Evolution

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Evolution

Unread postby tholden » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:50 am

Sparky wrote:
Information codes don't just sort of happen for no reason.
:?

I agree. Every effect has a cause.... ;)

I'm looking for observations or strong inference that suggest or disprove a "single line" of evolution. ;)


I assume you mean a line of supposed evolutionary development such as the one which was once thought to lead from very small horse-like creatures to modern horses. Everything I've read indicates that all such "lines" turned out to be bushes with multiple branches at the same levels, i.e. it turned out that all of the creatures which were supposed to represent a line of devlopment were actually walking around at pretty much the same times.

http://www.icr.org/article/mythical-horse-series/

It is now acknowledged that horse evolution as recorded in the fossils follows no recognizable pattern, and that the evolutionary "tree" looks more like a multi-branching "bush." The successive forms indicating straight-line evolution appear only in textbooks; they do not appear in the fossils.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:03 pm

Yes, yes, I know about the tree.....I'm talking about the evidence that all of the tree had the same beginning, Abiogenesis.? There are suppose to be traceable dna all the way back to bacteria, fungus, and other small stuff.... :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby tholden » Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:53 pm

Sparky wrote:Yes, yes, I know about the tree.....I'm talking about the evidence that all of the tree had the same beginning, Abiogenesis.? There are suppose to be traceable dna all the way back to bacteria, fungus, and other small stuff.... :?


Evolutionites generally refuse to talk about abiogenesis:

"We didn't come here to talk about abiogenesis you *******, we came here to talk about evolution."


Which translates roughly into something like:

"Hey, if we get good enough with the ad-hominems, we might could skate by with just defending one brain-dead ideological doctrine instead of two of em..."


Assuming any further disproof were required against the idea of all living things arising from a single one-celled ancestor, there is the question of Cosmos in Collision and the demonstration that our system was originally in two disconnected parts, each with its own RNA/DNA-based living world, so that you'd need at least two original one-celled ancestors but, at some point, you really need to give up on the fairytales altogether.

A much more rational hypothesis is that the basic information patterns for humans, snakes, birds, hominids, and everything else are out there in the universe as per Rupert Sheldrake's description and that, when a world arises which is capable of supporting complex life forms, those patterns are instantiated on that world somehow or other.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby chrimony » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:52 am

tholden wrote:Evolutionites generally refuse to talk about abiogenesis:


Funny, I can find several places they do. It's just that evolution isn't a theory of the origin of life: it's a theory of the origins of species. So while it's related, the theories are separate. Meaning if you try to discredit evolution because we don't know how life began, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Assuming any further disproof were required against the idea of all living things arising from a single one-celled ancestor, there is the question of Cosmos in Collision and the demonstration that our system was originally in two disconnected parts, each with its own RNA/DNA-based living world, so that you'd need at least two original one-celled ancestors but, at some point, you really need to give up on the fairytales altogether.


Fairy tales would be what you peddle. Evolution has all the evidence on its side.

A much more rational hypothesis is that the basic information patterns for humans, snakes, birds, hominids, and everything else are out there in the universe as per Rupert Sheldrake's description and that, when a world arises which is capable of supporting complex life forms, those patterns are instantiated on that world somehow or other.


Ah yes, "somehow or other", just like how humans were transferred from a moon of another planet to Earth "somehow or other" according to your "theory". And I suppose the same non-functional mutations in primate DNA arose in human DNA, not because we share a common ancestry, but "somehow or other". And I suppose the fossil record shows a progression from primates to humans for another "somehow or other" reason, and humans were transplanted at the right time to make it work, "somehow or other".
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Sparky » Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:01 pm

Well, thanks ,Ted, but there was no direct answer to my inquiry/? :?

:?:
Yes, yes, I know about the tree..I'm talking about the evidence that all of the tree had the same beginning, Abiogenesis.? There are suppose to be traceable dna all the way back to bacteria, fungus, and other small stuff.... :?
:?:

If there is evidence that every branch arose from a trunk that resulted from a single origin , then that would be very suspicious... :? If every life form has the same basic dna signature, and mutations and combinations of life forms arose from those later, then what is with that?? :? Do we really know the basic dna structures that came out of Abiogenesis? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby tholden » Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:00 pm

Sparky wrote:Well, thanks ,Ted, but there was no direct answer to my inquiry/? :?

:?:
Yes, yes, I know about the tree..I'm talking about the evidence that all of the tree had the same beginning, Abiogenesis.? There are suppose to be traceable dna all the way back to bacteria, fungus, and other small stuff.... :?
:?:

If there is evidence that every branch arose from a trunk that resulted from a single origin , then that would be very suspicious... :? If every life form has the same basic dna signature, and mutations and combinations of life forms arose from those later, then what is with that?? :? Do we really know the basic dna structures that came out of Abiogenesis? :?


Let me try that one again. Suppose you were to believe in both evolution and abiogenesis not involving any sort of an engineering process or intelligence and then suppose you were to plan a trip to the stars... What would you expect to see? Most scify writers expect to see something totally different, i.e. not involving RNA/DNA at all. I mean, if DNA/RNA just formed up by accident here, then the odds against that exact same accident happening on another star system would be insanely beyond astronomical or anything even imaginable. That's why most scify stories involve seriously different creatures and not just slightly different ones.\

Nonetheless what Troy and I have demonstrated is that the same RNA/DNA info system and similar creatures did in fact rise up on two totally disconnected systems which, for all intents and purposes, may as well have been 50 light yeas apart. The chances of that same DNA/RNA system arising by chance on both Earth and Ganymede are basically zero.

Evolution is basically a bunch of BS. It's being defended by academic dead wood because it serves as a sort of a pseudoreligion for them.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby chrimony » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:17 pm

tholden wrote:Nonetheless what Troy and I have demonstrated is that the same RNA/DNA info system and similar creatures did in fact rise up on two totally disconnected systems which, for all intents and purposes, may as well have been 50 light yeas apart. The chances of that same DNA/RNA system arising by chance on both Earth and Ganymede are basically zero.


Really, you've been to Ganymede and found living creatures with the same DNA? Oh, that's right, you haven't. All you have is wild speculation.

Evolution is basically a bunch of BS. It's being defended by academic dead wood because it serves as a sort of a pseudoreligion for them.


Evolution has the fossil record, DNA, and biology on its side. You have pseudoscience and fantastic tales.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby tholden » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:55 am

An analogy I once heard at a discussion involving evoloserism which struck pretty much everybody as unusually funny:

Picture it being about 1965 or thereabouts at the absolute height of the popularity of the little VW beetle-bug, and the evil Dr. Fu Manchu devises a way to get rich in the grand-theft auto business by creating a machine to steal large numbers of the beetle-bugs; he takes a plastic mold of a beetle-bug with its doors closed and windows up and shortly has fleets of large trucks going down the streets at night with huge vacuum devices ending in hard rubber attachments which fit straight over a beetle bug, attach to it via suction, lift it up, and put it in the truck.

Shortly all VW owners are living in mortal dread, and are chaining their beetle-bugs to large trees at night.

All except Suzie Johnson that is. Suzie crashed her VW into a tree at about 12 mph; bent up the hood, the right front fender and the passenger door rather badly but, other than that, it still runs decently enough. The frame wasn't damaged and the engine and drive train were in the rear. And, naturally enough, the damage would prevent Fu Manchu's device from fitting her VW or stealing it.

The 64,000 question is, would anybody refer to the crash damage as a "beneficial mutation"??

That is, more or less, how all "beneficial mutations" for bacteria operate, that is, the mutations which allow them to survive specific antibiotics, and that's basically all that anybody has ever proposed as examples of the "beneficial mutations(TM)" which are supposed to drive evolution; the microbe loses whatever it was that allowed the antibiotic to attach and attack it.

That or sickle-cell anemia, which is supposed to be "beneficial" by preventing malaria. I could however "save" somebody from ever catching malaria by shooting them through the head with a 44, and I don't really picture anybody calling that "beneficial"...

In real life, mutations have names:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

and the normal English language term for mutation is "birth defect"
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby chrimony » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:02 am

tholden wrote:That is, more or less, how all "beneficial mutations" for bacteria operate, that is, the mutations which allow them to survive specific antibiotics, and that's basically all that anybody has ever proposed as examples of the "beneficial mutations(TM)" which are supposed to drive evolution; the microbe loses whatever it was that allowed the antibiotic to attach and attack it.


Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism: "These bacteria can produce novel enzymes that allow them to feed on by-products of nylon manufacture which did not exist prior to the invention of nylon in the 1930s."

In real life, mutations have names:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders

and the normal English language term for mutation is "birth defect"


Not every mutation is expressed as a disease. It's also mutations that give strong evidence for evolution. How about that, actual science, where they decode the actual genes and compare them, instead of supposing that the same genes exist on the distant moon of another planet, "somehow or other".
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:10 am

Mutations are not happenstance, that is all you need to know really.

Life only adapts to its environment, but that is not the same as the grandiose tale of evolution.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Evolution

Unread postby tholden » Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:53 am

D_Archer wrote:Mutations are not happenstance, that is all you need to know really.

Life only adapts to its environment, but that is not the same as the grandiose tale of evolution.

Regards,
Daniel


You're talking about microevolution, which nobody disputes. That, however, is not what the debate over evolutionism is about.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby tholden » Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:55 am

The normal English term for "mutation" is "birth defect". Ever notice the women out collecting for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they're always collecting money for research to PREVENT mutations, and not to cause them? Figure there might be a reason for that?

Picture some ten-year-old American kid growing up on a steady diet of public schools and TV, who had never heard of Chuck Darwin or evolutionism. Picture some guy representing Howard Hughes walking up to the kid and saying:

Kid, for a million bucks, I need you to devise an atheistic ideological doctrine to explain the present biosphere without recourse to anything resembling a creative act, engineering, or re-engineering or anything like that at all, and it has to be the stupidest ideological doctrine which has ever been devised. Moreover, it has to be based on stuff which you watch on television on a regular basis.

Here's what I suspect the kid might come up with. We're talking about a new reality TV series which involves five guys with Sten guns, AKs, and M16s, a bunch of criminals from death row who have volunteered for the program, and a bunch of chimpanzees, and the chimpanzees have spent the last three months watching ER, and all other available doctor and medical shows. They line the criminals up against the wall, and the guys with the automatic rifles mow em down. Notice I specified relatively light caliber rifles and not FALs or M14s or anything which guarantees outright kills. The idea is that the chimpanzees now will try to use their newly acquired medical skills to repair the shot-up criminals.

The doctrine says that the vast majority of these shot-up and "repaired" criminals will die off, most of them within an hour or two, but due to the law of averages, a very few will get put together better than they were before, and the progeny of these few will become UEBERMENSCHEN, and breed together to form ever improved new races of men.

To what extent is that different from evolution?

The basic ideas involved in evolutionism are so preposterously stupid that anybody still believing in it as of 2014 should be a laughing stock. His own grandmother should be laughing at him.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:48 am

@ D_Archer
Life only adapts to its environment,


And very quickly too it seems. Adaptation would be very important in the design of living things, when the environment can change greatly over short periods. One case was a birds beak that adapted (they say evolved) when the birds primary food source changed (it needed a longer beak), but changed back again when the food source again changed. So does DNA store all the evolutionary changes just incase they are needed again, or were all the possible adaptations there from the very beginning?
Scientists reverse evolution with snouted chicken
Chickens and other birds are thought to have descended from dinosaurs through a series of genetic changes.
But by altering the DNA of chicken embryos in the early stages of their development, scientists are able to undo the progress made by evolution and give them qualities they lost millions of years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evol ... icken.html
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Evolution

Unread postby chrimony » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:19 pm

tholden wrote:The normal English term for "mutation" is "birth defect". Ever notice the women out collecting for the Mothers' March of Dimes? Ever notice that they're always collecting money for research to PREVENT mutations, and not to cause them? Figure there might be a reason for that?


This is sophistry. Nobody said evolution is kind. Indeed, look around you, lots of sad deviations from the ideal. Yet among all that misery and variation, some changes are better.

The basic ideas involved in evolutionism are so preposterously stupid that anybody still believing in it as of 2014 should be a laughing stock. His own grandmother should be laughing at him.


Yet all the evidence, which you cannot address or even look at, shows evolution is true. This while you propose preposterous theories of humans being transferred from a distant moon without any scientific evidence or even a plausible explanation for how it happened. You have no argument.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby tholden » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:33 pm

Macroevolution is not true. Again, the experiments with fruit flies amounted to a coercive demonstration that macroevolution and the so-called theory of evolution are false, and that no combination of microevolutionary changes could ever agglomerate to a macroevolutionary jump.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests