked.
Look at these statements, which all contain NOTHING validated or concrete. They are merely ideas that might work in the framework of Darwinian Evolution, but might not because they have not ONE SHRED of evidence to back them up-

The genetics behind the development of folds in the human brain have been a mystery, but there are new clues in a study scheduled for presentation Sunday at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, in San Diego.

Where is one lick of actual science in that statement. I see 'mystery' and 'clues'.

As the human brain evolved, there was a dramatic increase in the number of brain cells and connections, the researchers said. But this growth was restricted by the size of the skull in relation to the birth canal, leading the brain to fold into ridges and valleys.

Really? Where is the evidence for this. Other than subjective observations with no experimental research that can prove it. it's all speculation.

It’s thought that thinking capacity is determined by the growth these folds can accommodate.

PRECISELY..... It is thought and NOT proven. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE.

And finally, the last quote that shows that your link is worthless-

Research presented at meetings typically are considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

And yet you have still not answered a single one of my questions.

If I don't have all these evolution nutbags at checkmate yet, then I am darn sure close.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


I'm gonna ask you the same thing I ask all the people who challenge evolution:

Do you have a better theory? If so, please provide all evidence, reviews, analysis, and relevant documentation.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Singular survivalism isn't nearly as successful as social survivalism, and the higher our brain functioned, the better we were able to grasp that.

That sounds great yoda, but in the real world Darwinian evolution does not in any way reflect cooperation as a means of natural selection.
it involves competition.

The only "social survivalism" in the world, is that which involves a favored race, as is expressly stated in the title of Darwin's supposedly 'seminal' work On the Origin of Species. (yes, I used dick quotes).

AfterInfinity
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

It honestly doesn't matter if you believe what I believe, but what does matter is that you feel that what I believe is not what you believe therefore it is wrong.

If you choose to reject science and rationality in favor of assuaging your insecurities, yes, that concerns me.

I do not reject science... and I do not reject the fact that Darwinian evolution can not prove to me hard evidence that it is fact.

Science was born of theology, it is a child of theistic philosophy... and that too is a fact.

why do we need to understand the natural world? is it because like Dawkins says "because science is interesting" well that's a quite weak response, it is hollow and meaningless and empty.

we what to understand the natural world because we want to know the mysteries, where we came from, what is the secret of the universe... ect ect.

if you want to believe what Dawkins believes then you like every generation and civilization before think they are the pinnacle of man and civilization.

which happens to be incorrect

reply to post by SisyphusRide

Science was born of theology, it is a child of theistic philosophy... and that too is a fact.

Do you know how many gods have been disproven and reduced to mythological folktales because science found out how volcanoes erupt and lightning strikes and why the stars turn in the sky and what the sun is actually made of?

Science has been the death of almost every theology to date. Those theologies are still around as a result of cultural curiosity. They serve an educational value in understanding the customs and traditions of those times. The Abrahamic faiths are still relatively young. Give it time.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

I'm gonna ask you the same thing I ask all the people who challenge evolution:

Do you have a better theory? If so, please provide all evidence, reviews, analysis, and relevant documentation.

edit on 16-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

NO.

I don't need to do that because I am not the one with the burden of proof.
I am not promoting any idea.
That is you.

You are the one that seems to believe in this fairy tale of Darwinian Evolution that reinforces the existence of the uber wealthy group of plutocrats that run our lives.

I am a true skeptic. I am pointing out flaws that make your position impossible to explain, much less proven as factual as gravity, as AliceBleachWhite promotes with her flawed reasoning and false analogies.

If I was to posit a better theory based upon the sheer lack of evidence to back up the absurd Darwinian Evolution of our Species then I would be engaging in the logical fallacy of the argument from silence.

And by asking me to provide you with a better explanation, you are engaging in yet ANOTHER logical fallacy-
The shifting of the philosophical burden of proof.

I got you beat. Admit it and move on.

I am very well educated on how to debate, along with logic and reason, and I have a firm grasp on the English language.
That should be plainly obvious.

Click on the link in my signature. Teach yourself a truly liberal education, and then come back when you got game.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


You asked a question I provided an answer and that scares you. Did you bother to look at the actual study? Didn't think so.

If you had you wouldn't be railing so hard against the article that merely described the study.

Each day science gathers more evidence for evolution on the other hand the god of the gaps is getting smaller and smaller.

reply to post by kyviecaldges

NO.

I don't need to do that because I am not the one with the burden of proof.
I am not promoting any idea.
That is you.

I don't need to prove anything. You just admitted you don't have a better theory, yet you're challenging evolution anyway. Or do you have a better theory that you insist on holding back because you want us to prove ourselves right before you prove us wrong? Do you really think you're the first person to try this? You're playing a very old game of beating around the bush. Either poop or get off the pot.

I am not promoting any idea.

You are promoting the idea that evolution is false. Put up or shut up.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I will repost this in case yo missed my edit or just refuse to acknowledge it


Science was born of theology, it is a child of theistic philosophy... and that too is a fact.

why do we need to understand the natural world? is it because like Dawkins says "because science is interesting" well that's a quite weak response, it is hollow and meaningless and empty.

we want to understand the natural world because we want to know the mysteries, where we came from, what is the secret of the universe... ect ect.

if you want to believe what Dawkins believes then you like every generation and civilization before think they are the pinnacle of man and civilization.

which happens to be incorrect