Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: vasaga

His reputation precedes him i'm afraid.

To go through his gish gallop would be a waste of time, explaining to someone that apparently has a B.A. in biology that 'fittest' doesn’t refer to gym training but in fact refers to suitability to a particular environment and more opportunities to reproduce.....would be a waste of time.

So you know better than someone who has a PhD in developmental biology. Good to know.

But yeah, if explaining is a waste of time, trying to have a conversation with you is a waste of time... So, yeah. Carry on.

Well am I wrong?

Does survival of the fittest actually refer to the 'fittest' and 'strongest' or does it refer to exactly what I posted above?

Do you know anything about what youre attempting to debunk?

For the most part, yes -- it does. Lions aren't king because they are small and frail, now are they?

Ape's aren't so dominant in jungles because they possess superior strength to virtually anything they compete with?

Pretty much, if you took away all aid, only the strongest and fittest, smallest and most camouflaged creatures would exist.

Humans are really the only exception to that rule, and we have one evolutionary advantage over them -- the ability to makes tools. Tools rule out our need to be the fittest and strongest, by adding unnatural strength and toughness to our species.

But yes, technically, you're right -- it's just that in a greater amount of all situations the most fit and strong is going to be the success....

a reply to: Laykilla

originally posted by: Laykilla
Polar bears are a PRIME example of provable evolution. See, they were just brown bears, then the area froze -- and they were still just brown bears, but then there was a genetic mutation that altered the pigment of the baby brown bear, which made him white. A birth defect. The white coat allowed him easier hunting abilities because he was camouflaged, this meant he ate the most food, had the least get away -- this gene pool then propagated because it was the most nourished and the brown bears in the area died out.

I like this example. It makes some sense.
But where I run into a logical road block is when I think back to the very moment when the mutation occurred that delivered the world the first white bear. Does the entire polar bear species then owe its existence to the survival of that one white bear?

originally posted by: Laykilla
For the most part, yes -- it does. Lions aren't king because they are small and frail, now are they?

We call Lions king of the jungle, but we should remember they aren't kings nor do they live in the jungle. Plus it's in no way a scientific term now is it? So why would you think it had any relivence to evolution?

Even if they were the biggest and strongest creatures to ever exist.....so what? a change in their environment could potentially kill them off just as easily as the weakest and smallest of creatures.

Ape's aren't so dominant in jungles because they possess superior strength to virtually anything they compete with?

Dominant? as what herbivores? what do they compete with? (other than themselves ofc).

Pretty much, if you took away all aid, only the strongest and fittest, smallest and most camouflaged creatures would exist.

Yeah poaching and the like (which most aid goes towards preventing) focuses only on mice and squirrels.....?

Humans are really the only exception to that rule, and we have one evolutionary advantage over them -- the ability to makes tools. Tools rule out our need to be the fittest and strongest, by adding unnatural strength and toughness to our species.

Lots of creatures use tools......

But yes, technically, you're right -- it's just that in a greater amount of all situations the most fit and strong is going to be the success....

Not in this context......it's those that can adapt and reproduce the most that will survive.

You might be right in some kind of fighting pit, or animal arena......but not in the natural world.....

Survival of the Fittest...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

Oh, so now suddenly qualifications and academic standing are important to you? Then you'll be pleased to know that the overwhelming number of scientists with expertise in the pertinent areas wholly accept the massive body of evidence supporting evolution. In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I'm assuming you'll be changing your position in light of this, or will you simply dismiss it out of hand because it's not convenient for your belief system?

Everything matters, but not everything is a guarantee. That someone with a PhD in developmental biology says something doesn't necessarily make it the truth, just because of the title. Same goes for a long list of scientists that claim something, the amount of people supporting something doesn't make it the truth.

To me personally, the title is a slight influence, but doesn't determine the validity of the claim by itself. You need to follow the money to see whether a claim has a political agenda or not, and what the intentions are. What is so bad about the intentions of Bruce Lipton? Exposing the false praise that Darwin gets is one of the most fundamental things that needs to be recognized in the whole world. In the end there are two kinds of people. The conformists that will fight to protect the status quo, and the revolutionists, who will fight to expose the stagnation in every system, including science. Whether the revolutionists are right or not is of little importance. The importance is the change due to progress. The progress can be due to new truths or confirmation of what is not true.

But, when I argue against certain people, it's always a lose/lose. If I don't listen to scientists, it's bad because I'm unscientific. If I do, I'm listening to the wrong ones. If I listen to the right ones, I'm a hypocrite since I criticize modern day science. Thankfully, I'm not here to win arguments, but rather to spread ideas and questions that will move the knowledge of everyone forward. Sadly, most people are extremely resistant to it. Especially the ones that claim to be the most educated...

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: vasaga

His reputation precedes him i'm afraid.

To go through his gish gallop would be a waste of time, explaining to someone that apparently has a B.A. in biology that 'fittest' doesn’t refer to gym training but in fact refers to suitability to a particular environment and more opportunities to reproduce.....would be a waste of time.

So you know better than someone who has a PhD in developmental biology. Good to know.

But yeah, if explaining is a waste of time, trying to have a conversation with you is a waste of time... So, yeah. Carry on.

Well am I wrong?

Does survival of the fittest actually refer to the 'fittest' and 'strongest' or does it refer to exactly what I posted above?

Ironically, Bruce explained what you explained.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Do you know anything about what youre attempting to debunk?

I'm not trying to debunk anything.

a reply to: vasaga

You're making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Allow me to summarise: when it's convenient for your argument you'll trot out some crank and tout his work/credentials as being "proof" that your beliefs are backed by science. When it's not convinient, you'll simply dismiss the scientific evidence out if hand.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

You're making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Allow me to summarise: when it's convenient for your argument you'll trot out some crank and tout his work/credentials as being "proof" that your beliefs are backed by science. When it's not convinient, you'll simply dismiss the scientific evidence out if hand.

Ok.

I can say the same thing to you by the way, but the other way around; when it's convenient for your argument you'll trot out the numbers of scientists that have a specific view and tout their numbers/credentials as being "proof" that your beliefs are backed by science. When it's not convenient, you'll simply dismiss any scientific evidence out of hand, even abstracts & papers.

Tell me this... Isn't science supposed to be about questioning?
- Explain to me what is wrong with using the view of a single scientist in an argument.
- Explain to me what is wrong with questioning what the majority of scientists believe.

a reply to: vasaga

A single scientist with unscientific views vs. the tens of thousands of scientists active in the pertinent fields makes your position look incredibly intellectually dishonest. But it's not about that, it's about evidence. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution yet you conveniently choose to ignore it and instead clasp at straws with the flimsy speculations of a crank. Isn't that what your whole "scientism" rant was about? Oh yes, it was.

You're a hypocrite. You want to give your views the legitimacy of scientific approval but you're not prepared to have them challenged when solid scientific evidence refutes them. All your claims of "just asking questions" are a flimsy veil for your agenda. Remember that paper you presented that you hadn't even read? And when people picked it apart you still clung to it when you hadn't even read it? You're about as intellectually honest as a con man.

a reply to: GetHyped

You people are always talking about this overwhelming evidence that there is, but it's never presented. It's only repeated like a religious mantra. Link me to this huge list of overwhelming evidence you like to talk about so much.

"You want to give your views the legitimacy of scientific approval but you're not prepared to have them challenged when solid scientific evidence refutes them."
Sounds a lot like yourself.. But Yeah... I read the abstract, and an abstract is enough to know what a paper is about. At least I presented something. I didn't see anything from you but the claim of this spooky invisible overwhelming evidence that no one ever sees... But... I'm the one that's hypocrite...

And nice personal attack again by the way. That's all you have. Avoiding all the questions since your ego is too large to admit that there is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo. It's simply personal attack after personal attack. And I'm the one that's as dishonest as a con man... Whatever floats your boat.

originally posted by: Laykilla
For the most part, yes -- it does. Lions aren't king because they are small and frail, now are they?

Ape's aren't so dominant in jungles because they possess superior strength to virtually anything they compete with?

Pretty much, if you took away all aid, only the strongest and fittest, smallest and most camouflaged creatures would exist.

Humans are really the only exception to that rule, and we have one evolutionary advantage over them -- the ability to makes tools. Tools rule out our need to be the fittest and strongest, by adding unnatural strength and toughness to our species.

But yes, technically, you're right -- it's just that in a greater amount of all situations the most fit and strong is going to be the success....

Every creature has a niche that they fill. It's not always brute strength or straight up physical fitness. If that's the case there wouldn't be mice and birds... Or how about snails? Fitness in evolution refers to individual characteristics that help a species survive. For a mouse, it's often fur color and size. For chameleons it's their skin color and ability to change it. For humans its our intellect and opposable thumbs. For Cheetah's it's their speed. With most apes, it is their climbing ability. The list goes on. Fitness is really just a term for being adapted to a certain environment. It is relative depending on what environment a species lives.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I haven't studied the specifics of polar bear evolution, but I suspect it wasn't just one bear although it could have been. Based on the genes, it was probably a certain percentage that was born with lighter fir. Over time that percentage increased because of their success in the polar environment. I'd be willing to bet that the occasional polar bear is still born dark. In the distant future, they could be brown again. You never know.

a reply to: vasaga

I just wanted to mention that one scientists opinion does not hold any more weight than another's. HOWEVER, the science itself does. Everybody's got an opinion, not everybody is right. When in doubt, it makes more sense to look at the scientific experiments and observations. They are the reason why 99% of scientists accept evolution. Because with the insane amount of evidence, it is the most logical choice and no other theory can explain it with evidence. None of the other theories even try. They just nitpick little things about evolution, that quite often show ignorance of the science itself.

There's nothing wrong with questioning the theory, but when you refuse to accept the answers based on the data itself, it only shows that the level of scrutiny is not very high. Scientists question science all the time by presenting conflicting facts and data. I have never seen this done by an evolution denier. They only ask ridiculous generalizing questions that only show they are only paying attention to one side of the argument.

You people are always talking about this overwhelming evidence that there is, but it's never presented. It's only repeated like a religious mantra. Link me to this huge list of overwhelming evidence you like to talk about so much.

Hmmmm. I quite distinctly remember posting several for you in the past, probably in this very thread. I've never seen anybody debunk the talkorgins link or even attempt to.

a reply to: Barcs

Yep. You're one of the few who has.

originally posted by: Laykilla

Polar bears are a PRIME example of provable evolution. See, they were just brown bears, then the area froze -- and they were still just brown bears, but then there was a genetic mutation that altered the pigment of the baby brown bear, which made him white. A birth defect. The white coat allowed him easier hunting abilities because he was camouflaged, this meant he ate the most food, had the least get away -- this gene pool then propagated because it was the most nourished and the brown bears in the area died out.

....Yet the bear is still a bear. No one is arguing variation within a species. the argument is against macro evolution, which, in spite of evolutionist claims, is not the same as micro evolution. the problem is the evolutionist's faith based assumption that "time did it," when the objective evidence doesn't show that in any sense. there are clear distinctions between species, some randomly appearing and then disappearing from the geologic record with no clue as to where they came from. Even Darwin in "Origin of Species" states that "geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain" which should be expected of evolution by natural selection, and that it is "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." Macro evolution is pseudo-science and a mockery of all objective scientific observation. It is simply emphasized because these scientists are strictly opposed to the Bible so they can not allow a creator in, no matter where the evidence is pointing. Watching these scientists try to "figure things out" is like watching a dog chase its own tail.

Strangely enough, what is written in the bible is exactly what the objective observable evidence is showing us:

Genesis 1:24-25
"24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good."

Okay, so evolution could be wrong but...what's the alternative? That's the real question.

a reply to: paradox

The problem here is you actually don't understand evolution. You have never formally studied it have you? Your problem is simply that you just don't have the first clue about it so the things you think are part of the theory of evolution are actually not.

A good start would be understanding that the term 'macro-evolution' is not a particularly useful or used term in biology. I never heard of it until I started talking to creationists. There is no difference between micro and macro-evolution, the processes are the same.

You need to come to terms with the plain fact that evolution is a settled science and has been for well over a 100 years. Literally millions of biologists have worked on the theory in one way or another - there's simply no way that it's going to be found wrong now, there's mountains of corroborating evidence and none to confound it.
You're objections are not founded on facts, simply biblical dogma. Science isn't making stuff up to annoy creationists, it's just a study of reality.

Barcs,
You are going to love this.....or hate it.....Ummm, not sure which..
Anyway, I read your post and you mentioned takorigins.
That rang a bell and I have actually been searching for a while but.....
I FOUND IT(This should be a blast from the past)!
In a long lost thread you made this post to me
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I made a responding post but never recieved an answer.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Quadrivium

Ha! It's all coming back to me now. Ah yes that infamous thread. That must have been either right near when the thread was closed or when I stopped following it.

You are right about the label species. It is tough to strictly define. Humans and neanderthals were originally believed to be separate species but now are considered sub species of the same species since they were capable of breeding. The tricky part is that the label can be relative and it's hard to draw an exact line due to the slow constant changes in evolution. Basically scientists draw the species line where organisms vary enough from one another that they are no longer able to reproduce. For ancient creatures they are estimations based on where the creature was at one period in time. In reality you can draw those lines any where you want, we generally just go by what we have fossils of for the more rarely found organisms. Labels are just there so that scientists can more easily classify the organisms, because there are so many. It's better to not even focus on the labels because they do not matter. What does matter is that 2 populations of the same species can be placed in separate environments, and they will both adapt over time and change enough so that they can't reproduce with the other one. Then it happens again and again and again and again, and slow tiny species level or even sub species level changes add up and appear to be bigger change. Many folks suggest that evolution must be limited within a genus (or whatever classification you choose), but present no evidence of why this limit would exist as to the level of change. Yes, the changes happen on the species level only, but yes after tons and tons of them, lots of small changes look like one big change instead.

a reply to: Barcs
That is correct and that is adaptation.
Take the rabbit and the hare for example.
Both are in the same family, the same "kind" yet they are different species.
We both agree that long ago their ancestors separated and being apart they speciated/adapted.
As I said long ago, I believe that we have the ability to adapt to our surroundings. Our bodies are able to detect changes in the environment and begin the process of adaptation. All the information is there, in our genes.
Because most environments change slowly we have time to adapt with it.
During extinction events there is not enough time to adapt and many species die out.
I think you and I were talking the other day about humans and bananas sharing 50 of their DNA.
This is the main problem I have.
No matter the amount of time, I can not see bananas and humans branching of like the rabbit and the hare.
It makes no sense.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Give us a scientific definition of the word "kind".