Evolution is a hoax

[styca]

But all the evidence points at simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like way better than it points at evolution.

Evolution is a hoax.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggghhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Simple change, adaptation and like-begets-like IS evolution. That's literally what evolution is. If you believe in those things, then you believe in the fact of evolution.
Come on, we've been over this!

The fact of evolution. I'd say theory, but there's more evidence for evolution than there is for anything else. This is stone cold fact.

Evolution Theory Evolution (ETE) is not simple change, adaptation, or like-begets-like. The two basic areas where these things differ are in the understanding of random, and in cause and effect (C&E).

C&E, which exists all over the place, and throughout everything that we understand, suggests design rather than some form of pure random. ETE tricks people into thinking that random and pure random are the same. But they aren't. Pure random has to do with complete spontaneity. Simple random has to do with our ignorance and inability to track detailed C&E.

ETE is full of simple random. But that we know, there isn't any pure random anywhere. This means that ETE is full of our ignorance and inability to track detailed C&E. So, if we can't track it, how do we even know that it exists? Saying that ETE IS simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like is just a guess.

Simple random - not knowing - has to do with simple change, adaptation, or like-begets-like, because these things all operate through C&E with no proof for ETE. Pure random doesn't exist at all that we have proven. Even computers that operate on what is called pure random, still have causes for their random effects. ETE has no proof.

Evolution is a hoax.

Sorry for the huge quote, but this is an important point of contention in this thread, and we still haven't got to the bottom of it.

BADecker - you accept simple change, adaptation and like-begets-like, yes? Your point is that 'random' mutations aren't really random because they have cause and effect, which you trhink suggests design. Is this right?

It's not just a mutation from 'A'->'B', though. 'A' mutates into 'C' through 'Z' as well. It's not that the mutation 'B' has been designed to succeed, it's that vast numbers of different mutations occur, the overwhelming are not beneficial and are (naturally) selected out of the gene pool. It's not that 'B' survives as a positive mutation because it has been designed that way, it's that of the 25 'B' through 'Z' variations, only one of them was beneficial to the animal's chances of survival. The 24 animals with the harmful 'C' through 'Z' mutations didn't reach adulthood to reproduce.

[1715507912]

1715507912

[1715507912]

1715507912

[BADecker]

...
Fortunately, it isn't the simple publication of documents that makes up what is proof. The things published also have to be correct. Nobody is required to prove that ETE doesn't exist. All one has to show us that so-called proof is not proof, and destroys itself as proof. And that is exactly what I have been doing.

Proof for ETE would have to include tracking the DNA of millions of generations of millions of creatures over hundreds of thousands of years. We haven't tracked even one creature like this. In fact, it's beyond our ability to so track.

Not really.  But I understand why you demand it.

You don't need to disassemble and reverse engineer all cars that have ever existed to understand how a car works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srC1au8ZiU4

Your car example doesn't fit. Why not? Because we clearly have cars. But we don't know that there is evolution. We don't know that what we are reverse engineering is evolution. But we clearly see that it is simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like.

[BADecker]

Sorry for the huge quote, but this is an important point of contention in this thread, and we still haven't got to the bottom of it.

BADecker - you accept simple change, adaptation and like-begets-like, yes? Your point is that 'random' mutations aren't really random because they have cause and effect, which you trhink suggests design. Is this right?

It's not just a mutation from 'A'->'B', though. 'A' mutates into 'C' through 'Z' as well. It's not that the mutation 'B' has been designed to succeed, it's that vast numbers of different mutations occur, the overwhelming are not beneficial and are (naturally) selected out of the gene pool. It's not that 'B' survives as a positive mutation because it has been designed that way, it's that of the 25 'B' through 'Z' variations, only one of them was beneficial to the animal's chances of survival. The 24 animals with the harmful 'C' through 'Z' mutations didn't reach adulthood to reproduce.

Take any one of your mutations and go deeper into it. The molecules all moved in every part of the mutation according to the way they were "bumped." What were they bumped by? Other molecules, atoms, heat energy, etc.

When they were bumped, why was it that they moved exactly as they did, and not in some other way? Because the way they were bumped, caused them to move, according to the laws of physics, which say that they must move this way, if they are bumped that way.

And the molecules, atoms, heat energy, etc., that bumped them, acted the ways that they did because other molecules, atoms, heat energy, etc., acted on them just exactly the way physics dictated they should act when bumped by whatever bumped them... back to the beginning. We don't have any example of anything acting outside the laws of physics. Everything had to act the way it did according to the laws of physics.

We call it random because we aren't even close to starting to track standard movements of individual molecules, atoms, heat energy waves/particles, etc., in nature. But none of it is really random. It all acts according to the laws of physics, right down to the tiniest subatomic particle.

Since simple random is simply our ignorance of details, evolution can be random in that way. But because everything acts according to the precise laws of physics, there is no pure random. If a time ever comes that we think we find something of pure randomness, it will only be because we haven't discovered the depths of its physics laws, yet.

[af_newbie]

...
Fortunately, it isn't the simple publication of documents that makes up what is proof. The things published also have to be correct. Nobody is required to prove that ETE doesn't exist. All one has to show us that so-called proof is not proof, and destroys itself as proof. And that is exactly what I have been doing.

Proof for ETE would have to include tracking the DNA of millions of generations of millions of creatures over hundreds of thousands of years. We haven't tracked even one creature like this. In fact, it's beyond our ability to so track.

Not really.  But I understand why you demand it.

You don't need to disassemble and reverse engineer all cars that have ever existed to understand how a car works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srC1au8ZiU4

Your car example doesn't fit. Why not? Because we clearly have cars. But we don't know that there is evolution. We don't know that what we are reverse engineering is evolution. But we clearly see that it is simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like.

Take off your blinders.  Don't say "we", just say "I don't know how evolution works and what the evidence for it is."

How do you think you will ever learn anything when you refuse to examine the evidence?

[BADecker]

...
Fortunately, it isn't the simple publication of documents that makes up what is proof. The things published also have to be correct. Nobody is required to prove that ETE doesn't exist. All one has to show us that so-called proof is not proof, and destroys itself as proof. And that is exactly what I have been doing.

Proof for ETE would have to include tracking the DNA of millions of generations of millions of creatures over hundreds of thousands of years. We haven't tracked even one creature like this. In fact, it's beyond our ability to so track.

Not really.  But I understand why you demand it.

You don't need to disassemble and reverse engineer all cars that have ever existed to understand how a car works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srC1au8ZiU4

Your car example doesn't fit. Why not? Because we clearly have cars. But we don't know that there is evolution. We don't know that what we are reverse engineering is evolution. But we clearly see that it is simple change, adaptation, and like-begets-like.

Take off your blinders.  Don't say "we", just say "I don't know how evolution works and what the evidence for it is."

How do you think you will ever learn anything when you refuse to examine the evidence?

I took them off, and I found that you STILL don't have any proof for evolution. At least, you aren't even talking in that direction... probably because you wouldn't understand proof if it jumped up and bit you in the eye.

Evolution is a hoax.

[styca]

BADecker I feel we are so close to convincing you, but it will never happen because of your belief in God.
If there was no religion, do you think you might be convinced by evolution?

[Dawkens]

Without scientism-religion, you would not believe in evolution but wuld know that God created everything in existence.

[BADecker]

BADecker I feel we are so close to convincing you, but it will never happen because of your belief in God.
If there was no religion, do you think you might be convinced by evolution?

Actually it will never happen because of my understanding of the difference between science and science-religion... first. However, if my mind deteriorates because of dementia or Alzheimer's or something, then it will never happen because God will maintain me in the truth of himself.

Evolution is a hoax religion.

[styca]

BADecker I feel we are so close to convincing you, but it will never happen because of your belief in God.
If there was no religion, do you think you might be convinced by evolution?

Actually it will never happen because of my understanding of the difference between science and science-religion... first. However, if my mind deteriorates because of dementia or Alzheimer's or something, then it will never happen because God will maintain me in the truth of himself.

Evolution is a hoax religion.

We are close on a lot of things though. You believe in natural selection, you believe in mutations - some beneficial to survival and some detrimental. All that we disagree about is the root cause, whether it's God or raw physics.

[BADecker]

BADecker I feel we are so close to convincing you, but it will never happen because of your belief in God.
If there was no religion, do you think you might be convinced by evolution?

Actually it will never happen because of my understanding of the difference between science and science-religion... first. However, if my mind deteriorates because of dementia or Alzheimer's or something, then it will never happen because God will maintain me in the truth of himself.

Evolution is a hoax religion.

We are close on a lot of things though. You believe in natural selection, you believe in mutations - some beneficial to survival and some detrimental. All that we disagree about is the root cause, whether it's God or raw physics.

Natural selection doesn't even make sense. Stuff doesn't select things unless it has the God-like ability to select. It's cause and effect that makes the happenings that people call natural selection. The mutations are C&E derived, as well. C&E is the root cause of everything except C&E, itself.

[styca]

Natural selection doesn't even make sense. Stuff doesn't select things unless it has the God-like ability to select. It's cause and effect that makes the happenings that people call natural selection.

Yes, agreed about C&E. Slow gazelles get caught by predators and eaten. Fast gazelles escape. Fast gazelles are the ones that breed. The next generation gets marginally faster. Cause and effect. Natural selection.
We are not disagreed on whether natural selection is cause and effect.
We are just disagreed on whether cause and effect is generated by God.

[Dawkens]

Natural selection doesn't even make sense. Stuff doesn't select things unless it has the God-like ability to select. It's cause and effect that makes the happenings that people call natural selection.

Yes, agreed about C&E. Slow gazelles get caught by predators and eaten. Fast gazelles escape. Fast gazelles are the ones that breed. The next generation gets marginally faster. Cause and effect. Natural selection.
We are not disagreed on whether natural selection is cause and effect.
We are just disagreed on whether cause and effect is generated by God.

But how about the monekys? they were inferior to humans, still some monkeys exist and some evolved? Why some chose to evolve? I guess there will be slow and fast gazelles in the future aswell like monekys and humans at the same time... Something seems irrational here

[BADecker]

Natural selection doesn't even make sense. Stuff doesn't select things unless it has the God-like ability to select. It's cause and effect that makes the happenings that people call natural selection.

Yes, agreed about C&E. Slow gazelles get caught by predators and eaten. Fast gazelles escape. Fast gazelles are the ones that breed. The next generation gets marginally faster. Cause and effect. Natural selection.
We are not disagreed on whether natural selection is cause and effect.
We are just disagreed on whether cause and effect is generated by God.

But your C&E focus is way too shallow. Consider the molecules in the bodies of both animals. Consider the molecules in the bodies of their parents. Think like this all the way back to... all the way back to... all the way back to where?

This is where entropy comes in (another flaw in BB Theory thinking). There must have been a Beginning. If things had always existed as they do, entropy would have broken down the complexity long ago, so there wouldn't be life, or much of anything else that is complex.

So we see a recent Beginning, and the only other thing that is shouted all around, and expressed by the large majority of people as far back as we can track them, is God. Why? Things like evolution and BB are unknowns.

Evolution is a hoax.

[styca]

This is where entropy comes in (another flaw in BB Theory thinking). There must have been a Beginning. If things had always existed as they do, entropy would have broken down the complexity long ago, so there wouldn't be life, or much of anything else that is complex.

Evolution doesn't violate entropy. Earth is not an isolated system, we get an energy input from the Sun, and radiate energy back to space.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean that the entropy of every part of a system increases. If it did then water would never freeze into ice, because that involves a decrease in entropy. What it actually means is that the total entropy of the whole system has to increase. Any decrease like water in a freezer turning into ice is matched by an increase elsewhere, in this case the heat released into your kitchen by the freezer.

[BADecker]

This is where entropy comes in (another flaw in BB Theory thinking). There must have been a Beginning. If things had always existed as they do, entropy would have broken down the complexity long ago, so there wouldn't be life, or much of anything else that is complex.

Evolution doesn't violate entropy. Earth is not an isolated system, we get an energy input from the Sun, and radiate energy back to space.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean that the entropy of every part of a system increases. If it did then water would never freeze into ice, because that involves a decrease in entropy. What it actually means is that the total entropy of the whole system has to increase. Any decrease like water in a freezer turning into ice is matched by an increase elsewhere, in this case the heat released into your kitchen by the freezer.

You make a point. But your point doesn't have anything to do with the post you quoted. Do you always simply jump into things with other things?

The point of my post that you quoted was, if our universe never had a beginning, but rather always existed, entropy would have diffused complexity into simplicity long ago. If the universe was such a different kind of thing that this didn't happen for some reason, it is way beyond our knowing.

Actually, a form of entropy is probably the thing that is making us devolve rather than evolve right now.

[af_newbie]

This is where entropy comes in (another flaw in BB Theory thinking). There must have been a Beginning. If things had always existed as they do, entropy would have broken down the complexity long ago, so there wouldn't be life, or much of anything else that is complex.

Evolution doesn't violate entropy. Earth is not an isolated system, we get an energy input from the Sun, and radiate energy back to space.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean that the entropy of every part of a system increases. If it did then water would never freeze into ice, because that involves a decrease in entropy. What it actually means is that the total entropy of the whole system has to increase. Any decrease like water in a freezer turning into ice is matched by an increase elsewhere, in this case the heat released into your kitchen by the freezer.

You make a point. But your point doesn't have anything to do with the post you quoted. Do you always simply jump into things with other things?

The point of my post that you quoted was, if our universe never had a beginning, but rather always existed, entropy would have diffused complexity into simplicity long ago. If the universe was such a different kind of thing that this didn't happen for some reason, it is way beyond our knowing.

Actually, a form of entropy is probably the thing that is making us devolve rather than evolve right now.

We don't know, our universe could experience a Big Crunch, and the whole thing will start over.

To bring 'God' into the equation raises more questions than it answers.

[BADecker]

This is where entropy comes in (another flaw in BB Theory thinking). There must have been a Beginning. If things had always existed as they do, entropy would have broken down the complexity long ago, so there wouldn't be life, or much of anything else that is complex.

Evolution doesn't violate entropy. Earth is not an isolated system, we get an energy input from the Sun, and radiate energy back to space.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean that the entropy of every part of a system increases. If it did then water would never freeze into ice, because that involves a decrease in entropy. What it actually means is that the total entropy of the whole system has to increase. Any decrease like water in a freezer turning into ice is matched by an increase elsewhere, in this case the heat released into your kitchen by the freezer.

You make a point. But your point doesn't have anything to do with the post you quoted. Do you always simply jump into things with other things?

The point of my post that you quoted was, if our universe never had a beginning, but rather always existed, entropy would have diffused complexity into simplicity long ago. If the universe was such a different kind of thing that this didn't happen for some reason, it is way beyond our knowing.

Actually, a form of entropy is probably the thing that is making us devolve rather than evolve right now.

We don't know, our universe could experience a Big Crunch, and the whole thing will start over.

To bring 'God' into the equation raises more questions than it answers.
https://i.imgur.com/F1cUgMc.jpg

The reason we don't know is that we live by faith and belief. In other words, we are religious beings, and live religious lives.

Some of us trust God, so we know by faith. No big crunch. No big bang. Destruction of this universe soon. But loss of this universe to all of us when we die.

[af_newbie]

This is where entropy comes in (another flaw in BB Theory thinking). There must have been a Beginning. If things had always existed as they do, entropy would have broken down the complexity long ago, so there wouldn't be life, or much of anything else that is complex.

Evolution doesn't violate entropy. Earth is not an isolated system, we get an energy input from the Sun, and radiate energy back to space.
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't mean that the entropy of every part of a system increases. If it did then water would never freeze into ice, because that involves a decrease in entropy. What it actually means is that the total entropy of the whole system has to increase. Any decrease like water in a freezer turning into ice is matched by an increase elsewhere, in this case the heat released into your kitchen by the freezer.

You make a point. But your point doesn't have anything to do with the post you quoted. Do you always simply jump into things with other things?

The point of my post that you quoted was, if our universe never had a beginning, but rather always existed, entropy would have diffused complexity into simplicity long ago. If the universe was such a different kind of thing that this didn't happen for some reason, it is way beyond our knowing.

Actually, a form of entropy is probably the thing that is making us devolve rather than evolve right now.

We don't know, our universe could experience a Big Crunch, and the whole thing will start over.

To bring 'God' into the equation raises more questions than it answers.
https://i.imgur.com/F1cUgMc.jpg

The reason we don't know is that we live by faith and belief. In other words, we are religious beings, and live religious lives.

Some of us trust God, so we know by faith. No big crunch. No big bang. Destruction of this universe soon. But loss of this universe to all of us when we die.

Do you think faith is a reliable way to discover what is true and what is false?

[notbatman]

^^^



Yeah, just keep telling him he's got no brain...

[BADecker]

The reason we don't know is that we live by faith and belief. In other words, we are religious beings, and live religious lives.

Some of us trust God, so we know by faith. No big crunch. No big bang. Destruction of this universe soon. But loss of this universe to all of us when we die.

Do you think faith is a reliable way to discover what is true and what is false?

Have you examined all the principles and application of all - or at least most - science? Or do you have faith in scientists and the media, that they are telling you the truth?