The Basic Stupidity of the Idea of Evolution

[BADecker]

Look, evolution WAS a theory but it is a fact now, go ahead and do your own experiments and come to your own logical conclusions instead of waging a philosophical online thread war.  

That would require intelligence he doesn't have, I agree that religious people should keep to the churches, when I see them trying to infiltrate our governments and our school systems that's when I get pissy about it and too many of them keep trying. The scientific minded will always have an advantage over the pious because they always seek the truth even if it challenges their own beliefs, the pious however don't which is why we'd be all stuck in the dark ages if they had their way.

I was religious as a kid growing up in a religious Indian middle class family and as a kid I was able to understand the stupidity of religion, I just dont get it that if I - not the most intelligent guy on the planet - can get how stupid & baseless religion really is as a KID why cant these so called grown ups do that as well ?

The sad thing is, most religion is fantasy. The bit of it that is reality is often overlooked.

[BADecker]

What do you think?

I think this is one of your pointless religious preaching threads.

Nice thought. And thank you for your input. But is what you say fact, however? And how would you determine that it is fact if it is?

[BitMos]

So why dont you people just praise your lord and live in churches ? Leave the rest of the world to us reasonable idiots who wont believe in any silly genesis theory of your bible/quran/geeta.

Based on your explanation I can say that right now neither of those holy books exist because I havent seen them, they will only exist if I can see them being written by the oh holy lord of god or whatever superior being is up there according to you.

Look, evolution WAS a theory but it is a fact now, go ahead and do your own experiments and come to your own logical conclusions instead of waging a philosophical online thread war.

Evolution is not a theory in the lab. In the lab it is fact. It is caused by a lot of difficult, heavy duty work by a bunch of lab workers.

Evolution doesn't produce life. If it does, it doesn't happen in the way that scientists suggest. Because life for any living thing doesn't exist until that living thing comes to life. There might be some trees that are 1 or 2 thousand years old. During that time they may have evolved. The thing evolution didn't do was produce life. They came to life suddenly, and since then they have been living.

Same for people. People weren't individually alive until they came to life. It didn't take millions of years. It didn't even take one year. It happened inside of the few seconds that it took the sperm to combine with the egg. Perhaps that was evolution, but it wasn't anything like the popular theories for evolution that fill the science books these days.

let's see if their creation are stable against the true creation, sorry, I don't want to test on WHERE I LIVE, ie this planet, however if they are ready to go in the clean labs for them, and stay there all their miserable lives, dedicated to their research it's fine with me... Only they will always have the sword of the TSAR over them, one mistake, and before the chain accelerate they are annihilated by atomic fire (or what ever is appropriated to "neutralize" their deeds, plasma field seems cool too).

[BADecker]

Environmental changes could accelerate this process.

"aliens" need higher radioactive background than actual life on Earth... apparently the toxicer the better for "them", who/what ever they may be. to the void.

YOur history reaches only a couple thousand years back and dates like 6000 BC (ancient Egypt) seem to be difficult to comprehend. An analysis of some of the oldest minerals dated them at almost 4 billion years, so there could be hundreds of evolutions in Earth's life. Civilisations were created, fell and turned to dust and from the dust came new animals that took thousands of years to evolve. Who knows, maybe our ancestors left Earth a million years ago and are now living in another galaxy. That "god" you are talking about could be an alien being that created us long ago and that "miracle" just a scientific experiment.

(correction is mine)

typical "masson" conditioning.

What is a year? again your conditioning.

This is like what I believe happened. With regard to rate of change in substances (time), there was a big difference even 5,000 years ago in the way time acted on different substances. The way things chemically worked back then, was probably similar in some ways to the way it works now, but there were big differences, as well. Modern science is finding out that there are measurable variations in what we have been led to believe are constants. There is no way to tell how big those variations might have been in the past.

Like the unaccepted idea of an electric cosmos would fill virtually all the gaps in astronomy physics being made by new astronomy observations, in the same way variable rates in time for all kinds of materials and half-lifes, would fill some of the gaps in archaeological thinking. In addition, such thinking would prove out certain aspects of religion.

[QuestionAuthority]

Proof of evolution

[JohnnyBTCSeed]

It seems to me you are saying, humans, plants, animals are code (dna)

But what is the compiler?

[FanEagle]

At some point of our life we have been manipulated in our DNA to look like humans. That's all.

[nsimmons]

It seems to me you are saying, humans, plants, animals are code (dna)

But what is the compiler?

Ugg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_RNA

This isn't new people.

[protokol]

So why dont you people just praise your lord and live in churches ? Leave the rest of the world to us reasonable idiots who wont believe in any silly genesis theory of your bible/quran/geeta.

Based on your explanation I can say that right now neither of those holy books exist because I havent seen them, they will only exist if I can see them being written by the oh holy lord of god or whatever superior being is up there according to you.

Look, evolution WAS a theory but it is a fact now, go ahead and do your own experiments and come to your own logical conclusions instead of waging a philosophical online thread war.

Evolution is not a theory in the lab. In the lab it is fact. It is caused by a lot of difficult, heavy duty work by a bunch of lab workers.

Evolution doesn't produce life. If it does, it doesn't happen in the way that scientists suggest. Because life for any living thing doesn't exist until that living thing comes to life. There might be some trees that are 1 or 2 thousand years old. During that time they may have evolved. The thing evolution didn't do was produce life. They came to life suddenly, and since then they have been living.

Same for people. People weren't individually alive until they came to life. It didn't take millions of years. It didn't even take one year. It happened inside of the few seconds that it took the sperm to combine with the egg. Perhaps that was evolution, but it wasn't anything like the popular theories for evolution that fill the science books these days.

OK, you give the impression in this thread that you're purposefully being difficult, but I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you want to learn some new shit.

First off, you're confusing evolution with the spontaneous emergence of life. The theory of evolution cannot explain this, and doesn't pretend to. Some people refer to this emergence of life as abiogenesis. What evolution explains is what happened from there, and how a single (or small number of) simple single-celled organism(s) evolved into the huge diversity of life we see today. It's like how the big bang theory explains what happened since the big bang, but doesn't say anything about why/how it happened.

The sperm and the egg you speak of were both alive before they combined, and no, that wasn't evolution, and no, science books are not claiming such a thing.

It has been shown in laboratories that certain organisms do in fact evolve according to their environment. Things like bacteria reproduce so rapidly that it is possible to see changes, over multiple generations, that give the bacteria an advantage in their environment (such as evolving more efficient flagella). You admit that evolution can happen in a lab, yet you say it is impossible in the wild? Why? (also it's not "caused by a lot of difficult, heavy duty work by a bunch of lab workers". Lol, the recording of the data may be heavy duty work by a bunch of lab workers, but the actual evolution happens due to random DNA mutations on a molecular level, nothing to do with the lab workers.)

[protokol]

Also, another thing. Just because you don't believe in something, that's no excuse to not understanding the concept of it. For example, I don't believe in ghosts but I have no trouble understanding the basic concept of a ghost. Same goes for intelligent design/creation. So if you are skeptical about evolution, surely the best way of proving your point of view is to understand the concept, to the point that you can disprove it?

[Morbid]

both ideas are right

[BADecker]

So why dont you people just praise your lord and live in churches ? Leave the rest of the world to us reasonable idiots who wont believe in any silly genesis theory of your bible/quran/geeta.

Based on your explanation I can say that right now neither of those holy books exist because I havent seen them, they will only exist if I can see them being written by the oh holy lord of god or whatever superior being is up there according to you.

Look, evolution WAS a theory but it is a fact now, go ahead and do your own experiments and come to your own logical conclusions instead of waging a philosophical online thread war.

Evolution is not a theory in the lab. In the lab it is fact. It is caused by a lot of difficult, heavy duty work by a bunch of lab workers.

Evolution doesn't produce life. If it does, it doesn't happen in the way that scientists suggest. Because life for any living thing doesn't exist until that living thing comes to life. There might be some trees that are 1 or 2 thousand years old. During that time they may have evolved. The thing evolution didn't do was produce life. They came to life suddenly, and since then they have been living.

Same for people. People weren't individually alive until they came to life. It didn't take millions of years. It didn't even take one year. It happened inside of the few seconds that it took the sperm to combine with the egg. Perhaps that was evolution, but it wasn't anything like the popular theories for evolution that fill the science books these days.

OK, you give the impression in this thread that you're purposefully being difficult, but I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you want to learn some new shit.

First off, you're confusing evolution with the spontaneous emergence of life. The theory of evolution cannot explain this, and doesn't pretend to. Some people refer to this emergence of life as abiogenesis. What evolution explains is what happened from there, and how a single (or small number of) simple single-celled organism(s) evolved into the huge diversity of life we see today. It's like how the big bang theory explains what happened since the big bang, but doesn't say anything about why/how it happened.

The sperm and the egg you speak of were both alive before they combined, and no, that wasn't evolution, and no, science books are not claiming such a thing.

It has been shown in laboratories that certain organisms do in fact evolve according to their environment. Things like bacteria reproduce so rapidly that it is possible to see changes, over multiple generations, that give the bacteria an advantage in their environment (such as evolving more efficient flagella). You admit that evolution can happen in a lab, yet you say it is impossible in the wild? Why? (also it's not "caused by a lot of difficult, heavy duty work by a bunch of lab workers". Lol, the recording of the data may be heavy duty work by a bunch of lab workers, but the actual evolution happens due to random DNA mutations on a molecular level, nothing to do with the lab workers.)

Herein lies the problem. The word evolve evolves independently among different groups, at different times, and in different ways. Then the groups try to apply their meaning to things that other groups wouldn't.

"Evolution" meaning "adaptation" may be absolutely correct. But "evolution" meaning "random changes" is something that doesn't happen... at least not in any evidence that we have of it happening. In fact, the greater the scientists and researchers, the more they look for cause and effect.

Evidence as adaptation means cause and effect. Lab evidence for anything other than this is manipulation. Nature has no natural evidence of anything other than cause and effect without randomness, even if we have some math that suggests that randomness is possible. This indicates pre-programming, more than it indicates anything else.

At this stage in investigations, without some tremendously great, almost miraculous, development in observation of nature, or in the methods of researching, evolution looks like programming way more than it looks like random changes.

[GreekBitcoin]

"Evolution" meaning "adaptation" may be absolutely correct. But "evolution" meaning "random changes" is something that doesn't happen... at least not in any evidence that we have of it happening. In fact, the greater the scientists and researchers, the more they look for cause and effect.

Just because you cant grasp it doesnt mean it doesnt happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

"naturally occurring DNA damages arise about 60,000 to 100,000 times per day per mammalian cell."

[BADecker]

"Evolution" meaning "adaptation" may be absolutely correct. But "evolution" meaning "random changes" is something that doesn't happen... at least not in any evidence that we have of it happening. In fact, the greater the scientists and researchers, the more they look for cause and effect.

Just because you cant grasp it doesnt mean it doesnt happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

"naturally occurring DNA damages arise about 60,000 to 100,000 times per day per mammalian cell."

The question remains. What is the cause of that DNA damage? There is no evidence that it is random. There is every evidence that it is cause and effect produced. Cause and effect ultimately suggests "made" or "pre-programmed" rather than random effects. What's your point?

[GreekBitcoin]

Are you even reading the stuff people write at your threads or the links the post or you just reply ignoring them?

There are dozens of ways a mutation can happen. Its  chemistry. A gamma ray from a distant star may excite a molecule therefore destroying it. Maybe UV light from our sun. Or that lead atom in the atmosphere. Maybe it is just the probability of a reaction to happen that simply doesnt create the same products 100% of the times. Or maybe that burned food full of carcinogen you ate. α particles from Radon? Or β+- particles from the potassium in the banana you just ate.

Simple chemistry....

[BADecker]

Are you even reading the stuff people write at your threads or the links the post or you just reply ignoring them?

There are dozens of ways a mutation can happen. Its  chemistry. A gamma ray from a distant star may excite a molecule therefore destroying it. Maybe UV light from our sun. Or that lead atom in the atmosphere. Maybe it is just the probability of a reaction to happen that simply doesnt create the same products 100% of the times. Or maybe that burned food full of carcinogen you ate. α particles from Radon? Or β+- particles from the potassium in the banana you just ate.

Simple chemistry....

Are you talking to me? If not, ignore this as you want. But if you are talking to me...

The point is not a question of mutation causes. We know that all mutations, all multi-trillions plus of them, happen because something causes them to happen. Call these actions and reactions anything you want. Call them evolution or something else. The point is something different than this.

The point is that, mixed in the writings about the causes that cause mutation-type effects, there is the false idea that some of the mutations come about by random chance. If the definition of "random chance" is "cause and effect," then random chance is the thing that makes the mutations - the thing that evolution is expressing - then evolution is a correct idea and word to use.

However, the definition of "random" doesn't always include only "cause and effect." Sometimes it includes changes that have no cause whatsoever. Such changes are said to have come about accidentally, in ways that don't have a cause, randomly.

There is no non-cause and effect change in the universe that we have seen. All changes, even mutations, happen by cause and effect. Some of the causes we are aware of. Others we are not aware of. Since we haven't found any changes that we know exist because of no cause whatsoever, the changes we haven't seen any cause for, simply have causes that are unaccounted for. They are not pure randomness - no cause whatsoever - in action.

Since all change has to do with cause and effect, all evolution is essentially pre-programmed. This idea isn't even found as a suggestion in the writings about evolution... although it may be in some obscure writings. Since pre-programming isn't even suggested, this makes the idea of evolution to be basically a stupid idea.

[criptix]

thread has nothing to do with evolution theory.

what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).

some of the techniques s/he is using are described here https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/

[BADecker]

thread has nothing to do with evolution theory.

what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).

some of the techniques s/he is using are described here https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/

Yes, it's my fault. I was simply trying to attack the thing from too many directions at once. So, let me restate much simpler. I hope I don't state it too simple, now. Here goes.

Change, however you call it, evolution or something else, comes about by cause and effect. We don't know of anything else that produces change.

Some of Evolution Theory attempts to assign some change to pure randomness. This is change that might occur without a cause.

Since there is no evidence that we have seen, of any change happening without a cause, and since the closest we can come to change happening without a cause, is when we don't know what the cause is, and since Evolution Theory does not state such clearly, the whole idea of evolution crashes in on itself.

Furthermore, cause and effect in everything suggests that everything is pre-programmed. Does anything in Evolution Theory even suggest this - pre-programming? Evolution, as it is stated, is close to pure bunk.

[protokol]

thread has nothing to do with evolution theory.

what you can learn here from badecker is a (good) use of rhetoric to persuade people about x (x seems to be mostly religious though).

some of the techniques s/he is using are described here https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/588/04/

Yes, it's my fault. I was simply trying to attack the thing from too many directions at once. So, let me restate much simpler. I hope I don't state it too simple, now. Here goes.

Change, however you call it, evolution or something else, comes about by cause and effect. We don't know of anything else that produces change.

OK I'll bite... This is a fair comment (even though there are subatomic processes which seem to be totally spontaneous, but that's off-topic)

Some of Evolution Theory attempts to assign some change to pure randomness. This is change that might occur without a cause.

Right, I think this is where you're getting confused. No-one is claiming that evolution behaves like a pre-programmed machine or anything. Stop thinking of evolution as some sort of entity/intelligent force, and think of it as an abstract process.

Most, if not all cellular mutations are totally random. But, I hear you say, how do the cells know how to become specialized? They must have been programmed to be able to arrange themselves into complex things like human eyes etc!!

Wrong. For all the specialization we see around us, there was an exponentially higher number of "fuck-ups", cells and organisms that mutated in a way which was detrimental to them (considering their environment). These "fuck-ups" were not successful in their respective environments and have disappeared/died out, giving the impression of design (as the ones that survived suit their environment very well).

Consider this: If there was a serious nuclear apocalypse tomorrow and you studied the Earth a few weeks later, very few animals would look as though they had been designed for the environment. You return a few years later, and everything has died except single-celled organisms and cockroaches. Now, it looks as though the animals have been designed to suit the environment (because you can't see all the species that have died out).

Since there is no evidence that we have seen, of any change happening without a cause, and since the closest we can come to change happening without a cause, is when we don't know what the cause is, and since Evolution Theory does not state such clearly, the whole idea of evolution crashes in on itself.

OK, what on earth do you mean by this? Evolutionary theory doesn't claim that changes happen with no cause. Greekbitcoin's post has a nice list of some of the things that cause mutations. Over time, the useful mutations stick around, and the pointless and detrimental ones disappear. The mutations themselves are totally random.

Furthermore, cause and effect in everything suggests that everything is pre-programmed. Does anything in Evolution Theory even suggest this - pre-programming? Evolution, as it is stated, is close to pure bunk.

Cause and effect doesn't suggest this, you're joining dots that don't exist (much like your claims about "the machine-like nature of the universe" and how "machines must have makers, and nature has better machines than man, so they must have been made by a more advanced maker than man...") - stop jumping to conclusions. Just because nature has better machines, doesn't mean that they must have appeared by magic.

You're basically saying Evolution theory is bunk because it doesn't include programming or a God. Come on, you can do better than this.

[Mr Tea]

Look, evolution WAS a theory but it is a fact now, go ahead and do your own experiments and come to your own logical conclusions instead of waging a philosophical online thread war.  

That would require intelligence he doesn't have, I agree that religious people should keep to the churches, when I see them trying to infiltrate our governments and our school systems that's when I get pissy about it and too many of them keep trying. The scientific minded will always have an advantage over the pious because they always seek the truth even if it challenges their own beliefs, the pious however don't which is why we'd be all stuck in the dark ages if they had their way.

I was religious as a kid growing up in a religious Indian middle class family and as a kid I was able to understand the stupidity of religion, I just dont get it that if I - not the most intelligent guy on the planet - can get how stupid & baseless religion really is as a KID why cant these so called grown ups do that as well ?

The sad thing is, most religion is fantasy. The bit of it that is reality is often overlooked.

Which part is fantasy and which part is reality and how can you tell the difference between them? People believe what they want to believe at the end of the day. Personally I don't get how religious people can shoot down the idea of evolution because beings are far too complex to have been created this way but believe a far greater being with super powers can just spontaneously exist without questioning how the hell he came into being.