BADecker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
 |
July 18, 2017, 06:16:16 PM |
|
They can not turn a monkey to a human either  nobody really know how to do this Right. They can't even take dead parts and make them alive again. They can barely revive living parts that are on the edge of dying. And most of their reviving is simply helping the life to live a little longer... when it doesn't help the dying life to die a little faster. They can't really bring anything to life.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin addresses contain a checksum, so it is very unlikely that mistyping an address will cause you to lose money.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 06:21:41 PM
Last edit: July 18, 2017, 06:33:46 PM by IadixDev |
|
They can not turn a monkey to a human either nobody really know how to do this Right. They can't even take dead parts and make them alive again. They can barely revive living parts that are on the edge of dying. And most of their reviving is simply helping the life to live a little longer... when it doesn't help the dying life to die a little faster. They can't really bring anything to life. Hippocrates funder of medicine said that the best a doctor can do is helping the body to recover, no physician can really do anything else to improve health, the body know how to fix himself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HippocratesHippocratic medicine was humble and passive. The therapeutic approach was based on "the healing power of nature" ("vis medicatrix naturae" in Latin). According to this doctrine, the body contains within itself the power to re-balance the four humours and heal itself (physis).[26] Hippocratic therapy focused on simply easing this natural process. To this end, Hippocrates believed "rest and immobilization [were] of capital importance."[27] In general, the Hippocratic medicine was very kind to the patient; treatment was gentle, and emphasized keeping the patient clean and sterile. For example, only clean water or wine were ever used on wounds, though "dry" treatment was preferable. Soothing balms were sometimes employed.[28] |
|
|
|
|
izza123
|
|
July 18, 2017, 07:02:37 PM |
|
The problem isn't that you don't believe it because there is anything wrong with the theory, you don't believe it because you are ignorant of the theory at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 18, 2017, 08:16:04 PM |
|
Your probability website ( http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2012/01/does-probability-refute-evolution/) starts out backward. The first paragraph... the introduction: Both traditional creationists and intelligent design scholars have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, “random” process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakepeare. Note that billions of years are mentioned with the idea that a long time makes probability work in ones favor. The reverse is true. Simple rusting iron shows that over a longer period of time, the iron rusts more. Translated into evolution, this means that the longer the time, the more degradation of any naturally occurring chemical reaction, even one in the direction of climbing the evolutionary ladder. Since this whole article is laid out based on false ideas like this one, how can there be any truth in any of it? There essentially isn't. Until the author corrects his basic idea that the improbable can overcome the probable in the tremendous odds that are against the improbable, there is no way that the article has any practical value. The rest of the articles are the same. The point is that evolutionists show exactly the opposite of the thing that they want. They constantly prove that evolution is impossible, and then ignorantly (many knowingly) suggest that evolution is fact. Believe them, if you like. But understand that you are following a religion if you believe them. One fallacy in this particular argument, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a huge figure but vastly smaller than 10183, and small enough to neutralize the probability-based argument against evolution [Bailey2000]. But even after this revision, the calculation still suffers from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event (which, after all, is the creationist theory, not the scientific theory, of its origin). Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic suggests that alpha-globin and other proteins arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context [Hardison2001]. Thus any simplistic probability calculation (whether it is arguing for or against some aspect of evolution) that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is not meaningful and can easily mislead [Bailey2000; Musgrave1998]. What’s more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, self-catalyzing biomolecules such as RNA are being investigated in research into the origin of life — see Origin. Also, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of completely “random” assemblage. Yet this process occurs millions of times every day in the human body. Those familiar with probability theory will recognize that one central difficulty with these creationist arguments stems from the fact that in any probability calculation, one must first very carefully define the ensemble space. As noted above, it makes no sense to consider, as an ensemble, all possible random assemblages of atoms into a protein chain, since that is not the scientific hypothesis of how alpha-globin and other biomolecular structures came to be. Instead, the only valid ensemble for this analysis is the set of all possible outcomes of an eons-long string of biomolecular processes, encompassing proteins, organisms, species and environments. But at present we have no possible way of even enumerating such an ensemble, much less determining the probability of any particular scenario or class of scenarios in this ensemble. Perhaps at some time in the far distant future, a super-powerful computer could simulate with convincing fidelity the multi-billion-year biological history of the earth, in the same way that scientists today attempt to simulate (in a much more modest scope) the earth’s climate. Then, after thousands of such simulations have been performed, we might obtain some meaningful statistics on the chances involved in the formation of some class of biological structures such as alpha-globin. Until that time, all such probability calculations are essentially meaningless. Along this line, it is also important to keep in mind that the process of natural biological evolution is not really a “random” process. Yes, mutations are “random” events, but the all-important process of natural selection, acting under the pressure of an extremely competitive landscape involving thousands of other species as well as numerous complicated environmental pressures, is anything but random. This strongly directional nature of natural selection, which is the essence of evolution, by itself invalidates simple-minded probability calculations. Generally, the probability math against evolution is simple minded applications of probability. Correct applications of probability math would make the probability against evolution so high, that it would result in the thing that is happening in science today. Scientists can barely create the compounds of life. They can barely make them work a little. They can't create life in a test tube, from inanimate materials. They aren't really even close.  Take a look at all the advancements made by science trying to create life, but failing at it. The failures are numerous. Now think about it. Scientists are so smart that they can't create life. Yet stupid, dumb nature is supposed to... according to those same smart scientists. Wake up. Evolution scientists are spouting science fiction. And when they can't do what they say nature did, they keep right on being so smart by saying that nature did it. What does this mean in reality? It means that scientists are dumb, and nature is smart... if you want to believe the scientists. In fact, the scientists are so dumb that they are believing that dumb nature is smart enough to outsmart them. When you throw in all the reasons why evolution is impossible, you see that the money that the scientists are raking in shows that they might not be as dumb as they act scientifically. Ehm, you obviously just ignore anything you don't like. I showed you what correct applications of probability actually show. They show that evolution is possible. What does scientists trying to create life have to do with evolution? If scientists can't make something move at the speed of light, does that mean the speed of light is incorrect? However scientists were able to create life from non living matter, it's called abiogenesis. The creation of life itself is not evolution by the way so I don't really know what does that have to do with evolution. |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 09:24:17 PM |
|
Ehm, you obviously just ignore anything you don't like. I showed you what correct applications of probability actually show. They show that evolution is possible. What does scientists trying to create life have to do with evolution? If scientists can't make something move at the speed of light, does that mean the speed of light is incorrect? However scientists were able to create life from non living matter, it's called abiogenesis.
The creation of life itself is not evolution by the way so I don't really know what does that have to do with evolution.
There was a very good article about this on jonathan blow blogs, but I cant find it anymore. The gist of it was that he has been working on genetic simulation, and no matter what kind of model is picked up, you never get an intelligent form of life emerging from it. If we pretend to understand something, according to scientific principle, it means it must be replicated by an experimental protocol. Where is the experimental protocol to prove evolution ? What is the mathematics model to create intelligent life form ? There is none of this, and no one can pretend to a scientific explanation of evolution. Unless you can show the experimental protocol to turn a stone to a bacteria and a monkey to a human. We never see this happening in an experimental protocol in a lab. There are plenty of experimental protocol to measure speed of light and every bit of relativity theory. There is none of this for evolution. What is the metric to measure evolution ? |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 18, 2017, 09:35:27 PM |
|
Ehm, you obviously just ignore anything you don't like. I showed you what correct applications of probability actually show. They show that evolution is possible. What does scientists trying to create life have to do with evolution? If scientists can't make something move at the speed of light, does that mean the speed of light is incorrect? However scientists were able to create life from non living matter, it's called abiogenesis.
The creation of life itself is not evolution by the way so I don't really know what does that have to do with evolution.
There was a very good article about this on jonathan blow blogs, but I cant find it anymore. The gist of it was that he has been working on genetic simulation, and no matter what kind of model is picked up, you never get an intelligent form of life emerging from it. If we pretend to understand something, according to scientific principle, it means it must be replicated by an experimental protocol. Where is the experimental protocol to prove evolution ? What is the mathematics model to create intelligent life form ? There is none of this, and no one can pretend to a scientific explanation of evolution. Unless you can show the experimental protocol to turn a stone to a bacteria and a monkey to a human. We never see this happening in an experimental protocol in a lab. There are plenty of experimental protocol to measure speed of light and every bit of relativity theory. There is none of this for evolution. What is the metric to measure evolution ? Where is the experimental protocol to prove god? Or to make another universe? First of all, evolution is not about the origin of life. Second of all evolution has been observed in many ways. You can actually experiment with it if you wanted. Your claim is : Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time. The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence. It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor. It's also obvious that you haven't studied evolution, otherwise you wouldn't be saying such stupid things like, make a human from a monkey... http://friendsofdarwin.com/misc/faq/why-still-monkeys/ I suggest you to read a bit before making stupid comments, otherwise you look stupid. |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 09:41:51 PM
Last edit: July 18, 2017, 10:01:31 PM by IadixDev |
|
I dont care about "looking" stupid, that just make you look un scientific making judgment based on a priori and insulting people But you sure seem to put lot of effort into "looking smart" *me not impressed* From this point, it make it rather pointless to have scientific discussion But I wont insult you because of this I obviously read much more about evolution than you And we still dont have experimental protocol to explain the steps from stone to mozart show me how we do this scientifically Amin acide, alpha globin is cute, but it's not the pinacle of evolution either. Fluorescent pigs neither. But maybe you can answer this, or just judging people on their look. Your link is totally irrelevant to the point. Science is not collection of annecdots & fact, it's about replicating experimental protocol. |
|
|
|
newsilike
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 630
Merit: 262
This account was hacked. just recently got it back
|
|
July 18, 2017, 09:49:47 PM |
|
'The popular modern scientific-materialist-atheist worldview propagated by NASA, the mainstream media and the public education system is that you are here because nothingness for no reason exploded and created everything! Before time, space, matter, consciousness, intelligence, and life, there was nothing. Then the nothingness exploded, and instead of destroying things like every other explosion ever, this explosion created things, created everything! The nothingness explosion somehow created space, time and all matter in the universe in an instant and for no reason at all. Then all the creationary explosive debris flying outwards at over 670 million miles per hour for 14 billion years culminated to create you!
Yes, first some of the more gaseous nothing came together forming suns and stars, then solid pieces of the nothing came together forming planets and moons, then the nothing-turned-hydrogen and oxygen came together forming water on the nothing planet Earth, out of which single-celled living organisms magically appeared, got to work dividing and multiplying into multi-celled conscious organisms, which multiplied and divided and mutated into various forms of sea-life which adapted and evolved and crawled onto land, replaced gills with lungs, lost tails, grew opposable thumbs and started grasping at straws like this ridiculous nihilistic notion of Big Bang evolution.'
from the Eric Dubay fella
Intelligent Design not Evolution
We are here for purpose; to live together as won great Familee - With the Ability to speak - monkeys can't do that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 18, 2017, 09:57:47 PM |
|
I dont care about "looking" stupid, that just make you look un scientific making judgment based on a priori and insulting people From this point, it make it rather pointless to have scientific discussion But I wont insult you because of this I obviously read much more about evolution than you And we still dont have experimental protocol to explain the steps from stone to mozart show me how we do this scientifically Amin acide, alpha globin is cute, but it's not the pinacle of evolution either. But maybe you can answer this, or just judging people on their look. Your link is totally irrelevant to the point. Im curious tho, are you the typical creationist or what? If you dismiss evolution what do you propose instead. I'm 99% sure that you will say god but maybe you surprise me. |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 10:03:44 PM |
|
I dont care about "looking" stupid, that just make you look un scientific making judgment based on a priori and insulting people From this point, it make it rather pointless to have scientific discussion But I wont insult you because of this I obviously read much more about evolution than you And we still dont have experimental protocol to explain the steps from stone to mozart show me how we do this scientifically Amin acide, alpha globin is cute, but it's not the pinacle of evolution either. But maybe you can answer this, or just judging people on their look. Your link is totally irrelevant to the point. Im curious tho, are you the typical creationist or what? If you dismiss evolution what do you propose instead. I'm 99% sure that you will say god but maybe you surprise me. Jonathan blow exposed this problematic very well. Saying we dont understand evolution doesnt mean being religious nut. It's just being honest with what we can really assert scientifically on the subject. Darwin is like Freud, it's more philosophy than "hard science" If I could understand this, I would postulate for Nobel Prize right now lol |
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 18, 2017, 10:12:29 PM |
|
I dont care about "looking" stupid, that just make you look un scientific making judgment based on a priori and insulting people From this point, it make it rather pointless to have scientific discussion But I wont insult you because of this I obviously read much more about evolution than you And we still dont have experimental protocol to explain the steps from stone to mozart show me how we do this scientifically Amin acide, alpha globin is cute, but it's not the pinacle of evolution either. But maybe you can answer this, or just judging people on their look. Your link is totally irrelevant to the point. Im curious tho, are you the typical creationist or what? If you dismiss evolution what do you propose instead. I'm 99% sure that you will say god but maybe you surprise me. Jonathan blow exposed this problematic very well. Saying we dont understand evolution doesnt mean being religious nut. It's just being honest with what we can really assert scientifically on the subject. Fair enough. Here is the problem with what you want. We cannot always have experiments or recreate anything. Scientifically we know how planets are formed or what a black hole is however we can't recreate any of it. We can however make predictions about evolution. Disproving evolution first requires to look at what the theory predicts and see where it can be shown to make incorrect predictions. It is easy to be side-tracked by specifics of the theory, such as individual evolutionary pathways of certain features, and confuse these with what would falsify the overall theory of evolution by natural selection. Indeed, many creationists do this whenever a new discovery is made in biology that causes scientists to rethink some pieces of evolution. To avoid this problem, it is best to be clear what evolution is. It is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles, evolution must occur, and many features of evolution appear given only these three guiding principles.[3] If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable. Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory: If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits. If it could be shown that mutations do not occur. If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations. If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection. If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals. If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species. Cosmologists make precise predictions about what will happen to the universe in 20 billion years’ time. Biologists struggle to predict how a few bacteria in a dish might evolve over 20 hours. Some claim that this lack of precise predictive power means evolution is not scientific. However, what matters in science is not how much you can predict on the basis of a theory or how precise those predictions are, but whether the predictions you can make turn out to be right. Meteorologists don’t reject chaos theory because it tells them it is impossible to predict the weather 100% accurately – on the contrary, they accept it because weather follows the broad patterns predicted by chaos theory. The difficulty in predicting the course of evolution arises partly because organisms are free to evolve in quite different directions. The descendants of a single species of ape living in Africa around 6 million years ago, for instance, ended up taking rather different paths; those that eventually led to gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. Such splits in populations might stem from tiny initial variations. The evolutionary paths these apes took might also have been influenced by changes in the climate. As this shows, the history of life on this planet has been partly shaped by chance events. If an asteroid hadn’t wiped out the dinosaurs, the first intelligent life form might have been very different, if indeed human-like intelligence had evolved at all. If we could wind the clock back 4 billion years and let life evolve all over again, its course might be very different. Perhaps the most striking prediction in biology was made in 1975 by entomologist Richard Alexander. After studying the evolution of eusocial insects such as termites, he predicted that some burrowing rodents in the tropics might have evolved the same eusocial system – as later proved to be the case with the naked mole-rat.
Evolutionary theory can and increasingly is being put to more practical use. For instance, if you genetically engineer crops to produce a pesticide, it is clear that resistant insect strains are likely to evolve. What is less obvious is that you can slow this process by growing regular plants alongside the GM ones, as was predicted and has turned out to be the case.
Many researchers developing treatments for infectious diseases now try to consider how resistance could evolve and find ways to prevent it, for instance by giving certain drugs in combination. This slows the evolution of resistance because pathogens have to acquire several mutations to survive the treatment.
You can see that evolution has many practical applications which really to me proves the truth of evolution |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 10:34:46 PM
Last edit: July 18, 2017, 11:05:43 PM by IadixDev |
|
Yes im not denying completely the principle.
It can be witnessed on certain species, like some species who disapear and adapt to some conditions. Like some birds develop certain kind of beak to adapt to vegetation, or some butter fly who adapt in color to environnement. Or species who vanish because of change in environment.
But even really we barely understand anything at dna. 80% of junk dna, and even the 20% it's more complex than isolating coding genes one by one to form a protein.
It's still a level of complexity way ahead of what we can really understand today.
Im not denying there is still solid beam of evidence to show how life evolve to adapt environmental condition.
In biology of consciousness they explain very well the complexity involved with studying evolution as a whole. We dont even have the proper framework for this. It's why I posted the article on neural Darwinism before, to show already on the formation of brain and nervous system, how it evolve to linguistic, semantic, art, etc.
Even the imune system is in incredible complexity.
And that's just scratching the surface.
It's becoming increasingly a field that dig in all area, from physics, geology, biology etc
There is no hard science on this.
|
|
|
|
|
Astargath
|
|
July 18, 2017, 10:53:06 PM |
|
Yes im not denying completely the principle.
It can be witnessed on certain species, like some species who disapear and adapt to some conditions. Like some birds develop certain kind of beak to adapt to vegetation, or some butter fly who adapt in color to environnement. Or species who vanish because of change in environment.
But even really we barely understand anything at dna. 80% of junk dna, and even the 20% it's more complex than isolating coding genes one by one to form a protein.
It's still a level of complexity way ahead of what we can really understand today.
Im not denying there is still solid beam of evidence to show how life evolve to adapt environmental condition.
In biology of consciousness they explain very well the complexity involved with studying evolution as a whole. We dont even have the proper framework for this.
It's becoming increasingly a field that dig in all area, from physics, geology, biology etc
There is no hard science on this.
Well that's your opinion, however most scientists accept evolution as a fact. There is really no other theory proposed a part from crazy creationists. It is the best scientific theory right now and it works. If it works, it's good. Yes, obviously there are a lot of things we don't know but that doesn't mean evolution is false. I see that you are not a religious nut and you do accept the basics of the theory. As I said, there really is nothing else proposed to explain how animals or plants got to where they are. |
|
|
|
popcorn1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1027
|
|
July 18, 2017, 11:06:04 PM |
|
Yes im not denying completely the principle.
It can be witnessed on certain species, like some species who disapear and adapt to some conditions. Like some birds develop certain kind of beak to adapt to vegetation, or some butter fly who adapt in color to environnement. Or species who vanish because of change in environment.
But even really we barely understand anything at dna. 80% of junk dna, and even the 20% it's more complex than isolating coding genes one by one to form a protein.
It's still a level of complexity way ahead of what we can really understand today.
Im not denying there is still solid beam of evidence to show how life evolve to adapt environmental condition.
In biology of consciousness they explain very well the complexity involved with studying evolution as a whole. We dont even have the proper framework for this.
It's becoming increasingly a field that dig in all area, from physics, geology, biology etc
There is no hard science on this.
We evolved from this EARTH ..Yes or no ?.. It makes no difference if we have 100 different theories to how we evolved the fact is we EVOLVED from this EARTH .. And that's why we have evolution theories..IT'S FACT we evolved from this EARTH.. Now you can theorise all you want on how we EVOLVED but we ended up a human because the EARTH made us that way.. Evolution was to basically prove that GOD never made man and that the earth wasn't made in 6 days.. Because of this study we have many many sciences that have come from finding out that god never made man or the EARTH.. DARWIN ..One of the greatest humans that ever lived WHY because he gave his time for HUMANITY.. And just look at all the sciences because of this great human.. In my eyes he is one of the greatest humans ever.. |
|
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 11:13:15 PM |
|
Darwin was a very smart guys, and like Freud he is often very misunderstood, and lot of their research and idea are not really published with mainstream academics . But still the amount of what can be explained by simplistic interpretation of darwin is very limited. There is really a lot to this topic lol Even with how dna metylation works, it show the organismes can block some genes "live" due to environmental condition. The portion of coding dna used will vary depending on condition. Maybe if it's cold you will grow more thick hairs. Digestive system adapt to food, to find the good enzymes etc Imune system is very complex too. And adapt "live" to condition. Even genetician who works on plants know how weird this whole evolution stuff really is Some genes can start to get expressed / used at some point without they really know how or why, it's really not so simple And it's very weird to explain how the whole chain took place, as we call it "evolution" it show a constant progression toward "something", more intelligence etc. And it's almost like the first cell already knew where it was aimed at, to create the good chain of transformation allowing increasing complexity. We dont even really understand what the purpose of all this. There is a good book on this "What is life". Not so easy question |
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 18, 2017, 11:28:05 PM |
|
Yes im not denying completely the principle.
It can be witnessed on certain species, like some species who disapear and adapt to some conditions. Like some birds develop certain kind of beak to adapt to vegetation, or some butter fly who adapt in color to environnement. Or species who vanish because of change in environment.
But even really we barely understand anything at dna. 80% of junk dna, and even the 20% it's more complex than isolating coding genes one by one to form a protein.
It's still a level of complexity way ahead of what we can really understand today.
Im not denying there is still solid beam of evidence to show how life evolve to adapt environmental condition.
In biology of consciousness they explain very well the complexity involved with studying evolution as a whole. We dont even have the proper framework for this.
It's becoming increasingly a field that dig in all area, from physics, geology, biology etc
There is no hard science on this.
Well that's your opinion, however most scientists accept evolution as a fact. There is really no other theory proposed a part from crazy creationists. It is the best scientific theory right now and it works. If it works, it's good. Yes, obviously there are a lot of things we don't know but that doesn't mean evolution is false. I see that you are not a religious nut and you do accept the basics of the theory. As I said, there really is nothing else proposed to explain how animals or plants got to where they are. Most scientists today will agree we understand very little about all this. Evolution is kinda umbrella term , it's not really a "fact" but 2 billions years of twisted evolution responding to complex environmental factors, with going back and forth, dolphin were once land creature, then went back to ocean. Darwin cant explain why dinosaurus crashed, it's entierely environnemental. Evolution is by product of many things. |
|
|
|
|
stoniestfool
|
|
July 18, 2017, 11:51:44 PM |
|
Those of you who disbelieve evolution because it disputes your religious beliefs. Religion is the single most commonly used form of brainwashing know to man. You are raised to believe so you do. If you were first told about religion after your twenties, you would clearly see what a hoax it truly is. I have studied many faiths. All are absolutely laughable once you study their individual belief systems. Christian say Muslims are going to hell.Muslims say Christians are. Both sides swear they are right. However, both sides have committed unimaginable atrocities in the name of their savior. If there were a god I am sure he would not want you to kill nonbelievers.there is not. That is as much a fact of life as the world is round.
Live your life. Be free and be happy.
|
|
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 19, 2017, 12:23:27 AM |
|
Those of you who disbelieve evolution because it disputes your religious beliefs. Religion is the single most commonly used form of brainwashing know to man. You are raised to believe so you do. If you were first told about religion after your twenties, you would clearly see what a hoax it truly is. I have studied many faiths. All are absolutely laughable once you study their individual belief systems. Christian say Muslims are going to hell.Muslims say Christians are. Both sides swear they are right. However, both sides have committed unimaginable atrocities in the name of their savior. If there were a god I am sure he would not want you to kill nonbelievers.there is not. That is as much a fact of life as the world is round.
Live your life. Be free and be happy.
The pb for me is religion is a bit double meaning. There is the first meaning which has to do with the ethymology of "religare" creating bond between people, and it's the cultural / social aspect which is the aspect that is closer to brainwashing, or at least social conditioning. It's the bad aspect of religion. But there is the philosophical aspect of it, and in itself it's not really encouraging brainwashing, on the contrary. It touch the infinity, what is beyond us. I dont know the coran enough, but in the bible it's very clear it take on the basis of socrates, plato, and dont encourage brainwashing at all, on the contrary. Jesus depicted in the bible is not a good case for showing blind following of social norm Im sure digging a bit back into it, it's very easy to show how the bible is totally the best anti brainwashing tool available. And it's very explicit at that. And actually I come from completely atheists background, I have origin from spain civil war, I cannot say religion is very praised in my familly lol I started to get interested into this in my 30 maybe, and there are still very deep things to learn from religious books. If you study faith from the social aspect, you are missing a bit the point. Or you are just seeing the lowest part of it who is not very interesting. But that's very complex topic to study how belief play with social integration etc But cant say the origin of religion is about integrating whatever social norm you are born into. And I gotcha all the brainwashed "pseudo Christian " or muslim based on their own book that most of them dont even really read or understand. There is very few atheists great scientists actually. |
|
|
|
|
stoniestfool
|
|
July 19, 2017, 12:52:41 AM |
|
A few things that made me certain religion was fake. The first was If there was a god and he spoke to man, would he not explain some things to us. For instance, the world is round not flat. Secondly, would he not give some explanation to how many planets there were?
Then I have to consider how he actually treated man. Instead of saying do not steal because it is wrong. He used hell as a threat.In today's society, some could argue he uses mental abuse to dictate his belief system on others. Threats of violence and pain.
Lastly, when I consider homosexuality. I am nowhere near gay. Have no friends or family that are. But who I am to judge or take away enjoyment from another person. If it makes you happy and does not hurt anyone else. JUST DO IT. This has taken me along time to relize. I have not always thought that way. One day I thought to myself, what if I were gay. Once you place yourself in someone's situation, your beliefs change quickly.
I Live a good life. Never lie cheat steal or hurt people. Not out of fear. Simply because I am intelligent enough to know better.
If someone does not steal only out of fear from god, they are not a decent person.
|
|
|
|
|
IadixDev
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 151
They're tactical
|
|
July 19, 2017, 01:07:22 AM |
|
Here is a scientific fact that all scientists agree on :
The number of potential connection between all neurons in the brain is more than the number of particle in the universe.
There is no object known to mankind that reach anywhere near this level of complexity.
And it's not talking about a whole complete living organism fully autonomous, auto reproductive, carrying evolution, adaptive to all circonstance, selecting good partner, etc.
No engineers on earth can build something even approaching this. By far.
|
|
|
|
|
