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

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Kurokage

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

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

Science is interesting, if they don't think so they can bugger off.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Way too narrow of opinions, not to be some kind of accuser or procecutor but it does seem you like to put words in the other camps mouth...

But did they actually say that about everything magically popping into existence like from nothing? Who's saying that? Sounds like big bang stuff to me...

Personally I admire folks like James Burke, he is a science historian, he taught me so many things... I love his holistic approach its very gestalt.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
You on the other hand have yet to provide any evidence that this required.

The evidence is pure logic and reason... something some people apparently are totally lacking.

Unless you can do so Htchens Razor applies.

Totally inapplicable, because a) there is no authoritative source anyone could point to as proof, and b) the only evidence needed is logic and reason.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
You on the other hand have yet to provide any evidence that this required.

The evidence is pure logic and reason... something some people apparently are totally lacking.

Unless you can do so Htchens Razor applies.

Totally inapplicable, because a) there is no authoritative source anyone could point to as proof, and b) the only evidence needed is logic and reason.

Only your logic and reason seeks to be based on a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works.

If evolution required simultaneous mutations as you describe then you would he able to source this. As you can't it's entirely your creation and irrelevant.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl
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.

Again, that is certainly NOT what I am saying... yes, small changes can occur, and have occurred - for example, we quite probably once had large cecums (and accompanying short small intestines and long large intestines), like gorillas, which is what enables them to eat and digest plant material. However, all we have left is a vestigial cecum that most people know as the appendix.

That said, I'm perfectly happy to admit that, in this seemingly infinite universe, anything is possible, and I look forward to, maybe, one day, learning the answers to these questions of the origins of life.

originally posted by: Kurokage

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

God? that's heavy stuff... I wasn't aware God needed some kind of defense.

I missed that part, I was late to the thread I suppose.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
You on the other hand have yet to provide any evidence that this required.

The evidence is pure logic and reason... something some people apparently are totally lacking.

Unless you can do so Htchens Razor applies.

Totally inapplicable, because a) there is no authoritative source anyone could point to as proof, and b) the only evidence needed is logic and reason.

Only your logic and reason seeks to be based on a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works.

If evolution required simultaneous mutations as you describe then you would he able to source this. As you can't it's entirely your creation and irrelevant.

The frequency and distribution of mutations in a given population is largely incidental, it's the procreative perpetuation of mutation and accumulating them in successive generations that determines the probability of evolution. Sometimes it's adaptation and many other times it's a genetic lottery.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
You on the other hand have yet to provide any evidence that this required.

The evidence is pure logic and reason... something some people apparently are totally lacking.

Unless you can do so Htchens Razor applies.

Totally inapplicable, because a) there is no authoritative source anyone could point to as proof, and b) the only evidence needed is logic and reason.

Only your logic and reason seeks to be based on a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works.

If evolution required simultaneous mutations as you describe then you would he able to source this. As you can't it's entirely your creation and irrelevant.

The frequency and distribution of mutations in a given population is largely incidental, it's the procreative perpetuation of mutation and accumulating them in successive generations that determines the probability of evolution. Sometimes it's adaptation and many other times it's a genetic lottery.

I am genuinely lost why anyone think mass simultaneous mutations are required. If he/she can explain why they think it is then perhaps there can be a discussion

Just asserting it is (without evidence) is not really cutting it.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Well, two people who are, or were as in the case of Einstein, more intelligent than you will ever be, Einstein and Michu Kaku, say the opposite to what you claim.

Yet all you keep doing is imposing your opinion instead of actually using reason, and yes reason can be used to prove there is a God that created everything and has shaped the entire multi-verses as well as every living organism.

A problem I have with you and a couple of others is you all will take snippets of what someone says or science based facts and build whole arguments around them while being incorrect the entire time, or just imposing your own opinion with those snippets as related fact when it isn't.

Einstein's God's were spiritual based and not physical as he was one of the key architects to disprove the cosmological constant along with Hubble and that the universe started with the "let there be light" or Big Bang.

Here is what Kaku said about Einstein's God's...

Personally, I think there’s much wisdom in the God of Einstein. Einstein basically said that there are two types of gods. One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.

Since God to Einstein was 100% spiritual based he had zero issues with the age of the universe or earth or how life came about as science suggests.

Here is Kaku talking about being incorrectly misquoted and that it haunts him. He has my point of view in you can not prove of disprove God, so it is a stupid argument to have.

Michio Kaku: There is a website that quoted me incorrectly. That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. And the reference I saw said that I said that you can prove the existence of God.

My point of view is different. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable. That’s called science. However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.

His belief is that God is a non-falsifiable statement, and he has no time for those in his world.

There is a theory about whether or not the universe is a simulation of some sort, like the movie The Matrix. And then the question is how do you prove it? Or how do you disprove it?

Personally, I think it’s another non-falsifiable statement. Just like “Are you Cleopatra?” Just like “Is there a God?” “Is the universe a simulation?” is a non-falsifiable statement. That’s my true opinion. However, there is this website that quotes me saying otherwise. But that’s, I guess, one of the drawbacks of being in the public domain. People misquote you all the time.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
You on the other hand have yet to provide any evidence that this required.

The evidence is pure logic and reason... something some people apparently are totally lacking.

Unless you can do so Htchens Razor applies.

Totally inapplicable, because a) there is no authoritative source anyone could point to as proof, and b) the only evidence needed is logic and reason.

Only your logic and reason seeks to be based on a complete misunderstanding of how evolution works.

If evolution required simultaneous mutations as you describe then you would he able to source this. As you can't it's entirely your creation and irrelevant.

The frequency and distribution of mutations in a given population is largely incidental, it's the procreative perpetuation of mutation and accumulating them in successive generations that determines the probability of evolution. Sometimes it's adaptation and many other times it's a genetic lottery.

I am genuinely lost why anyone think mass simultaneous mutations are required. If he/she can explain why they think it is then perhaps there can be a discussion

Just asserting it is (without evidence) is not really cutting it.

I'm more interested in where Randyvine2 disappeared to and when they'll be back to finish what they started.

a reply to: TzarChasm

True that, the Soutj Park video gave me a good one, I had a little outburst.

I life without laugh even if it's at ones self isn't worth living, or at the least less enjoyable.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

I am genuinely lost why anyone think mass simultaneous mutations are required. If he/she can explain why they think it is then perhaps there can be a discussion

Just asserting it is (without evidence) is not really cutting it.

I said it on the last page. Biochemical cascades involve a multitude of proteins to perform biological functions. These functions do not work unless all of the proteins are present in the cascade. So these sorts of functions, if evolution is true, must have been created through a vast synchrony of beneficial genetic mutations. The electron transport chain is coded for by approximately 50,000 DNA monomers, meaning you'd need tens of thousands of beneficial mutations all to occur in a small timeframe for this to be created by random chance:



There's even more factors necessary that would be able to fold these proteins properly, as well as direct them where to go and when to be created.

originally posted by: XtroZero
Personally, I think it’s another non-falsifiable statement. Just like “Are you Cleopatra?” Just like “Is there a God?” “Is the universe a simulation?” is a non-falsifiable statement. That’s my true opinion. However, there is this website that quotes me saying otherwise. But that’s, I guess, one of the drawbacks of being in the public domain. People misquote you all the time.

Same tactics are used for evolution regarding the lack of evidence that it can happen. Evolutionists say "it takes too much time for it to be exhibited in a lab". That's why it's a faith and not a science.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Personally, I think it’s another non-falsifiable statement. Just like “Are you Cleopatra?” Just like “Is there a God?” “Is the universe a simulation?” is a non-falsifiable statement. That’s my true opinion. However, there is this website that quotes me saying otherwise. But that’s, I guess, one of the drawbacks of being in the public domain. People misquote you all the time.

Oh dear, it appears celebrated physicist Michio Kaku is directly referencing these debates appropriating his professional acumen for badly constructed arguments.

originally posted by: cooperton

Same tactics are used for evolution regarding the lack of evidence that it can happen. Evolutionists say "it takes too much time for it to be exhibited in a lab". That's why it's a faith and not a science.

Have you explained yet how species came about? How old is earth? Will you do at least that?

Your above post is a perfect example of mixing your opinion in with facts, and stating your opinion as fact. This here is your opinion...

if evolution is true, must have been created through a vast synchrony of beneficial genetic mutations.

originally posted by: cooperton

Same tactics are used for evolution regarding the lack of evidence that it can happen. Evolutionists say "it takes too much time for it to be exhibited in a lab". That's why it's a faith and not a science.

A lot of science takes a butt tonne of faith regardless how it's based.

That's probably why so many of those types end up like Saul I read about in that Bible book?

They're really good at it...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Have you explained yet how species came about? How old is earth? Will you do at least that?

I believe creatures are material manifestations of higher dimensional consciousness. But that's not the topic of the thread, the thread is about the absurdity of evolution

Your above post is a perfect example of mixing your opinion in with facts, and stating your opinion as fact. This here is your opinion...

Cooperton: if evolution is true, must have been created through a vast synchrony of beneficial genetic mutations.

How would it have formed through subsequent modifications? The whole cascade needs to be present to function. This is why the theory falls apart with a closer analysis of biology.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

I am genuinely lost why anyone think mass simultaneous mutations are required. If he/she can explain why they think it is then perhaps there can be a discussion

Just asserting it is (without evidence) is not really cutting it.

I said it on the last page. Biochemical cascades involve a multitude of proteins to perform biological functions. These functions do not work unless all of the proteins are present in the cascade. So these sorts of functions, if evolution is true, must have been created through a vast synchrony of beneficial genetic mutations. The electron transport chain is coded for by approximately 50,000 DNA monomers, meaning you'd need tens of thousands of beneficial mutations all to occur in a small timeframe for this to be created by random chance:

There's even more factors necessary that would be able to fold these proteins properly, as well as direct them where to go and when to be created.

originally posted by: XtroZero
Personally, I think it’s another non-falsifiable statement. Just like “Are you Cleopatra?” Just like “Is there a God?” “Is the universe a simulation?” is a non-falsifiable statement. That’s my true opinion. However, there is this website that quotes me saying otherwise. But that’s, I guess, one of the drawbacks of being in the public domain. People misquote you all the time.

Same tactics are used for evolution regarding the lack of evidence that it can happen. Evolutionists say "it takes too much time for it to be exhibited in a lab". That's why it's a faith and not a science.

Sounds like a new flavour of irreducible complexity and every bit as valid.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Sounds like a new flavour of irreducible complexity and every bit as valid.

So you have no clue how evolution could create this biochemical cascade? It's ironic because you were just scrutinizing someone saying they don't know how evolution works.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That statement also ignores billions of vertebrate species who have perished in the last 500 million years because recombinant DNA, mutations or not, is a very unreliable system. Humans have been around for >1% of that time frame and 100 billion have succumbed to various mortal causes in the 20k years of human existence. It's a matter of how fast we reproduce vs how fast we adapt to danger, rather than how "apex" we are. The modern philosophy of how humans relate to each other also weighs heavily on the immediate biological consequences of breeding and mutation, since we're far removed from the traditional hunter gatherer economy.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Oh dear, it appears celebrated physicist Michio Kaku is directly referencing these debates appropriating his professional acumen for badly constructed arguments.

Personally, I think it’s another non-falsifiable statement. Just like “Are you Cleopatra?” Just like “Is there a God?” “Is the universe a simulation?” is a non-falsifiable statement. That’s my true opinion. However, there is this website that quotes me saying otherwise. But that’s, I guess, one of the drawbacks of being in the public domain. People misquote you all the time.

Now overlay this above with ElectricUniverse's multiple posts that basically said Katu believes as we do, and he is much smarter than you all, so do you think you are smarter then him to disagree?

I could do this with each and every post that EU and cooperton do, but it would be a waste of time.