Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

a reply to: Peeple
How so?
Where have I been "condescending or superior" in my present philosophy about the nature of existence and human destiny?

Many people on this site touting Evolution, actually have no idea what science is or how it once was done.
Evolution has become a theory that is "to big to fail". It is bloated, weak at it's core and has become ALL encompassing.

As with any religion, people do not want to see the faults.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

As with any religion, people do not want to see the faults.

There's no way for them to explain the electron transport chain:




This thing is required in all living organisms to create energy. It is a vast complex of micromolecular machinery that establishes an electrochemical gradient to spin a turbine to store chemical energy in the form of ATP. There are over 50,000 DNA monomers that code for the proteins involved in this mechanism, and all mechanisms need to be in play for it to work.

So how do 50,000 DNA monomers polymerize to form this complex when the enzyme that polymerizes it is unavailable?? Also the enzyme that catalyzes DNA polymerization needs ATP to function, but there's no ATP without the electron transport chain! It's the chicken or the egg over and over and over again. If Darwin was aware of modern day biochemistry he himself would not believe his own theory

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: TzarChasm

The methods of science can be invoked to discuss metaphysics, but can't conclude the dialogue. In the same vein, no expert in any field or discipline can truly conclude that dialogue.

Here we go, putting words in people's mouths like always.

Here is a good explanation on the concept of God/Elohim which was/is shared by intellectuals like Einstein and Professor Michu Kaku. To them, Spinoza's God is real. A being that created everything and is part of everything.

One of Spinoza's quotes about God is this:

"Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be conceived without God."

Then again, their interpretation of God, and their claim that God does not suffer or responds to humans praying to him, aka religious God, does not exist in their view, and these are personal opinions shared by these two and many other intellectuals. However, there are also many intellectuals who do believe in religious God.

The point is, that their scientific knowledge led them to believe there is a God, an infinite being that created and shaped everything that exists and is eternal.

Again, I posted various scientific laws which do prove that God does exist. As for "religious God" that is a more personal belief based on our own personal experiences and knowledge.

The point is, God does exist and we can see his hands in everything that exists throughout the entire multi-verses.

And as you can see, neither of those experts have actually concluded the dialogue. It persists long after their best efforts have been thwarted by the natural fate of all mortal endeavors and the puzzle itself no less confounding for all their wisdom and professional acumen.

For the sake of said dialogue, perhaps you can point to the exact chapters and theorems underlining their confidence in a divine agency.

a reply to: Quadrivium

It's probably safe to assume that Richard Dawkins guy knows a thing or two about weaponizing science?

And it doesn't even have to be Physics, it can be Biology too...

But I am sure Dawkins has made a lot more money in life than me so what do I know.

But at what expense?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Difficult since
1. State school not public (in UK terms)

Same thing...

2 Actually passed my exams so not much case for it.

There is if you can prove fraud (much of, if not everything they taught you was a lie)...

3. Despite not having done biology in almost 30 years still know enough to point out your posts are completely inaccurate.

Which you have yet to do, beyond irrelevant off-topic commentary...

People who attend /pay attention at school also tend to know that childish insults are poor substitute for actual knowledge of the topic.

People who take statements of fact as insults are... what... just being cute?

Now unless you can provide a source for your claims about simultaneous changes then we can confirm that all you have done is debunk a strawman of your own creation.

I already explained this to you in terms even a child could understand.

Many adults who have been fully indoctrinated into believing lies are truth are incapable of recognizing truth when faced with it. Not my fault, but definitely everyone's problem.

a reply to: iamthevirus

Well thats low calling the people who stood up to Hitler and help stop WW2, Nazis?!?

Yes, the term Eugenics was coined in Britian by Galton who was Darwin's cousin, he was influenced by the theory of natural selection. but he advocated a system that would allow the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable.
At the beginning of the 20th century there were lots of organisations around the world studying Eugenics
Britannica

During the early 1900s eugenics became a serious scientific study pursued by both biologists and social scientists. They sought to determine the extent to which human characteristics of social importance were inherited. Among their greatest concerns were the predictability of intelligence and certain deviant behaviours. Eugenics, however, was not confined to scientific laboratories and academic institutions. It began to pervade cultural thought around the globe, including the Scandinavian countries, most other European countries, North America, Latin America, Japan, China, and Russia. In the United States the eugenics movement began during the Progressive Era and remained active through 1940.

Immigration control was but one method to control eugenically the reproductive stock of a country. Laughlin appeared at the centre of other U.S. efforts to provide eugenicists greater reproductive control over the nation. He approached state legislators with a model law to control the reproduction of institutionalized populations. By 1920, two years before the publication of Laughlin’s influential Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (1922), 3,200 individuals across the country were reported to have been involuntarily sterilized. That number tripled by 1929, and by 1938 more than 30,000 people were claimed to have met this fate.

America also played a massive part in the Eugenics movement that was adopted by the nazis, and did they teach you that in American schools???

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I never have understood why something like evolution is not seen to work just as well with intelligent design since it is just the how things evolve.

What I understand as 'evolution' is simply how each species develop small variations over many millions of years.

But that is a far cry from saying an ape evolved from an amoeba, or even that a human evolved from an ape.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: iamthevirus

Well thats low calling the people who stood up to Hitler and help stop WW2, Nazis?!?

Yes, the term Eugenics was coined in Britian by Galton who was Darwin's cousin, he was influenced by the theory of natural selection. but he advocated a system that would allow the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable.
At the beginning of the 20th century there were lots of organisations around the world studying Eugenics
Britannica

During the early 1900s eugenics became a serious scientific study pursued by both biologists and social scientists. They sought to determine the extent to which human characteristics of social importance were inherited. Among their greatest concerns were the predictability of intelligence and certain deviant behaviours. Eugenics, however, was not confined to scientific laboratories and academic institutions. It began to pervade cultural thought around the globe, including the Scandinavian countries, most other European countries, North America, Latin America, Japan, China, and Russia. In the United States the eugenics movement began during the Progressive Era and remained active through 1940.

Immigration control was but one method to control eugenically the reproductive stock of a country. Laughlin appeared at the centre of other U.S. efforts to provide eugenicists greater reproductive control over the nation. He approached state legislators with a model law to control the reproduction of institutionalized populations. By 1920, two years before the publication of Laughlin’s influential Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (1922), 3,200 individuals across the country were reported to have been involuntarily sterilized. That number tripled by 1929, and by 1938 more than 30,000 people were claimed to have met this fate.

America also played a massive part in the Eugenics movement that was adopted by the nazis.....

The philosophy of building a "perfect" society isn't prescribed outside of theoretical socioeconomics texts which has nothing to do with the actual science of evolution.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I never have understood why something like evolution is not seen to work just as well with intelligent design since it is just the how things evolve.

What I understand as 'evolution' is simply how each species develop small variations over many millions of years.

But that is a far cry from saying an ape evolved from an amoeba, or even that a human evolved from an ape.

What is a phylogenetic tree

Most complete phylogenetic graph to date

But that is a far cry from saying an ape evolved from an amoeba, or even that a human evolved from an ape.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Humans didn't evolve from an "ape", we had a common ancestor.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Difficult since
1. State school not public (in UK terms)

Same thing...

2 Actually passed my exams so not much case for it.

There is if you can prove fraud (much of, if not everything they taught you was a lie)...

3. Despite not having done biology in almost 30 years still know enough to point out your posts are completely inaccurate.

Which you have yet to do, beyond irrelevant off-topic commentary...

People who attend /pay attention at school also tend to know that childish insults are poor substitute for actual knowledge of the topic.

People who take statements of fact as insults are... what... just being cute?

Now unless you can provide a source for your claims about simultaneous changes then we can confirm that all you have done is debunk a strawman of your own creation.

I already explained this to you in terms even a child could understand.

Many adults who have been fully indoctrinated into believing lies are truth are incapable of recognizing truth when faced with it. Not my fault, but definitely everyone's problem.

Only you haven't. You have asserted that evolution requires mass simultaneously changes. That isn't true and you have offered no evidence to support your claim.

Again unless you can provide evidence that evolution required mass simultaneously changes then your claims about the probability of it are completely irrelevant.

You would be as well claiming newton's physics is wrong because the invisible sky elfs that drag things back to the ground aren't real. If you want to say something is wrong you have to address what it actually says, not your own made up version.

And no, most of what get taught in school is not a lie. That is a truly delusional claim.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Humans didn't evolve from an "ape", we had a common ancestor.

Yes, and it wasn't an amoeba...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
You have asserted that evolution requires mass simultaneously changes.

Nope. Wrong, Try again.

I have asserted that 'the evolution of one species into an entirely new and different species' - e.g. an amoeba into a toad frog - requires mass simultaneous RANDOM mutations - meaning, each step of the process requires a single RANDOM mutation occurring in countless individuals of any one given species simultaneously - enough such that said RANDOM mutations get reinforced through reproduction to the point the trait becomes fixed and permanent.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
You have asserted that evolution requires mass simultaneously changes.

Nope. Wrong, Try again.

I have asserted that 'the evolution of one species into an entirely new and different species' - e.g. an amoeba into a toad frog - requires mass simultaneous RANDOM mutations - meaning, each step of the process requires a single RANDOM mutation occurring in countless individuals of any one given species simultaneously - enough such that said RANDOM mutations get reinforced through reproduction to the point the trait becomes fixed and permanent.

Not wrong as that is the same thing.

You on the other hand have yet to provide any evidence that this required.

Unless you can do so Htchens Razor applies.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: iamthevirus

Well thats low calling the people who stood up to Hitler and help stop WW2, Nazis?!?

Obviously the better man... my humble opinion is no match for Dawkins or elitists.

Darwinism holds that the strong see their wealth and power increase while the weak see their wealth and power decrease.

Darwinists suggest that charity could exacerbate social problems...

Survival of the fittest, it's a beautiful worldview.

a reply to: iamthevirus

English naturalist Charles Darwin wrote the book outlining his idea of natural selection, this has nothing to do with the term social Darwinism which is what you're refering to.
Wiki

Despite the fact that Social Darwinism bears Charles Darwin's name, it is also linked today with others, notably Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics. In fact, Spencer was not described as a social Darwinist until the 1930s, long after his death.[25] The term "social Darwinism" first appeared in Europe in 1880, and journalist Emilie Gautier had coined the term with reference to a health conference in Berlin 1877

And has even less to do with imaginary invisble friends some people call God.

a reply to: Kurokage

Is that the guy who said that the meek shall inherit the earth?

originally posted by: cooperton
... If Darwin was aware of modern day biochemistry he himself would not believe his own theory

I sometimes wonder if he or others, like Dawkins for example, ever believed what they're trying (or tried) to sell. Sometimes it appears that they know quite well what they're doing with their lines of argumentation and supposed evidence, as for example concerning this behaviour:

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

Although regarding the last technique described there, that's more those who came after Darwin that used that technique (as it involves and plays on the popularity of scientism, which was less popular in Darwin's time). They know it works well when trying to sell unverified philosophies under the marketinglabel "Science". As the previous page for that article mentions:

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

But that is a far cry from saying an ape evolved from an amoeba, or even that a human evolved from an ape.

originally posted by: Kurokage

Humans didn't evolve from an "ape", we had a common ancestor.

From the chapter about "ape-men" I linked earlier:

FOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”⁠1

True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.⁠2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”⁠3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”⁠4

...

Source: Chapter 7: “Ape-Men”—What Were They?

But thanks for demonstrating how arguing semantics to distract from or to ignore the actual point being made works.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: cooperton
... If Darwin was aware of modern day biochemistry he himself would not believe his own theory

I sometimes wonder if he or others, like Dawkins for example, ever believed what they're trying (or tried) to sell. Sometimes it appears that they know quite well what they're doing with their lines of argumentation and supposed evidence, as for example concerning this behaviour:

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda! (Awake!—2000)

Although regarding the last technique described there, that's more those who came after Darwin that used that technique (as it involves and plays on the popularity of scientism, which was less popular in Darwin's time). They know it works well when trying to sell unverified philosophies under the marketinglabel "Science". As the previous page for that article mentions:

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

Yes, in this age of sophisticated propaganda, we can confidently look to Jehovah’s Word as the source of truth. Ultimately this will protect us from those who want to ‘exploit us with counterfeit words.’

The irony.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

But that is a far cry from saying an ape evolved from an amoeba, or even that a human evolved from an ape.

Then we have this issue that all living things are related at the DNA level. I think it all comes down to how long does one think we all been around. If one says 6000 years then OK I understand their point, but if one says earth been here for 4.5 billion years then they would need to have some other method for the species we have today to happen and most likely the trillion that had come before us.

The other issue is this problem with time in we are all stuck in some bubble that doesn't allow time to progress if one believes species just happened and do not change, and that goes against how our universe works.

If you believe the Neanderthal was real and our closest distant relative then why not believe chimps are too, but much more distant? It is not really a big jump. After that it is all about time with life going off in a million different directions. A question to ask is were humans human a million years ago, and will we be human a million years in the future? If we just stayed on the mammal side of it all then we are looking at 135 million years for change to happen. Branch after branch breaking off to what we have today.

The other choice is God popped all life into existence as we see today, so what happened to all the life that came before us, and will we see a massive number of new species just appear in the future? This takes us back to the 6000 years ago as to when it all started, and that just isn't a topic to debate at all since what we see today would be how God decided to make it.