Evolution is a hoax

[IadixDev]

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.

God is more a concept than anything.

He doesnt threat of anything.

No need for a religion to suffer on earth and deal with consequences of actions.

Actually read what jesus say of those who cast stones. He never avocate punishment, but forgiving.

He even say some thief are ok if they are in necessity.

[1714179413]

1714179413

[1714179413]

1714179413

[1714179413]

1714179413

[1714179413]

1714179413

[TuckJeezyKEK]

Evolution is no hoax. We are related to the ape I think we are separated by a few genes.

[leirou]

Yes I believed that it is a hoax. As you can see now is there any Monkey guy who is close to human intelligence. SO I believed it is a hoax.

[flag39]

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/turkey-removes-darwins-theory-evolution-school-curriculum/

[Astargath]

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.

But that doesn't mean anything. It took a long time to get where we are. Every animal started as simple cells and eventually became more and more complex to the point of what we are now.

[IadixDev]

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.

But that doesn't mean anything. It took a long time to get where we are. Every animal started as simple cells and eventually became more and more complex to the point of what we are now.

If evolution is the process of building human brain, we are mostly clue less about the whole thing.

[Astargath]

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.

But that doesn't mean anything. It took a long time to get where we are. Every animal started as simple cells and eventually became more and more complex to the point of what we are now.

If evolution is the process of building human brain, we are mostly clue less about the whole thing.

Well it is true that we don't know exactly how every organ formed. For example there is good research on how the human eye evolved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye) Even if we don't know specifically how everything formed that doesn't disprove evolution. We also don't know what gravity is exactly, we know how it works or how to calculate it but we don't really know why is there. The problem with this thread is that is called evolution is a hoax which would mean something like scientists deliberately made up this theory to lie to people for some reason. I know you don't believe that and it's always good to be skeptical about anything but most people here are uneducated about this matter and simply believe in god instead.

[IadixDev]

Science must not become another religion to get into a crusade against other religion

Need to stick to facts and experimental protocol, and being humble with the subject of study



https://youtu.be/Gs6XkA8fVec and then, just when you think you figured the whole blood damn thing up, death show up. And bla bla bla.

This is the kind of article who demonstrate how intricate this stuff of evolution is with theories of "intelligent design".

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

A much more difficult and confusing situation would arise if we could, some day, establish a theory of the phenomena of consciousness, or of biology, which would be as coherent and convincing as our present theories of the inanimate world. Mendel's laws of inheritance and the subsequent work on genes may well form the beginning of such a theory as far as biology is concerned. Furthermore,, it is quite possible that an abstract argument can be found which shows that there is a conflict between such a theory and the accepted principles of physics. The argument could be of such abstract nature that it might not be possible to resolve the conflict, in favor of one or of the other theory, by an experiment. Such a situation would put a heavy strain on our faith in our theories and on our belief in the reality of the concepts which we form. It would give us a deep sense of frustration in our search for what I called "the ultimate truth." The reason that such a situation is conceivable is that, fundamentally, we do not know why our theories work so well. Hence, their accuracy may not prove their truth and consistency. Indeed, it is this writer's belief that something rather akin to the situation which was described above exists if the present laws of heredity and of physics are confronted.


https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Hamming.html

Indeed, to generalize, almost all of our experiences in this world do not fall under the domain of science or mathematics. Furthermore, we know (at least we think we do) that from Godel's theorem there are definite limits to what pure logical manipulation of symbols can do, there are limits to the domain of mathematics. It has been an act of faith on the part of scientists that the world can be explained in the simple terms that mathematics handles. When you consider how much science has not answered then you see that our successes are not so impressive as they might otherwise appear.


4. The evolution of man provided the model. I have already touched on the matter of the evolution of man. I remarked that in the earliest forms of life there must have been the seeds of our current ability to create and follow long chains of close reasoning. Some people [11. H. Mohr, Structure and Significance of Science, Springer-Verlag, 1977.] have further claimed that Darwinian evolution would naturally select for survival those competing forms of life which had the best models of reality in their minds-"best" meaning best for surviving and propagating. There is no doubt that there is some truth in this. We find, for example, that we can cope with thinking about the world when it is of comparable size to ourselves and our raw unaided senses, but that when we go to the very small or the very large then our thinking has great trouble. We seem not to be able to think appropriately about the extremes beyond normal size.


And if evolution has to be predicted has a linear system, it also need to take in account natural events, physics because nature is made to understand physics and deal with physical problem, with geometry to understand cosmic cycles, etc.

Even if dna is to be considered as informations system like the article I posted before, it should become easy by some kind of statistic or regression to find the model of evolution. But no such model exists today. And they are crunching this one, but no "law" really emerge from it.

If a model would emerge, it would also incorporate the evolution of climate, of geology, of asteroid, volcano eruptions etc to account for the progression.


I dont have the biology of consciousness anymore, I lent it to someone, but they explain well the problematics involved to find a good model for evolution.

Maybe I will try to find the good part in google.

[Astargath]

The theory of evolution is the only theory right now and it is backed up by a lot of evidence. Maybe there are parts of it that are wrong but there is no other theory that explains what evolution explains. In all these years people have tried to dismiss the evolution theory but no one has ever come up with something else. So far the theory of evolution is the best we have and it's working, as I previously said, it already has been applied to numerous things. It's useful.

[IadixDev]

There is not even really "one" theory of evolution

Even if history is to be taken as recent account of evolution in the organisation of cognitive system, it become very hard to really get the "thread" from stonehedge, egypt, Rome etc.

The evolution of semantics, language, culture, philosophy, science, which according to Freud is largely dependent on how it's able to map our physiology , and even for this we often have to rely on art or poetry or metaphor , and yet it's often very hard for us to really convey accurately our own state of mind, and physiological state.

Not even getting into explaining the whole process of how we got there.

[Astargath]

There is not even really "one" theory of evolution

Even if history is to be taken as recent account of evolution in the organisation of cognitive system, it become very hard to really get the "thread" from stonehedge, egypt, Rome etc.

The evolution of semantics, language, culture, philosophy, science, which according to Freud is largely dependent on how it's able to map our physiology , and even for this we often have to rely on art or poetry or metaphor , and yet it's often very hard for us to really convey accurately our own state of mind, and physiological state.

Not even getting into explaining the whole process of how we got there.

It doesn't matter, you are locked into that. Just because it can't explain everything precisely doesn't mean it's wrong. We may never be able to know exactly how everything happened unless you time travel. It's still the only thing to go by, there is nothing else but evolution that tries to explain that. And so far people are finding useful applications for it. If you know of something better go win your nobel prize.

[IadixDev]

Darwin is quite outdated with current state of things. It doesnt account for much.

If it cant explain something, then it's wrong. Or then what the point lol

Usefulness is more the field of marketing and engineering than science.

Most big advance in mathematics like complex numbers square root of -1 didn't have any usefulness when it was discovered.

Im not into a anti religious crusade or after Nobel Prize.

There are already plenty of Nobel Prize who made darwin obsolete. He didn't even know about DNA.

And im not saying we cant form a good picture of chronology, and how life evolved with time.

But having a chronology of event doesnt mean we understand the link between those events. ( liebniz demonstrate this well).

Science is more concerned with law or rules to explain the chain of events, rather than laying out chronology.


The mollah can find lot of useful application  for religion, it's science then ?

[Astargath]

Darwin is quite outdated with current state of things. It doesnt account for much.

If it cant explain something, then it's wrong. Or then what the point lol

Usefulness is more the field of marketing and engineering than science.

Most big advance in mathematics like complex numbers square root of -1 didn't have any usefulness when it was discovered.

Im not into a anti religious crusade or after Nobel Prize.

There are already plenty of Nobel Prize who made darwin obsolete. He didn't even know about DNA.

And im not saying we cant form a good picture of chronology, and how life evolved with time.

But having a chronology of event doesnt mean we understand the link between those events. ( liebniz demonstrate this well).

Science is more concerned with law or rules to explain the chain of events, rather than laying out chronology.


The mollah can find lot of useful application  for religion, it's science then ?

Religion has no real applications for real life, otherwise tell me one. You seem to be stuck at, if it can't explain everything then it's wrong. The theory of evolution tries to explain a lot of things. We have fossils and dna to check what species evolved to what species, it's true that we don't know the exact process, then again you can't really know it unless you time travel. It's like proving a murder. You don't have to be there to prove it, dna + motive + murder weapon = guilty. It's the same here and this is the best we can do, at least right now.

[IadixDev]

Pythagoras could find earth circonference with deduction without measuring it. That's science   that's someone who knew how to use his brain

Einstein could figure time dilation before measuring it. He even said something like if the experience doesnt show the expected result, then the experience is wrong.

Seeing the Apple falling is different from understanding gravity law.

No more than witnessing evolution mean we understand law of evolution.

I can agree that recognition of the Apple falling is the first step. But it's only a first step.

Religion have plenty of application, otherwise there wouldnt be billions of believers and mollah it has probably more short term economic interest than scientific research

[Astargath]

Pythagoras could find earth circonference with deduction without measuring it. That's science   that's someone who knew how to use his brain

Einstein could figure time dilation before measuring it. He even said something like if the experience doesnt show the expected result, then the experience is wrong.

Seeing the Apple falling is different from understanding gravity law.

No more than witnessing evolution mean we understand law of evolution.

I can agree that recognition of the Apple falling is the first step. But it's only a first step.

Religion have plenty of application, otherwise there wouldnt be billions of believers and mollah it has probably more short term economic interest than scientific research

You still haven't mentioned what applications. What would you need for someone to prove to you that evolution is real then? If there is something that can be done I'm sure scientists did it already so I still don't see the problem. The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics.

The predictive power of science comes from being able to say things we would not have been able to say otherwise. These predictions do not have to be about things happening in the future. They can be "retrodictions" about things from the past that we have not found yet. Evolution allows innumerable predictions of this sort.

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

With predictions such as these and others, evolution can be, and has been, put to practical use in areas such as drug discovery and avoidance of resistant pests.

If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy.

[IadixDev]

The origin of religion come from need for civilisation.

First religion were in sumer or egypt, they made lot of progress. In mathematics, astronomy etc.

Judaism bring a lot to understanding of universe. They invented numbers  ( sephir / cypher ) from the kaballah.

Writing & mathematics was invented by religion in antiquity.

The concept of monotheism is fundemental to get to the point where the concept of science can emerge.

Christianism made revolution and radically changed society.

The need for religion is to recognize between good person or bad person, when it come to build laws to civilise people.

Historically, all concept of law at core of civilisation come from religion.

Science is not so usefull to understand legal maters. What make people better.

Islam invented many thing, algebra ( book of balance ) is at the root of concept of justice.

[Astargath]

The origin of religion come from need for civilisation.

First religion were in sumer or egypt, they made lot of progress. In mathematics, astronomy etc.

Judaism bring a lot to understanding of universe.

The concept of monotheism is fundemental to get to the point where the concept of science can emerge.

Christianism made revolution and radically changed society.

The need for religion is to recognize between good person or bad person, when it come to build laws to civilise people.

Historically, all concept of law at core of civilisation come from religion.

Science is not so usefull to understand legal maters. What make people better.

And neither is religion, you only need your own logic and reasoning. How did religion in egypt make progress in maths? What did religion have to do with that? What understanding of the universe does judaism bring? Christianism did a lot of bad things as well. There is no need for religion specially when any religion definition starts with ''a set of beliefs'' and those set of beliefs aren't based on anything but faith.

[IadixDev]

The origin of religion come from need for civilisation.

First religion were in sumer or egypt, they made lot of progress. In mathematics, astronomy etc.

Judaism bring a lot to understanding of universe.

The concept of monotheism is fundemental to get to the point where the concept of science can emerge.

Christianism made revolution and radically changed society.

The need for religion is to recognize between good person or bad person, when it come to build laws to civilise people.

Historically, all concept of law at core of civilisation come from religion.

Science is not so usefull to understand legal maters. What make people better.

And neither is religion, you only need your own logic and reasoning. How did religion in egypt make progress in maths? What did religion have to do with that? What understanding of the universe does judaism bring? Christianism did a lot of bad things as well. There is no need for religion specially when any religion definition starts with ''a set of beliefs'' and those set of beliefs aren't based on anything but faith.

Religion doesnt preclude reasoning and logic lol

On the contrary, the whole idea of logic as truth / logos come from religion.

The first idea of rationalism, need for reasoning, understanding come from religion.

There is nit really much that is not based on faith lol

Reread godbel. .

Can say university is also social conditioning at the same title than religion.

Most people who learn science is for social /  professionnal / economic  goals more than anything.

[Astargath]

The origin of religion come from need for civilisation.

First religion were in sumer or egypt, they made lot of progress. In mathematics, astronomy etc.

Judaism bring a lot to understanding of universe.

The concept of monotheism is fundemental to get to the point where the concept of science can emerge.

Christianism made revolution and radically changed society.

The need for religion is to recognize between good person or bad person, when it come to build laws to civilise people.

Historically, all concept of law at core of civilisation come from religion.

Science is not so usefull to understand legal maters. What make people better.

And neither is religion, you only need your own logic and reasoning. How did religion in egypt make progress in maths? What did religion have to do with that? What understanding of the universe does judaism bring? Christianism did a lot of bad things as well. There is no need for religion specially when any religion definition starts with ''a set of beliefs'' and those set of beliefs aren't based on anything but faith.

Religion doesnt preclude reasoning and logic lol

On the contrary, the whole idea of logic as truth / logos come from religion.

The first idea of rationalism, need for reasoning, understanding come from religion.

There is nit really much that is not based on faith lol

Reread godbel. .

Can say university is also social conditioning at the same title than religion.

I'm not denying that it started like that but today, what evidence is there to support the idea of a god? Do you think religious people today have any sort of evidence or they just believe in what they believe based on faith? I can tell you that the majority of people (close to 100%) believe in their religion because that's what they were told, they didn't chose it.

[IadixDev]

The same can be told for science