Problems I have with evolution

a reply to: kcgads

I know that you claim that they were accidental, but I just explained in my last post that they aren't. Lets say those photosensitive cells do occur accidentally, that's very possible, and you even accept that possibility. The further and persistent development of those cells into a more complex organ is far from accidental, however.

Mutations and their development are driven by environmental changes and natural selection. If a specific mutation turns out to be beneficial, then it is only logical that natural selection continues to select additional adaptations within that preexisting mutation so long as it doesn't become detrimental to the survivability of that species (in which case extinction occurs).

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: kcgads

I know that you claim that they were accidental, but I just explained in my last post that they aren't. Lets say those photosensitive cells do occur accidentally, that's very possible, and you even accept that possibility. The further and persistent development of those cells into a more complex organ is far from accidental, however.

Mutations and their development are driven by environmental changes and natural selection. If a specific mutation turns out to be beneficial, then it is only logical that natural selection continues to select additional adaptations within that preexisting mutation so long as it doesn't become detrimental to the survivability of that species (in which case extinction occurs).

Let me get this straight. You're saying mutations themselves aren't accidental? I must be misunderstanding you.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: GetHyped

Something specific that I have wrong. Do you have anything?

Do you think the eye didn't evolve in stages over a period of time? Do you believe in saltation?

your leading questions arent fooling anyone. you have been given the evidence and the theory proper, now educate yourself and stop trying to save face.

Then nothing I said was wrong. Glad you finally agree.

a reply to: kcgads

Welcome to the vipers nest.

Based on what you have already experienced and I have witnessed, you must realise now that you MUST NOT question the religion of elolutianity because if you do, there is a hit squad who reside on this board who will attempt to make you feel inadequate and ignorant for not accepting their physicalist world view.

Questions that will always be the Achilles heel, of the evolutionist mind set are

Why does life exists at all?
How did it start?
Where did it start?
What is it’s purpose?

and does the answer to these questions have an influence on evolutionary processes?

Of course evolution happens, these zealots seem to think they have a monopoly on reason. What they fail to see, or wilfully ignore, is the fact that life is not organic in any way. It just happens that some organic meat or sludge or whatever is occupied by by this inexplicable force exists. The organism is simply the expression of consciousness in a physical world. Nothing would be alive if it was not for the life force that animates it.

When viewed from that perspective it would not be unreasonable to assume that there is a purpose to life and that something is directing life to adapt in the most efficient way possible to survive.

It is pointless arguing with those who are devoid of any spiritual awareness, the question of source of life, as they are missing the faculty that enables normal people to view these questions as a valid and pivotal to any discussion of Origin or creationism

Their presence in the Origins and Creationism forum is in fact their attempt to hijack this forum with all kinds of nonsense.

Question: Why don’t they request a new forum debating the dubious theory of evolution which the rest of us can then ignore in droves?
Answer: they wouldn't all be able to pretend to be experts because no one would talk to them.

Don't be intimidated by them kcgads, it takes all sorts.

And don’t any of you dare call me insulting again after your display of arrogance and demeaning attitudes on this thread.

Shame on you.

Yes this is a hit and run, as I can’t be bothered with any of your arguments until you adequately address the questions above.

originally posted by: kcgads
Let me get this straight. You're saying mutations themselves aren't accidental? I must be misunderstanding you.

That's correct, Not all mutations are completely accidental, coincidental occurrences. That's not to say that they are intentionally placed there. It's just that a specific mutation (such as photosensitive cells) when coupled with a specific environment, follow a general path of successive mutations (again, depending on how that organism acts within their environment).

It's no accident that the following mutations after the Photosensitive cells produce an eye cup. Once the organism develops photosensitive cells, it has more opportunities within their environment; the eye cup develops secondly if that species does take advantage of those new opportunities. Which again, is not an accident.

If everything were accidental, we would see something like a photosensitive cell spontaneously developing into a complex camera-like eye, simply because it was accidental and beneficial.

We notice patterns within Evolution, and that's why we can text, form hypothesis, and predict what will occur accurately. Being entirely accidental does not allow for predictions.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: kcgads

Welcome to the vipers nest.

Based on what you have already experienced and I have witnessed, you must realise now that you MUST NOT question the religion of elolutianity because if you do, there is a hit squad who reside on this board who will attempt to make you feel inadequate and ignorant for not accepting their physicalist world view.

No, he is free to accept or reject the theory all he wants. It's the matter that he is incorrectly stating how evolution works, that's the issue.

Conversely, if I were to suppose that Christians all worshiped satan, that wouldn't be me questioning their belief system, that would be me inaccurately making accusations on what their belief system really is.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Questions that will always be the Achilles heel, of the evolutionist mind set are

Why does life exists at all?
How did it start?
Where did it start?
What is it’s purpose?

I think you feel the way you stated (that everyone just calls you ignorant) because you make ridiculous notions such as this.

1) Why does life exists at all?
Evolution doesn't ask why life exists at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists.

2) How did it start?
Evolution doesn't ask how life started at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists.

3)Where did it start?
Evolution doesn't ask where life started at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists.

4) What is it's purpose?
Evolution doesn't ask what the purpose of life is at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists, and evolution isn't a philosophy.

You see, this is why people who accept Evolution call you ignorant. You make these outrageous suppositions for no other reason than your ignorance.

I would go further to say that, despite people plainly explaining your misunderstandings, you willfully stay ignorant what whatever reason.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Of course evolution happens, these zealots seem to think they have a monopoly on reason. What they fail to see, or wilfully ignore, is the fact that life is not organic in any way. It just happens that some organic meat or sludge or whatever is occupied by by this inexplicable force exists. The organism is simply the expression of consciousness in a physical world. Nothing would be alive if it was not for the life force that animates it.

And this is what occurs when an individual refrains from accepting new information. Massive, insane ignorance.

originally posted by: kennyb72
When viewed from that perspective it would not be unreasonable to assume that there is a purpose to life and that something is directing life to adapt in the most efficient way possible to survive.

Again, Evolution isn't a philosophy or a belief system, so it holds no position on what the purpose of life is. And I, being a person who accepts Evolution am saying to you right now, that we do not know if something is or isn't directing life to adapt in the way it has been. So no, we don't say what you claim.

originally posted by: kennyb72
It is pointless arguing with those who are devoid of any spiritual awareness, the question of source of life, as they are missing the faculty that enables normal people to view these questions as a valid and pivotal to any discussion of Origin or creationism

Again, evolution doesn't ask where life came from, so this is incorrect.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Their presence in the Origins and Creationism forum is in fact their attempt to hijack this forum with all kinds of nonsense.

Nope, it's to correct individuals who state that evolution is defined "this way and that way", when it actually has nothing to do with what they mentioned.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: kcgads

Welcome to the vipers nest.

Based on what you have already experienced and I have witnessed, you must realise now that you MUST NOT question the religion of elolutianity because if you do, there is a hit squad who reside on this board who will attempt to make you feel inadequate and ignorant for not accepting their physicalist world view.

No, he is free to accept or reject the theory all he wants. It's the matter that he is incorrectly stating how evolution works, that's the issue.

Conversely, if I were to suppose that Christians all worshiped satan, that wouldn't be me questioning their belief system, that would be me inaccurately making accusations on what their belief system really is.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Questions that will always be the Achilles heel, of the evolutionist mind set are

Why does life exists at all?
How did it start?
Where did it start?
What is it’s purpose?

I think you feel the way you stated (that everyone just calls you ignorant) because you make ridiculous notions such as this.

1) Why does life exists at all?
Evolution doesn't ask why life exists at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists.

2) How did it start?
Evolution doesn't ask how life started at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists.

3)Where did it start?
Evolution doesn't ask where life started at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists.

4) What is it's purpose?
Evolution doesn't ask what the purpose of life is at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists, and evolution isn't a philosophy.

You see, this is why people who accept Evolution call you ignorant. You make these outrageous suppositions for no other reason than your ignorance.

I would go further to say that, despite people plainly explaining your misunderstandings, you willfully stay ignorant what whatever reason.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Of course evolution happens, these zealots seem to think they have a monopoly on reason. What they fail to see, or wilfully ignore, is the fact that life is not organic in any way. It just happens that some organic meat or sludge or whatever is occupied by by this inexplicable force exists. The organism is simply the expression of consciousness in a physical world. Nothing would be alive if it was not for the life force that animates it.

And this is what occurs when an individual refrains from accepting new information. Massive, insane ignorance.

originally posted by: kennyb72
When viewed from that perspective it would not be unreasonable to assume that there is a purpose to life and that something is directing life to adapt in the most efficient way possible to survive.

Again, Evolution isn't a philosophy or a belief system, so it holds no position on what the purpose of life is. And I, being a person who accepts Evolution am saying to you right now, that we do not know if something is or isn't directly life to adapt in the way it has been. So no, we don't say what you claim.

originally posted by: kennyb72
It is pointless arguing with those who are devoid of any spiritual awareness, the question of source of life, as they are missing the faculty that enables normal people to view these questions as a valid and pivotal to any discussion of Origin or creationism

Again, evolution doesn't ask where life came from, so this is incorrect.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Their presence in the Origins and Creationism forum is in fact their attempt to hijack this forum with all kinds of nonsense.

Nope, it's to correct individuals who state that evolution is defined "this way and that way", when it actually has nothing to do with what they mentioned.

Failed to address on all counts, including why you are even here in the Origins and Creationism forum.

You also missed the point that unless you can answer my questions you cannot dismiss them from the question of evolution, it is fundamental and your dismissal is bewildering.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Failed to address on all counts, including why you are even here in the Origins and Creationism forum.

I would love to see a brain scan of your brain when you read what any person who accepts evolution has to say. Apparently you're not using any part of your neurological makeup to use sight, memory, or critical thinking.

If you didn't notice, we didn't the the topic. We're responding to an individual who created a topic on Evolution.

originally posted by: kennyb72
You also missed the point that unless you can answer my questions you cannot dismiss them from the question of evolution, it is fundamental and your dismissal is bewildering.

Which questions are you referring to? I did answer a ton of your post, perhaps I missed the ones you're talking about now. Please, ask them again and I'll answer them immediately.

a reply to: Ghost147

Which questions are you referring to? I did answer a ton of your post, perhaps I missed the ones you're talking about now. Please, ask them again and I'll answer them immediately.

No, I am not wasting any more time with you lot with your la, la, la, la,

My post was to the OP and I have already broken my own rule.

Cheers

ETA: All of them dammit.

And does the answer to these questions have an influence on evolutionary processes?

Now i'm out.

originally posted by: kennyb72
No, I am not wasting any more time with you lot with your la, la, la, la,

You do realize that I just stated "perhaps I missed the ones you're talking about now. Please, ask them again and I'll answer them immediately." How is this plugging my ears and saying "I'm not listening"?

Ironically, what you're claiming we do is exactly what you're doing right now

originally posted by: kennyb72
ETA: All of them dammit.

Apparently you missed the part where I did actually answer your questions...

Here they are again, seeing how you didn't see them:


1) Why does life exists at all?
Evolution doesn't ask why life exists at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists.

2) How did it start?
Evolution doesn't ask how life started at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists.

3)Where did it start?
Evolution doesn't ask where life started at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists.

4) What is it's purpose?
Evolution doesn't ask what the purpose of life is at all, because evolution is the process which occurs when life already exists, and evolution isn't a philosophy.

EDIT: I didn't answer this one:

And does the answer to these questions have an influence on evolutionary processes?

Because it's self explanatory. Your questions didn't have anything to do with what Evolution is defined as, so it's obvious that the answers to those questions would bear no relevance on how they influence the "evolutionary process"

a reply to: Ghost147

Look Ghost, I know I shouldn't indulge but I will ask it one last time so we don't have any further confusion. Each time you quote me you seem to inadvertently miss it.

And does the answer to these questions have an influence on evolutionary processes?

I hate being misquoted by leaving out crucial information to its meaning. A regular tactic of the rascal and intellectually dishonest.

a reply to: kennyb72

Yes, I Edited my previous response addressing it:

"I didn't answer this one:

And does the answer to these questions have an influence on evolutionary processes?

Because it's self explanatory. Your questions didn't have anything to do with what Evolution is defined as, so it's obvious that the answers to those questions would bear no relevance on how they influence the "evolutionary process" "

a reply to: Ghost147

Because it's self explanatory. Your questions didn't have anything to do with what Evolution is defined as, so it's obvious that the answers to those questions would bear no relevance on how they influence the "evolutionary process" "

Oh good! now I have another question.

Why do you believe that your definition of evolution is accurate when you don't have enough information to define it?

originally posted by: kennyb72
Oh good! now I have another question.

Why do you believe that your definition of evolution is accurate when you don't have enough information to define it?

The Theory of Evolution is our way of defining how the natural phenomena of Evolution functions. Just as our Theory of Relativity is how we define how gravity functions. The thing is, we know for a fact that Gravity exists, just as we know for a fact that Evolution exists.

We can look at at an object and see that it falls to the earth. So our most basic definition of gravity is "things get pulled to other objects with larger mass". Conversely, we can observe that organisms change over time through adaptation. So our basic definition of Evolution is "Genetic drift occurs when life exists."

Our more elaborate theories, where we attempt to explain very specific factors within the phenomenon, are the things worth debating. There's no question that these phenomena exist otherwise (and I am more than willing to show you examples if you'd wish) it's the specifications that are on the table for debate.

Since Evolution doesn't involve how life first started, or what occurred before life, there's no reason to ask questions that involve those topics while also referencing evolution. Conversely, if something has no mass, there is no point of asking questions such as "what does Gravity have to say on the topic of social politics" because it simply has nothing to do with it.

a reply to: Ghost147

Our more elaborate theories, where we attempt to explain very specific factors within the phenomenon, are the things worth debating. There's no question that these phenomena exist otherwise (and I am more than willing to show you examples if you'd wish) it's the specifications that are on the table for debate.

Perhaps so for someone is ‘into’ evolution theory. I personally find the detail rather mundane.

You didn’t answer my question because you have no way of knowing if your definition of evolution is correct or not. Ignore it as much and as long as you like but it does not diminish the fact that your narrow definition of evolution cannot be accurate unless you can define life itself.

Since Evolution doesn't involve how life first started.

You have no right to narrow the scope of this discussion to the mechanics of the process. This thread is an expression of someones doubts regarding evolution.

there's no reason to ask questions that involve those topics while also referencing evolution. Go to sleep have your intuition, common sense and spiritual awareness surgically removed and be like the rest of us.

Such an outrageous statement! and why the hell do you alway raise the topic of gravity to deflect from the discussion (a theory that is wrong by the way but that’s another argument.)

You can’t hide behind the royal ‘our’ and ‘we’ forever Ghost, at some point in your life you will start to think for yourself and will then understand our point of view.

In the meantime your deflection of my question was a miserable fail.

Is there any reason a deity couldn't have created us through evolution?

a reply to: kcgads

There is a huge logical flaw in your post.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It relies on evidence not belief.

Your post is "belief" and "I feel". You post nothing new to this type of debate.

Try reading this

a reply to: Autorico

Is there any reason a deity couldn't have created us through evolution?

Not sure if you where asking me or not, but it is a very reasonable question.

a reply to: Noinden

Hello Noinden,

There is a huge logical flaw in your post. Evolution is a scientific theory. It relies on evidence not belief.
Your post is "belief" and "I feel". You post nothing new to this type of debate.

No it isn't! Evolution Theory is a scientific theory. Evolution itself is still up for grabs until the question of origins of life is settled.

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: GetHyped

Some of the evidence suggests mutations are predictable.

www.nytimes.com...

"The hyperswarmers emerged in three lines of bacteria overseen by Dr. Xavier’s post-doctoral researcher Dave van Ditmarsch. Dr. Xavier and another lab member, Jen Oyler, each ran the experiment again. “I wanted to make sure this wasn’t just due to Dave’s magic fingers,” said Dr. Xavier.

But no matter who applied their fingers to the task, the result was the same. Out of 27 lines of bacteria, 27 evolved into hyperswarmers."

Just a touch of quote mining here to make your point. Predictability within a controlled environment is one thing, in a random natural environment its something else entirely. As well, the research team found that to gain the multiple flagella that allowed the mutated strains to swim faster, they also lost other critical genetic information which means in the end the do not thrive at all and instead perish.

Swarming, after all, is not the only essential task that P. aeruginosa must carry out. When the bacteria find a place that’s good for settling down, they anchor themselves to a surface — on a leaf, for example, or inside a human lung. They form a rubber sheet known as a biofilm.